User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2012 - Wikipedia

2 people in discussion

Article Images

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Please restore this article and take it to a deletion discussion if you don't think it's notable. There is plenty of very substantial coverage in reliable sources. I understand you may have thought the content was promotional, but it was based on the coverage in reliable sources and you were welcome to improve upon it. The subject is custom crafted boatbuilder that uses finer materials. If it had been an aluminum boat builder, prehaps it might have noted durability and sturdiness, but when reliable sources focus on the beauty and craftmanship used in manufacture then that's what should be noted. Speedy deleting the article is particularly egregious and narrowminded since the article wasn't in any way meant to promote the subject. The article was factual and based on reliable coverage. I understand you may not be familiar with this niche subject matter, but you are bound by the same policies that apply to all editors and administrators. This was not an appropraite speedy candidate and I would appreciate it if you would correct your error. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted due to lack of coverage in sources, it was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, regardless of your actual intent. If you like, I can restore it to your own user space so that you can improve on it at your leisure without danger of being deleted, but I will not restore it to main article space in its most recent state. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please restore it to my userspace. I would also appreciate an explanation of how the content was promotional and misrepresented what was in the sources. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The only text it it was "Cabriana Sea Skiffs is a maker of fiberglass and teak boats in Pensacola, Florida.[1] Described as having classic teak detailing and a graceful hull, the boats are outfitted for serious and recreational fishing. The company is owned by Curt Morse, who grew up "in the Delta riding around in a duck boat”. The company makes a limited number of boats costing between $24,000 and $70,000 in 2010.[2]" Everything in it is factual and well sourced. I am certainly open to the text being tweaked if there was something specific you objected to about the text style or wording. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I consider this matter closed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quasi human | Talk 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my snarkyness. No excuses are needed, you haven't done anything wrong, we all make mistakes. (if I had a penny for mine, I'd be a rich man) Hope the rest of your day is nicer. :) Quasi human | Talk 23:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes but... I spent the rest of the afternoon un-installing, taking apart, re-assembling, and re-installing the garbage disposer in our kitchen, which had jammed. A wet, dirty job, taking me away from my work to earn a living, and from idle time on Wikipedia. Tomorrow will be better, I'm sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way was that an improper G12? I can see that there's an argument over whether it's worth G12ing and then recreating the redirect or simply creating the redirect but in no way was it improper. The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution. Without attribution it's a copyvio. Dpmuk (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was improper because Wikipedia cannot logically infringe on its own content; the tag characterized the article as a "copyright infringement" of another Wikipedia article. A10 was the correct reason for speedy deletion. If the original article is a copyright infringement, then it should be tagged, but as far as I can tell, it is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it can infringe on it's own content. The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution and a simple copy and paste without attribution means we are violating the copyright held by the original contributors. WP:CWW has more on this. As the creator of that page had not linked to the original page in any way they breached the copyright held by all the contributors to the original page, hence the G12 request. Dpmuk (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. WP:CWW doesn't really cover this. This wasn't a content fork, it wasn't a merge, it wasn't a dispute, it wasn't a re-use of deleted material, it wasn't a copy&paste move (although that may have been the intent). The fact remains that an exact duplication of an existing article should be tagged WP:CSD#A10. That's what that tag is for. Either tag works, though, each would result in the content being removed. I'll grant that A10 would be invalid if the title weren't a plausible redirect. In this case it wasn't completely plausible, so A10 was appropriate. However, I felt it was borderline, so I redirected it. The WP:CSD#G12 tag, as far as I have been able to determine, was never intended for internal content, but in either case it got the attention needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put this up for speedy, was because User:JensHjerto and User:Joakimhaukaas had been creating the articles Jens Hjertø, Joakim Haukaas and 2Boys together. I believe 2Boys is some friends of their, but it's been speedy deleted. For these two teens, it must be a victory that the article about Haukaas is not speedy deleted, and with AfD the article is on wikipedia another week. I thought creating article about themselves was a clear candidate for speedy? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, editors with a conflict of interest are not prohibited from creating articles, they are just discouraged from doing so. In some cases a COI editor will create a good article, and we don't want to discourage good articles. WP:BAND is pretty clear on what merits inclusion, and this looked borderline enough based on discography and mention of a notable label, that I had to decline the speedy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, at the suggestion of User:Binksternet can I ask you to semi-protect my user page and talk page? I got a bunch of vandalism from a now-blocked IP user today, and I get it from IP addresses every so often. Thanks for your consideration. NYyankees51 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Azteca horse. Unfortunately, you protected the wrong version containing the disputed new material that could subject it to a GAR. Can you restore it to the version that passed GA, which is this one, or, if you'd prefer, the last consensus edit, a few days later, which was this. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An admin reverting to something other than the last version, when the last version is clearly an edit in a content dispute and not vandalism, would be equivalent to taking sides. I don't see any danger of a GAR for an article fully protected due to a content dispute (although protection any version shows that the article is unstable, so perhaps it should not have been GA in the first place).

