User talk:Postdlf/Archive25

 Cheers AKS  20:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Cheers AKS  21:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Louis M. Goldsborough.jpg
 * File:Christopher R. P. Rodgers.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Postdlfm just dropping in a line to thank you for your guidance on the various AfD nominations I made yesterday. Your point very well taken and understood and I will ensure in future that it is followed. Cheers AKS  09:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you saying that. I know it's not easy to hear "you're doing it wrong." postdlf (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

LIAT
What you said in the regard to the edits I made on the LIAT pages were false. One source was dead while the other said nothing about the staff, baggage, departing without passengers, and baggage. Obviously this section cannot stay because it's obvious the claims are from someone's experiences and not from a source. Drewax11 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewax11 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

dead links / red links
Sorry! Will do. :) Carpalclip3 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
I hope I'm doing this right. I'm an editor at the boating magazine Soundings, interested in publishing your photo of a swordfish skeleton taken at the National Museum of Natural History in D.C. and posted on Wiki (without a background) on Aug. 18, 2006.

Please contact me if you are interested (or not interested) in having that image published in our magazine.

Rich Armstrong Managing Editor Soundings 10 Bokum Road Essex, CT 06426 www.soundingsonline.com

Email: arms99@comcast.net Cell: (860) 884-7732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.47.226 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking to contact Postdlf regarding photo of swordfish skeleton
As a magazine editor, I'm interested in contacting Postdlf regarding a photo of a swordfish skeleton taken at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., and posted on Wiki on Aug. 18, 2006. Please contact me at arms99@comcast.net or (860) 884-7732. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legweak99 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What's your offer? postdlf (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Japan-related criminal law
Don't worry; I'm almost through with move requests on case titles. This time, I am becoming more interested in law because... law is a shaky, complex topic. I went back to college to study criminal procedure in the United States. Outside class, I am researching criminal justice system of Japan, and I heard criticism from editorials about Japan (I mean Japan) defense's ineptitude and prosecution's abuse of power. Another thing is lay judges in Japan. Also, the Japan section in "lay judge" article is blank. If merger is impossible, I would assume that you can work on that blank section instead. Criticism of law enforcement in Japan is barely mentioned there. Since you're an expert on Law, perhaps you can research law in Japan to improve articles related to law in Japan, including crimes and trials. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding attorney-client privilege, there is almost none (or some) in Asian countries, especially Japan:. But I'm not sure if the privilege is well-practiced there. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know anything about Japanese law. Never studied it. I don't even remember touching on it in a comparative law class. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge limits to United States system? Probably I should ask WikiProject Japan to participate in WikiProject Law? Besides, if you are the video game enthusiast, the Ace Attorney should teach you that (in original Japanese language) the whole video game series mocks the Japanese court system. From what I've heard, conviction rate is 99% in trials headed by pro judges only, and 99.9% in lay-judges trials. In fact, Japan law system may shock you and be the last place to practice, unless you want to prosecute with flimsy, circumstantial evidence and confessions. --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

attorney-client privilege and duty of confidentiality
I don't see similarities and differences between them. Would a lawyer be disbarred for disobeying the "duty" law? --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note: the following is generally true, subject only to exceptions I'm not going to get into here...) In American law, confidentiality is broader than privilege, but offers less protection. Confidentiality covers information an attorney learns from his client, but does not protect that information from discovery or subpoena by other parties; it just operates to restrict the attorney's disclosure of that information. Privilege covers communication an attorney has with his client that pertains to the representation, and not only restricts the attorney's disclosure of that communication but also protects that communication from discovery or subpoena. For example, if my client tells me his business kept a fake ledger book for tax auditors, confidentiality would restrict me from telling IRS agents the fake ledger book existed, but would not restrict the IRS from issuing a subpoena directly to the business or client for the ledger itself if they somehow independently learned of it or suspected it existed. Privilege would restrict me from telling IRS agents "my client confessed to me he keeps a fake ledger book" and neither I nor my client could be compelled to testify that he had told me that (or produce any e-mails or letters if the attorney-client communication was written rather than oral&mdash;privilege covers communication regardless of medium). An attorney could be sanctioned or disbarred for violating either confidentiality or privilege, depending on the circumstances. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How is Legal professional privilege also similar to and different from attorney-client privilege? George Ho (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That article covers the whole of the common law, which is the legal system of England, the United States, Canada, Australia, and several other countries associated with a period of British rule. It appears that attorney-client privilege is the name primary used for the privilege in the United States. The particulars of the privilege differ from country to country. bd2412  T 02:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Statute of limitations
I want to add information about Japan's statute of limitations on crimes, like murder, but I can't because... the whole article is messy with too much detail about American system and too little about overseas. --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try asking for help at WikiProject Law or WikiProject Japan. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company
Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

