User talk:Triplestop/Archive 5

HITT
Thanks for reviewing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. I've implemented some of the suggestions you made earlier. When do you think you might be completing the review? JFW | T@lk  23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Hello. If it concerns you any: I am pointing out an HTML mistake your signature might have. This is your current signature:

 Triplestop x3

There is a space between the two wikilinks, and that could lead to half your signature on the end of one line and the other half on the start of the next line. This new code should prevent that from happening.

 Triplestop&amp;nbsp; x3

Btilm Happy Holidays! 05:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28
Hi, Triplestop. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Triplestop. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyclosportive
Hi Triplestop, knowing how keen you are to remove spam, can I draw your attention to the linkspam at the foot of this article. It is for an outfit called CYCLEFILM who are blatantly promoting their DVDs PointOfPresence (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination) exists
Neutral notification. Collect (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  23:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

residentialworld.tv and residential world media
Triplestop,

Could you create the pages residentialworld.tv, apartmentworld.tv and residential world media pursuant to the links that link to the Dallas Business Journal and Builderonline.com articles?

Thank you.

dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/09/20/story9.html

http://www.builderonline.com/sales/dallas-brokerage-to-market-houses-apartments-commission-free.aspx

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/othercities/dallas/stories/2010/09/20/story9.html?b=1284955200^3963601&s=industry&i=resi_real_estate

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/othercities/dallas/stories/2010/09/20/story9.html?b=1284955200^3963601&s=industry&i=retailing_restaurants

http://triad.bizjournals.com/triad/othercities/dallas/stories/2010/09/20/story9.html?b=1284955200^3963601&s=industry&i=retailing_restaurants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelj (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-spamuser
Template:Db-spamuser has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: uaa question
Re your message: Personally, no, I would not, but I see another admin did block the account. I would have waited for a true saved edit before taking any action. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Filter 188 question at AN
Hi Triplestop. There a question about Special:AbuseFilter/188 at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253. Could you please comment there? Thanks. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Slattery
The previous deletion debates were in 2007 and 2009 respectively. The fact that the sourcing is 2013 now should make it clear that the content can't be identical, can it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence I have removed the tag as it is incorrect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

US Federal Contractor Registration
There was a G5 deletion before but I don't know of an AfD discussion about this topic. &mdash; rybec   06:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/US_Federal_Contractor_Registration Triplestop (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How could I have forgotten that. &mdash;  rybec   17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jamane A Boyd Jr
Hello Triplestop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jamane A Boyd Jr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''G4 speedy deletion has previously been declined by another admin. Take it to AfD.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

G4 speedy deletions
Hi Triplestop. In the past half-hour or so I've had occasion to decline a number of your G4 CSD tags. Whilst I'm grateful that someone's gone to the trouble of going through old AFD discussions to check for recreations (a task that rarely gets done), please be wary of applying the  tag without good reason. I appreciate that, as a non-admin, you have no way of viewing the previous versions of deleted articles, but a quick comparison of the deletion discussion with the new article will usually show whether or not the page is a recreation of an old article or an entirely new page.

For example: at Articles for deletion/Miroslav Barnyashev the reasoning for deletion was a lack of sources attesting to the subject's notability - the nominator even went so far as to clarify that the "only source cited is Twitter". The new article, Alexander Rusev, however, contains citations to five separate sources (none of which are Twitter), which in itself means that a new AFD discussion would need to take place in order for the page to be deleted. Jimmy Medranda was deleted because at the time of the AFD he had never played in a major league game; this is readily evident from the deletion discussion - the recreated article clearly states (and verifies with sources) that he has since made an appearance for Sporting Kansas City, and therefore the previous argument for deletion is no longer valid. The article on Ross Jeffries has been deleted a number of times after AFD discussions established that previous versions were unsalvagable self-promotion, but the current version of the page is neutrally worded, referenced and (after I took the simple step of removing some excessive external links) contains no promotional material. Again, a simple comparison of the most recent AFD discussion to the newly-created page would have made this obvious.

