Jump to content

User talk:DexterPointy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, DexterPointy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

DexterPointy, good luck, and have fun. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/Notification: Suspicion of paid sock-puppetry.

[edit]

Ping: @TonyBallioni:, @Courcelles:
: I see both of you were involved in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jasleen_Ahluwalia/Archive
Well, I was/am involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka, and ...
 : Take a look at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nidhi.b.dalal
Am I the only one to wonder why User:Nidhi.b.dalal would upload File:Treeium Logo.png ?
-- DexterPointy (who forgot to sign)

Ping: @Smartse:
: I see you too being suspicious regarding Nidhi.b.dalal being a sock, Ref. your edit-comment "Deep Eddy Vodka: no I'm not going to say what makes it clear you're a sock" found at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse&diff=next&oldid=827118709
-- DexterPointy (who forgot to sign)

Hey. FYI {{ping}} only works when you add it and your signature at the same time, so User:TonyBallioni and User:Courcelles won't have got theirs either (but will now when I sign this), and neither did I at the vodka AFD. Nidhi.b.dalal should almost certainly be blocked and their contribs G5d even if there is no technical evidence linking them to Jasleen Ahluwalia. RE who created Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery only admins can see who created it directly and easily - it was Texasvodka. Special:WhatLinksHere/Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery works when a page is deleted though and this shows the user talk pages it is linked from. Since people normally leave a template on a talk page when they nominate it for deletion, that is usually a good indicator. Failing that, if you register here (super easy) you can copy this query for whatever article you want and it will list the editors who edited a deleted page. SmartSE (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: Doh! I forgot to sign, - and thanks for the tool info :-) DexterPointy (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- and I assume that "G5d" is some hairy Wiki-policy, which I probably do or don't need or wan't to read.
BTW: I just realised that it was you (Smartse), who put a "Undisclosed Paid Editor" box on Spoon Guru. Would it be a bad idea to also throw a Delete-thingy at it (either a SpeedyDelete or an ordinary AfD)? - From what I can tell, then Spoon Guru seem to be small company with yet-another-mobile-app, and who also delivered a sub-component to a Tesco system. (As I see it, then the only kind of companies less notable, are those with zero mentions anywhere.)
--DexterPointy (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry about the jargon... G5d = WP:CSD#G5 = a route to delete any articles that have been created by users that have previously been blocked, but generally that requires clear evidence linking them to another account. I'm 99% certain that "Mr Dalal" will have been blocked before but I don't have proof yet. I have asked for them to be looked at by checkusers (who can check user IP addresses) but I don't think they were technically linked to anyone. In some ways, that is just as incriminating as it just means they've figured a way to cheat that system too. You're correct that the Spoon Guru article should be deleted somehow, I just haven't decided yet whether we need to go through the effort of articles for deletion or be bold. Let me know if you've got any more questions. Oh and Welcome!! SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
again Thanks! - I'll leave these deletion & user concerns with you. (I don't mind assisting, but you can almost certainly handle it way more efficiently than I.) DexterPointy (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Confucians

[edit]

