Important!

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

Please Hello, please don't vandalize me...

Archives (Index)

2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

@TheImaCow:

Could you answer my edit request please on Talk:Big Brother (Australian season 12) as the votes on Big Brother (Australian season 12) are currently incorrect Taliarycroft (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

@TheImaCow: See [[Talk:Big Brother (Australian season 12). My edit still isn’t done. And there is still incorrect information on Big Brother (Australian season 12). If the page wasn’t locked I could add it myself.Taliarycroft (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

i want to update the name of rhea father but only reference is a blog site .would i do it.

Hi! – me again. You've nominated a lot of templates like this one for G8 deletion, which appears to be correct – there's no parent page. But I'm not seeing that you notified Ederporto for any of them, so I've left a note on his/her talk (obviously there shouldn't have been thirty or whatever notifications, but one would probably have been good). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks for the info, i'll do that next time. well, i hope.. TheImaCow (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In regards to my changes on Philippine expressway network, Skyway is part of E2/AH26, as proven by the reassurance sign as seen on it between Bicutan and Sucat Exits. I've been there earlier today and I saw that sign. I just moved it to under E2.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.100.235 (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it looks like you rolled back just the second of two deletions from this article. Do you want to take it back further? I can re-implement the chart change that I put in if you do. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarabocchio,  Done, thanks for the notice! I restored the removed content and re-added your change. TheImaCow (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother! I am unassigned to Wikipedia, but those edits of mine which you rollback in page Meitei Manipuri deities are for the better formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4066:e92:a627::260a:ee0e (talk • contribs)

2409:4066:e92:a627::260a:ee0e Hello, sorry. I just saw this edit, and reverted it, but this reverted all your edits. Its now back to your version. Thanks for the notice. :) --TheImaCow (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 1996-97 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team article has been live for some time, so the draft that you created by moving it from my sandbox can be deleted. (Had used it as a template for other seasons, but is no longer needed on my sandbox page either, no worries.) Phizz007 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your closure of the Maddux (statistic) AfD. How did you determine there was a keep consensus when there had been no discussion following a relist? I created the page so it's the outcome I believe right but I still don't understand it. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow: I see that you answered Praxidicae below about the AfD they brought forward but I would like an answer about how you determined a keep consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddux (statistic). Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, The reason for the keep was, well, the two weak keeps. In your commentary I saw neither a "keep" nor a "delete". And, since the discussion had been relisted unsuccessfully before, I assumed that there would be no further discussion this time either. -- But I wouldn't have anything at all against relisting the AfD again, if you want that/if that's how it should be. TheImaCow (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your keep here. One single no-substance !vote is not a clear keep and this should be relisted. Please also read WP:NAC and WP:RELISTBIAS. I'd strongly discourage you from any further NACs given your very short tenure here and relative inexperience in deletion areas, including AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Done, thanks for the notice. This is probably a good idea .. TheImaCow (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you'll heed my advice and refrain from any NACs for the foreseeable future (including FFD NACs, as they appear to be problematic too.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheImaCow. In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and pursuant to WP:NACD, I am also overturning, or in the process of overturning, the following NACs of deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabhi Saas Kabhi Bahu
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OtherView
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warfare Noise
• Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_May_6#File:Krysten_Ritter_as_Jessica_Jones.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_May_30#File:The_Wedding_Squanchers.jpg
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rind Khan

Remember, WP:BADNAC states that non-administrators should not close discussions when the "outcome is a close call". In Kabhi Saas Kabhi Bahu and OtherView, there was only one participant who preferred keep and the nominator (who preferred delete). That is not clear enough to be a NAC. In Warfare Noise, you closed the discussion after two relists (relists, by definition, indicate that it's a close call), without any further comments – that is not clear enough for NAC. Similarly, the two FfDs you closed had only one comment from the non-nominator, and in Rind Khan, you closed after an admin relisted, without further comments from participants.

I would urge you generally to refrain from closing deletion discussions (or other discussions) for, at minimum, six months. Closing discussions is a task that takes a great deal of experience and understanding, and generally, discussion closing is not a significant backlog. You can make far greater contributions by taking the time to actually provide comments on AfDs after review (yes, it will take longer; my AfD !votes generally take me 15 minutes each or more of research, thought, and writing).

In the area of closing discussions, as well as in general across Wikipedia, the problems that are caused by every wrong action taken are many times worse than the good that comes out of every correct action taken, because of the time it takes others to review, the frustration that it causes, and worst of all the chance that incorrect actions will slip through review. Please, in everything that you do, keep in mind what I wrote just three weeks ago. I genuinely don't mean this as a threat (and I won't take any action myself), but I am concerned that you are headed towards sanctions if similar problems persist. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]