Once a version is protected, it stays that way until the dispute is resolved. To understand the reasoning for this, please see m:The Wrong Version. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am aware of policy, but the policy has flexibility. My protection request was to the last stable version, not the last version, admins have room to do this. (And actually, at the time of my request, the last version was a revert to the stable one, not what's there now, but I understand lag time. We have a long history with this particular user, who has done this before, most recently attacking another FA article the day it was being prepped for a main page appearance. I got pretty hot under the collar myself, but the truth is that this is about the 5th or 6th GA or FA horse breed article he's attacked in some form. You may find this example and the closer's rationale to be of interest. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You requested full protection. That's what you got. An admin won't make a reversion for you if it's a clear case of content dispute, as this is. Again, see m:The Wrong Version.

I have looked at the history of that editor. His behavior may seem disruptive, but he has made civil, policy-based arguments for his position. There is nothing wrong with challenging an article's GA status. A GA desigation, after all, is the result of an opinion by a single reviewer, and he is free to disagree. The instability of the article will not be affected regardless of which version is protected. If a dispute cannot be resolved under the current protected version, I don't see how it would be resolved under a different protected version. If the disruption resumes after the protection period expires, the article will be re-protected for a longer interval.

A threat of GAR isn't a reason to revert. While I understand your concern, I don't see a real argument here for sidestepping the dispute resolution process by reverting to an alternate version when both sides in a content dispute seem to have a valid point. Sorry, but the protecting admin should not be used as a means to extend an edit war during the protection period. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem with wikipedia in general. The playground aides cannot tell who started the fight and who was forced to defend themselves, so everyone gets detention. Oh well, I would have thought that the policy stated that the article should have been protected to the last stable version, not the version of the person who won the race to the courthouse. If the topic had been holocaust denial, would you have also frozen the version that included denial POV? Just curious... I know that's snarky, but I think you didn't read policy; you also didn't review the history to verify if my request was a legitimate one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Follow up: I realize I sound a bit snarky, but your ref to m:The Wrong Version was pretty snide and snotnosed too, as I did none of the actual behavior cited therein (I haven't asked you to take a position at all) but one might think that the GA version is the one worth protection until consensus to ADD material is reached per WP:BURDEN. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. Actually, your original request, asserting in the second sentence that I protected the "wrong version" and characterizing a correct version as "the last consensus edit" falls exactly in line with the description at m:The Wrong Version — which is why I mentioned it. It was not intended as snide, but as a way to point out a common attribute of Wikipedia of which you seemed unaware, and it is common for an admin to provide that link in response to requests to revert a fully protected article. I apologize if I came off as snide or snarky too.

I know the policy quite well. The relevant part is at WP:PREFER. There is no requirement to revert to a prior version. An administrator may do so if a clear non-contentious version exists, but I did not see that to be the case here, when the side making the changes you to which you objected backed up those changes with policy-based arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Wish ya had, that's all. And wish you'd noted the editor's history, he likes to target the horse GAs and FAs and while sometimes he has made small legitimate points, on the big issues, he has lost every single time. Montanabw^(talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, when I protected the article I pondered for a while whether I should revert to a prior version. I did spend some time looking over the histories of the editors involved. It was by no means a slam-dunk decision on my part. In the end I felt that the most neutral action was to leave it as is, rather than try to judge the merits of the dispute, which is something one shouldn't do when taking administrative action. If you need others to weigh in, there's WP:RFC that might attract readers. I could participate as well, but in doing so I would have to abstain on taking further administrative action (protecting or blocking) if I see more disruption.