Hi, I've declined your A7 nomination of Boston Confucians because I was able to find some sources using Google and Questia. If you're still interested in having the article deleted, try Articles for Deletion. Also, while not policy or a guideline, it's not the best idea for admins to speedy delete decade-and-a-half old articles (unless they're copyright violations or longstanding advertisements) without some sort of discussion. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Anarchyte: OK. I'll consider creating an ordinary AfD instead.
    FYI: The reason why I went for a speedy delete was that it looked like being cruft from the early days of Wikipedia (Apr.2003), and furthermore: It has a "This article does not cite any sources."-box on it, which has been there for over a decade (since May.2008).
    By the way (from further looking into the history of the article): Most of the crappy editing looks to have been undertaken by one single person. (User "Bohemiotx" = User "Joffre D. Meyer", Ref. this). -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What has become of your AFD? It looks like you unlinked it from the log page, so it's in limbo. I suspect you just needed to click the "purge server cache" button at the top of the page to get your entry to show up.
I think you could safely add the entry to TODAY's log page as if you were nominating it today. You also need to sign the deletion discussion page. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmcgnh: I did forget to sign the deletion discussion page, and so I have now signed it.
    The AfD: Yeah, I had problems. When I created the deletion discussion page, the WMF server first threw an error page at me, saying something like the server being down. I then instinctively hit F5 (reload), and all seemed fine. But when I tried adding the AfD to the AfD-Log, then it didn't appear with the normal bells & whistles as expected.
    So, yes, that AfD is in some sort of limbo. I left it as-is, in the hope that some system would, sooner or later, do a consistency check, and auto-correct the problems.
    There probably is a way to manually fix its current state, but I feel I've already spend too much time trying. If you want to try fix it, then please do!
    Note: I will not take any responsibility for hair loss, resulting from frustration in such "fixing it" mission. ;-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what you saw, but I can tell you what I did.
  1. I used the {{subst:afd2}} template on the deletion nomination page.
  2. I added the transclusion of the deletion nomination page to today's AFD log page (though I may have messed up the expected edit summary)
  3. I did not try to notify past active editors of the page, since they don't appear to be active any more.
I believe we've now satisfied the robotic aspects of the AfD process and we'll see what the human editors who hang around AfD think.
BTW: enabling Twinkle makes this process much, much easier. It's hard to get all the steps right when trying to do it manually. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi DexterPointy! You created a thread called Article needs: Renaming & Editing, or Deleting, or ...? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi DexterPointy! You created a thread called How to delete an inappropriate redirect? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Edit warring, addition of unsourced content

[edit]

So you added urine to the list of breakfast drinks after you nominated that article for deletion and it was kept. I have reverted it because (assuming good faith) I am contesting its inclusion and you have not provided any reliable sources at all justifying its inclusion as a "breakfast drink". The next step would be to discuss on the talk page and/or restore it with the sources (and if reverted again, use the talk page to find consensus). Instead you have just edit warred to restore it. It looks like you're also engaged in an edit war at Donald L. Trump. I don't plan on getting involved, but be advised that's just going to get you blocked. Please undo your edit to the list and/or add some good reliable sources. If someone contests your edit, don't just redo it if you disagree. See WP:EDITWAR/WP:BRD. Please take that as advice and not a threat (I'm not an admin and cannot block). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Please read the article as it was at time of AfD start, and then read the entire AfD, and then notice that a central consensus contributor (Northamerica1000) has approved the urine addition. Besides the edit already having seen approval (by Northamerica1000), then: The difference practices & contexts of drinking urine is very well sourced, thanks to already existing WP articles (primarily the two articles Urine therapy, and urophagia).
I shall, like you, assume your opinion has been stated in good faith, and take no further action against you. -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You are missing or sidestepping the point. When material is challenged, the WP:BURDEN is on whoever wants to restore it to find consensus to do so. Northamerica1000 fixing your capitalization is not an endorsement of unsourced content or edit warring, nor would one other editor not reverting be a sign of consensus to justify edit warring. The specifics of the content are irrelevant for these purposes. It's really straightforward: if you add unsourced content and it's challenged, the burden is on you to add good sources. In this case, reliable sources that say it's a "breakfast drink". Regardless of sourcing, if you make an edit and someone challenges it -- even if they're dead wrong -- you'll still need to find consensus on the talk page before restoring. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's implicit confirmation per Northamerica1000's edit: If my addition should not have been added, then he would have removed it, instead of subjected it to a simple typo-fix.
Furthermore, as I already pointed out, the addition is in alignment with definitions given in the article, definitions which was confirmed per the AfD, and the addition is sourced (ref. what I wrote before).
Please either let it be as-is now, or escalate it to the appropriate noticeboard. -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is how Wikipedia works, but I try not to make a habit of taking people to WP:ANI when there's a chance it won't be necessary. So I'm going to remove it again, strongly encourage you to read WP policies/guidelines such that you realize I'm not making things up to be a jerk, and will take you up on your noticeboard suggestion if you opt to add urine to the list for a third time without including some good sources calling it a "breakfast drink" (which likewise do not exist in the urine article). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nb. I was not endorsing anything, neither implicitly or directly. My edit was simply to correct capitalization. North America1000 20:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I come from a very different school of thought: I always take decisions about something being garbage (or not) as a first, and only then (if deemed not garbage) do I spend any time polishing said something. -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I've located references, which I'll add, so that Rhododendroopie .... -- DexterPointy (talk)
DexterPointy - I hope you are not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point having failed to get the article deleted at AfD. Urine may be something that some people drink in the morning, but that does not make it part of a breakfast meal. I take medication first thing in the morning but it is not my breakfast. You've loaded the section with six references but four are blogs, one is a discussion board and the one that might actually be reliable says nothing of breakfast. In any case, these references talk predominantly about drinking urine before breakfast, after breakfast or to accompany breakfast - phrases which which indicate that it is not actually breakfast. Dorsetonian (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed as per my final remarks http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_breakfast_drinks&type=revision&diff=850994373&oldid=850932836
-- DexterPointy (talk)

