user talk:SoWhy

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

Invitation to participate in a discussion about publicly disclosing subscribers of TWL resources

Hi SoWhy, I have started a discussion over our Village pump with the aim of maintaining a public list of all editors who are granted access to any TWL resource. Your thoughts and opinions on the proposal are welcome:-) Regards, ∯WBG^converse

Your GA nomination of Venetica

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Venetica you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Abryn -- Abryn (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jiella

Could you please restore this article? I was in the middle of working on it when you deleted it. -Yupik (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupik: Sure, no problem. I put it at Draft:Jiella where you can work on it in (relative) peace until it no longer meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Regards So Why 08:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest

On 28 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some critics prefaced their reviews of SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest with assurances that it was not as buggy as the main game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Venetica

The article Venetica you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Venetica for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Abryn -- Abryn (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Thanks for your comment in the discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I don't want to pester everyone with yet another remark that some won't like and just wanted to tell you that I did not engage in a deletion review as to me it seems much more important than an article on some physician who makes his fortune with questionable practices for celebrities that Wikipedia should follow due processes and draftification is not abused to circumvent deletion discussions as the rules explicitly say it is not acceptable. In general I am concerned that some users treat especially the newer ones in a condescending way and refuse to justify their actions. That way we will frighten off good faith new users and the whole project will further suffer from a lack of new users that are willing to work also on unpleasant tasks like conflicts about niche topics like this one. Then we are just left with those who tend to treat the common good as their private property. Omikroergosum (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that but I think you missed my point. DRV is for cases in which a mistake was made. AN(I) is for cases where a pattern of mistakes can be demonstrated. Furthermore, while I am against unilateral draftification, the community has so far rejected all proposals to stop it. Regards So Why 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed in the AN discussion, the Draft rules clearly say draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent deletion discussions. This rule is ignored all the time, which is why I think AN is the right place to discuss rather than DRV. I had tried to move to AN/I when an administrator had not only draftified, reverted a reversion of his deletion by a user who confirmed that the negative content was based on valid sources but also blocked recreation and then even deleted the draft in spite of my clear that this is all violation of the WP rules and even threatened me to block me although an admin should refrain from taking further actions when accused of wrongdoing himself.

Why do you overrule a deletion decision but don't restore the article? Omikroergosum (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]