User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 16

G K Bharad Institute of Engineering
I notice that you deleted G K Bharad Institute of Engineering under A7. I just want to remind you that A7 does not apply to educational institutions. —teb728 t c 10:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

closing of Articles for deletion/Robey Reed
Can you please explain to me why you closed this AfD as "no consensus" when they only keep vote was the article's creator and four named editors voted to delete it? I understand ignoring the IPs, but 4-1 with no one except the article's creator voting to keep the article seems like a consensus to me. Using that reasoning, there are a number of martial arts articles being discussed at AfD created by the same editor that would be kept simply because he keeps making the same points repeatedly, even though no one else agrees with him. I also don't understand why you closed a discussion on March 5 that was just relisted on March 3. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to add a Me Too here - this closure seems unusual to say the least.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on User talk:Papaursa. Deryck C. 09:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * commentRobey Reed, Odell Terry, and Ernest R Smith were all subjects of independent articles and received medals in multiple black belt divisions. Robey Reed was also a co-founder of a significant Judo Organization. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * They keep stating it is passing mentions, but a quick look at the references for Robey Reed show that it isn't. There is a whole page article on him here.  .  Which isn't a passing mention.CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello, Deryck Chan,

I am contacting you because you have left feedback about VisualEditor at pages like VisualEditor/Feedback in the past. The Editing team is now asking for your help with VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translatable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings 2
Allow me to preface what I'm about to say by assuring you that I don't intend to take your closure to DRV as it would be unseemly at this point. If you refuse to modify your closure after you read this message, I will simply start another RfD in two months.

There are a few things you said in your closing statement that I don't think accurately reflect what was said during the discussion.

First, there was no disagreement as to the correctness of the phrase "plowback retained earnings" to speak of. It was demonstrated that the phrase simply doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. It was also demonstrated that the redirect is redundant and not a plausible search term. None of these facts were ever contested and as such there was no need for you, the closing admin whose role was to assess the consensus, to consider any "external evidence" when making said assessment.

Let's now discuss the "redirect X is unambiguous and thus should be kept" argument. I will explain why it's invalid using a simple analogy. Severe copyright violations, as you know, are often sufficient reason to speedy-delete an article. Their absence, however, is never sufficient to keep an article taken to AfD; that an article should contain no copyright violations is just something we take for granted. Same with redirects, if they're ambiguous, that's a good enough reason to delete/disambiguate them, but if they're not ambiguous, it just means we won't delete/disambiguate them because of their ambiguity as none is present, nothing more.

If I were to say that redirects must be unambiguous, or if I were to say that article pages on Wikipedia must not contain copyright violations, I would be stating the obvious. If I were to say that redirects, if ambiguous, should be deleted or disambiguated, or if I were to say that article pages that contain copyright violations where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving should be deleted, I would also be stating the obvious. However, if I were to say that every unambiguous redirect as well as every article that contains no copyright violations must be kept, I would be making a patently false statement.

Now let's look at the "redirect X is useful and thus should be kept" argument. It is obviously a valid, possibly even RfD-terminating, argument to make, but only if it is followed by a reasonable explanation of why the person making it thinks the redirect is useful. The editor who described Plowback retained earnings as useful in both of its RfDs was given a grand total of approximately three months to explain why s/he considered the redirect useful. Such explanation was directly requested twice, but was never provided.

If I were to say that useful redirects shouldn't be deleted, or if I were to say that articles on notable subjects shouldn't be deleted, I would be stating the obvious. However, if I were to say that every redirect that has ever been described as useful should be kept, or if I were to say that every article on a subject that has ever been described as notable should be kept, I would be making a patently false statement.

If we were to accept that an unsubstantiated assertion of usefulness/notability is sufficient to prevent a redirect/an article from being deleted, we could just as well shut RfD/AfD down, as one disruptive editor with sufficient amount of free time on his/her hands would be able to effectively prevent any redirect/article from being deleted through simply making unsubstantiated assertions of usefulness/notability over and over. Common sense would dictate that this simply isn't the way to go.

The editors !voting in favor of keeping the redirect said quite a bit, but none of it had a basis in either common sense or any of our content policies, and they failed to refute any of the points made by the editors !voting in favor of deleting the redirect. Please consider modifying your closing statement/decision to reflect that, and thank you for taking the time to close this rather contentious debate.

