User talk:IVORK:sea

Template:Rollbacker topicon Template:extended confirmed topicon Welcome!

Response to Extended Confirmed edit request

Excuse me but when you said i only have 30 out of 500 what did you mean? ~C.S.~ (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

G'day, 30/500 refers to Extended-Confirmed users. It is an access level that is granted after a user's account is over 30 days old and has performed over 500 edits. This is required to edit Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing as in order to be a Teahouse Host, you are required to be highly experienced and at a minimum above the level of an Extended Confirmed user. — IVORK _Discuss 07:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Charanjeet Singh Sondhi

You accidentally helped a blocked user evade their block and continue editing. I have deleted Draft:Charanjeet Singh Sondhi once again. If you disagree with my actions in doing so, I'm very happy to discuss it with you. --Yamla (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, my apologies. — IVORK _Discuss 23:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Happily accepted. Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

130px

Hi IVORK. After reviewing your request for "Template:mono", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kalika Prasad Bhattacharya vandalism

Hi. I've been active of late in trying to prevent some pretty untruthful information being introduced into the article mentioned, and I'd just like to thank you for your efforts in dissuading the latest round of idiocy. Just one point: in an edit summary, you mention "BLP violations"? For the record, the subject of the article is deceased, therefore a warning of that nature wouldn't be appropriate, I assume. Thanks a lot though for the vigilance. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

fake parties

can you please help me delete all that fictional political parties without reliable sources and a incorrect assumption of the constitition 194.68.94.68 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, unfortunately I am unfamiliar with the specific topic enough to follow through and propose deletion as per WP:PRD even though all the page links are seemingly broken. I would suggest either creating a proposal for deletion yourself as per WP:PRD with reference to articles stating it as non-existent or by doing the same on a talk page. Be aware that your edit summary in a separate article on the same topic removing unsourced and uncorrect fictional nonsesns per WP:SOUCE. in cuba there is olny one political party legal conflicts with WP:NPOV and as such may be the reason you were reverted in your other edits. Sorry to not be of much help. Ultimately I undid your addition of fake into the intro for Cuban Liberal Union as you would need to cite sources to support that significant of a change to an article. Perhaps @Acroterion: could better explain the situation if he has more to add. — IVORK _Discuss 13:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Prod

FYI: once a wp:Proposed deletion (prod) is removed (by anyone, IP or autoconfirmed), it may not be restored. The next step is a wp:AfD. BTW: have you checked applicability of a wp:speedy deletion? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD

Slow down on speedy deletion, please. Remember that it can drive away new editors making good-faith contributions. I stumbled across two inaccurate deletion nominations, and then looked through your contributions:

• SS Robert E. Lee (1924) is about a ship, not a person, and is thus not an eligible subject for A7.
• Makeblock had a fairly obvious context ("the next generation of construction platforms"). It is not eligible for A7 either, as it is a product and therefore out of scope.
• Panzerselbstfahrlafette is clearly about a tank, and therefore out of scope of A7.
• Hill Street Neighborhood, Comer, Georgia is about a place, and also out of scope for A7.
• Polymer matrix composite clearly expanded on other articles.

In light of these, I would advise that you either stay away from the speedy deletion process for a bit or very carefully review the criteria, particularly for A7. It is far better to be conservative with CSD and instead choose to tag/nominate for deletion through AfD than to overuse CSD nomination which bypasses consensus in favor of efficiency in only the most blatant of deletion cases. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Appable:@Appable: Understood and no problem, those articles have either been expanded or proposed for deletion. It may be worth noting that the Makeblock article has been deleted now as per my WP:CSD#G11 nomination, as it has before as well as once for WP:CSD#A7. The majority of my nominations are due to articles being non-noteable regardless of topic category due partly to the apparent the admin irregularities as well as per WP:IAR — IVORK _Discuss 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as I recall Makeblock was quite promotional. Remember that while ignore all rules is a nice general policy, applying it to a process that specifically bypasses typical consensus-based decision making is a bit of a stretch in most cases. In particular, including products, software, books, and vehicles into A7 has been discussed countless times with consensus against it. Also, WP:A7 describes explicitly that it is about lacking a credible claim of significance - notability is a far higher standard, and if you can't find evidence of notability nominating for deletion under AfD is far better. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)