Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone. Click here to leave me a new message

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

AfDs should run for 7 days unless one of the criteria for an early close is met. Some of your closes today were up to 15 hours early, and also with barely any input to some of the discussions, so I struggle to see how you determined that there was a consensus. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I'll refrain from the AfD pages in the mornings. --Tone 08:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Tone, I object to the deletion of David S. Cassetti as all but one of the Delete votes came before I improved the article. I feel that the page should be restored as in the final form it had meets the requirements of wp:gng. Thank you and I look forward to your reply. Markvs88 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see your point. Let's take it to deletion review to get some input. There still was a comment after the updates were done so I don't feel comfortable overturning the deletion straight away. --Tone 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fair, thank you. Markvs88 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David S. Cassetti. 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. Thanks again, Markvs88 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tone! You recently closed my AfD for the page Lego Interactive, and my intent was that the unsourced original research I inserted years ago would be gone for good, however, it has started popping up on The Lego Group instead. Do you think you'd be able to extract the old content of the original page, just prior to the deletion (which I rewrote with proper sources), and merge it into The Lego Group? Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History restored, feel free to merge further. The redirect stays, I suppose? --Tone 14:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content merged, thanks. You may delete the old revisions again (to prevent that IP user to keep re-establishing the page). Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do. Best, --Tone 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Tone, I would like submit a new version of the deleted Salvatore J. Salamone article. The article was deleted without time for me to submit the revised article, which I believe will make it less promotional and show notability. Would you be able to reconsider the article? Or can I submit the revised article to you? Thank you. --JBuckley93 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think the best idea is to edit it as a draft and then request a move to the mainspace. Let me know if you need any help with that. --Tone 14:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why you delete Katarrama?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarrama. Best, --Tone 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, they maybe aren't like Metallica but they deserve a place in Wikipedia. You can find them on Spotify, Grooveskark, iTunes, Youtube, Amazon Music.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just closed the deletion discussion. There are always options to bring the article back. Maybe discuss it with the editor who nominated the article for deletion? --Tone 16:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Tone. I'm new on this. I'll try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Katarrama. 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. 83.59.133.253 (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Tone, would you please tell me how did you close this a keep. and what is your rational behind it? Mardetanha (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I did not see a consensus to delete this article, the arguments to keep were rather convincing. If there is no consensus to delete, it is a default keep. Best, --Tone 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to disagree with you, several ip addresses which are clearly associated with the website voted for keep, on the other hand, me and other community members put some time and checked and voted but I feel you have neglected them, would you please tell me what arguments did you find convincing (part my of wiki work on different Wikipedias is to fight with cross-wiki spamming and using to wikipedia to promote unremarkable things)? Mardetanha (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last argument was the most convincing for me. But I understand you, I am in principle against unremarkable things as well. --Tone 20:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I understand that you try to clean up stuff but it is unclear why you deleted the Marc Lesser page, especially as several people still discussed it and added material to it. The initial request for deletion came at a phase when there were not enough references, which had been amended in the meantime but nobody reviewed and removed the deletion request.

Please reinstate the page or at least make the material available on in a sandbox area so the people working on this can complete the page and resubmit it. The person for whom this is the page is relevant equal and above many others in his domain who are referred on Wikipedia. The language is unbiased and objective. There is relevant third party material at least to the extent available for many others and it is work in progress like everything on Wikipedia.

Please respond with the required steps to augment this page so that you feel it has the necessary elements for WIkipedia.

