User talk:Deunanknute/Archive 1

Malcolm McCallum
Thank you for taking the time to review the page I created. I am new to the process, and do plan to fill out more herpetologists and any herpetological journals of signficance. You said that the discussion is not a vote. After the 7 days, do you just delete it or is that when the decision is made, and hove I made enough comments in the discussion to be clear? Thanks! I am approaching this by emailing the herpetologist of interest, getting key info, and supplementing that with a copy of their CV and other info I can find. Findley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a mistake, I shouldn't have nominated Malcolm L. McCallum for deletion. I'll put a note on the  Talk Page and the Afd Page. Deunanknute (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please also remove the deletion nomination from Malcolm L. McCallum. Same issue (professor) Deunanknute (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uptrends
Hello Deunanknute!

You recommended the page Uptrends for deletion, citing a lack of verifiable sources and a tone of promotion. I have gone through the page in question and have added appropriate citations linking to tech news blog articles discussing the topic of the page, and have linked the page to related pages within the website monitoring topic. If you have any further suggestions for improving the page's content, please let me know.

Regards,

WriteNoWrong (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about "verifiable sources", it's about Notability (see also WP:ORGDEPTH) Deunanknute (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Deunanknute, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hello,

You deleted the "Naturalopy" article 20 minutes into its first draft. I have no qualms about your editorial decision. However, since you have removed the article, please remove all references to "Naturalopy" from Wikipedia. I have 21 books on iTunes and Google Play (google: naturalopy) on the subject. I also own the trademark.

Thank-you.

Greetings - please see my discussion of Blue Moons in the talk page under "Truly Blue". My email by the way is 'scalbers@webtv.net'.67.6.130.136 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ระบบเครือข่ายสมัยใหม่ม.พิษณุโลก
Just an FYI, articles that are in foreign languages should not be tagged for deletion. Instead they should be tagged using, or if you know the language the article is in you can tag it with. This will give the article an opportunity to be translated before it is deleted. Much like the proposed deletion process, if the article is not translated within 14 days it is either deleted or moved to the relevant language version of Wikipedia. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Deunanknute (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Viper (rapper) contested deletion
Hello Deunanknute! I'm leaving a message on your talk page to alert you that I will be re-uploading the article that I started for Viper. I will be including more sources as well as re-stating why the subject is important enough to be included within the encyclopedia. If you could please re-review the article once I complete the edits, I would be grateful.

Thank you! Malcolmrevere (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yo. You're right about the Grant Conkel page not quite being fitting for an encyclopedia. It'd be cool if you took it down. Thanks Sherrodactyl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrodactyl (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputed speedy deletion of Arrowhead Quay
I wonder why you nominated this page for speedy deletion. (Note that I'm not the creator, nor am I even remotely affiliated with the creator or the article subject.)

The criterion for speedy deletion A7 is for articles that lack asserted notability. Even if the claim of notability is not sourced, it still makes the article ineligible for speedy deletion under A7. If you are unsure about the claim being credible, it's better to use proposed deletion or start an Articles for Deletion discussion than to nominate the page for speedy deletion.

In addition, criterion G11 only applies for pages that are unambiguous advertising or promotion. This page, in my opinion, seemed to be written like an advertisement (which is what the "advert" maintenance tag is for), but it appeared to be a good faith attempt to write an article on the subject than an attempt to promote it. Remember to always assume good faith. In this case, it's better to add that maintenance tag to the article (or, again, start an Articles for Deletion discussion if you're not sure).

If I am wrong in any way, or if you have an alternate explanation as to why that article should be deleted under the criteria you nominated it for, please let me know. Gparyani (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on your userpage
I've noticed that your userpage is subject to vandalism. If you like, you can use WP:UPROT to nominate your userpage for semi-protection at WP:Requests for page protection. Gparyani (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Naturalopy

