User talk:Philwelch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:58, 23 December 2006

Look at page history for archives. I used to keep archive pages until I realized it was stupid to do by hand what Wikipedia does automatically.

Deprodding articles

Phil, I've noticed that you've de-prodded a number of articles with edit summaries like "sourced and notable enough." I'd like to ask you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on both reliable sources and notability. For example, you de-prodded Galleria Supermarket with the above edit summary. The only source is the store's own home page, and the article plainly does not make an adequate and sourced assertion of notability based on the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). TomTheHand 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a judgment call. Sometimes it differs from the guidelines. Feel free to escalate the issue to AFD if you disagree. Philwelch 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Philwelch probably has a good understanding of notability. Though I'm also pretty surprised that the prod was removed from Barabus TKR. I would have firmed up TomTheHand's prod reason if I thought there was a chance the prod would have been removed. WP:NOT a crystal ball says that the article should have been deleted long ago, since it's never been at all clear that the car would be released (extraordinary horsepower claims, a new unknown manufacturer, no mainstream coverage of the car). While these reasons weren't listed in the prod, they were listed on the talk page, and multiple people chimed in on the talk page in agreement with the prod, with practically no dissent. --Interiot 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, re-reading this it sounds harsher than I would like. In some of the cases of de-prodding, I agree with you entirely, like Oracle BPEL Process Manager. In others, I can see where you're coming from; I don't think I made a sufficiently good case for Barabus TKR, though I think a good case can be made. However, Galleria Supermarket fails WP:CORP, and Old Samuel Adams' sole assertion of notability is being Samuel Adams' dad. There is no assertion of notability that complies with WP:BIO.

As you noticed, I escalated several articles to AFD. TomTheHand 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and provide more comments there. Philwelch 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have to go to the trouble to escalate articles to AfD, when before the change, they were moving along ok? Tragic romance 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could explain exactly what you mean by that I could give you a better answer. Philwelch 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Centrx

Could you please provide some evidence of wheel-warring? From what I have seen, this was an accidental deletion because he didn't notice the RFD and a note on his talk page would have sufficed. Please clarify this. Thanks, Naconkantari 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to "accidentally delete" pages that are closed as "keeps" on deletion discussions with no explanation in the deletion summary in the future, now that I know this is acceptable behavior. Philwelch 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show where this is wheel-warring, though. Naconkantari 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was wheel warring. Stop putting words in my mouth. Philwelch 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 23 December 2006 Philwelch (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Centrx (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (wheel warring--deleting redirects that were closed as a "keep" on RFD) Naconkantari 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that explains it sufficiently well enough. If it's acceptable behavior to ignore deletion discussions and delete things for no reason, though, that's fine. I'll be sure to have fun doing that. Philwelch 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrx

I've unblocked Centrx, as he was not warned for his actions, and a 1 week block of a valued contributor and administrator over the deletion of a few redirects, without any prior discussion is absurd. Please take this to WP:AN; I will not unblock if you reblock, but I encourage you to take this to the community instead. Ral315 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already noted the unblock request at ANI, before it was responded to, given the length of time it sometimes takes for unblock templates to be noted. I also commented on Centrix's page. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil

This is not appropriate. Please do not attack other editors again. Naconkantari 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 I've unblocked Centrx, as he was not warned for his actions, and a 1 week block of a valued contributor and administrator over the deletion of a few redirects, without any prior discussion is absurd.  Please take this to [[WP:AN]]; I will not unblock if you reblock, but I encourage you to take this to the community instead.  [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 :I already noted the unblock request at ANI, before it was responded to, given the length of time it sometimes takes for unblock templates to be noted. I also commented on Centrix's page. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
+== Please remain civil ==
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=96185721&oldid=96185502 This] is not appropriate.  Please do not attack other editors again. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)