Pinging

[edit]

Heads up, pings/mentions only work when placed at the same time as signing a comment. So your mention of Ritchie333 here wouldn't have gone thru. That being said - you're leaving a talkpage message, so a mention really shouldn't be needed. SQLQuery me! 22:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I actually know that ;-)
That particular one, isn't a technical ping, but rather a clarification (kind of poking FeydHuxtable). I added "@Ritchie333:" (as a plain string), when FeydHuxtable suddenly seemed to be replying on Ritchie333's behalf.
But I do very much appreciate you telling me such a technical detail; I actually learned the fact not too long ago, at a time when I didn't know, and someone told me about it, in conjunction with me actually having attempted a ping, and failed. So, Thanks! -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HAH! Ok - misread! SQLQuery me! 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Pending Changes Reviewer!

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended welcome

[edit]

because we're generally a friendly lot here and since you are so new and 'blissfully unaware' of our practices and policies. First thing to know is WP:TPG. We appreciate the enthusiasm of new users but working in deletions is not something they should be attempting. If you can't think of anything new to contribute, don't worry, you would certainly be welcome to carry out one of the easiest but most important tasks which is removing vandalism. For this I have added your account to the special Pending Changes Reviewer user group to save you having to ask for the right at WP:PERM. When you have become adept at that, you may wish to enroll at the WP:CVUA and obtain the WP:Rollback right. You've gotten off to a wonky start here by using authoritative phrases like "I shall take no further action against you" - do please bear in mind that that unless you have checked out their user pages first, you may not know, that like Rhododendrites for example, they might be one of our most mature and experienced editors. Maintaining the corpus and keeping it free of unwanted content demands significant experience and good communication skills - users who tag articles for deletion, whether or not they have the WP:NPR right to patrol new articles, are expected to have read, studied, and fully understood WP:DELETION, WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:PROD, and then WP:NPP too. Many people jump straight into Wikipedia, particularly younger users, who don't realise that although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there is a lot to learn. Don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you want any help advice or use the links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page - and BTW, the policy I was referring to at the AfD is: WP:ATD-R. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I think "wonky start" is a great description :-)
Now, if you go back to that school AfD then: I'm not "blissfully unaware" of everything, as you here above seem to suggest. The "blissfully unaware" is applied only to specifically crafted school-redirect-policies, and recent RfC pertaining to such.
Your next logical question might be: "If you're aware of the general preference to redirect, rather than delete, then why didn't you make any redirect suggestion in the AfD?".
That's simple to answer: I'm not familiar with the subset of WP's corpus concerned with schools in India. I could spend ours hours trying to find what could be good candidates for redirecting, and still fail miserably. That in contrast to a Wikipedian being an expert in said field, who'd be able to spend 30 seconds and succeed, where I could spend hours and fail.
Anyway, I have added a note (to the AfD) to clarify that I'm definitely not opposed to redirect.

Thanks for the "Pending Changes Reviewer" rights :-)
- I don't think I actually need it, but I could be very wrong (I've always found the future being the most difficult thing to predict).