 * Thanks for your help. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Speedy Deletion
Can you explain what additional evidence or sources you would require in order to consider the page I just created on Brandon Tate-BrownBrandon Tate-Brown notable enough to avoid speedy deletion? I cited national news sources and several local sources, and in the text of the article I explained how his death is connected to larger issues. I was trying my best to establish notability and make the case within the article. Thanks. User:KKohn00 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This person does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:BIO. Deunanknute (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Foam Concrete
Let me rephrase, modify further and use my own words. Give me some time and afterwards kindly review and guide me.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva175 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please use your sandbox for test edits / page building Deunanknute (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva175 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've used my sandbox to edit my article. Kindly review the same and give me your suggestion. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva175 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just change a few words, the article needs to be re-written. Please see WP:PLAGFORMS. Also, DO NOT remove speedy-deletion templates from articles you created, doing so may get you blocked from editing. Deunanknute (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Please cite why Jonathan Rapping qualifies for speedy deletion. He clearly meets the standard as an academic having received a MacArthur Fellowship. User talk:dghavens 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Jonathan Rapping. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Stub tags
Please take care not to waste other editors' time by adding stub to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did here. Thanks. Pam D  12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit collision
Seems we both were tagging the same article for CSD at the same time more or less. I reverted my changes back to yours. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Either way. It wouldn't be the only article I've seen with multiple speedy-deletion templates. It just confirms the point. Deunanknute (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Viper (rapper)
Hey Deunanknute! I contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Should I have left it on the Project page? Will my contribution still be valid as it stands on the talk page?

Thanks! Malcolmrevere (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Both usually get checked (as far as I know), but the AfD Page is probably the best place to comment. Deunanknute (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability of academics
You recently tagged Peter Stone (professor) for speedy deletion. However, the general consensus (see WP:PROF, or ask ) is that academics in a fully-tenured position at a notable university or equivalent establishment are generally retained. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Deunanknute (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally what I find works best when patrolling new pages is to try a quick google for the subject name and any terms, ideally on a news and book search. If you get nothing, put the CSD tag on; but if you even just get one hit, consider sending to AfD instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More precisely, academics holding a named chair at a major university are almost always kept--they meet an explicit provision of WP:PROF; academics who are Fullprofessors at such universities are in practice always kept, but it is not a formal standard. Tenured Associate professors vary--it depends on the extent to which they can be shown notable in their field, or meet the GNG on other bases. But saying one is even an assistant professor is enough reason to pass speedy, which asks only for some indication of significance, which is much less emending than notability. The fundamental concept behind speedy is that it is used only for articles which nobody who understands WP might rationally want to keep.   DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I get it now. Deunanknute (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (On post-view, that looks kind of sarcastic, but it's not supposed to.) Deunanknute (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hi Deunanknute. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion,  because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. ''I've been noticing that your approach to tagging pages for deletion may be a little too aggressive. It would be great if you could familiarize yourself with the policies linked below, and to also remember to not bite the newbies.'' Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Gparyani (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which page? Deunanknute (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your general approach to tagging pages for speedy deletion. The warning I used was a boilerplate warning used for talking about specific pages, with a custom message added on. One specific case is Arrowhead Quay, which I declined the speedy deletion of.
 * Oh, and you should use Template:Reply to to notify a user of a comment that needs his/her attention outside of his/her userspace. Gparyani (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I lumped Arrowhead Quay in with 1 Undershaft, One Nine Elms, and South Quay Plaza as proposed but not built (nor being built) buildings. All created by the same user. Deunanknute (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay...then maybe you should have used a custom DB rationale (instead of using A7 and G11) to give further explanation as to why it should be deleted (or G5 if the pages were created by a blocked or banned user or one of his/her sockpuppets). Without that context, I had no idea about this situation and it looked to me like an actual attempt to write an article on the subject. I should mention a very important point: The deletion process is way more effective if the correct criterion or a thorough explanation is given. Using the wrong criterion will often cause the speedy deletion to be declined even if it does meet another criterion (e.g. you nominate it for A3 when it is in fact A1). Another major point: Even if a page technically meets a criterion (e.g. G11 on a page which looks like a valid article at first glance), in practice, if one can't immediately tell that it meets the criterion, the speedy deletion request will be speedily declined. Using a custom DB rationale (e.g. "This page meets CSD G11 because all its references come from the same website, and the article is written in a very promotional tone") makes it clear to admins why the page should be deleted. Gparyani (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADeunanknute granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)


 * Fancy, thank you :) Deunanknute (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Rapping deletion discussion
User talk:dghavens 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't delete pages, but I marked it for speedy-deletion, hopefully an admin can fix it :( Deunanknute (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion itself at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rapping won't be deleted. Was it your intention to withdraw your formal deletion nomination of the article at Jonathan Rapping? &mdash;Cryptic 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * yes User talk:dghavens 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahem, this being Deunanknute's talk page, I wasn't asking you. You've already made your position clear. &mdash;Cryptic 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I hereby withdraw all previous complaints about Johnathan Rapping. Deunanknute (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)