User talk:Beta Lohman/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Secession Act of 1861, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internet commentator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beijing 2008 (painting)
Hello Beta Lohman,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Beijing 2008 (painting) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Beta Lohman, I made a few little edits to your draft, am sure with a small amount of extra work then you'll have a worthwhile article which won't suffer from a speedy deletion again. Mathmo Talk 04:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I will leave it for review. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 04:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As it says, "There are 2,512 pending submissions waiting for review." Unlikely that it will get reviewed, I'd suggest probably to just refine the article a bit more (slimming it down for instance might even be a good idea, something "less is more") then WP:BEBOLD and summit it yourself. Then if someone tries to speedy delete it again, simply contest it! Make it actually go to WP:AfD for a proper discussion. Good luck! Mathmo Talk 04:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then do it. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 04:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Beijing 2008 (painting)
Your article is not ready for publication and has been moved to draft space. Please work on it there before submitting for review. Deb (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You wrote "I don't have time to answer some users to make comments on the article." What do you mean, you don't have time? What is the urgency? You don't need to answer queries; you just need to make the necessary corrections. It seems like you are not familiar with the correct procedures. I see that you have now recreated the article in your sandbox. Don't even think about moving it to article space without a review. If you do, I'll protect the page so that it can't be recreated without administrator authorisation. Deb (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What? I was trying to rewrite the article with new sources. Hey, the painting Beijing 2008 is very notable in Chinese internet world (and also in English world seemingly, too). So I solved the notability problem. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 10:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't wait for review because I'm going to retire just today in my timeline. It's unlikely to wait for many users to make a long comment on the article. For the current of time, I was trying to solve the problems. You could also list some issues on my talk page or yours, instead of just locking the article.-- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 10:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I could make a new draft instead of making a new article. But take note of this, I won't do any edits since tomorrow. So the draft might be removed without my participate. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 10:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This response shows you don't understand the drafting process. The draft would only be deleted if it met the speedy deletion criteria. No one cares whether you, personally, "participate" in the review. Deb (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft will be flagged to be deleted by G13 when it's over 6 months. No participate, meaning no review. Correct?-- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. It's flagged after six months only if you haven't made any changes to it and haven't submitted it for review during that time. Deb (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G6"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –– FormalDude   talk   02:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You only made a small trick. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union


The page Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

"G6: this is not a previously-deleted hoax article, it still exists at Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jay (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sumanuil. 21:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The flag on the file. It exists. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 21:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the note. Its existence now does not mean it existed then, nor that it was used. Sumanuil. 21:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do another fact check. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd start with the sources for the note. Sumanuil. 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing
Please refrain from engaging in disruptive WP:CANVASSing as you did here.  Volunteer Marek  03:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I received the alert. But here, you're not admin. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 03:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Eh, Beta Lohman made 'one edit' (no other users, than myself) in a manner that doesn't exactly fall outside the scope of WP:APPNOTE. For you to then label it "disruptive" is I'd say hyperbolic and very much reflective of the intolerant bias you're pushing. Mathmo Talk 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:APPNOTE? Hmmm, let’s see:
 * Are you, User:Mathmo, a “talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects?” No? You sure? Ok. APPNOTE doesn’t apply.
 * Are you, User:Mathmo, a “central location for discussions?” You’re not that either? Oh. Well, then APPNOTE is irrelevant.
 * Are you, User:Mathmo, a “talk page of one or more directly related articles.” I don’t believe so. So stop trying to use this as an excuse for your WP:STALKing of my edits.
 * Were you, User:Mathmo, mentioned in discussion between myself and Beta Lohman? No, no you weren’t.
 * Have you, User:Mathmo, made extensive edits to this article before? No, no you haven’t. This was your first appearance. Have you participated in related discussions? No, not but immediately before this canvassing. Are you a recognized expert in this topic? Lol, no. Have you asked to be informed of this topic? Not on-wiki you haven’t.
 * So, the canvassing was not in the least bit “appropriate”. Beta Lahman called you in to help them in an edit war, which is a violation of both WP:CANVASS and WP:TAGTEAM. The appropriate thing for both of you to do now is to step back from the article rather than continuing with the tag-team reverts. Still wondering how exactly they found you in particular.  Volunteer Marek   05:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's read that one more time, but extra slowly for you: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"
 * Well then, I was the most recent editor for the parent page. I'm clearly one of the most clear cut appropriate examples of WP:APPNOTE that you could wish for! Don't be so surprised and shocked. Mathmo Talk 13:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no you haven’t. please explain why you asked THIs particular editor - who’s now following me around Wikipedia and WP:STALKing my edits - to come to help you edit war? This is extremely disruptive and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, especially since the two of you are now WP:TAGTEAMing.   Volunteer Marek   14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your question is a bit nonconstructive. I requested for assistance because you deleted the full text twice. It was a behavior of vandalism. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 21:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For collaboration and only for myself, I will separate into two articles. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 03:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, I say leave it as be with it centralized with the info here. Mathmo Talk 13:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)