Furthermore, regarding "We appreciate the enthusiasm of new users but working in deletions is not something they should be attempting."
Frankly, that's the wrong elephant. I'm seeing examples of users, who are anything but new, churning through AfDs, making horrible non-sense underway.
Taking this to the edge, then: Would you tell a new WP user, who'd happen to be Neil deGrasse Tyson, to not do AfD on articles being mad fringe like "Pear-shaped Earth theory", just because he hadn't read all thousands of pages of WP policies, guidelines, essays, RfCs, etc.(?)
Additionally, from the very foundation of WP, is a precursory admittance of failure regarding WP policies, guidelines, essays, RfCs, etc. : The 5'th pillar, which is brilliantly expressed in its brevity through WP:IAR.
I don't tend to use the 5'th-pillar/WP:IAR in arguments (this time here might actually be a first), because it has huge boomerang potential, but am going to here: I am, in what you wrote above, counting 11 (eleven!) WP:X-links, and accompanying text to further pile on tasks to the effect of projecting what can best be described as a kafkaesque potpourri.
I would therefore suggest you need to take a step back, because it's difficult to see the picture when you're in the frame.
And, as always, remember: Offence is mostly taken, not given ;-)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
You are 'blissfully unaware' (those were your own words) because that is a general policy which does not only apply to schools. So I suggest you take a step back. You don't tell your diving instructor how to drive a car and you don't get to drive on the motorway until you've past your test. Start as you should and work your way into the system rather than beginning by being hostile, Wikilawyering with very mature oild hands, and trying to do everything at once - you'll find that we're actually quite forgiving. Otherwise you are not going to enjoy your Wikitime. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you're calling me hostile? -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: : Ref. AfD:Bantul Mahakali High School
Thank you very much for providing the link to the RfC :-)
I have one incredibly small question: Why is the link to a/that particular revision?, i.e. to
: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=&oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability
instead of a more generic variant, i.e. like
: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_133#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-pasted the link from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, DexterPointy. The RfC was closed in that revision, so there shouldn't be any difference between it an the version that got archived. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar AFD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks

[edit]

You have participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks. Therefore, you might be interested in the the 2nd nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: Yeah, I actually noticed that you created a 2'nd AfD on it yesterday, just when I was about to leave WP for the day. The last thing I did before leaving WP for the day, was to create an item on my ToDo-list, to the effect of >>Tyw7, Talk-page: Create "Tyler ... Tyler Durden ... is that you?"<< (I see I'm now too late to execute that, and we're talking on my talk-page, instead of yours.)
Well, Your initiative really made my day :-)
Though, there's a problem: There is at least technical/policy merit to reject an AfD, by it being created straight on the back-end of another AfD.
Having said that, I also still think it's a list with no future:
- Northamerica1000's attempt to address the fundamental problem has amounted to this "improvement".
- Andrew D.'s "improventments", has been to delete "Olive oil" and add "Beer". The latter being common in Britain in the 16'th century.
I have little hope that either will somehow eventually arrive at the conclusion that it's an untenable list, but give it some time, and it should be easier to get the list deleted. Once a sufficiently high pile of pig carcasses at the foot of the cliff is there, it should be fairly easy to have most sane people realise that pigs do not actually fly, they only plummet.
(and I'd better now go read the 2'nd AfD to see what's going on it)
--DexterPointy (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He seem to come up with a compromise http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=851764134 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: Have you read the "Speedy Keep" by AmericanAir88 ?
I'm really tempted to there insert that peacock
Only natural humility prevents the truth being spoken; truth being "Gods greatest gift to mankind".

