Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2013

The Homestead (Georges Hall, NSW),[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

65 million years ago[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget, since this is a double redirect. Consensus is against deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous period ended 66 million years ago Eyesnore (PC) 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it should retarget to Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event since the current target redirects there.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Human world losses by country after WWII[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newly created, misleading, absurd redirect. "Human world" is absurd; "World human" would be plausible but it doesn't read right. And it should be losses during WWII rather than after WWII. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I haven't been notified of the discussion for deletion of the redirect. Anyway I had in mind to insert it in a {{Further}} template. That is because the code doesn't not accept article sections. BTW have you ever heard of "non-earthlings" at all?   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fairly sure there were no extraterrestrial casualties of WWII.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic personal attacks and accusations
      • @Fyre2387: How do you know?
      • @Maurice Carbonaro: I do apologize for not notifying you, but a majority of your edits violate Wikipedia guidelines or fail to make sense in English. Do I need to notify you of each of the edits I revert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Arthur Rubin: I do apologize if the "majority of my edits violate Wikipedia guidelines or fail to make sense in English". Please WP:AGF. Honestly. BTW I will try my best to follow the mainstream in the future. Cross my heart and hope to die. --   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fyre2387: I believe your thoughts are borderline WP:NPOV. --   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Care to elaborate on that?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm... Yeah, I do care to elaborate on that... in... private mail if it's okay with you?   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you'll make wild accusations that I'm violating core policies and refuse to defend them publicly? Very classy. Still, if you insist, Special:EmailUser/Fyre2387, although I may not reply likewise, as I prefer to keep my email confidential. My talk page is also available.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Fyre2387 I apologize because obviously I must have been misunderstood. My comment, that was honestly aiming to be humouristic, was referrring to your comment "I'm fairly sure there were no extraterrestrial casualties of WWII.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)". That's it. But please forget about it: if you "may not reply likewise" I might as well not even email you if you take it this way. It's just that I find interesting to speculate on the existence of E.T.s. Best of all --  M aurice   Carbonaro  06:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Borderline R3. As Arthur Rubin says above, the phrasing is just nonsensical.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the statement above. I doubt that anyone looking for deaths from WW II would use the term human world.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is just a jumble of words. It is impossible to tell the creator's intentions—is it a joke? incompetence? Should the indefinite block be reinstated? In brief, the redirect is unhelpful and it is irritating to have to debate such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical redirect. Maurice also appears to be trolling, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pineapple_face[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, abusive/offensive, not an actual nickname. Relaxing (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Offensive redirect no mention in main article, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brian Dunning (felon)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Severe BLP violation. No source calls Dunning a felon, and the final judgement is not publicly available. His case, where he entered into a plea deal is still ongoing as far as I can make out. His wire fraud case is a not the sole contributor to his notability, and this smacks of grave dancing. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program.Brian's page at FBI.GOV Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that any use of the word "felon" in the title is unnecessary. The subject is well-established as primarily an author and businessman. His court case, once complete, merits a mention in the article but not in the title. I made a quick check and did not find any other BLPs that have that word in the descriptor. Allecher (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe felony convictions for CEOs are regarded as just cutting the teeth in some circles, but for most of the world, pleading guilty to felony fraud does not go along with being a well-established anything, except a well-established felon. It certainly removes any chance anyone would mistake him as a well-established businessman - in many states, he can't even qualify for welfare anymore, let alone a business loan.Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I looked at the FBI most wanted list and other articles and could not find such descriptors. WP:NDESC is the guidance. The parens description is needed only because we have another Brian Dunning. "(author)" serves quite well. (Thanks) – S. Rich (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well OF COURSE he's not on the FBI's most wanted list. He pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. I think you have a very flawed idea of what the most wanted list is - that's a list of fugitives from the law, not a list of felons. You can find his page on the FBI's website here: [4] Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be necessary at all, except for the fact there is more than one guy with that name. As a result, his most notable act - ripping off millions of dollars - should distinguish him. The use of felon here is actually quite kind, as it is merely a legal term, backed by both facts and admission of guilt. It's not like I moved the page to Brian Dunning (mega-thief). Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pbp 20:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had no idea who this Internet personality was until I read of his crimes in the news, which involved several million dollars. Definitely several orders of magnitude more significant than any influence his podcast series has ever had. Dunning is certainly no Richard Dawkins by any stretch of the imagination, but when it comes to electronic fraud, Brian Dunning is The Man. Well, almost - he's still #2 to Shawn Hogan. Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for you to go around calling living people felons when no source does and when you connect the dots. That is WP:BLP violation, and a particularly nasty one. There was a plea deal and you don't know the substance of that deal. If you are unable to see why calling someone a felon is a bad idea, then you should not be editing BLPs. If you perform more BLP violations on other biographies I will seek a sanction on the topic area at arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the FBI press release on this matter, an "evidentiary hearing to determine the loss amount will be held on August 8, 2013." (The reference is on the Dunning talk page, #4.) With this in mind, we do not know how much was taken. Depends upon what the prove-up. In any event, the parens "(author)" serves quite well to distinguish him from the other Dunning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:Matter logo.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Over a month later, this is probably a safe option. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled non-free image, all uses updated making this redirect redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • don't speedy delete. I don't know whether there is a value to having these long term, but it's best to keep them around for at least a short while to help people find the new location. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:MATTER logo.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Over a month later, this is probably a safe option. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image redirect, re-titled owing to duplicative file names. Relevant uses updated, so redirect is redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_24&oldid=1151017773"