User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

Template:Usertalkpage blue border

A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is a lawyer.

A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver identifies as Cornish.

'Ello 'ello 'ello ! A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is a Constable of the WikiPolice.

This editor likes to turn Wikipedia Green

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome to my User Talk page, I am A Guy Into Books, I current sign as: A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver. This is the place to complain about mistakes I made somewhere and to message me about articles I have worked on. I will probably reply the same day, but if i don't its because I haven't seen your message. I have various work and research commitments which will often distract me or take priority. If you want to get my attention on another page, use a {{ping}} - {{ping|Aguyintobooks}} or post on this page, giving a link to the page in question.

It is approximately 10:37 PM where this user lives (Britain). [refresh]

This user has an alternative account named thebookperson.

I am currently working on.

Review my contributions.

Debris documentar

Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has not been deleted by me, if you want the content back, you can have it refunded by User:RHaworth. However the extreme graphic detail used in the film should not correspond to extreme graphic detail on Wikipedia, some discretion had be used to avoid the unspeakable content. Also there was no indication it was notable, when you recreate it, please find some more sources. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what another editor wrote me over at deletion review: "Overturn and trout the deleting admin. The reason given in the deletion log was "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism", which is what the tagger wrote. That kind of implies it was an A7 deletion, but the article was about a film and A7 does not apply to films. Even if A7 did apply to films the article cited a couple of sources which should have circumvented this. I don't remotely see how this could possibly be vandalism. Granted, the content of the film is obviously rather disgusting (it's about cannibalism), but that certainly doesn't make it vandalism."--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am appalled at this of course, children read this encyclopedia you know - show some restraint. It seems the reaction at deletion review is positive towards your article, out of politeness I will not nominate it for deletion again, although someone else might. And for the record, I still think its disgustingly over-detailed. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENSOR. And I doubt many children will seek out this page... Regardless, when it is restored, we can work out on modifying it so it would not be as detailed.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRATUITOUS. Nevertheless, toning down some of the gory detail would not make it less informative, I would appreciate it if you did. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. After it is restored, I would be glad if you could help me. Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if you {{ping}} me when that happens I will point out the bits that made me vomit the most. :) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three more editors came and argued for restoration since.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleter replied now and still seems very hostile for some reason: "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. So why did you not link to the German version? And yes they do have a problem - have you read the hat note to it? So which of the cited sources even mentions this movie? Try again via AfC if you must." Here is what I wrote back: "German version from which I translated is here. Here is the main source I cited which discusses the film at length. Four editors have by now replied over at deletion review and all said the original reasoning for deletion was spurious."--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well normally I insist of at least 3 sources discussing the subject at length, but I am reluctant to argue that point since it is not why I dislike the article and it would be dishonest. I think the point that admin is making is that he considers the deletion was correct, but that isn't mirrored at deletion review. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest I do?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the deletion review is done, I will add some comments there myself. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have one here too and here are the deleter's comments.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what happens if the original deleter refuses to restore the article?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a deletion review, an uninvolved administrator will adjudicate and decide whether to restore the article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody over there now seems to agree deletion was a poor choice, so, when can it be restored, now that consensus is formed? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the 27th. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original deleter replied over at deletion review. They keep ignoring the fact that I cited two sources in my article, one of whom is a book discussing the film at length. They seem to argue in bad faith, and, anyway, it's eight to one.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well some editors insist on more sources than others, I personally think that 3-4 is the minimum. But don't worry about it, barring a major stampede of censors, it will get restored, although that’s not to say the deleting admin wont send it to AfD directly afterward, you may have to argue the point about the sources there also. 12:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If that's what they'll do, then it seems almost as if they have some vendetta against me, especially given the hostility earlier. And they specifically wrote I only cited one source, which is blatantly false. Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No admin wants to admit they wrongly deleted a page. Its just not happening, he might be trouted, obviously he will argue his corner. And anyway he has a point, he has doubts that an article with two sources would survive a AfD, saying it only had one source is odd, can't explain that. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by bad faith. They're probably simply outright lying for their case against me and should be monitored and taken with a grain of salt for their decision regarding the case in the future. They continute to make snarky and hostile comments against me on their talk page, the latest: "I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks," strange given how I used them in the original article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article got restored and promptly nominated for AfD. Please see my comment there, and, maybe, you could help out. Thanks. I do not understand why people here continue to ignore the fact that I cited two sources, not one, including a book discussing the film at length, despite the fact that I mentioned it several times. Another editor made it more visible, yet, people seem to continue ignoring this fact.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people there seem to support deletion. Can you, maybe, try to convince them to support merging, instead? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina van Idsinga

Sorry, Aguyintobooks, but a one-line stub taken from a foreign language Wikipedia is not acceptable. Such pages are of no encyclopediac value and no one will bother to expand them. Please consider translating it yourself or doing a Google translation then cleaning it up. Remember to include the attribution to the original article (See: WP:Translation). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when that one-line stub has zero references. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that one line stubs don't violate policy, another asked for this to be created and I created it from the WIR lists, I stand by it, obviously I will add to it when I have time. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would genuinely like to know who (or where, if it's not on-wiki) told you that a one-line unsourced stub is acceptable. All articles must have at least one reference. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told on IRC that it was not a valid rationale for deletion to remove a single sentence article. It is currently connected to the (Dutch?) Wikipedia, which has some sources that I will use to expand it a bit, so would pass a WP:BEFORE, (we have over 1000 other unsourced BLP's in a similar situation, but don't worry I will deal with it). I have been rather busy trying to save Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne‎ from being deleted. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 14:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your new signature

Hey there, this might be a nit-picky, but I feel your new signature (A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver) goes against the signature guideline. Namely..

