Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

• I have two questions for you. How do I "archive" my talk page after it gets to long? Also where can I see a log of all "new" artcles recently created? That will help to sort out junk, the last is when do I use "speedy delete" instead of the standard process to discuss? Thanks again mate. Tyros1972 Talk 04:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So three questions, right? Ha ha. Okay:

1. You can archive it manually or you ask me to set up an archive for you, which I have now done. It will automatically create archives for you and archive things older than 20 days, leaving at least 3 threads on your talk page. You don't have to do a thing, but you can change the settings by changing the template which is now at the top of this page (hidden; you can see it when you edit).

2. The new pages feed is here - Special:NewPagesFeed - but you can also access that from the top of the "Recent Changes" link from the left-hand-column.

3. The criteria for speedy deletion is here - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - but Wikipedia:Deletion policy might be a better place to start - it will help with determining which deletion type to use in each case.

How's that? Stalwart111 08:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Your page has now been archived. Easy huh? Stalwart111 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I was tired so guess it was 3 lol Thanks again mate for all your help! That's setup perfect. I will keep an eye new articles, is there any harm in just using the standard deletion process? If it needs a speedy can an admin just go ahead and do that? I'd rather be safe then to do something I am not 100% certain of. Tyros1972 Talk 01:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Albert Zohrebyan. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed my tag, since someone posted a "speedy" at the sametime. But for now on I will just leave it. Tyros1972 Talk 02:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bot - it won't reply - it's an automated message. If it is speedy deleted while it's at AFD, the discussion will simply be closed that way. Only an admin can delete it and often they will close any corresponding AFD at the same time. It's best to use one or the other but while-ever an AFD is ongoing, the notice stays on the article and a bot (like the one above) will keep putting it back while the AFD remains open. Stalwart111 02:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Or, if it has been deleted by an admin, a non-admin can close it, like this. Stalwart111 02:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK thanks. It just that after I clicked AFD it said there is speedy there, so since that was actually added seconds before mine I wanted it closed. Thanks. I also tagged and nominated a new one that appears to be yet another advertising page, if you want to double check my work and vote. University of Hell Press Tyros1972 Talk 02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I might help guide the article creator (who seems to be new), but I won't get involved in the discussion itself per WP:CANVAS. But everything seems to be in order there. Stalwart111 03:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you could leave him a message about it. It's already gotten one vote for a speedy, but I like to give everyone a fair chance. It will get deleted if he doesn't fix some of the major issues. Tyros1972 Talk 03:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to - have done so. Stalwart111 03:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again mate, we need more people like you on wiki.

Yeah, looking like a WP:SNOW close but I tend to leave all but the most procedural closes to administrators. If something has already been speedy deleted or if something is listed at AFD but should be listed somewhere else, then maybe. But things that require any interpretation shouldn't usually be non-admin closed. Others are a bit more liberal about it and you might find another non-admin would happily close that. But I might leave a note for an admin who was looking for something to do a bit earlier. Stalwart111 10:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When I opened the second AFD for Engrish a non-admin closed it. I still tend think that page doesn't belong here as it lacks RS but it got a lot of keeps so I won't nominate it again. I just wanted to let you know. Why don't you apply to be an Admin? With all your knowledge and dedication to wiki? I am not familiar with the whole process but think be good for you. Tyros1972 Talk 10:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but nah. Not being an admin gives me a fair bit of freedom, which I like. I still contribute to things like the Admin's noticeboard and I close all sorts of things (even there). I tend to spend a lot of time at AfD, saving things that deserve it and supporting the deletion of things that should be deleted. I tend to get in plenty of arguments with sock-puppeteers, promo-spammers and POV-warriors and then alley-oop them to an admin for a slam dunk (if you get my basketball metaphor). I also informally welcome and mentor new editors. All of those things would be harder to do if I was involved as an admin, I think. Stalwart111 11:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be true. Yes the AFD job is vital I agree, I tagged a bunch of stuff tonight. I really love the Twinkies tool can't thank you enough. Tyros1972 Talk 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad you are having fun with them. Just be careful with CSD tagging - there are fairly strict criteria, like for G11 (promo) it has to be unambiguous advertising which means it basically has to read like a brochure with nothing but sources from the company itself. If there's any chance the company might be notable and the article could be okay with some clean-up, then an Admin might have some hesitation about deleting it. Sometimes WP:PROD can be better and if that is contested and you still think it should go, then WP:AFD. That's why you see lots of AFD rationales that start with, "contested prod...". Stalwart111 15:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see that now. I think it is safer to use AfD am I right? This way if someone also wants to tag it for speedy or whatever they can. Tyros1972 Talk 01:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Stalwart111 02:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tyros1972. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Restoration1, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#G11 is onl for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." There may be promotional intent here, but that's different. Let eh AfD decide on notability. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD. Yes I considered doing an AfD but felt it was exclusively written for promotion, but since you disagree I have no problem with you changing it. That's fine, perhaps I did overlook that concern. Thank you for letting me know. Tyros1972 Talk 01:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate! I'm not comfortable closing it, mostly because I think there is some merit to the nomination. But I have commented and I hope some aircraft people comment. Stalwart111 14:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK thank you for reviewing it, we can wait and see as we need an expert in this area. Tyros1972 Talk 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tyros1972. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hope Lutheran Christian School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 clearly excludes schools. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 05:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about that. Tyros1972 Talk 06:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Given it was speedy deleted (even though it was at AFD at the same time), the author has the right to recreate it. I have, though, nominated it for deletion again so it can go through the full deletion discussion process. You may comment again. I might ask that it be salted if it is deleted again. Stalwart111 06:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate for clearing that up. My vote has not changed as I honestly don't see anything but the author trying to promote his website. He seems like a nice guy but it's not what Wiki is about. Yes I agree to get it Salted if that happens. Tyros1972 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is going to be that LinkedIn isn't really enough to establish a person's "expertise" (given LinkedIn in self-published and so they published that claim about themselves) and a private blog (as discussed earlier) isn't really a particularly reliable source, especially as a source for a controversial claim about "incompetence" and "loop-holes". What's the old saying... "big accusations require big evidence"...? That edit would probably fall into the category of those requiring very good sources. Stalwart111 07:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I remember the blog, good point about LinkedIN. I will see if I can dig up any other sources or it has to be removed. Thanks mate. Tyros1972 Talk 07:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was a patent application for copy protection, would that be RS to keep my edit? http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=SunnComm&OS=SunnComm&RS=SunnComm