Regards Florian Brody (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi. To me, it seemed a rather strong consensus to delete the article, some editors commented after the changes were done. That other people have WP articles is not a convincing argument, perhaps other articles should be deleted as well. What I can do, however, is move the article to the draft space, then you can request move to the mainspace when the article meets all the requirements. Shall I proceed? --Tone 10:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could take a second look at this, I believe the discussion's consensus is to merge. If you feel strongly otherwise, perhaps you could explain how the "keep" rationales outweigh the "merge" rationales. czar 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I just closed it as non-delete, I do not have strong preferences whether it is more of a keep or a merge. A merge can always be carried out outside the AfD process, feel free to go ahead with it. --Tone 13:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general I'd agree but a merge discussion in the case of this unfrequented article would just consist of pinging the AfD participants to repeat what they already said in the AfD, so I'd like to avoid bureaucracy for its own sake and just get back to editing. Do you disagree that the consensus is closer to "merge" than "keep"? And if not, could you re-close it as such? czar 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. Could you take care of closing as merge and notifying the editors involved? Thanks :) --Tone 14:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tone, I was a participant in the discussion so would be better if you updated the AfD closure, though I can take care of everything afterwards czar 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tone, checking back czar 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this :/ AfD updated, is this ok now? --Tone 08:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! But per the new comment, apparently not. Might be better to relist and re-close after another week. I think a third AfD is overkill—AfD in the first place was overkill. czar 16:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. As I said at the beginning, the merge can be carried out outside the AfD process, unless some editors strongly object the merge? --Tone 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This editor has nominated the article for deletion twice despite not having a deletion argument. And now we'll open a third discussion? It's just abuse of process. No one has put forth any sources other than the singular one listed and the topic already has a sufficient section within its merge target because it hasn't been covered independently from its creator. Retracting the close and relisting the AfD would give another week to confirm consensus, though it's a shame that that's even necessary. czar 20:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Czar:, @Andy Dingley:, I think you two should discuss what do do here. The consensus was clearly not to delete, you can solve the merge outside AfD. If I were you, I'd just go WP:BOLD. --Tone 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czar, every year you come back and blank this article. But you don't get to decide on your own, we have AfD. Twice now, AfD has decided not to delete or blank the article as you have wanted and you're going to have to live with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why you're making this personal. The article cites one source and fits within the scope of an existing article. No one has argued for outright deletion so AfD was the wrong venue twice over. Do you object to merger? Because that appears to be the consensus of the last AfD. czar 21:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, please take further discussion to the article talkpage for easier follow-up ;) I think my work here as admin is done. --Tone 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Andy disagrees with redirection/merger, then I'd request that you relist the existing AfD rather than require another to be opened. Sorry to bother you on your talk page but this could have been avoided had the AfD been closed more precisely. czar 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not relisting. It's been closed for several weeks, relisting makes little sense. --Tone 08:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting is standard procedure when the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. You've already said that "merge" was the proper outcome (not "keep"). If you're now unwilling to relist/close it yourself, would you prefer that the closure go through review? Because I don't trust a talk page discussion in a vacuum to be productive at this point. czar 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I got too involved here. I'd prefer an uninvolved admin sort this out. A DRV sounds fine. --Tone 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Cincinnati Time Store – (no longer watching, please ((ping)) if needed) czar 19:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tone,

Why was the page Werd (SOS) removed? If it could have been cleaned up? I tend to sometimes update, and have just been asked for a discography and bio for Edinburgh Press for an upcoming charity rap battle event. Can you please send me the pages information it had before, or restore the artist page? I think it's unfair you have deleted this. I hope it's not a personal attack as Drew / Werd does much for the music scene and genre here in Scotland.

Please let me know. I needed this for press release today and don’t have a copy.

Hi! The page was deleted following a discussion. First, check the arguments made there. If you can address them, I can make the old article a draft so you can improve it. Best, --Tone 13:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :) --Tone 17:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes Sir Sputnik Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes Everyking • Jackmcbarn Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni Oversight changes Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93 Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Hi Tone, just wanted to notify you that though you closed this AfD as delete, the article was not deleted. Was there a reason for this? Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Must have been an error in the script-assisted deletion. Thanks for checking! --Tone 08:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tone. YOu deleted many long years of hard work for my personal page Justin Boller. All of my references provided are correct. Please help resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmproducer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the deletion was the result of the discussion, I just closed it. There are ways to get the article back but please check the discussion first. Best, --Tone 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally would like to see it relisted, I didn't see it at the time, and if possible, I'd like some of User:Ratherbe2000's updates to be considered. I thought I'd reach out to you before considering other options. If nothing else, I'd like to see it considered without the original author's enthusiasm for keeping it regardless of anything else.Naraht (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose you move it to draft space and then submit it to be moved to mainspace. I think this is the easiest way that also gives you a chance to improve the article. Let me know if you need any help with the process. --Tone 21:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Seems you have not deleted La-La Land Records despite closing it per AfD. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the notice ;) --Tone 21:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tone: I am really sorry if I am annoying you, but seems like List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases had the same script error of not being deleted. No problem, always there to help in AfD!

Not bothering at all. Things like this happen. For the second one, it seems I cannot delete it since it has over 5000 revisions (wow!) and one needs steward's tools to do that. Would you mind asking a steward or shall I? Best, --Tone 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tone: I am not sure I know how to do that. By the way, there is a third one undeleted as well at John Evans (supercentenarian). Bad luck with scripting I guess, I noticed the script failed lots of admins recently too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:13, 14 November 2018 Tone (talk | contribs) deleted page Pyorrhoea (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyorrhoea (2nd nomination

You may also want to delete empty Category:Pyorrhoea albums

Sorry to trouble you but most grateful if you are able to restore and do the necessary templating for Talk:Paradox (theorem prover), thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Thanks, it seems that the revert and re-close did not fix it automatically. --Tone 17:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]