User talk:K7L/Archive 3

Motels in the US
You added a picture to the new article with a caption about "four children". Looks like three? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup, four crying out loud! Two on the bed, one at the desk, one reflected in the mirror above the wash basin. This was there already, and the image description on commons: already made this clear. K7L (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, one in the loo (I added that pic about a year ago). Listen friend, I support the new article, but I feel like that big cold country north of the US was intentionally neglected for the wrong reason.  Having stayed in motels in both Canada and the US, they are identical.  Their histories are identical, their look and feel and foul smells are identical.  I mean, anyone who has travelled to both countries by car...or is it "traveled"?  Well, you see my point, eh?  Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Canada and Australia are fairly close to the US model (except for an outdoor pool being really useless in a Canadian winter), but go into South America or various Spanish, Portuguese and maybe Italian speaking countries and "motel" pretty much means "no-tell motel" and rooms by the hour. Go into France or Germany and "motel" is any low-end hotel. The whole mess of information about segregation and "guest houses" is specific to one region of the US. The bit about "Heart of Atlanta vs. US" and interstate commerce being at stake is US centric. The bit about Wildwood NJ and the bit about the Route 66 corridor preservation grants, again meaningless outside one country. That's a problem as Route 66 keeps getting inserted as evidence that motels are being restored out of nostalgia globally, which is an utterly false extrapolation. In many places, the US, Canada, Australia model of a single-story roadside motel just doesn't fit as the land is simply too expensive. Don't look for one in downtown Tokyo, for instance. K7L (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Motel move
Hello K7L. An admin has undone your recent move of this article per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=654548207 a request at WP:RMTR]. It was handled as a 'request to revert undiscussed moves.' If you still believe the content should be moved, you can follow the steps given at WP:RM. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this issue at User talk:Swarm. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You've rebooted the ENGVAR edit war from February, despite being specifically warned about that by me, and you've performed a major page move without discussion, thus it seems you're continuing the disruptive behavior that caused so much conflict a month ago. So, as a result I'm blocking you for 24 hours as you really have no excuse at this point. S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Motel (version 2) redirect
Since Motel (version 2) seems abandoned at this point, I have requested it to be deleted as a technical maintenance activity (citing WP:G6). It doesn't seem to be a plausible redirect term, but it is now a redirect, and I don't think anyone (including you) wants to convert it back into an article. You seem to be the only person that might possibly want to keep it, although I think you would also support deleting it at this point. When filing the request, I asked for 24 hours before taking action to delete it, so that you would have an opportunity to object. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the criteria for G6? It includes "redirects or other pages blocking page moves" with specific restrictions if the page has a non-trivial page history and "pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". None of these fit the current instance. Given that this is at the centre of an apparent edit war, it really should go through AfD or similar process. K7L (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you seem to not want it deleted. According to WP:CSD, there should be a button saying that would allow you to record an objection (a few hours from now). But I don't actually see that button on the page. I don't know why. Do you know why? Do you see the button when you look there? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADb-g6&diff=414870663&oldid=381970528 K7L (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, and well spotted! I just put a comment about that at Template talk:Db-meta. In the meantime, I think the appropriate way to express an objection would be to just manually edit the Talk:Motel (version 2) page and add a statement saying something like "I object to deleting this. It shouldn't be deleted because ..." —BarrelProof (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From the last line of the template, "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." The idea is that db-g6 is for non-controversial and undisputed tasks (such as deleting a redirect with no history to make way for a page move). As soon as anyone disputes this, G6 does not apply and is fair game for removal. K7L (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template on the article says that, but the WP:CSD instructions say "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." That appears to conflict with that idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support speedy deletion – Redirect in question is at totally named wrong, and no one will be looking for it. This 'redirect' page is totally unnecessary, and should be deleted. The whole issue with the recently created Motels in the United States article is the far bigger issue – that article needs to go too, but will probably have to be done via AfD... --IJBall (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * G6 is for uncontroversial technical maintenance. Period. Anything controversial can be discussed at WP:AfD with the corresponding public scrutiny. Abusing the speedy deletion tags in this manner is merely an attempt to circumvent process. K7L (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion of this "article" is the definition of "uncontroversial technical maintenance". Or are you going to claim that "Motel (version 2)" actually means something?... Regardless, as BarrelProof pointed out, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." So let's let the Admins sort this out – if there is any sort of "defect" in the speedy deletion criteria, they will surely find it. --IJBall (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the last line of the template regarding removal of the disputed tag. There are also specific procedures associated with DB-G6 to ensure that it isn't misused to destroy the edit history of a page, which most certainly do apply to this case. I have every right to dispute the blatant misuse of this tag and shall do so. K7L (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like the Admins didn't agree with you after all... --IJBall (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We shall see. K7L (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had requested 24 hours before action, but it appears that someone didn't wait. Personally, I think I agree that you should have the right to remove the tag if there's no button available to express an objection in some other way. I still think there was nothing there worth trying to keep and that its deletion was just cleanup of a useless mess that was left there only for technical reasons, but I support your right to think otherwise and to express that opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Motels in the United States‎


The article Motels in the United States‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --IJBall (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixng the G6 speedy deletion tag behavior
After discussion at Template talk:Db-meta, I have reverted the edit that you identified as the source of the problem. I hope that matter is now settled. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A year later...
I just responded to your comments of 1 November 2014 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overlay_plan#outside_North_American_Numbering_Plan here]]. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 01:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Motels in the United States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motels in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Motels in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits to Invoca
Hi K7L. Would you be willing to take a look at my suggested rewrite of the Invoca article? I posted the suggested revisions on the Invoca talk page. The goal is to make sure the article meets Wiki neutrality guidelines, as well as to update it, etc. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Ultimately, I'd like to get the article to a place where you would feel comfortable removing the advert tag.

I have disclosed on the talk page, as well as here and on my user page, that Invoca has hired me to make the suggested edits. Thank you for your consideration, and for any help you might offer. JNorman704 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rules for fools
See this. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing topic from Business Telephone System to Private Branch Exchange(PBX)
Hello, Please let me know your thought about the topic: PBX above if possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Kamelopedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kamelopedia. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roadworks_Gifts_and_Souvenirs&redirect=no Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.99 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)