 | NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE BOTTOM. NOT THE TOP.
Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there. |
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial! WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
Archives
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, do you know if there are any topic-specific notability guidelines relating to biographies of medical people? I am a bit concerned about Vykunta Raju. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know of any topic-specific medical biog guidelines The standard guideliners biog of living person and notability guidelines of course apply. The article you mention might sensibly be referred to articles for deletion. It does not qualify for speedy deletion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Since there are no topic-specific get-out-of-jail guidelines, I'll do just that. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted the page Cyprien Iov. Soon after another user recreated the page and keeps removing the speedy deletion tags. I'm not sure how to handle this. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've told Tchaliburton several times, and is plain as day in the edit history, I did not recreate the article. I declined their speedy, but via an edit conflict glitch have ended up showing as the article creator. Software glitches happen, but they do not operate to disadvantage editors caught up in them. They've refused to discuss the matter civilly, choosing instead to boilerplate-template my talk page while deleting without responding to my (non-templated) comments on their own. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion this article qualifies for speedy deletion; this hinge on a decision as to whether the stated activity as a blogger is adequate assertion of significance, which I feel it is not. However, as the PROD will expire in a little under two days I have no objection to waiting until this expiration for the fate of the article to be reconsidered. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this IP is a Subversive IP. Please block It!--Abiii13wp (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please request this at AIV.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see this one Syd Wilder, which you had deleted? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you speedily deleted Free Donbass after another admin, DGG, declined the speedy. Would you consider undeleting it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I concede that the organization, which self-declares not to be a political party, won a significant percentage of the vote described, as noted by DGG. However, as the vote was discounted by the US and EU and by Ukraine, within whose territory is the Donbass oblast, in my view the deletion rationale is valid. Feel free to appeal at deletion review. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nate Wessel created History of sewing patterns by removing that information from Pattern (sewing) and making it its own article. You recently deleted that newly-created article as a copyvio of http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/blog/sewing-patterns.html . However, if you check the bottom of that page, it says "From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_(sewing)" so it's clear that this blog copied part of that article, not that History of sewing patterns was copied from that page. Can we recreate the article and have it not deleted this time, or can it be undeleted? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this guy has deleted stuff from the talk page and has further blocked the other editor.
After arguing with him there all day .
thought you should have a look .
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.193.195.69&diff=639273640&oldid=639272892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
heres what the blocking editor removed from the talk page.
- "Not True. Ill be ditching you PERMANENTLY IF YOU FOLLOW AROUND ANY OF MY EDITS AGAIN. In all Kindness. BUZZ OFF ALREADY. Ive noticed you have oner editors writing about you , how you try and 'bait" them in to arguing with you so you can block them Really sounds classy ." 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
−
- "I asked you for help on a page, You disagreed and were all "cocky" about it. NOT HELPFUL AT ALL. Then after Coming down on me like I was WRONG. The other editor Realized I WAS CORRECT AND CHANGED THE PAGE ANYWAY . Now you've turned in to what appeared to be a simple mediation request in to a few WEEK thing "watching" my page . might want to get more sleep ." 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated on your talk page, the actions of the blocking admin are correct. Incidentally your excessive use of upper-case letters, while not technically wrong, is not helpful and some editors would find it irritating. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted the Salewa page I created. I am in no way connected to the company (but have purchased something by them and was surprised there wasn't a page for them already) so it is not advertising/self-promotion. There is a lengthy German language article on Salewa and it is linked to from the Wild Country page (which is a subsidiary of Salewa). I realise I did not have a lot of information and should perhaps have marked it as a stub but I do feel it is worthy of a page. I would like to put it back and try to add more detail when I am able to. If you still feel it shouldn't be there, please could you explain why? Thanks. Devilsevilhair (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted on the two bases that the article promoted a non-notable company. The German article is not relevant. You have two options: you can either apply at deletion review page and ask the community to overturn my decision; or you can write an extended article and submit it. What is not an option is for me to restore the deleted article in the expectation of its being upgraded at some future date. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contesting this and brought it to Deletion Review Board today to contest the deletion by you. I wroted the reason before it was deletion. the Article was representation of what I do in real life and various places. CassandraSaturn (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in User:CassandraSaturn/sandbox and my accompanying talk page note. --NeilN talk to me 18:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the situation; we are not discussing, nor did I delete, the Cassandra Saturn page. I deleted the User:Cassandra Saturn page. The article "Cassandra Saturn", had it existed, would almost certainly have qualified for speedy deletion under at least two categories; as a user page being used inappropriately the same reasons apply, but with incorrect use of a userpage in addition.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the discussion at deletion review, which endorsed my deletion. There is a little discussion as to whether it should have been G11 or A7, but hey......--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Anthony! Viewing the edit filter log, I stumbled upon Anthony Bradbury2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The question is, is this account by any chance yours? I also looked vandalism at Anthony Bradbury abroad, which by your userpage, you state is yours. So if possible take a look at that too. Best, ///EuroCarGT 05:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up. Anthony Bradbury2 is not me; Anthony Bradbury abroad is, although I have in fact not used the account. I shall investigate the impersonator account. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Anthony! Thanks for checking on the "Soft Robotics" article. You initiated the deletion based on a copyright infringement G12 for the following link: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fbioe.2014.00003/full
However, I am not sure why. The cited article is available for free (the link works) and the journal is open access. Can you please clarify what should be changed here? Thank you and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is free access, agreed, but there are specific conditions to reproduction stipulated in the © statement (specifically in regard to correct attribution to authors and journal) which, as far as I can see, you have not complied with. If the journal, authors and the specific article are contained in the article then accept my apologies; point them out and I will restore the article. Alternatively, if you are happy to insert the apparently missing data I will send the text to your talkpage where you can attend to this and then re-post the article.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I tried to look at the draft of the article again to see which information is there and which part is missing so that I can update it accordingly. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a way to access it. Where can I find the draft?
Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed you deleted Pedophilia/FAQ for the reason "G6: No subpages in mainspace." This page is actually for the talk page since it is a permanently semi-protected article and is intended to address repeated questions asked on that talk page, just like at Talk:Homophobia. Could you please restore it or advise on how to properly include this information on the talk page. Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that these questions belong on the talk page of the article then you should post them there. The article as created is not a valid encyclopedia article. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh ok I think see the problem now. Is there anyway I could retrieve the text so I can implement it correctly?Legitimus (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will post the text onto your talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but it appears this is not the content that was contained in the FAQ. I think it was probably in the Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ
- Legitimus (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's it. Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand why you deleted Pedophilia/FAQ. Like Legitimus, I'm not seeing the problem with having Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ; as noted, Talk:Homophobia/FAQ also exists, but has yet to be deleted. With Pedophilia/FAQ, a new editor recently created that, which is why it was tagged for deletion. That doesn't mean that Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ should have been deleted as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that I have posted his text on Legitimus' talk page for him to work on. The essential point is that the article, as presented, made no sense, and the FAQs in a talk page cannot stand alone, without being linked to an article page. If the FAQs can stand alone, with appropriate sources, then they should be presented as an article; if they cannot, they should appear, if anywhere, in the Pedophilia talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not completely sure what your point is, but Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ can validly exist just like Talk:Homophobia/FAQ validly exists. If it were truly a problem, you would have deleted Talk:Homophobia/FAQ by now. I will either simply restore Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ, or wait and see if Legitimus does, or take the matter to WP:Deletion review for wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg?lang=en){kind=small}