restoration of article sugaspott
hey how are you i was hoping i could reach out to you about creating or restoring the article sugaspott i could work on it and ask you to approve it before publishing it

since the time you deleted it the sources that where not available to prove notability have slowly emerged over the internet and i suppose maybe i can request the making of the article

thanks

Wikispott (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Would love you to look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikispott/Sugaspott and maybe leave some feedback which i will put into use or even go ahead and apply any changes you see fit. I will really appreciate any form of input so much. regardsWikispott (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics
Hi, there was another article (Albania at the 2018 Winter Olympics) that was included with the discussion and should be deleted. Thanks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed that; looks like someone else already took care of it. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the Overwolf page
Hey there!

My name is Ari Cashriel and I'm the Community Manager at Overwolf.

I wanted to write a Wikipedia page for my company and when searching I saw that there existed a page, but was deleted by you in 2011. I'd like to write one, but was advised to contact the admin who deleted it first before hand.

Some relevant information as I saw that one of the reasons named for deletion was that the software is not notable:
 * 1) Overwolf has reached over 6 million installs.
 * 2) Overwolf is the official overlay for Teamspeak. Teamspeak Source
 * 3) Overwolf is official partners with multiple large companies such as Wargaming.net, Webzen and gPotato providing them the in-game social media for their users. Webzen Source, gPotato Source
 * 4) Overwolf won StartTWS (a convention that holds competitions for startups) in 2012. Source
 * 5) Created multiple programs such as Twitch Streaming that are rival to OBS or XSplit Broadcaster
 * 6) Has an open SDK for developers to create programs and applications for direct rendering inside games. Source
 * 7) Overwolf has raised more than $5.3 million in funding to design our software. Source

This software that we have designed is similar and in the same genre and popularity as Raptr and XFire

Please contact me at Ari.Cashriel@Overwolf.com as I would like to write a page properly without running the risk of it getting deleted.

