User talk:Natg 19/Archive 7

Rio Grande Valley
Hi I've completed your move request about Rio Grande Valley. The undiscussed move is reverted and the dab page has been moved to Rio Grande Valley (disambiguation). However, I feel tired while cleaning up the post-move stuff. Please see if there is any cleanup left. Regards ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Victor Oldapido
You: "revert - unofficial"

What part of "Updated team. Reported by Woj." did you not comprehend?--Rob2k19 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SPORTSTRANS, we do not change article content until we have "official" sources by the teams in the trades. Reporting by NBA pundits such as Woj are not official sources. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NACPIT
Reads- Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions, especially if the non-admin is relatively new to the relevant process or topic area.

5 to 1 delete to redirect is not a unambiguous consensus for a NADC redirect....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. In my opinion, a redirect is functionally the same as a delete, and so a 5:1 delete to redirect is unambiguous in that the community does not the article to remain. Additionally, there was a topic to redirect the search item to so I WP:BOLDly closed as redirect, as an alternative to deletion. I will refrain from this in the future. Natg 19 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisting of deletion discussion for 26 personas para salvar al mundo
Hi, I noticed that you recently decided to relist the deletion discussion for this article here. I realize this is probably in line with standard practice for articles for which a week has passed and clear consensus has not yet developed. But I wonder if there is any point in relisting it: is there likely to develop a clear consensus to keep it? Probably not, given the insistence of at least two editors in the conversation. Is there likely to develop a consensus to delete it? Also, probably not, given the article's history, its current status as [reasonably] well sourced, and the support it has been given from myself and another editor. So relisting it doesn't seem to me like it has the potential to do any real good, and can only result in a "no consensus" outcome (...um, unless you really think that a consensus to keep it is about to come washing in! Which I doubt) as well as encourage other editors to spend their time on a decision which is almost certainly already foregone. Let me know if you disagree, and if you honestly believe there is a likelihood of genuine consensus developing either for OR against the article at this point. Thanks! (just please don't say, "Well, you never know!" We DO know: there will be no consensus, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this that I can think of.) A loose necktie (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Shrug, to be honest, this was more of a procedural thing, but there could be more users who come by and have more opinions about this article, to sway it to either side. Natg 19 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing: if the article were eventually deleted, someone would claim, "There was no consensus to delete!" (and they would be correct). If kept, outright, someone else would claim, "There was no consensus to keep!" (which would also be correct).  Which is why we have the "No consensus" outcome.  You just gave me the answer I hoped you would not.  A loose necktie (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want a "no consensus" close, or are so confident that it will occur. I have hope that a relist could change the outcome of a currently trending "no consensus". Natg 19 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just explained why a "no consensus" outcome is already certain, and why offering to relist it is pointless. But you are not listening, which is fine too. Thanks anyway,  A loose necktie (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Francis Henry Fee" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Francis Henry Fee. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Devoke water  16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Four Reigns, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Cupcake547Let's chat! 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , huh? I did leave a reason in the edit summary - "unclear notability". I do not believe this article is notable for its own topic, and believe it should be redirected to the Kukrit Pramoj topic, which discusses this topic. Natg 19 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You should then list it for articles for deletion, not blank the page. After consensus is reached you should then delete, merge or keep it. Cupcake547Let's chat! 18:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Okay, I can do that. But I was WP:BOLDly redirecting the article to a notable topic, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. Do you feel that this topic is notable? or do you just disagree with my process? Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You should still do an articles for deletion and when consensus is reached, delete, merge or keep it. Cupcake547Let's chat! 18:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC).
 * That was a mistake sorry.

Nomination of Homie (company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homie (company) 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/Homie (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Dexxtrall (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Natg 19/presence
Hello, Natg 19. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Natg 19/presence, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pokemon articles
You redirected them without consent. You could at least send them to Afd like User:Piotrus way, rather than redirecting multiple articles. I'm pretty sure you already fall into IDONTLIKEIT. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was making a WP:BOLD change. I will create an AfD for the Gengar page, since you object. Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate, some of the articles was sourced properly, and you literally redirected tons of articles without reading, consensus or sending them to Afd. User:NorthBySouthBaranof already told you about WP:Consensus. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, it is appropriate, and "common practice" to remove content and replace it with a redirect. Anyways, I have opened an AfD for this article here: Articles for deletion/Gengar. Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of them is not when the article is adequately sourced. But, do what you want I guess. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Stolen redirect
When Geometric Algebra was moved to Geometric Algebra (book), a redirect was left so links would go through. But that redirect was changed to the disambiguation page for the phrase. Now a dozen links are misdirected. Can you clean up the misdirection? Rgdboer (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed! Improved as Artin's book is in Internet Archive so that citations can be made to page or chapter, directly with a click, giving instant verifiability. Rgdboer (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of FC Sumy (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on FC Sumy (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Good-faith edits reverted
Meta Platforms, Inc. did not exist at the time these products were released. Per prior practice, we display the name of the company as it was upon the product's release. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I will keep the articles saying Facebook, Inc. then. Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete Afd merge proposal
When you place a template:Afd-merge to, please remember to also place the template:Afd-merge from template on the target so that interested editors are notified to engage with your proposal. For example, this edit. I know that you were using a tool, but of course you are responsible for edits made with the use of such tools, and this one isn't completing the process. Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , it appears like the tool is working correctly. The template:Afd-merge from template says to add the notice on the talk page (not the article page), which the tool does do, with this edit here: . Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quite right! Sorry I missed that. I'm more quite familiar with standard merge process, where the procedure is for template:merge from to be on the article page. Klbrain (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Notify
You relist the RM on Hyderabad-Karnataka, can you please notify WikiProject Karnataka about the RM so that more users can participate, i dont know how to do that otherwise i would have done it myself, thanks in advance. BeanGreenCar (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Natg 19 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Closing Comments
In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_Dell:

The closer was A) Not an admin and B) the original DePRODer, so they are not a neutral actor. This is a problem according to WP:NACD. Additionally, they did not comment in the discussion at all, and the closer message is simply not what actually was decided.

Given these issues, I would have standing to petition for a re-opening of discussion, but I'd really not like to get so pedantic as to create a discussion for a discussion, that feels counter to the ideas of being Bold in correcting mistakes, and if its a rule, I'd humbly suggest this is also then a case of WP:IGNOREALLRULES given the circumstances. This is a discussion that reached consensus, and is moreso a copyedit than a revision of history. That's why I freely noted the change, and anyone may check themselves in the discussion for proof.  Spurious Correlation  05:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand the need for less bureaucracy, but the appropriate course of action was still to contact the closer and ask them to change their closing statement, or ask them to reopen and let a different user close. Without this history, it seemed strange that you "changed" the close from a Keep to a Merge (similar as not a Delete but still different). Natg 19 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Northern Iraq (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Northern Iraq (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)