If you're planning to respond to this message, please do so here as I prefer to keep my conversations confined to one venue whenever possible. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, for the most part, I agree with what you say about usefulness and ambiguity. However, sufficiently many established editors have read your argument and remain unconvinced. They argued for keeping the redirect anyway; to them, their common sense and their interpretation of content policies led them to that conclusion. I felt that if I closed the RfD as either "keep" or "delete", that would be an admin decision rather than the enactment of a consensus. Wikipedia's system doesn't care whether someone's right. It only cares about whether they can convince enough people to achieve a rough consensus. Deryck C. 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As per Closing discussions, the closer is to discard irrelevant arguments. That an argument was presented by an established editor in no way affects its relevance, validity, or weight. An argument either stands or falls on its own merits.


 * If the closing administrator has a good-faith belief that an argument used by editor X has been convincingly refuted by editor Y, the closing administrator can and should discard that argument. If the closing administrator has a good-faith belief that an argument used by editor X has been convincingly demonstrated to be invalid by editor Y, the closing administrator can and should discard that argument.


 * Editor X's acknowledgement that his/her argument was refuted or proven to be invalid is not required. The boldface word in front of an editor's comment is the least important portion of said comment. Not only that, but the closing administrator should typically pay no heed whatsoever to who said what; deletion discussions should be read as if they were a list of arguments compiled by only one person and the outcome should be determined based on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy where the "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" part could be expanded to say "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy by the closing editor alone."


 * The closer must not forget that the quality of arguments has nothing to do with either the quality or the quantity of the editors who present them. I was about to suggest that you take a look at this closure of a contentious RfD to see an excellent example of all of the above put into practice, but then I realized that you participated in that RfD and are thus no doubt already familiar with it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I simply perceive the "delete" arguments to be less overwhelmingly convincing then you perceive them to be. I've been chastised many times for slipping too much of my own judgement into XfD closures so perhaps my thresholds for discounting comments as irrelevant are higher than you expect. Deryck C. 11:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that comments should not be discounted lightly, but the fact of the matter is that during the course of this particular discussion all the "keep" arguments were refuted whereas most of the "delete" arguments weren't even addressed. To me, it's nothing but a textbook example of a one-sided debate where a very clear WP:CONSENSUS was formed.


 * While I agree that we should be careful not to slip too much of our own judgement into XfD closures, I'd like to point out that we should be even more careful not to give in to the other extreme, as that inevitably results in reducing the assessment of consensus to a head-counting exercise. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That you had the last word in every single conversation in that RfD doesn't mean you have refuted all the "keep" arguments... Deryck C. 22:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not have "the last word in every single conversation in that RfD," which can be easily verified by taking a quick look at that RfD—and I agree that it wouldn't matter if I did. What matters is that all of the arguments for keeping the redirect were refuted and most of the arguments for deleting the redirect weren't as much as addressed.


 * What arguments in favor of keeping the redirect do you not consider to have been convincingly refuted—the unsubstantiated and thus irrelevant assertion of its usefulness, or the assertion that the redirect's unambiguity is sufficient to invalidate any argument that can be presented in favor of its deletion? If it's the latter, perhaps it would've made more sense to make a statement to that effect and close the discussion as "keep." Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Easter
This article had 28 edits in April, compared to 42 for Mother's Day which is not protected. Easter does not have a history of vandalism outside Lent. I don't think a case can be made for protection at this time. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * any thoughts? Deryck C. 09:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I request protection of the essay article
The article Essay has persisting vandalism lasting years and years and is a very high target for vandalism. Please can you semi-protect the essay article? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider Ostrich and Pen
Have you seen the protection log for Ostrich yet? Sometimes, there was protection for that article for longer than 1 month, such as what Philippe did.