Thank you very much for your time. --Raif1989 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best advice I could give you is not to edit this topic yourself, because you have a conflict of interest that would impair your ability to write about the company in a neutral manner. If it is worth covering in Wikipedia, then it shouldn't take a paid employee to do it. Beyond that, you need to read through WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:NSOFT to understand what our inclusion criteria are. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice and the reading material. I read through it all and I find that the subject matter does indeed pass WP inclusion criteria as there are multiple sources that provide the information I wished to write. The only reason I wish to write it has nothing to do with me being paid (or even asked) to do so, I was doing so of my own volition as I found it odd that there wasn't a page for it just yet. You would suggest waiting for someone else to come along and write it and then suggest edits on its talk page? Or can I write it (while being as impartial as I possibly can) and have others edit it. I am quite new at writing things for Wikipedia. I saw however that I can write it myself on a subpage and ask editors to view/edit it before submitting it. Would that also be a good way to go about it? Raif1989 (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review of Waldo Vieira
Hello Postdlf! I see you've evaluated the deletion discussion for the article mentioned above and wanted to say it was maybe a hasty decision. Since the article was covered by reliable sources (not mentioned and the on the discussion) and besides that the supporters of the deletion left many unanswered questions. Furthermore at the end there were at least 3 notability criteria being discussed and people couldn't judge which one was being used for argumentation. Please tell me your opinion about that! Should I plead for a deletion review? Cheers!! -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your comment above, possibly in part due to typos. Are you saying that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, but what those reliable sources were was "not mentioned" in the discussion? Why on earth not? The only comment of yours in the deletion discussion that went unanswered was your last one re: WP:AUTHOR, which you didn't support with reliable secondary sources; yes, we'd need secondary sources establishing that "the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", because citing to nothing but the primary source by that author cannot alone establish that the concept, etc. is "significant." I'd consider a relist if you made a case, but I'm not seeing a basis yet for reading the consensus any other way or for leaving it open any longer. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the typos. Please let's make an effort to overcome the idiomatic difficulties, because the subject is pretty much complex. I'll try again to make my point clear: If you take a look on the article's page (not the discussion page) you'll find 3 reliable sources that support the article:
 * the Journal of Parapsychology with the statement Vieira is known on the fields of "consciousness research"
 * a Brazilian spiritist magazine with the statement Vieira has relevance as spiritist author and "medium" and also known for his co-author activity with medium Chico Xavier
 * two sources, one of the Brazilian goverment, other from a reportage showing the statement Vieira was the founder of a international non-profit organization for out-of-body-experience research. This institution have (at least in Brazil) a recognized level of public utility
 * On Articles for deletion/Waldo Vieira:
 * I mentioned the entry on Who's Who in the 21st Century and another user said this would be a "pay-for-space arrangement", but this is pure speculation (isn't it?)
 * Another user mentioned, in some cases, the "best-seller status" and "number of translated books" could be used to presume notability, and this comment was totally ignored;
 * Another user mentioned the article by D’Andrea (Italian sociologist) which tells the history and impact of the "field" Projectiology (by Vieira). There was no objection against this article and still nobody counts it as a valid reference??
 * We had more to come, but unfortunately it was too late. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the issues in the discussion was that many of the participants were expecting the subject to clear WP:PROF rather than just WP:GNG. As these are guidelines rather than a strict hierarchy of rules, there's nothing prohibiting deletion discussion participants from preferring one set of criteria over the other for a given article. But I don't see a consensus there that GNG is satisfied anyway, and many of the sources mentioned were dismissed as fringe and not relevant. That's their prerogative. It's also long been observed on Wikipedia that most of the Who's Who publications are pay-for-space, because no one has rights over the title "Who's Who". The ones that do count as reliable sources are the exception, not the rule. If there are more sources to come that weren't presented even in the full week the AFD was open, I suggest you wait until those sources are gathered, make sure they are clearly identifiable as reliable sources, and then present that case at WP:DRV on the basis that new evidence has come to light. Work in your user space on this for now. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've just confirmed that Who's Who in the 21st Century is one of the unreliable ones; it's published by the "International Biographical Centre", which has been widely identified as a scam entity ('A publication, only available to those who pay to be in it, is similar to other directory schemes. Internet blog site users describe them as “phone books with fake leather covers” and a “Who’s Who of gullible people”.'). postdlf (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the rapid answer. So, you are using a unreliable source like a blog to tell another source is unreliable? Besides of that there are many publications called Who's Who. How do you know this is the bad one?
 * What about the other 5 items I mentioned above? AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "How do you know this is the bad one?" Because I confirmed that it's published by IBC from their own website. And that's not a blog I quoted from above (as should have been obvious from the URL alone, if not the content of the page itself); that's an Australian state government website warning the public of this company's scams. You're not giving me a lot of faith that you've done any due diligence yourself in evaluating these sources. I'm going to stick with my advice to you above. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for advice. --- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Music used by Apple Inc.
Hello Postdlf, you deleted List of music used by Apple Inc. last tuesday. The articles deletion discussion had some people providing a blueprint of WP:HARDWORK. They were dismissed by others, providing the WP:HARDWORK-Link in the process. Later, you deleted the article.