No, probably not. Patents are notoriously not reliable because they rely on our interpretation of them to determine what they mean. The problem here is that you're trying to prove the commentator is an expert, then prove his blog gets past WP:BLOGS on that basis and then use that to verify a particular claim. You're likely going to have a tough time of it. The only blogs that tend to be okay are those from reliable news organisations (that publish content with editorial oversight from one of their editorial staff and call it a "blog" because it's cool) and blogs from college/university academics where they are basically just republished previously published peer-reviewed content. There might be a handful of other exceptions to the rule but I don't think we'd consider that fellow's blog to be a reliable source on the basis of a patent, certainly not enough to republish his possible controversial claims about a company. If those claims had been carried by the New York Times or Chicago Tribune, different story. Stalwart111 08:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I understand what you mean. Ya really no RS there I can find. Thanks for explaining I understand now. Tyros1972 Talk 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I pulled the tags from the article because it's well-referenced and if someone wants to patrol it later, that's fine, but it doesn't need to sit with a giant screaming template on top for hours or days until that might happen. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure no problem, I wasn't even sure about tagging it as it looked pretty good. Tyros1972 Talk 08:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have put up an "inuse" or "underconstruction" template, because you hit it right as I was getting into the meat of it. No worries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I know how it is creating an article and someone comes along and SLAPs it with a tag lol. I have found the under construction tab to be useful. Good job it looks great. Tyros1972 Talk 10:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion......" The request for deletion is incorrect under Wikipedia rules. Have a funny video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miningpyropony (talk • contribs) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

yes if the company, organization, or product contains reliable sources and is notable. This article fails that. Tyros1972 Talk 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just add a note withdrawing the nomination and I'll close it. No problem. Stalwart111 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I left a note withdrawing my nomination due to the page being under construction. Thanks mate. Tyros1972 Talk 10:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Cheers, Stalwart111 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tyros, The page is about a non-profit organisation in United Arab Emirates that which deals with school health. Although you're right to conclude that it's not very notable, it's very much akin to the School health services in the United Kingdom and notable among schools and hospitals here and the only press references we can provide are those from the newspapers(links provided on the page). Moreover, health screenings and awareness programs in schools and colleges don't receive much media attention here, sadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleninjapirate (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eagleninjapirate. The only reason I did an AfD was the article had been previously deleted for being not notable and for advertising. As I said I have nothing against the non-profit organization at all but if it does NOT meet wiki criteria sadly it has to be deleted. I am sorry about that. Tyros1972 Talk 06:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Tyros. The previous article did seem promotional, I've edited and neutralized it. The links in the reference provide some proof of notability too. Is it possible to remove the deletion tag now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleninjapirate (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thought I should comment here. It's probably best just to let it run it's course. Being speedy deleted previously doesn't have much of an impact. Being AFD'd previously would be an issue, though. Probably, technically, could/should have gone through WP:DRV but recreation/AFD achieves the same. Stalwart111 15:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eagleninjapirate, at this point as Stalwart111 said, it is probably best to leave it and go through it's course since it was previously deleted. If you neutralized it and provided notable RS you should not have a problem passing the AfD, but that is not up to me nor can I close it at this point. I will have another look and see if I can find any RS that you missed and help save it. Tyros1972 Talk 16:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Tyros. I've done all the neutralization and reference linking possible, hope it goes through well then. Thank you for the information and efforts. Eagleninjapirate Eagleninjapirate —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tyros1972. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elizabeth "Betty" Bottomley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has content. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 07:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks when I tagged it there was no content, but seems the author was in the midst of an edit. Thank you. Tyros1972 Talk 07:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. Just wanted to let you know I declined it based upon the state of the article at the time of review. You're doing a great job so far, keep it up! Mkdw^talk 07:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know, I appreciate so I can properly tag it. I try to do my part to keep wiki what it is. Thank you for the feedback it's nice to hear something positive, you too it's the admins that have the hard jobs! Tyros1972 Talk 07:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)