User talk:Jone Rohne Nester/Archive 1

Incomplete AfD
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Tabjuice but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. — Sam Sailor 21:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sam! Thank you for your advice ! I appreciate it! I used 'Proposed deletion' this time. I don't think that there should be a big discussion about that page as it's tiny, out of service application on Facebook. Your feedback is always welcome! Thank you

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthieu Aussaguel


A tag has been placed on Matthieu Aussaguel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD nominations
Greetings, I'm. I've noticed that you have placed notices on a number of articles stating that they are the subject of an Article for Deletion discussion, but you have not actually started any Article for Deletion discussions. If you do not intend to correctly start Article for Deletion discussions for these articles, please undo your edits. They can be seen as Disruptive Editing otherwise. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my concerns here, or I will be raising the issue at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message. Indeed, I nominated few pages for deletion (initially for speedy deletion) but my edits have been reverted. So I've placed tags for second deletion and now I have to follow the process. I am working on it now, Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to complete the process promptly (which is why nominating so many at once was a very bad idea) - if the steps aren't completed very soon, you risk having your edits reverted by myself or any other editor who notices your mistake. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the info, I used a subst:afd2 tag, but I believe there is no reason to create deletion discussion page for those articles. I am planning to replace subst:afd2 with subst:Proposed deletion|concern=Notability, should I or can I do it myself or its better if you as admin will revert my edits and I will place subst:Proposed deletion|concern=Notability ? Thanks for your help, Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'm not an Admin. Secondly, the subst:afd2 tag is just the first step - if you're using it, you need to create a deletion discussion. That's the whole point of the AfD tag. I've already undone one of your incorrect AfDs because no discussion was started after 45 minutes. Please either revert your edits or start the discussions using the steps that have already been pointed out to you on your talk page. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, I have reverted my edits. In general, if all the necessary steps are being followed, should I avoid deleting multiple pages in short period of time? Or as long as its done in accordance to editing rules, edits will be acceptable as appropriate ? Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Starting multiple Article for Deletion discussions, if done properly, is perfectly acceptable. Personally I use Twinkle to do this because it carries out the steps automatically. What you should never do is leave a process half-finished as it can cause errors. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well noted, thank you for your help and sorry for inconvenience caused Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. You should definitely consider using Twinkle - it takes care of the fiddly, easy to forget steps which is why I use it all the time. Good luck with your future editing! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect PROD
I've removed the PROD template from Kevin Fox (designer). The page was previously proposed for deletion (PROD) in February 2014 but sources were found and the PROD template was removed (see the talk page). A page cannot be proposed for deletion twice. If you believe the page to not be notable, you should nominate it for deletion through WP:AFD. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tom for your support, well noted Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion activities
I have declined a couple of your CSD nominations today, and closed an AfD as "speedy keep". I see I am not the first person to complain about this.

