User talk:Paulmcdonald/Archives/2022/May

For your reference
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy are two nice little essays about what I am talking about. In my opinion, WP:DONTLIE is a fairly pointless essay, as the just saying the words "don't lie" convey the general idea of what you are trying to say. Worse though, its use almost always reads as a personal attack, as using it in a discussion the way you did is an accusatory statement. There is a big difference between a deliberate untruth meant to deceive others and a statement that wasn't clear or was misinterpreted across the internet. I also recommend that when you throw around essays in your deletion discussions, you make it clear they are just essays. I.e. "WP:DONTLIE is an essay I wrote about the importance of being truthful on Wikipedia." Just a recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2022
--evrik (talk)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ninth Adminship Anniversary
 Wishing Paulmcdonald a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops! misunderstanding
Hi, Paul! Regarding Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) which you just speedy deleted per G11: I had previously deleted that, but I just undeleted it so it could be discussed at Deletion Review. However, I forgot to remove the G11 tag! so of course you deleted it again. Sorry about that. I will undelete it again, and this time I will remember to remove the tag! Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, good job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DeHorizon
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeHorizon&action=history It just got tagged for speedy deletion earlier today, I posted a reason why it should be kept on the talk page, I added in an additional reliable source giving significant coverage to it. It is a perfectly valid article. It meets the General Notability Guidelines, and that's all that is required for an article to exist.  D r e a m Focus  22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article per your request.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Archive at all?
Scrolling down your page took a while! There is this thing you can do WP:ARCHIVE,, it should help!! Govvy (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I asked folks how to do that maybe a decade ago and no one provided any insight.  I will get to it soon!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Barista sharifi
Let's add more information and resources to this article. Thank you for your cooperation Alisharifi0098 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of female American football players for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of female American football players 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/List of female American football players 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page
You should consider setting up a talk page archive for this page. It is 476,731 bytes at time of writing. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad phrasing
Sorry for my edit summary at Dj Consequence. When I said that "I see your'e (sic) a newer admin", it was awful phrasing. It's just that most admins that I come across have had the mop longer than you. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Avalanche the Architect
Hello, I contested the speedy deletion for Avalanche the Architect (Darren John). The last AFD was done in 2019 and since then there were at least 10 new news references. Why did you delete this?? Shouldn't this be discussed or at minimum sent to another AFD voting? Can you please restore and do AFD instead so the community can decide? Omranduk (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! The article was deleted as a speedy delete for two reasons, under speedy deletion criteria WP:G4 and WP:G11.  Typically, when an article has been previously deleted through a discussion, it's best to show why restoration would be in order.  Normally, under just that one I'd agree that it should go through discussion if there have been material changes in the coverage.  However, it ALSO qualified under G11 which is a promotional deletion--Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.  So under both combined criteria, it didn't really qualify as presented.  If you'd like, I'd suggest working up the article with a little more attention to detail and maybe running it through the WP:DRAFT cycle.  If you want some help, I can get you started.  I have no opinion on the content of the article itself so I'd be happy to help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Urban Fêtes
You removed the speedy deletion for advertising tag from Urban Fêtes because "contested on talk page". While this is a usually acceptable reason to remove a Prod, a speedy isn't dependent on the approval or disapproval by the article creator, but should be judged by whoever removes the tag (or deletes the page) independently. That the article creator contests that the page is promotional is irrelevant, and belied by language like "event and marketing services immersed in today's lifestyle of music, sports, arts and fashion", "a large number of fans thanks to its unique concept of silent discos" or "develop campaigns to effectively reach their target audiences, offering their clients fascinating marketing strategies ". Fram (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you moved the article to Draft:Urban Fêtes. I have no objection and would have been happy to do that if you had asked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for it to be speedy deleted, and your reply here was sorely lacking. "Thank you" tells me nothing. Fram (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's because all you did was scold me. You didn't ask for anything different.  You are welcome to your opinion and I thank you for it.  IF you wanted me to change my mind or delete the article, ask.  If you want it moved to draft, then ask (or do it yourself as you did).  Put a PROD on it? Okay.  If you'd like to open up an AFD, go right ahead, I might even agree that it should be deleted.  I found the contesting of the article enough to remove the Speedy and you disagreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained why I disagreed, you just gave a non-answer. But apparently you need to not just have explained why your action was wrong, but also need to be asked to correct your error then. You did neither defend (or simply explain) nor correct your action, and didn't indicate why a page that meets the speedy criteria should be allowed to remain in the mainspace for at least 7 more days (and no, "the created contested" is not a reason why you believe policy didn't apply here). Fram (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no question for me to answer. There was no action requested for me to take. I do not believe my action was wrong.  It's clear that you do, and that's fine.  We can disagree.  I have a mop and a bucket and I clean up barf on the floor.  It didn't look like barf on the floor so I removed the tag and made way for other avenues of deletion, which it looks like you are taking.  Why are we still discussing this?  What do you want?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do I want? Admins with some clue, who don't need to be spoonfed questions. If someone contests an action you make, what do you think they expect? Either an answer as to why you made that decision, an answer as to why my arguments were wrong, or a reversal of your decision (either a speedy deletion or a reinstatement of the tag with some statement that you will let another admin decide). I didn't expect this to be so hard to understand or that the lack of a question mark would truly made you believe that a "thank you" would be in any way a useful answer. "We can disagree", sure, but "thank you" is not a disagreement. "Why are we still discussing this?" Because I have the increasingly bain hope that you will learn something, anything, from this and will act and/or reply differently in the future, and at the very least will try to explain your actions and wil try to take some responsability for your edit instead of using "the created contested" as a non-policy-reason to deny a speedy for advertising. If that is your standard, then you could better just leave speedy to other admins. Or, to put it into a question, just to make it clear: Will you please leave decisions about speedy deletions to other admins and focus on other admin areas instead? Fram (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, a question! Will I stay away from speedys per your request?  No. Thanks for your opinion.  Good luck and happy editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)