--DexterPointy (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. And ha ha. Up to you. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AD and the food article

[edit]

To be fair AD did appear soon after the article was nominated http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks_(2nd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=851675974

So maybe he's watching that page --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: Another, possibly simpler explanation, is that he got the list itself on his watchlist, i.e. he caught the AfD via http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_drinks&oldid=851675925 (come to think of it, that might actually be that early I myself caught it ... hmmm, well, whatever, I certainly wasn't canvassed)
But am I missing a point as to why it's important when he showed up? (I would have been very surprised if hadn't shown up at all)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was based on your comment that he appeared because he was notified. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: Ah, no, my comment was on when Northamerica1000, Ritchie333, and I - might have received the alert. Not AD. I was responding to AD, but not making any commenting on when AD showed up (Ref. what I wrote as: "If that's canvassing, then Northamerica1000 and Ritchie333 was equally canvassed, and that earlier than you (Andrew D.) allege.")
--DexterPointy (talk)
Ah gotcha. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Boston Confucians‎.

[edit]

@Tyw7: I noticed your recent edit to Boston Confucians, and if that article is something you might be into, then you and @Shoessss: should team up.
Ref. the recent AfD:Boston Confucians, then Shoessss is currently working on a copy of the article, in his sandbox (I was previously unable to find said copy, so better ask Shoessss as to where).
--DexterPointy (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would be interested. Thanks for asking though. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing a great job of concealing your enthusiasm for editing it.
OK, humour aside, I'll now be serious:
@SoWhy: We seem to have hit a problem. You closed the AfD a bit early. Partly by overlooking that a valid rationale was actually given ("Notability of the topic is somewhat questionable, but ..."), but more importantly in cutting a pledge to edit a bit short. - The current situation is that the pledged editor seems to never have followed though; haven't respond to pings (10.July, 18.July, 24.July) and may possibly never have made the copy for editing, which he said he had made.
So, where do we go from here?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we take it to your talk page? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see "we" already did (and I'm OK with it). -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SoWhy as I think I broke the ping. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged) I closed the AFD after a week of discussion. You wrote Notability of the topic is somewhat questionable, but if it is deemed passing the notability criteria (i.e. first basic requirement for keeping it), but basically admitted that notability is not the main problem and Shoessss argued it was a notable topic, so there was not consensus to delete. Whether Shoessss follows through with their pledge or not is not relevant for the closure of the AFD (cf. WP:NODEADLINE), so I'm unsure why you pinged me. If you wish to renominate it for deletion because the topic fails the notability criteria, feel free to do so but make it clear that you do not believe this should be included (and not just not in the current form). If not, WP:FIXIT yourself or wait for someone to do it (or ask someone from Category:Wikipedians with Philosophy degrees for example). Remember, fixing something can also mean to WP:STUBIFY the article until someone with more knowledge writes something useful. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I pinged you as "last" course of action: Tyw7 isn't interested in editing, Shoessss is out of reach, I am not competent to edit the article, which really left you as only option as someone who had at least seen the article (here excluding people in history, who has since left WP).
Is there a way to do a "group"-ping (users in the mentioned category), and, if yes, wouldn't that be considered spammy? -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The {{reply}} template allows up to 50 names but I'm pretty sure people will consider that spammy. I would suggest going through that category and sending a short message to users who are both active and indicated on their user pages that they are willing to help out if asked. For example (if I can be naughty and ping them), J Milburn is both an admin and philosopher who is also a prolific content contributor and a FA mentor. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Thank you :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that I've seen this; I've come across new Confucianism, but I don't have any serious knowledge of it. In my view, the article reads like it was written by someone who knows a bit about Boston Confucianism, but doesn't know a lot about Wikipedia. I've tidied up the article a little, but it's still very much only an under-reference start-class article. WikiProject Philosophy or WikiProject Religion may be places to leave a note, but I don't know how active either of them are. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it seems it was written by someone who wrote an MA thesis on new Confucianism in the '80s. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Thank you! - I shall now sleep peacefully, knowing that I've left the article in competent care :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast drink list

[edit]

