User talk:Philosophy2/2021

Note: This is an archive page. Please do not edit it.

Your draft article, Draft:Rapture Tour (2019 tour)


Hello, Philosophy2. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rapture Tour".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Abraham. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't make that edit on the grounds of offensiveness or trying to "censor" the article, I just thought that that section was unnecessary. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Prophets and messengers in Islam, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I just thought that historical dates that are basically common knowledge would be more appropriate than the arbitrary definitions on the article. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The dating of e.g. Adam, Abraham, and Moses are all spurious. Adam and Abraham are clearly mythical characters, and there is a slim chance that Moses was historical, but what is sure is that he cannot be recovered historically, so if he existed at all, it is impossible to provide a dating for his birth and death. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And, frankly, Jesus born in 0 BCE is a ridiculous rant. See why at Year zero. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I know. That's why I removed that. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is a requirement, not an option
Hi Philosophy2,

Thank you for contributing to Articles for Deletion. I couldn't help but notice that you nominated several articles for deletions in a very short lapse of time, at times with invalid or bare-bones rationales, and without properly looking for sources. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:BEFORE? Those steps are required to be followed before nominating an article at AfD. I hope you'll be able to review them and make AfD an even more productive place. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Those articles were all part of a collection of articles created by User:Fobos92. It seems that this user has dedicated their entire Wikipedia account on creating articles about the relations of every other country with Spain. Though some are notable, many are not. I nominated each non-notable article for deletion separately, without bundling any of them, since I couldn't find one that was more important than any others. However, I did not nominate the articles in this collection that actually contained notable information. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of motivation for deletion, you are still required to look for sources before nominating articles for deletion per WP:BEFORE. Parallel searches from my end have uncovered dozens of sources for all the nominations with valid rationales. Nominators are required to perform those steps. Did you perform those steps? Pilaz (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
I have noticed that you have nominated many articles for deletion. I would appreciate knowing your reasons because I might agree with you. Albatroxide (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

These articles were all created by a user named Fobos92, and each of them are based around the relations of Spain with many other countries. However, most of these relations are just things that you would expect from any two random countries, and do not carry enough notability for their own article. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree because these articles are significant on determining the economic values of Spain and its cooperation with other countries may determine the fates of immigrants coming from Yemen and other war torn countries. Albatroxide (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As @Pilaz mentioned it is recommended to view Wikipedia's extensive guidelines before nominating articles for deletion. Viewing your user page and edit history I can also make the same observation that you have nominated several pages for deletion in the timeframe of 48 hours. Albatroxide (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy against nominating many pages for deletion in a short timespan. I am familiar with WP:BEFORE but most things on that policy cannot be applied to these articles. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Albatroxide is right to question the timeframe of your deletion spree, especially in light of your dubious rationales (it is irrelevant whether all articles were created by one user). There is, however, a policy called WP:BEFORE, which requires you to take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources and as Step D clearly indicates, D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum due diligence is to go through a normal Google search, Google Books, and Google News search. While there is, to my knowledge, no policy against nominating articles for deletion in a short timespan, the fact that you provided barely any rationale, combined with the short timespans, makes me think you didn't any due diligence - essentially wasting other editors' time when you could have clearly fixed those articles yourself. I found scores of sources in English and Spanish within 5 minutes of opening Google, but somehow you did not. In the future, please follow WP:BEFORE and show other editors you've gone through the effort of looking through sources before nominating articles for deletion. AfD is not meant for cleanup. Pilaz (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The policy only states that you must make sure that the article actually needs to be deleted, rather than cleaned up or improved, and that you have a valid reason to nominate it. The articles that I nominated did not need any cleanup or other sort of improvement, their structure was perfectly fine. It was only the fact that the topics of those articles were too specific that they should be deleted. No search is required to understand this: articles about the relations between 2 completely unrelated countries are not in need of a confirmation of notability. Even if the article were to cite 100 sources, as long as the relations were not anything special, it can qualify for deletion. Philosophy2 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't get to arbitrarily decide if relations are "anything special". Relations between two countries are notable if they meet WP:GNG, meaning they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. You are required by WP:BEFORE to look for sources in order to ascertain notability. It's not optional to look for sources. Pilaz (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. I just closed several of your AfDs, and wanted to support the position of Pilaz here. Specifically comments like The actual problem is the fact that the existence of the article is a violation of the notability policy, said specifically after numerous sources had been given. You seem to be indicating that there are applicable notability rules on a subject that falls under GNG other than it having sufficient sourcing, such as historical significance. While you can go and push for that change if you wish, it definitely is not the case at the moment. There are SNGs were there are additional criteria (NPOL, where legislators actually have to have been elected, or be sourced to a degree that is significant compared to regular candidates is probably the principal example), but the relations articles don't fall under any of them. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Your recent editing history at IT Service Management shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Pilaz (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please inform me of the actions that must be taken in such a situation. Bold, revert, discuss, did not work in this case, since the "discuss" step was unproductive (see the other user's talk page). Philosophy2 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me just preface this by saying that you were right in starting a discussion with User_talk:2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F on their talk page, but this should have been done before any of you two reached the three-revert rule. I've also warned the other user about the 3RR. To seek compromise, if you believe that no compromise can be achieved bilaterally, you can look at Dispute resolution. In there, you may find several dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps asking for a third opinion at WP:3O is the best place for this small dispute, or you could ask for a comment about removing unsourced content at WP:NORN. Please make sure to notify the user you're in a dispute with if you want to move beyond the bilateral discussion. At any rate, please do not engage in edit warring, as that could get you sanctioned. Hope this helps. Pilaz (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

At that time, I had completely forgotten about the three revert rule; it seems like I sent the first talk page message when both of us were at exactly 3 reverts. Philosophy2 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Spotanus (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which revert are you referring to? I have made many recently. Philosophy2 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have moved this section to this page. Please reply here, rather than at the redirect. Philosophy2 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Question
"Also, I don't really understand why you added "(!)" to the statement".

The Crimean War page

Don't you understand? It's just even interesting. :) In 1853 (when the events were taking place), someone (the French) took out a document from 1740 and demanded that it be as it was written there. 110 years have passed - they didn't care. When they had all sorts of events from Louis to Robespierre and Napoleon, then Louis again, then Napoleon and Louis again, then Louis again, then the republic, Napoleon (III) again. :) Wow...:) 178.155.64.30 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that the age of the document 210 or even 310 years will cause you questions about the reasonableness of this kind of argument. :) 178.155.64.30 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read the manual of style and its related policies. WP:NOT might also be useful. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't be offended. Have a nice day. :) 178.155.64.30 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)