User talk:Triplestop

Re: uaa question

Re your message: Personally, no, I would not, but I see another admin did block the account. I would have waited for a true saved edit before taking any action. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 188 question at AN

Hi Triplestop. There a question about Special:AbuseFilter/188 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Filter 188 is not working. Could you please comment there? Thanks. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery

The previous deletion debates were in 2007 and 2009 respectively. The fact that the sourcing is 2013 now should make it clear that the content can't be identical, can it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I have removed the tag as it is incorrect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Contractor Registration

There was a G5 deletion before [1] but I don't know of an AfD discussion about this topic. —rybec 06:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/US_Federal_Contractor_Registration Triplestop (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have forgotten that.

—rybec 17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jamane A Boyd Jr

Hello Triplestop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jamane A Boyd Jr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 speedy deletion has previously been declined by another admin. Take it to AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G4 speedy deletions

Hi Triplestop. In the past half-hour or so I've had occasion to decline a number of your G4 CSD tags. Whilst I'm grateful that someone's gone to the trouble of going through old AFD discussions to check for recreations (a task that rarely gets done), please be wary of applying the {{db-repost}} tag without good reason. I appreciate that, as a non-admin, you have no way of viewing the previous versions of deleted articles, but a quick comparison of the deletion discussion with the new article will usually show whether or not the page is a recreation of an old article or an entirely new page.

For example: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroslav Barnyashev the reasoning for deletion was a lack of sources attesting to the subject's notability - the nominator even went so far as to clarify that the "only source cited is Twitter". The new article, Alexander Rusev, however, contains citations to five separate sources (none of which are Twitter), which in itself means that a new AFD discussion would need to take place in order for the page to be deleted. Jimmy Medranda was deleted because at the time of the AFD he had never played in a major league game; this is readily evident from the deletion discussion - the recreated article clearly states (and verifies with sources) that he has since made an appearance for Sporting Kansas City, and therefore the previous argument for deletion is no longer valid. The article on Ross Jeffries has been deleted a number of times after AFD discussions established that previous versions were unsalvagable self-promotion, but the current version of the page is neutrally worded, referenced and (after I took the simple step of removing some excessive external links) contains no promotional material. Again, a simple comparison of the most recent AFD discussion to the newly-created page would have made this obvious.

Again, I do appreciate your efforts in finding and flagging these pages up; they could easily languish unattended for months or even years otherwise, so thank you for taking on the task. All I'm asking is that you take care to check that WP:G4 really is applicable - just read the deletion discussion and ask yourself, "Does this discussion sound as though it would apply to the article I'm seeing?" If the answer's yes, then by all means tag it - but if it looks like the commentators are discussing a wholly different page, then (assuming deletion is warranted for another reason) a new AFD debate needs to take place. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]