Also, the Pen article is an ongoing target for vandalism, even in the past year. Almost all 500 past edits were just vandalism. Not one user made constructive edits other than reverting vandalism, and had made ClueBot NG get involved multiple times. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG is a robot so I really won't worry about him... Deryck C. 11:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind about the ClueBot NG, that was only my opinion, but however, no edits were constructive in the Pen article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But part of the fun of Wikipedia is for random passerbys to find out that they can edit Wikipedia live and graffiti on pages, only to realise our robots are smart enough to undo the graffiti automatically! Deryck C. 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
You forgot to actually semi-protect the page. You just move-protected it. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (del/undel) 2015-05-27T17:56:41 Jackmcbarn (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of Sri Lanka‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)) (protect the right action) (hist | change) 
 * Jackmcbarn fixed my mistake. Thank him. :) Deryck C. 07:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
—cyberpower  Chat:Online 14:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again.—cyberpower  Chat:Online 14:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cytherea mova
Please return this article to its longstanding title until/unless the move request is properly closed accordingly. The proposer of the contested move is not allowed to close the discussion and implement their proposal; that requires an uninvolved editor -- and, in light of the wide controversy, an admin close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping at CFD
Thanks for closing a discussion from WP:CFDAC. You did great! – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Full Protection
Can you fully protect my userpage and my template I created for my userpage (Template:Makedonija(User:Makedonija)). If the template is invalid and requires deletion, undo this edit and then full protect. Last time you semi protected it but I have not been active there was still an edit to the page, so now I want it fully protected. Yours truly, &#32;Macedonia (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ETO Sydney
Hell Deryck could you help take a look into the article for ETO Sydney? There was a AFD back in early April and the result was merge into HKETO. But there wasn't any discussion for one and a half months. When I took a be bold approach and work on actual content, User:LibStar came around and kill the article by turning it into a redirect while discarding all the content. He/she did nothing to move the content forward to the destination article. IMO that wasn't a merger operation. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not discarded all content but added to the HKETO here. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You discarded all content until I warned you about that. Yet still you've dumped more than half of the content. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)y
 * when something is merged, usually quite a bit of content goes. you really want the article retained then set up a discussion at WP:RFD. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you pay any attention to the headnote? 58.153.97.134 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you really want the entire article retained then please set up a discussion at WP:RFD. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's meaningless to act like a cassette player and repeat the same line-to-take again and again. Please hang on with the merger operation and refrain from discarding actual content. Be polite and civil, and use proper indents and capitalisation. Thanks. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deryck, you'd be interested in knowing that has been blocked for sockpuppetry Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:DRV? Deryck C. 10:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it's rather late for a deletion review. however, this IP has now disappeared, given someone has pointed out s/he is a sock avoiding a ban. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you're right. Because it was a merge rather than a delete, the first step of action need not be DRV. I don't think there's such a thing as "too late for DRV" though. Deryck C. 08:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't think DRV is necessary in this particular case. The talk page is good enough. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LibStar is correct. Some content is merged and page history is preserved. Since the redirect / merge was the result of an AfD, an RfD or DRV will be necessary to establish the legitimacy to restore the article. Deryck C. 05:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * May I know what do you mean by "some content"? 58.153.97.134 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This much, as LibStar pointed out above. Stop beating the dead horse. Deryck C. 12:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a very small proportion.. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

another single purpose editor IP curiously popped up trying again to revert the the redirect. As a result the page is now semi protected. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail
-- Ktsquare (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I don't know you verz well because zou are new on the scene at RfD.

I just wanted to thank you for zour well considered contributions at Rfd. I hope you will become a regular there. We are a bunch of eccentrics who care about things to make the enczclopaedia not only that anyone can edit but anyone can read. It is a bit of a backwater, I know, I translate some French articles and occasisonally Hungarian articles, but something is better than nothing.

Your honesty is something to respect, I think. We shall not always agree, but we shall know why.

Now get a proper surname please because tht "Ck" at the back really hurts my Hungarian keyboard :)

Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

French civil unrest
Hi Deryck, can you take another look at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 27? I think everyone's position supports retargeting to the new list article Tavix made. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Formatting redirects after RfD closures
The redirect style guide puts a blank line between the #REDIRECT line and the first template. So when, please don’t remove that line. (I’ll watch this page in case you respond.) Gorobay (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mez
has asked for a deletion review of King Mez. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sad face :( at RfD
Things move so quickly now don't they? That was never "A week" without discussion. Thanks for yours, anyway. Nice to hear from someone who still knows the subjűnctive mood.

