User talk:TheDragonFire/Archives/2017/05
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:TheDragonFire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Speedy deletion declined: FMB INSURANCE
Hello TheDragonFire. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of FMB INSURANCE, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#CORP, WP:CCSI#ORG). Thank you. SoWhy 11:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: That's fair. I always blank on the fact that significance can be inherited. Thanks for pointing me to WP:CCSI, I don't seem to have come across that before and it looks far easier to remember than a lot of the other policy pages. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding the page "Nadir Gohari" the links to academic sources have been established in a clearer and more coherent matter.
The selected bibliography includes sources found on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Nadir+Gohari") and books (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q="Nadir+Gohari"). The citations also have been clearly formatted and academic publishers, such as Routledge (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Routledge) have been clearly demarcated. They were already present, but it seems that this was overlooked due to incorrect formatting and was henceforth corrected for ease of usage.
As an update, the additions of 'Research' and 'Current appointments' along with their academic sites and Wikipedia page links have been included. Lyonex (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you please look once more at the page and see if the changes are sufficient? Any further suggestions for editing would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Lyonex (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Lyonex: Without reviewing the article a lot more, I don't know if the changes are sufficient to meet WP:N, but I think it's enough to avoid {{notability}} tagging. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi TheDragonFire, I noticed that you had very recently moved my article title "Criminal Remedies for Copyright Infringement" to the draft articles namespace. I had initially drafted the article and had submitted the same for review but I decided to incorporate the article as a finalised article anyway. Is there a reason you had moved it back into the draft articles namespace? I had ensured that the article met all the creation guidelines of Wikipedia. Subsequently, another editor deleted the article altogether. Can you let me know what I ought to do about this? Thanks. TheMayFlower17 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @TheMayFlower17: The article is right here. I moved it back to draft space because – while being extensive and decently written – it seemed to have an odd scope and is possibly a candidate for merging with other related articles. AfC article creators often do weird things and move articles to mainspace accidentally, so I think I assumed that that was the case in this instance. Your article came up in a category for misplaced AfC submissions (as you had forgotten to remove the AfC tag from the bottom), and my decision was that the easiest way for those issues to get sorted was to send it back for review. The article was never deleted – the redirect left being from me moving to back to draftspace was. I apologise if that was confusing. You're very welcome to move the page back to mainspace, but you may wish to get some further feedback about the title and exact scope so that it works in unison with other related articles. Sorry for the confusion. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod blp}} tag from Sancar Seçkiner, which you proposed for deletion, as the article now includes one or more sources. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please feel free to nominate it for deletion with a regular {{prod}} or via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13(talk) 21:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! The article may need to go to articles for deletion, but I'm not going to do that right now. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Stub sorting at Geisha Natalie Montes de Oca Robles
 | You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS |
Hello TheDragonFire/Archives/2017,
I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.
If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Extra headings
Please do not remove these that I have restored here [1]. It is to make their addition easier in the future. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- All good. I think I removed them mostly out of habit. TheDragonFire (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
So you think it's ok to remove citations? And edit warring is fine if you're a registered user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.164.43 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have made no comment on the content of your revertions, simply that are well and truly in violation of of WP:3RR. The report to WP:ANI was incorrect, so I moved it to the correct venue. The administrator's responding to the report are more than capable of determining who is at fault and responding accordingly. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
AIV
Hi TheDragonFire, I just wanted to let you know that there were discussions a while ago about non-admin clerking at AIV and the consensus was pretty strongly against it (see here and here). You should probably just stick to reporting users. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarahj2107: Hey! I was literally just thinking about checking on IRC what the established consensus on this was, but I got a little carried away. Good to know, and I'll back off to only commenting when absolutely necessary. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)