Talk:Alexander Galchenyuk

Unilateral speedy deletion
The Alexander Galchenyuk article (along with 15 other articles about notable European ice hockey players) was unilaterally 'speedy deleted' by an admin. This issue is currently being discussed within this Deletion Review discussion. Dolovis (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On May 17, 2011, this article, and 15 others that were created by myself, were 'speedy deleted' by an admin. This mass deletion was done without without regard to any of the the established policies and guidelines, and community consensus as outlined at Deletion policy. Such deletions of articles about notable European ice hockey players such as Alexander Galchenyuk and others is, in my opinion, an example of the abuse of an administrator's powers. The issue of these multiple deletions is being talked about at this Deletion Review discussion. Dolovis (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How much forum shopping do you intend to do on this topic? Bring it up in one centralized place and discuss it there. If you spent half as much time on actually creating decent stubs as you do on fighting with everyone you wouldn't be in this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not forum shopping to make a general Requests for comment to encourage community-wide attention to this issue, and the RFC notice is not place in any other location. Readers of this Alexander Galchenyuk article have a right to be informed about this Deletion Review discussion which is directly tied to this article. It is also the only article of the 16 which has been 'temporarily un-deleted', and so the only talk page where the RFC notice can be placed. Dolovis (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No informing readers of this page is definitely ok. I was refering to opening an RfC while a Drv is going on. The two are seperate processes. The DRV is the method to get community-wide attention to the issue. Going and getting an RfC as well is opening the same issue in two different dispute resolution processes at the same time because the RfC will happen on this page now. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion on where the RfC is happening because those who might want to give their comments have been directed to this Deletion Review discussion. Dolovis (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, silly RFC aside, I do commend you on expanding this article, Dolovis. The DRV is leaning to overturn, and I accept that and will restore the remaining articles.  Given my action has directly resulted in your improving this article, I consider it an effort well worth my time.  My hope is that you will take the feedback editors like Maxim and S Marshall have offered to heart, and put the greater effort and diligence you showed here into practice on your future article creations.  Hopefully some of your previous ones as well.  Nobody is expecting you to write GAs, or even to make all of your creations as detailed as this article stands now.  But making an effort to build at least a 1-2 paragraph stub rather than a 1-2 sentence one does far more to serve the reader, and consequently improves Wikipedia. Cheers, Resolute

13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Final comment: It my hope that Resolute will take the comments of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, DGG, and Hobit to heart. Administrator's who use their powers in ways which are contrary to established policy for the purpose of pushing a personal point is destructive to the Wikipedia community. Dolovis (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You never learn to just be the bigger man and accept a peace offering do you? Was it really necessary to take a pot shot at him? WP:IAR allowed him to make that move. A move that clearly had to be taken to get a message through to you because you refuse to listen to anyone that offers you any advice. Some of those people you comment he should listen to actually had comments mentioning your actions were not very good as well. Please for the love of god try working together with people for the betterment of the community instead of always being agressive and fighting. You point to the update in your link there talking about trying to be nice to editors...but you never do it. You do the opposite of almost everything suggested in that update.-DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the defence DJ, but one can only chuckle at the irony of Dolovis' comments and move on. For my part, I am satisfied with the result of my actions.  If only one article is brought to a useful state, it is still one article more than what we could otherwise have expected.  Resolute 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Galchenyuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726184447/http://dansallows.com/player-profile-alex-galchenyuk/ to http://dansallows.com/player-profile-alex-galchenyuk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)