From your rather picky co-editor, Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I typo'd. Typos don't count. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a link on the new Parenthesis to Vandalism, explaining the "sad face" connection. Thanks. Deryck C. 09:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Diva/High maintenance
My reading of the close at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11 is that the consensus to mark these titles and shortcuts as historical and soft-redir them, because "diva" is a [mostly] gendered insult, and was felt to be offensive, is a consensus against these terms being used henceforth or "advertised" with active shortcuts; both the discussion and the close make this clear. I noticed that the talk page versions of some the page titles in that RfD were still going directly to the current talk page and, so I changed Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas to match its non-talk page, as a historical soft-redir to the current talk page, and WT:DIVA to redir to the former, so that both are also effectively "retired", per that RfD consensus. The most vocal opponent of any changes to that essay or its name, Doc9871, has reverted this change, with a rude, WP:BATTLEGROUNDing edit summary (cf. previous ANI), and then similarly reverted my notification of the essay's talk page that the RfD was closed. Neither of these revert edit summaries make any sense, demanding that an uninvolved admin should close the RfD, but that's precisely what already happened. My assumption is you can administratively fix these things without being re-re-reverted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it, I think this is the correct thing to do. I would rather not participate in further discussion about this issue - we've spent a lot of time being divas / high maintenance on a project-space essay about being divas / high maintenance. This is as meta as it gets... Deryck C. 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

hello
Thank you HKcngamanc (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

 * o)

Krislcc (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Li Wei Han Rosanna at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for help
Hello Deryck,

I am one of the team members working for the coming Academic Writing Month. We would like to have the redirect on the page for Academic Writing Month reversed so it has its own page and the old page for Academic Book Writing Month points there instead. Thank you so much for your help.

Best regards, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.218.158 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wong Ping Pui
Hi, Deryck Chan! Please don't remove the CorenSearchBot notice (as you did at Wong Ping Pui) without checking for, and if necessary dealing with, any copyright violations. There are instructions on how to do that at WP:Suspected copyright violations. The bot makes plenty of mistakes, but is often right too – that particular page was a foundational copy-paste from the source it had identified. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. The article was created at an editathon (WP:APA). I made a rough check and removed the template and didn't realise that there were still certain individual sentences which were identical to the cited source. Since you've taken this to AfD, I'll make further comments there. Deryck C. 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisting Angeles City
Hi Deryck, thanks for your tremendous work on the RfD backlog the past few days. Did you notice that you had relisted a closed discussion, though? See Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 11 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 19. If you disagreed with my close, we could certainly discuss it. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict. Sorry. You closed the discussion at the same time I was trying to relist it, and neither me nor the software picked that up. I would've also closed the discussion as "revert to status quo ante" if I hadn't thought about inviting a few prominent Filipino editors I know to the discussion, so I endorse your closure. I've undone my relisting edits. Deryck C. 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm surprised that wasn't somehow caught by the software too. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, the problem is the MediaWiki doesn't warn you if the page has been changed by` someone else after you open the page in read mode and before you click edit. It just shows the latest version in edit mode. So when I relisted that discussion using a bunch of shortcut keys, I ~wasn't looking and didn't notice the discussion closure template that you've put there! Deryck C. 08:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD G4 Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016
do you think this is worth bringing back to RfD instead of speedy deletion? The situation did change quite dramatically from the last discussion, even though only a short time passed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , from my reading of the previous RfD, the situation would change if he did end up running. I don't think this would survive another RfD, but of course, an admin could see otherwise and decline it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I agree, but one might interpret that the situation changed because he is now definitely not running, while it was up in the air before. There was no campaign, either way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * closed the RfD "with prejudice against redirect recreation" and it was promptly recreated as a redirect the next day. Maybe we should leave the decision up to him? -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the decision at RfD still stands. Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Joe Biden each carry about the same amount of information on what was a possible Biden 2016 campaign. Therefore, neither would be a substantially better target than the other. I'll delete and semi-salt it to remind editors not to create another redirect. Deryck C. 08:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD
Would this be a snowball keep, considering almost all of the "keep" arguments are WP:ILIKEIT as opposed to policy-based? Mdann52 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In a wiki ecosystem, policies are more descriptive than prescriptive, so overriding a overwhelming consensus (precise definition of "snowball" aside) isn't an option in any situation. A number of participants did invoke relevant policies in the discussion as well. Deryck C. 18:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gosh darn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goddamn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Renew PC-protection for...
Southern United States, The Giver, Edinson Cavani? --George Ho (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the page history and renewed the PC of all 3 articles by 1 year. Deryck C. 09:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)