Therefore, this is a warning to stop all deletion-related activities including CSD, AfD, PROD and BLP PROD (with the exception of WP:CSD for blatant and obvious vandalism, WP:CSD for attack pages and WP:CSD for blatant copyright violations) or we may have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message! I guess I took Wikipedia too seriously and though that we are applying high standards here. Well noted, I'll focus on other contribution areas. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem - maintaining quality is important, but you need to trade that off against giving the article creator a chance to defend themselves and say their side of the story. Something like Inger Johanne Grytting won't necessarily get closed as "keep" if taken to a full AfD debate, but I wouldn't class it as A7, simply because a Google News search brings back lots of hits (my Norwegian is not so hot, so I can't easily use them in the article). Note also we have significant problems with existing articles that need looking at - for example, we have about 3,000 unreferenced biographies of living people. You can't even create one of these anymore, any new unreferenced BLP will get hit by and deleted. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the list about 3,000 unreferenced biographies of living people, I will work on it. I agree with you on Inger Johanne Grytting article, but Babel (magazine), especially when is written by the publication author ? If magazines like this one have a green light on Wikipedia, then I'm not sure why my first page on Wikipedia for Matthieu Aussaguel (high-authority well know publications and references) has been deleted... But I'll move on and will do some work instead of complaining :) Thanks for your help anyways ! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The salient point in Babel (magazine) is "no prejudice against speedy renomination". Normally, starting up an AfD immediately after one closes is disruptive, but in this case it isn't - it's simply a note that if there is a suggestion to delete the article, that the debate should be started up again by a more experienced editor with a solid policy based argument. 'Tis all. Regarding Matthieu Aussaguel, I have moved this article into draft space as Draft:Matthieu Aussaguel, where can be worked on in isolation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. Last two questions: 1) If I'm not able to find any reliable sources/refs for articles listed in about 3,000 unreferenced biographies of living people, should I tag them as AfD? 2) I noticed that there is a significant amount of articles being created every day about athletes. Most of those athletes (e.g. footballers playing in lower divisions ) could be verified only via unreliable sport directories and listings, but for some reason their notability is not being questioned. What's your take on it? Thank you for your time! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can take them to AfD if you are certain they are unsalvageable. Have a quick read of WP:BEFORE, and in your opening statement, mentioning all the points mentioned in that link, and explain why none of them have helped you improve the article. A real "smoking gun" in an AfD is a link to a Google News or Google Books search showing the article title and returning 0 hits. Don't go crazy on AfDs, do one or two really obvious one first and see how they go during the week. If they close as "delete", maybe have a go at some more. The point is these articles have been sitting around unsourced for about 10 years, another few weeks isn't exactly going to hurt. Regarding athletes of questionable notability; I seem to recall complained about this recently, but I can't remember where. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  18:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not fond of our notability of sportspeople guidelines. I think it is far too lax. However, I long ago decided that was not a fight I felt like pursuing. If someone else wants to start a discussion about tightening up those requirements, let me know and I'll throw in my 2¢. Lady  of  Shalott  22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have noticed that in one of your comments you seem to imply that I'm the author of Babel magazine. I don't know why you would think that, but I want to clarify: I am a subscriber and reader of that magazine, but I have never published anything in it, have never been to the University of Huddersfield and have never been in contact with anyone in Babel's editorial team. I'm based in central Europe and have never lived in the UK. Latikaakital (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your comment. My assumption was based on the "insightful" knowledge and information (which is not easily detectable on the web) that you possess about this magazine. And in these circumstances you would not be able express neutral point of view. Sorry if that was not the case. Anyways, this topic is now closed and your article will not be deleted. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Progressive Property, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rob Moore. 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) 10:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your CSD tagging
Just wanted to remind you that you can use  instead of placing more than 1 tag if the article meets more than 1 CSD. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Johnny, thanks for the message! yes, I know that, but I couldn't remember correct syntax for multiple tagging. I will be more careful in the future :) thanks! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And remember to sign your posts, even in your own talk page. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ishq Beintehan
Hello Jone Rohne Nester, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ishq Beintehan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to movies or TV shows. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  So Why  20:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your contest. As far as I understand your main reason to decline CSD A7 is that it cannot be applied to movies or TV shows. What about your/general common sense? And are you familiar with WP:NFILM ? I did check references and spend decent amount of time to read all external sources on this page. I'm quite confident, that this movie fails on many notability policy levels.

Block
You should be blocked from editing my own page if it keeps going you may be restricted from editing. Fourthigs (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sing player games
Your edits in single player games was really good you helped a lot for it i don't now why the person who made it thinker it was vandalism if he did that he is crazy Onefudge (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy of Single-player games
Hi, I have removed the speedy tag you placed on. WP:A1 didn't apply as there was definitely context to determine what the article was about. I have instead redirected that title to Single-player video game, as it is essentially a duplicate of that article and a plausible search term. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Danila Khakhalev
I have declined the speedy, there is clear indication of notability in the sense that the player meets WP:NFOOTY. Please do not read speedy requests once an admin has declined them. Fenix down (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Why?
Why are you deleting these team pages?

You prefer leagues where clicking these teams results in an empty (not yet created) page? --Sb008 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, in The Netherlands, according to this list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football, only Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie are classified as fully professional leagues. However, Hoofdklasse is not classified as "fully professional" therefore it does not meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSPORTS criteria and most importantly there is no significant coverage on neither of these clubs, therefore fails WP:GNG, Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So the problem is this line: "{ { Netherlands-footyclub-stub } }" --Sb008 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, no the problem is that that these clubs doesn't have significant coverage and does not meet WP:Basic criteria. Hoofdklasse is not a professional league, according to Wiki. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Then why is it okay for other teams from the same league to have a club page? what's the difference? --Sb008 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jon Harris (Rapper)
Hello Jone Rohne Nester, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jon Harris (Rapper), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is a claim of significance and primary sources; took to AfD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. --  Dane talk  21:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your message! Not sure why did you contest speedy deletion as we both agree that this page should be deleted. I did exactly the same (searched on G,G News, Bing News etc, but I am not able to find even a single source to back up those claims), also the article is written by JonHarris119 and text is very detailed which seems strange, keeping in mind that there are no sources to obtain such a detailed information. But thanks for the note! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! Just to follow up, I contested because although I believe the page should be deleted, it doesn't meet the specific requirements for the speedy criteria chosen so it's better to take it to "Articles for Deletion".  The result will be the same.  Just a little different of a process to get there. WP:DELAFD and WP:CSD are the policies in play if you'd like to review. :). --  Dane  talk  21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