It seems that there are now new editors who are vocal in deleting the article. I guess the posting on various WikiProject and talk pages worked in gaining attention to the AFD. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: I'm still reading along ;-)
And with all this new additional attention, then I probably will not be posting in the AfD again. (Though, if NA1k's half-arsed page-view argument suddenly gets attention, then I'll probably need to post.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Gnome: I'm going to assume good faith, by assuming that you forgot to mention the very important ingredient of unicorn drool, i.e. that you actually intended to write "one fresh ostrich-egg mixed with elephant milk, spiced with unicorn drool". Obviously, without unicorn drool, such a beverage would be even more disgusting than the urine one. -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why you feel the need to engage in mythical notions is beyond me. Ostrich eggs are real and elephant milk is real but unicorn drool is an entirely fictitious notion. Please be serious. Unicorns do not drool. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one sad truth is that: Unicorns are about as rare as flying pigs, which has caused most people to discard both as fictitious. But at least you know that unicorns are real, though claiming that they do not drool, does strongly suggest that you do not mix unicorn drool into your breakfast drink. Hmmm. -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock by Proxy - Meatpuppet, Sockpuppet, or another critter?

[edit]
Pillar #6 is not "thou shalt not write articles about pizza cheese", as clearly not illustrated, by these gummi bears.

@Drmies and Ritchie333:
Yesterday, I took the liberty to read through much/some of
- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000
- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000_2
I noticed that both of you (Drmies, Ritchie333) where part of the people who had concerns about Northamerica1000's combative nature, communication skills, and tone-deafness to arguments. Another thing which was mentioned (by others) in the RfA was Northamerica1000 being an extreme inclusionist (and from the little I've seen in very recent times, I can only think of one who might be more extreme than him). - A seemingly very minor thing, which I found in the 1'st RfAs, was in the "Additional questions from Mtking", from where I quote Mtking7: "I am still a bit confused of over the change from account to another one, you stopped editing with Unitedstates1000 and six minutes later you created this one, then continued to edit in the subject area of Hotels, yet you took to last month before you linked the two accounts."