I find it a pity, that the information will be lost. But I guess there is a quite simple solution to that: Even WP:HARDWORK states: "In some cases content can be […] contributed to other wikis." I have no idea how to move an article (especially without its Wiki markup-source). Can you help? 89.182.84.161 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any experience with that outside of moving images to Commons. Editor assistance/Requests might be a good place to ask. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scott Basalaj
You deleted Scott Basalaj but did not address the ulimately unchallenged argument that he met WP:GNG with the 9 references provided. Can you provide a closing statement? Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need, given that you were the sole keep !voter, one of the delete !voters directly and substantively responded to your comment, most of the others expressed their belief that GNG was not satisfied even though they didn't go into detail as to why, and you yourself didn't think your findings were all that strong but instead were mostly "routine". This couldn't have been closed any other way. I suggest you wait awhile, collect more sources and refine them to the ones that actually constitute significant coverage, and then make a case for recreation. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff I found that I didn't list in the AfD discussion was routine. That would be true of David Beckham as well. I provided 9 sources that meet WP:GNG and weren't routine.  The only one of those links that anyone claimed was routine, was in a New Zealand paper about a Scottish signing. I can't really see how that is routine.  If you are saying that I thought the references I found were mostly routine, then you failed to comprehend what was written. I'd suggest you re-open the AfD for further input. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would relist if your comment had been made at the end of the discussion period, but there were still a few days left, which was plenty of time for the other participants to have their minds changed by your comment (they weren't) or for new participants to agree with you (he didn't). postdlf (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett
Thanks. I wanted to remove it myself, but I didn't want to get into a fight with tabloid-reading fans and so just tired to at least remove the misleading word "announced" and the definitive tone. Nice to see another editor with high standards! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You might want to keep an eye on this. It's those tabloid-reading fans I spoke of. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the page; that should slow things down at least. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thank you for your help at Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. The book itself should also be a good resource for writing articles. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Morris (Scrabble)
How may I view the page Peter Morris (Scrabble), which you deleted three years ago? Articles for deletion/Peter Morris (Scrabble)

That article name is inappropriate, as Peter R. Morris b. May 20, 1962 may now be considered the leading baseball historian, but it may be valuable to see what the Scrabble editors knew of him.

If some material is valuable, I suppose we revive the page with history intact. Right?

--P64 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate move of an article?
In the AFD discussion for the Rekha Kumari-Baker article you argued rather well against moving it to Murder of Davina and Jasmine Kumari-Baker and no one other than User:Youreallycan actually sought for it to be moved. Given that the discussion was closed as "keep" then that would appear to be further support for the original title. However, despite all this, Youreallycan went ahead and moved the article anyway and it really does seem like a backwards step to me. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page, perhaps you'd like to add your thoughts?--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'd say just move it back and then see if there are any complaints; it was moved well over a year ago so you wouldn't be edit warring, and that editor is now indefinitely blocked (though for apparently unrelated reasons). In any event, the article could be developed a lot more along the lines of my comments at the AFD. That's worth focusing on a lot more than whatever the title is. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it needs developing, I just thought it was best to get the title right first. I'll wait a little longer before moving in case anyone wants to participate in the talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Population stats
Hi Postdlf thx for you messages. I edited the Denver and Los Angeles articles as they both had broken references that were showing red warning messages. I manually rounded the stats as people often use too many significant figures, but i don't think this is a war i'm going to win anytime soon :-). the autogenerated reference names are as a result of supposedly duplicate references not being duplicate. I normally spend time consolidating discrepancies where possible but didn't have time yesterday. hope all good Tom B (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Arkham_Knight

Specifically, I was just following the normal motion. I am trying to improve. What would have been the correct measure in order to propose deletion to this page more effectively? Ging287 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should've just turned it into a redirect yourself. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ging287 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You may have figured this out already, but...
...back on 9 July 2013 you made an edit which included an update to the Docket param in a Template:Infobox SCOTUS case such that it used an ndash instead of a hyphen. I just wanted to let you know that the template relies on a hyphen to create the correct external link, and "fixing" this to a more orthographically-correct ndash breaks the functionality. If you're using a tool or script for these edits and haven't already done so, you might want to update it for this special case. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ETA: Just noticed that you were one of the early creators of what became that template, so I'll also add, thanks for your work! --KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was perplexed by why I'd go out of my way to insert an ndash there instead of a hyphen, as I've always found that kind of typographical nitpicking a waste of time...and then I realized that I had just copied and pasted the docket number from the pdf of the Court's own slip opinion to make sure I didn't mistype it. Sure enough, they render it with an ndash: 12–462 (copied and pasted from here). I'll watch out for that in the future, but we should think about updating the template code to accept either a hyphen or an ndash given that the source docs use the latter and it's easy to not notice the difference. ( is this hard to do?) postdlf (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this issue is now fixed with this edit:
 * en dash:
 * hyphen:
 * Implementing this type of string manipulation (in this case, replacing an en dash with a hyphen) used to be pretty much impossible, but that's no longer the case now that we have Scribunto/Lua. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Bio of Jermain Jackman
Hi. Can you weigh in on this please? I have tried to redirect this bio back to the third series of The Voice UK but an editor keeps on reverting me saying that it's viable. There is only two sentences, and there are seven sources which all say the same thing. Until he has actually released an album, there is no point having an article. The editor keeps saying I should take it to AfD, but I'm not after getting it deleted. Just redirect until a more suitable time, but he doesn't understand that. — ₳aron  16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

deletion of "List of Time-Banks around the World"
Hello... I'm trying to discuss that the article "List of Time-Banks around the World" hasn't been poorly sourced nor it's a spam generated by a software...