Again, I do appreciate your efforts in finding and flagging these pages up; they could easily languish unattended for months or even years otherwise, so thank you for taking on the task. All I'm asking is that you take care to check that WP:G4 really is applicable - just read the deletion discussion and ask yourself, "Does this discussion sound as though it would apply to the article I'm seeing?" If the answer's yes, then by all means tag it - but if it looks like the commentators are discussing a wholly different page, then (assuming deletion is warranted for another reason) a new AFD debate needs to take place. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
Thank you for your message on my deleted article. I'm working as a sub contractor and posting articles according to someone else's instructions. I really don't use WIKI or post articles....I'm just trying to complete the job I was hired for :-) My apologies for any rule violation.  I don't know how many more articles there are so I guess we will see what happens.  Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratta0810 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ali Fayez
Hello Triplestop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ali Fayez, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The player now played an international match for Iraq. I'm not 100% sure if that meets WP:FOOTY, but it is sufficient to say that the article isn't substantially identical to the version deleted at AfD as required for G4.''' Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

CSD
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Triplestop - let me make this clear. As you are not an admin there is no possible way for you to verify CSD as a reason for Speedy Deletion. I have not seen you engage in any discussion of this, only removal of talk page notices. You MUST discuss this before resuming editing. This conduct is bad for new users. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have difficulties retaining editors - we NEED to provide as positive environment as possible - just take a few extra seconds to look for sources and use PROD or AfD if you must, but please stop with the high speed automated tagging and try and engage in conversation...and use less templates. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My taggings are not automatic.... I do indeed check the discussion. I do in fact reply when approached. Triplestop (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't reply to my note about Slattery above and you removed and edit warring notice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed you before for adding incorrect G4 tags - I strongly suggest you do not add any more G4 tags for the forseeable future. GiantSnowman 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) most of your G4 taggings are undoubtedly accurate, because most reposted articles are reposted unchanged by a previous author. But you, without admin privileges, have no way of distinguishing reliably the minority which are significantly changed. Please in future avoid posting CSD G4 tags, as continued inaccurate posting may force us to take further admin action. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait I'm confused, you're saying that most of his taggings are correct, but he should stop adding them? Legoktm (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he's saying that while most are correct, the large number of incorrect ones means he should cease all activity in this area. GiantSnowman 17:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Triplestop replied within three minutes to my inquiry about his/her G4 nomination of . There are reasons for thinking the G4 nomination had some validity: in the first AfD discussion, I questioned the citation of a newspaper article that isn't about the company; the new article cites the same article, but not deceptively this time; doubts about notability and verifiability were raised in the previous discussion, which was held last month--the short amount of time that has passed makes in plausible that the situation hasn't changed much. Another commenter in the new AfD discussion (which was filed by Triplestop after the G4 was declined) has said that the coverage doesn't meet WP:N.


 * The comment by the blocking administrator "As you are not an admin there is no possible way for you to verify CSD as a reason for Speedy Deletion." seems to mean "only administrators can view deleted material, therefore unprivileged editors cannot compare new articles to deleted ones." If that is the intended meaning, I think it's off the mark, because of WP:MIRROR, WP:DUMP and WP:SPLICE. Is it desirable to encourage a histmerge request before each G4 nomination by a regular editor, or discourage regular editors from making G4 nominations at all?


 * I see that Triplestop uses Twinkle--is that what was meant by "the high speed automated tagging"?


 * From what I've seen, I don't think Triplestop is here to cause disruption. &mdash; rybec   19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is Legoktm, he can't know what the previously deleted article was in G4 taggings as he is not an admin. It is an incredibly combative way to interact with editors adding content and needless. Generally it is not a case of urgency, and often engaging the editor in conversation about the article and raising concerns rather than slapping tags would be much more preferable. This behaviour is potentially much more damaging to wikipedia in the long term than firing off a few cuss-words at other established editors in a dispute. Triplestop, give me something that confirms you'll take care in the future and I'll lift this immediately. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rybec - it's teh battleground mentality. I am sure many taggings are correct - and often PROD or AFD results in article improvement where polite conversation and urging doesn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Hi Triplestop, I've listed your account at Missing Wikipedians. Best regards. &mdash; rybec   10:07, 20 December 2013 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)