OK, fast forward to present time.
Go to the 2'nd AfD for "List of breakfast drink", and locate the "Speedy Keep" by AmericanAir88 @ 24.Jul.2018, 15:31 UTC.
- Who the hell would spout such appraisal(?)
- Also: Further down the 2'nd AfD from there, I'm seeing signs of AmericanAir88 displaying same/similar kind of combativeness up the alley of Northamerica1000 hallmark.
What on earth is going on?!?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I've never had cause to question NA1000's administrative decisions--Ritchie, have you? I frequently don't agree with their article creation/retention thoughts, but that's another matter (AfDs are frequently collection bins for rubbish remarks, like "the Colonel is one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors" or comments like "high quality and this is no exception". (That article should use Bert and Ernie's breakfast song as a source--why not?) As for AmericanAir, I'm going to leave them a note in the AfD--but if you're suggesting that that editor and NA1000 have something to do with each other, you're going to have to come with some seriously strong arguments before I really entertain that thought. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:The primary/first concern is AmericanAir88 (NA1000 is rather secondary) :
The "Speedy Keep"-posting (by AmericanAir88) is a deployment of a common crappy marketing boilerplate kind, like:
"<X> is a dedicated, fantastic <producer-kind>. The <product-type> <X> produces are always high quality and this is no exception. This <product> passes a <QA-kind> review and ensures the importance of <product-usage/scope/benefit>. With <#Numberof> <awards/recommendations> and a <product-feature>, this <product> ensures <some kind of perceived or made-up benefit for the concumer>."
Not only does the posting fit such second-rate marketing boilerplate, but it also uses a ping for NA1000, which there's really no obvious need for (since NA1000 already is part of the Afd). That ping inclusion make it look like "Hey, I posted as agreed upon" ; I dare not make any kind of guesswork as to what kind of agreement (or business transaction) might be involved.
Strong argument(?) - I don't know where to find the WP equivalent of Michael Cohen stuff.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there Dexter, @Drmies and Ritchie333: AmericanAir88 and I have collaborated a bit as part of the WP:CLEAN WikiProject, such as on the List of water parks article (see the talk page). I have no control over what the user states in AfD discussions or anywhere else. We are not particularly closely acquainted. Also, I welcome discussion about any admin actions I perform on my talk page at any time. I must admit, I find the header of this thread "Peacock by Proxy - Meatpuppet, Sockpuppet, or another critter?" to be highly inappropriate, bordering on casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONS against my personal character. To be crystal clear: I only edit under this user name. Period. I do not edit under any other account or IP. Period. I do not control what other users type on their computers. Period. Furthermore, why have you cherry picked from my RfAs in such a subjective manner, then making such allegations of potential socking on some of personal whim? Quite the synthesis. North America1000 16:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Northamerica1000, I agree with your comment on the header and I would have changed it immediately if it hadn't been on a user talk page, where we give editors some more latitude. If you would like to try and sway me, go ahead. Let me reiterate: I have no reason whatsoever to think that you and that other editor are in cahoots one way or another, nor do I find you at all combative, for instance, to use one of the terms used here (the other editor, they are a bit combative). So yes, I agree with your note on the inappropriateness of these accusations and I guess I could/should have made that more strongly--DexterPointy, am I being clear enough? NA1000 has been around for years, I've duked it out with them in various places and collaborated with them in others, and their AfD passed--and I have no problem with that whatsoever. NA1000, I don't remember if I ever congratulated you for getting that badge, but I hope my comment above shows you well enough that I trust you just as much as any other admin, and as far as I know you have done an excellent job not using your tools in areas where you were criticized before you became an admin, or in ways that would leave you open for criticism. Thanks for responding here, for pinging, and for thus giving me the chance to be more comprehensive than I was before. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Drmies:, @Northamerica1000:, and @Ritchie333:. First off I find it very inappropriate and offensive to accuse me of being a sock/meat puppet. I PING EVERYONE. I created this account exactly one year ago in order to help better wikipedia and rise up as an editor. I do wikipedia editing as a hobby while focusing on my office job. My main goals are to reduce the backlog and help in anyway possible. I have contributed a big amount of my time to wikipedia and have no plans of stopping as the community is very welcoming and mature. I first encountered NorthA on the cleanup page. I praise the user for their excellent work and dedication to wikipedia. Today, I respond to the users maintenance tags and collaborate on cleanup projects. NorthA. has been an inspiration for me because the growth and work that user achieved has inspired me to be much more active in the recent months. Recently, I have become very involved in the AFD discussions as I want to help contribute my opinions to them and reduce the backlog. I will admit that the beginning of my comment does sound suspicious but it was meant to praise the work and article creation NorthA has done to show that the article is not some Amateur created stub. I have several other reasons why the article should be kept.
Please do not accuse NorthA. of anything. That user has not done anything wrong and does not deserve accusation. It was my fault for the wording in my "keep" statement. NorthA is a huge asset to my wikipedia editing and fantastic to work with. Please do not accuse the user of anything. It was all my fault, I apologize for my wording and promise to improve. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, DexterPointy, feel free to start an WP:SPI if you'd like; I have no concerns because I only edit under this one account. Not that I want you to waste checkusers' and other people's time, but if you're really concerned, then go right ahead. What I do have concerns about, however, is the casting of baseless WP:ASPERSIONS against my character as you have done above, because it is wrong. North America1000 16:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any SPI will be judged on its merits, but editors are warned: admins active at SPI are busy and don't take kindly to foolishness. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:, @Northamerica1000:, and @Ritchie333:. NorthA, don't listen to them. I have no idea why they are doing this, I was just praising you because you are my Wikipedia idol and to show the articles origin. I apologize for this drama. For the others: Why start an SPI? I edit on ONE account and its been a year. How dare you offend and embarrass NorthA. like that. Why does praise of an Admin lead to SPI??? You are wasting your time trying to investigate nothing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I really don't think you should be talking about casting baseless aspersions, considering what I just had to counter from you. -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want this to become an edit war or conflict. Trust me, NorthA. is innocent and has done nothing wrong. This is all my fault for adding praise in the AFD. I was only praising the user to show that the article was created by an admin/experienced editor. Please, this needs to stop. Lets all talk like adults. NorthA. you have done nothing wrong and you do not deserve to be treated like this. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • DexterPointy, I am another admin who supported Northamerica1000's RfA. You are indeed taking liberties - ones which will lead to you being often accused of bad faith. I never used the word 'hostility' which you suggest, or anything remotely like it in my post above, but certainly if you continue to take things out of context, create out-of-the-blue drama among seasoned editors and admins, like AmericanAir88, Drmies, Ritchie333, Rhododendrites, (and me), not only will you make your stay on Wikipedia unpleasant, but the reception you get may well put you completely off Wikipedia before you even get round to building this encyclopedia much beyond your 46 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record & anyone reading here, then:
    - User:Kudpung has had zero involvement in "List of breakfast drinks" (none in: the article, its talk-page, its 1'st AfD, its 2'nd AfD).
    - I (DexterPointy) first encountered Kudpung at AfD:Bantul Mahakali High School, which led to this spat.
    DexterPointy (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did oppose NA1K's RfA because at the time I thought he had too much of a condescending attitude, but the community disagreed, and after a while I realised I was wrong. Certainly, after doing the GA review for pizza cheese, I was satisfied he was here for the right reasons. He does seem to write a lot about relatively trivial topics, but there's no policy against that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: As I already hinted at Drmies, the entry point ("entry point" being an arguably better wording than "primary concern") was AmericanAir88. What I wrote above the line "OK, fast forward to present time." was intended as introduction, painting the context & background for why on earth I would address you and Drmies (and, in retrospect, I probably should have induced some form of more formal section headers, instead of just using a blank line for separation, i.e. the blank line above "OK, fast forward to present time.")
Incidentally, this thread ("Peacock by Proxy ...") did actually cause shedding of light, incl. light per it resulting in the Sorry-thread by AmericanAir88 (although nobody here have mentioned even seeing that "Sorry"-thread).
Also, I'm going to close this thread down, because I can't see it going anywhere from here, but do feel free to create a new thread if questions or comments are still lingering (I imagine some general ones regarding WP policies, user stances, etc. - might be lingering).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Remarks: This thread is now closed.
This thread has reached a natural impasse since nobody has presented information to further it. WP have neither technical tools & data nor authority to do any proper investigation for these kind of venues (WP can technically not even catch sockpuppets, except for incompetent ones).
-- DexterPointy (talk)