CSD vs PROD
Hey JRN. Just FYI, but if you add a CSD template to a page that already has a PROD template, it's usually a good idea to add your CSD in addition to the PROD, rather than replacing it. That way, if the CSD gets declined, the stopwatch on the PROD is still going, since it takes a week in order to actually be up for deletion, and removing and replacing the tag just resets the clock. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Although I totally agree with you,  it would be good to know to which page are you referring to? Thanks, Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ThruFlyte, which is now noticeably red, and IIRC, was signed to a fairly reputable label, but I missed the COPYVIO, so no worries either way. Just a note for future reference. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being so constructive
I guess it's easy to delete pages. A league with 16 teams. Apparently only 12 are allowed to have a team page and the other 4 not. Sending me a couple of links which give me no clue of what I did wrong or how they are even relevant. Surely beats telling someone what he or she did wrong. You're like a cop giving someone a ticket without telling what it is for and instead telling to go visit the local library to read to book with traffic rules. Really helpful. --Sb008 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi In my opinion all 12 teams should be deleted as they are amateur clubs. However, I nominated for deletion only the latest 4. Eventually, I will check the other teams too and will nominate for deletion, unless they meet WP:GNG Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, there are 4 Hoofdklasse leagues of 16 teams, 2 Derde Divisie leagues of 18 teams and 1 Tweede Divisie league of 18 teams. Most teams have a club page. So besides these 16 you probably want to delete up to 102 additional team pages? And that's just the English Wiki. In the Dutch Wiki you most likely want to delete all 118 team pages as well? You gonna change all league pages too, so the teams are no longer a link but become a string?
 * You really consider this constructive, consistent and an improvement? Or you like a doggie who has to pee against each tree to mark its territory?

--Sb008 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reversed your re-application of CSD on SDV Barneveld, as an admin already declined it. If there is disagreement about whether speedy applies - which is true in this case - then take it to WP:AFD.
 * I can see you're upset but I will remind you that all editors are required to assume good faith and behave civilly towards others. Leaving insulting comments will not help your cause. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't consider it good faith to delete someone's work without contacting that person first. Especially if that work took away an inconsistent situation. So are you going to delete the other 102 + 118 team pages as well and are you going to adjust all league pages or even better delete the league pages completely? At least that would be consequent and better than the inconsistent situation you like to maintain.
 * And if you considered my question (not statement) insulting, we both know how you answered it.
 * --Sb008 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand your frustration and you are not the only one. I would suggest you to read this discussion: Village pump (policy) thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You know what would have avoided most frustration? If you had talked to me first before you acted. If you had explained to me what is meant by "notable". The links you send me clarified nothing. I know the meaning of the word, I understood the pages, however nowhere is explained how "notable" should be effectively looked at in the Wiki context. By now, cause someone else was so kind to explain it to me, I know it's meant as "not worthy" of having a page. When I ask you questions, like is it cause I put "this" in the page, you just say, no it isn't. When I ask about the difference, you don't answer at all. Clear I didn't understood. And not getting answers, just obligatory links which mean nothing if you don't know the context, that is frustrating. If someone deletes my pages and gives me a proper explanation, so be it. I wouldn't be frustrated. But if someone does so and isn't willing to explain and educate me in a proper way, it sure as hell is frustrating.
 * It's even more surprising if there apparently has been plenty of discussion about "notable" and if it's implemented in an inconsistent way. If team pages for lower league teams are not allowed, they should all be removed including the leagues in which they are mentioned. It should be either allowed for all teams in a specific league to have a team page or for none. That is what should be decided upon and not deleting pages for some teams because they were created on the "wrong" day with the "wrong" person on watch. It only results in inconsistency and confusion. Is that what we want?
 * I'm new to this, and are probably going to make a few more "mistakes". As I said, pages I created getting deleted, so be it, as long as someone explains to me what I did "wrong" so I can avoid making the same "mistake" instead of getting meaningless links and being left behind confused and not understanding the why.
 * That is frustrating!!!