 * The data in the article was collected from reliable sources, in which one of them is the Timebanks USA the founder and the supporter for all time banks in the world..


 * The articled has been grown up dramatically, and it was collected from there different resources:
 * 1) Directory of TimeBanks USA (Founder of time banks movement)
 * 2) hOurWorld USA the second largest timebanking software provdier
 * 3) Timebanking UK The TBUK, that contains 292 time banks in UK alone


 * All the listed time banks have never been founded in one place, nor can be put in one website due to the sue of many platforms in different region around the world and other data and other sources were on the way to input.


 * The collection of the data was made through an extensive contact with the largest time banking supporter to provide reliable and up-to-date data.


 * The list is a unique list of its kind, and myself as a time bank supporter, I have wished to find a list like this on the Wikipedia pages to represent the movement and reflect the actual activities of all time banks around the world. --Alrawassam (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The AFD has been closed after being open a full week (the standard time), and you already had the opportunity to present your arguments there and were unable to persuade anyone else. Even above and beyond that, most of what you're saying as a positive for keeping the list are actually reasons for deleting it under our guidelines and policies (no other source compiles all of these, you had to privately contact someone for the data, etc.), and the rest I can't even understand (your explanation as to why they can't be listed at another website is incoherent). postdlf (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - The reason I have to contact website's admins or developers is to extract data from their own databases complying with the headings I designed in the list. The data under my headings in list can't be extracted directly without collecting it specifically to match with my headings. Here is one example of how I have received the data source from hOurworld'd developer http://hourworld.org/db_mob/TBCSV.php and I have to work on the data to convert it into wiki markup code.
 * - Although my list looks like a directory, but the real purpose is to educate the public that time banks are exist everywhere, and not only in their own country or region. There are still a lot of data has to be entered coming from Europe, Australia etc.
 * - Time banking movement is huge, but it's not all connected nor it's known to the public.
 * - I might not be able to persuade others during the standard week, because this was my first contribution to the Wiki and I'm hopping to get your support and to let me know how I can make this list alive again. --Alrawassam (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the admin who closed the discussion according to consensus. I have no other interest in this. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines cited in the discussion by the other participants, because simply wanting something covered on Wikipedia isn't enough. Wikipedia is not a primary source, so if this information isn't already available elsewhere from reliable sources, we aren't interested in it. You should instead take a look at alternative outlets that might be more appropriate sites for this than Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having problems restoring an article
Hi there, I am having brain flatus ....  An editor requested me to do an admin actions here: User_talk:Bearian. I tried, but could not revert the article so the history would appear. Here is your last edit of UFO_sightings_in_outer_space. Can you please restore the history of the article for User:Valoem, and possibly put it at User:Valoem/UFOs? Bearian (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

UFO Sightings in Outer Space
Hi,

Can you also restore the talk page for this article. I believe the article was deleted due to being poorly written instead of not meaning WP:GNG here are some sources IBTimes, Huff Post, NYTimes, IBTimes, and IBTimes. Do you think I should DRV the article when it is ready, or a bold restore is okay? Valoem  talk   contrib  13:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also can you delete User:Valoem/UFOs. Thanks! Valoem  talk   contrib  13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that two variations on this topic have been AFD'd twice just within the past few months, I'd take it to DRV to get consensus to recreate (or consensus that your new version cures the reasons why it was deleted). postdlf (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, can you userfy the talk page, it looks like some discussions on there may be relevant. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here: User:Valoem/Talk:UFO sightings in outer space. I restored the discussion from the history (it was removed in the last edit) but removed the project banner, which categorized the page. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, per your request I took it to DRV. Current version is considerably different from the AfD version have a look! Valoem   talk   contrib

Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev
Hello! The article, which has been recently put for deletion was kept, conclusion – "no consensus". However, my arguments for a few days were not commented by anyone, neither participants of the discussion (although, it was edited), nor administration. I have considered each source used in the article. Some were affiliate, some non-authoritative, and some did not comply with the WP: GNG rule "Significant coverage". I am not in any kind of relations with other participants of the discussion, this may be easily checked. Do hope for your comments and help. May be it is worth to put an article for deletion again, using my arguments and taking in account other people's opinion? Because the conclusion "no consensus" is not quite right: its absence or presence were not demonstrated. Arguments were simply ignored. Thanks in advance! 213.87.128.205 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of what you're describing is exactly why it was closed as "no consensus", but given that the closer expressly invited anyone to immediately renominate it, you should feel free to go for another AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give any comments about my arguments? 213.87.143.155 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem reasonable on their face (i.e., it looks like a valid deletion rationale), but I haven't investigated further to confirm your conclusions and characterizations of the sources and topic. Nor does having a good deletion rationale mean that another editor won't have an equally good rationale for keeping, or that enough other editors will support your arguments to establish a consensus to delete. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! The article is intended to be deleted for the second time. I've left comments and arguments. Could you comment on it or summarize? Thank you! 213.87.128.84 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Roads in Swords
Hi Postdlf, you recently deleted an article called List of Roads in Swords. I am aware that this list was not appropriate for a wikipedia article, however as a resident of Swords, I found it quite useful. I'm just wondering if you would be able to send me a copy of the last revision to the page. As I am not an administrator I am unable to view it and I would really like to have a copy of it. I would be delighted if you could email me it to royboymaps@gmail.com. Thanks, Roy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royboymaps (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zakaria Messoudi
You closed Articles for deletion/Zakaria Messoudi and deleted the article Zakaria Messoudi. However he has since had a professional start, and someone has recreated the article from scratch. Can you restore the edit history? Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ postdlf (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 2013 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Clean Air Act


 * 2013 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Clean Air Act

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: New Rome
Thanks for fixing up the comment! :)

I was way too focused on finding where the problem code was. - Mailer Diablo 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Early closing of deletion discussion in List of restaurants in London
The normal waiting period for an Afd is 7 days yet you decided to close the List of restaurants in London discussion after less than 24 hours under WP:SNOW. I am happy to accept the results of a proper AfD and, in the end, WP:SNOW may still apply but will never know unless the correct procedure has been followed.

It would seem that there was there were 'substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you unfamiliar with SNOW closes, or the reasons why it is invoked to close an AFD early? The whole point of SNOW is to avoid unnecessary procedure, about which you show clear confusion in your second sentence above. Do you have a specific comment as to why an early close was inappropriate in this particular instance? postdlf (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that you could have waited a couple of days at least to see if there was any support for my proposal before closing. That would hardly have been, 'long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions'.  In fact the wp:Snow page says, 'if an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause' and 'Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness'.  In this case, no arguments were examined. A wait of the standard 7 days would have been better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your arguments were examined and easily rebutted by all participants based on relevant guidelines and practice. My closing statement emphasized this in summary of the discussion. What exactly is your "reasonable objection," other than the fact that you didn't want it closed early? You still haven't made an objection that is specific to this AFD being closed early, but are instead merely complaining about the very notion of an early close, again seemingly missing the point of SNOW. I'm not going to reopen it just for the sake of having it run for seven days, without explanation as to why that additional time might change the result other than by having more editors pile on in opposition to your nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers page
The page was deleted because of a lack of source, and thus being original research. This is not correct information, there is a source, credit card numbering schemes are set by an ANSI standard. I'm just trying to help, it's up to you if you want to reverse the deletion. The page would be super useful, I was looking for this info, that's how I got here.Pszoldan (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD's
Hi. Sorry, didn't know how to do group noms, will read the instructions for next time. Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Paradoctor (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not interested; I doubt will waste his time there either, so the DRN is stillborn. Not that there's any reason to open up yet a fourth forum at this point. No one has agreed with you, and as you just keep repeating your own largely unelaborated opinion, you've shown no interest in or propensity for persuading anyone else. Drop the stick, at least until you can think of something new to say or actually substantively respond to our comments rather than just dismissing them. If you in fact have the better argument, you've utterly failed to communicate it. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)