Lost/Mislaid/Abandoned Miscellaneous

[edit]
Lost/Mislaid/Abandoned stuff can be reclaimed from this pool of recycle bins for free.
I would appreciate that you drop your combative attitude, as evident throughout the thread and this closing statement, real soon.We grant a lot of latitude to new editors but as much as we like to assume that every user is acting in good faith, a certain pevel of proffesionalism and etiquette is necessary.When you are casting random aspersions about a quite-established sysop (and engaging in deplorable practices,as to selectively pinging the opposers of his RFA), it's your and only your prerogative to prove your case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.Also, if you think that every opposer in a succesful RFA or an editor in an editorial dispute is on their toes to catch the promoted candidate or his opponent, you're flat out wrong.For the record, there's a dedicated venue called WP:SPI and a technical tool called Checkuser to assist in cases of percieved sockpuppetry.You may wish to proceed to such venues but know for a certainty that your evidence is mostly worthless and that it will lead to precise nothing but imposition of a restriction on your editing privileges.∯WBGconverse 14:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do have those tools. I don't know what "information to further it" means though everyone knows that what really happens is that no one agrees with you. Did Kudpung say you have 46 mainspace edits? Please see WP:NOTHERE, which is a link sometimes invoked when people are more trouble than they're worth. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Education Not for Sale

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantul Mahakali High School

[edit]

For your information. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing bad nominations by User:Shadowowl

[edit]

Since the ANI thread is now closed, I will reply here.

Honestly i was expecting some sort of backlash from EM but I got a Thank you which is more than I expected. WE should give some time to EM. hopefully he will improve. If not the matter can again be taken to ANI. as the closing admin said, it may deserve short block. --DBigXray 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RFC of stub articles about Norwegian mountain

[edit]

I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. I am posting this notice since you had participated in the AFD for the mountains. Therefore, if you or any interested page stalkers / editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DexterPointy&oldid=854248801"