Non-US sites and other musings
Hi This guy believes himself to be a cop. He doesn't issue tickets. He just deletes. He plays god and loves it. Most people do not try to defend themselves but just give up using wiki since people like him are so good at their job of deciding what remains and what is taken away.

I have been trying to improve wikipedia for a number of years and like anyone else have made hundreds of contributions and also an occasional mistake and thus have come into conflict with other users. Sadly once someone reaches the stage of getting too much power it tends to corrupt and hence we have someone like "Jone Rohne Nester" who does not have the courtesy to let people know first before deleting. He made the enlightening comment "inappropriate"to me after deleting my own page. You say it correctly above "I don't consider it good faith to delete someone's work without contacting that person first".

The whole process becomes so complicated when trying to make changes that people like Nester eventually take over and then form the site according to their own rules. That is not why wikipedia was created, but sadly we also have to work through all the tedious abbreviations and links to be able to participate. I wish you and all others who have suffered his whims the best of luck in the future kk (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't delete your page. Administrator did. Secondly, as far as I can see I'm not the only one who noticed your disruptive behaviour "Please stop creating articles containing your personal musings on search engine results. If you would like help filtering Google results, please ask at the reference desk, not by creating new articles in the encyclopedia. If this disruptive behaviour continues, you are likely to be blocked from editing." (quote from (your talk page) . Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

SDV Barneveld
I just wanted to explain why I declined your speedy deletion request as it represents a fairly common misconception. You tagged the page for deletion with a summary of "fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG & WP:NSPORTS". However the tag you applied was WP:CSD, which says "any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". You'll notice that this deliberately does not mention notability at all, and the fact that something does not meet our notability guidelines does not mean that it can be deleted under A7.

A7 is intended to be a lower bar than notability, and there are plenty of articles which do contain indications of importance or significance but where the subject isn't notable. Those need to be deleted using WP:PROD or WP:AFD rather than speedy deletion, and the rationale you used is very common there. This essay explains it reasonably well.  Hut 8.5  06:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Recent CSD Nominations
Can I reiterate what has been noted above and please ask you to please take a bit more time on your nominations.

You should remember that CSD is not a quick way of deleting an article that doe not meet notability requirements, but a quick way of deleting articles that do not signify their importance. There is a difference. Signifying importance does not mean that an article is notable but merely conveys an understanding of why editors may think it is. As long as that indication is there, the correct route to follow is PROD or AfD.

Please also note that once a CSD request has been declined, you should not read it, but either PROD the article or start an AfD. I mentioned this to you on your talk page yesterday but I note you have continued to do this.

Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lina Condes
Please note that I did not tag it A7 but G11 and G12. Please be more careful in removing tags. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi CHRISSY MAD   I believe in this case A7 G11 or G12 is irrelevant as artist  meets all criteria that have been defined in these policies. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Appearing notable does not negate a copyright violation. Please review that policy before declining tags and in the mean time please restore the copyright tag unless you can do a revision deletion. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CHRISSY MAD That's exactly why you should use PROD instead of second CSD to give a chance to the contributor to remove copyright content and improve the article. You are more than welcome to PROD'd this article and it will be deleted after 7 days if contributor won't fix the issue. P.S as far as I can see copyright content has been removed?    thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand how the deletion process works Copyright issues are policy based and have nothing to do with consensus or contesting a deletion. A user who does not have sysop privileges cannot deal with a copyright violation. There is no IAR for copyvios. Period. No amount of time or editing can change that. This has been deleted three times in the last month, so they have had plenty of time to work on it without making it promotional and a copyright violation.


 * And the only reason it was removed is because I requested a revision deletion from an administrator. By removing a copyvio tag and not adding a revision deletion request, you allow the content to sit and no one is the wiser, which means the copyvio remains. Please do not assess speedy deletions until you have a better understanding of this process. Thanks. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the policy? quote "For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Copyright problems. " Anyways, I believe this issue is now resolved so there is no need to waste our energy on this small topic.  Thank you for the feedback! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the criteria for speedy deletion however aside from two or three promotional sentences, the rest was a copyright violation. You demonstrated above you do not understand the policies surrounding this, so all I'm asking is that you do not assess speedies as your talk history clearly shows you are unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)