A customized signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.

Again, I'll admit it's a small thing, but I literally thought you were a different person in a discussion, which could be misleading. Just a thought. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I have been careful not mix my old and new signatures, It links to my talk-page, which is also my user-page, and is my name, so perfectly descriptive. I appreciate the thoughts though. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I thought you were someone else. It both confused and intrigued me. Regards Widefox; talk 11:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is deliberate that the signature is different by the way. It is the closest thing to a 'fresh start' i am going to do. coupled with not doing npp or afc or nominating AfD's. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 12:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what the guideline says, but Drewmutt is right WP:SIG#CustomSig WP:SIGPROB, the sig has to identify the username. This may have the opposite effect of a fresh start IMHO. Widefox; talk 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I went for translating my username, very simple way of altering it. The guide I took inspiration from is here: Wikipedia:Clean start.

Otherwise say I ye this.

Bro goth agan tasow, dha fleghes a'th kar,

Gwlas ker an howlsedhes, pan vro yw dha bar?

War oll an norvys 'th on ni skollys a-les,

Mes agan kerensa yw dhis.

Kernow, Kernow y keryn Kernow;

An mor hedre vo yn fos dhis a-dro

Th on onan hag oll rag Kernow!

A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A (old) local pub of mine -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper stuff. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 14:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to keep nitpicking, but going by [1] (with the colour set to the equivalent of "orange") your sig colour doesn't meet any of the guidelines for accessibility. At the very least it should be AA compliant. See WP:SIGAPP and WP:COLOR. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are again

This edit summary is 100% wrong. People are allowed to edit during an AFD, and "0RR" doesn't exist. If anything, you are the one being disruptive. Please knock it off. I'm tired of having to come to your page every third day regarding your edits. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to know if you used rollback in this diff. If so, explain yourself. Katie^talk 23:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(twinkle katie) Actually I would like you to explain how this was not disruptive? Are you seriously saying I can nominate an article for AfD and then remove all the references, most the content, and stick CN and Multiple issue tags on it? Then go to the discussion and claim it is fabricated on self published sources? Because if that’s allowed then there are some articles I could totally destroy like this, I was under the impression this is not allowed. please clarify. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aguyintobooks (and KrakatoaKatie), I want to AGF, but I don't believe this is truthful. Your twinkle options (found at User:Aguyintobooks/twinkleoptions.js) have the line "summaryAd": " (TWINKLE)",, which explicitly marks the ones done by twinkle. – Nihlus (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't remember doing it manually? but you have a point it doesn't seem to have been twinkle. Still I would like some clarification on the substantial improvements of an article at AfD being effectively destroyed by the nominator. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 08:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll clarify, though you should have understood this before being granted rollback.

Vandalism is a malicious attempt to harm the encyclopedia. Vandalism is not disruption. It is not making a bold edit. It is not the good faith removal of sources one editor does not believe pass WP:RS. It is not the addition of tags. You have a legitimate beef with this edit, and that's fine, but it is definitely not vandalism. Rollback is for clear cases of vandalism only.

Pinging Alex Shih as he granted rollback, because I do not think you should have access to this tool until and unless you understand what is and isn't vandalism, and until the many concerns of other editors and administrators have been addressed. Katie^talk 14:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor comment Wait a min... I'm mentoring him can we if i can get him back on track hold of on removing any further userrights? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to remove it until Alex weighs in. Katie^talk 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @KrakatoaKatie: (Looks like I am a bit late and it has already been done, sorry) Thanks for the ping Katie. I read through some of the removal done by Agricolae and I thought they were legitimate removal (all three sources in this removal for instance did not address the claim that is being made from my reading). The subsequent ill-advised warning is enough for me to support (temporarily, at least) removing the rollback tool. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie removed it at my request before you got here, but basically I never got into anti-vandal stuff. 14:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And per our conversation on IRC, I've removed rollback. Katie^talk 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Skinduptruk (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina van Idsinga moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Wilhelmina van Idsinga, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't have to use the AfC process on this, but a poorly formatted stub with zero references is best incubated in draft space, where you can grow it and add citations to make it comply with WP:V TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelmina van Idsinga (September 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zppix was:

Please make sure all references are inline with the sentence they are referencing

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wilhelmina van Idsinga and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Wilhelmina van Idsinga has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wilhelmina van Idsinga. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]