I do have mixed views of your particular dispute. If I were pressed to take sides, I couldn't yet do so. On one hand, I agree that deliberately causing disruption to newly-minted GA articles is disturbing, and if it becomes intolerably WP:TENDENTIOUS, such behavior should be brought to the attention of WP:ANI. On the other hand, I also know that GA status is basically the decision of just one reviewer, and there's nothing wrong with challenging GA articles to be improved. I see good faith on all sides here, even if the actions of one editor are irritating. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you did the best you could do with what you had. And, without knowing the history of WPEQ with this particular editor (this might be illustrative, though), the spat may have seemed more balanced than it is. I'm aware that RFC and ANI are available, but these have, IMHO, become "drama boards" and seem to be disintegrating into not much more than a playground for the most tendentious editors amongst us to get lots and lots of attention with very little real action while everyone basically just argues until they are exhausted. The only time I would consider an ANi would be if I had a week of my life to sacrifice to the drama and if I felt it was time overdue to request a hardcore block; I wasn't quite there yet, in spite of my rather snarky edit summary to the contrary. We shall see. Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the page I was working on, Tay–Sachs disease, so after, I saw that you have blocked the IP. So now to the subject: The IP is eligible for a Abuse Response case. Abuse Response is a place in Wikipedia that contacts the ISP for more efficient handeling of the abuse. I'm a member of the team who investigates the abuse and contacts the ISP. For me, blocking can just prevent edits, but is standardized, and so can not be as effective. I will be doing the report. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I'm glad there's a community who's doing this. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

— Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

If you think I am edit warring, please block me indefinitely without talk page access or, better still request some kind of community ban at WP:AN.

Like me, you are a party in the current case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. There has been a lengthy discussion of Eraserhead1's edits to the image subpage (and the article talk page) at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#Eraserhead1's recent actions. I made two edits to the images subpage:

at 11:27 on January 29 [1]
at 20;55 on January 30 [2]

This concatentation of edits would not even qualify as edit warring per 1RR and I am certainly not in any way linked to Tarc (see below).

If you assumed that I was going to revert Eraserhead1, you were wrong, because there was no point. As I've written in the link above, I think it is completely inappropriate and premature at this stage to make any edits of this kind to the rubric before the arbcom case is closed and certainly not without discussion. I don't have any views on the rubric apart from the fact that that sort of thing is always posted as a result of consensus.

If you look at my current editing history, you will notice that I have been heavily involved in a lot of content editing, which has required a lot of thought (I have been preparing new material for Contraction (operator theory)). Bearing in mind all these circumstances, including your own involvement, your message on my talk page had too many assumptions attached. As you are a party in this case, please read the discussion on the proposed decision talk page and leave this kind of thing up to administrators who are not parties to the case.

My own reading of the current situation at this point is that Eraserhead1 is trying to manufacture an incident to guarantee that Tarc is topic banned. My personal view is that Tarc should not be involved in any further discussions concerning Muhammad images, but not because of his edits to the rubric on the images subpage. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci, Eraserhead1's behavior has been unnecessarily provocative recently. However, in all fairness to Amatulic, he warned Eraserhead1 as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And Tarc. Most recently he has apologized to Eraserhead1 for missing he link I posted where the lengthy discussion has taken place.[3] Perhaps he might apologize to me, who knows. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to all parties: Mathsci, Tarc, and Eraseread1 for expecting discussion of a dispute between those editors to be where it's supposed to be, on the relevant talk page, rather than buried in an ArbCom wall o' text of all places..

I haven't been involved in the ArbCom case except to post an initial comment when the case was first requested. I have no opinion regarding this talk page header dispute, I don't care who is right or wrong. All that matters is edit warring on the talk page. Warnings I have issued, and possible subsequent administrative actions, would reasonably be performed by any uninvolved admin. Edit warring is what it is; ArbCom or my "involvment" in some past dispute aren't necessary to prevent me from taking administrative actions that any admin would reasonably take to prevent further disruption. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no views on the rubric either. The circumstances are evidently related to the timing of the closure of the case. That is what the discussion has been about and two other administrators have commented there, agreeing with me. Please read that discussion. Mathsci (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... what a mess. And I do agree, there's no rush; changes to the talk page header can always be made after ArbCom posts their final decision. Honestly, I hadn't looked at the case since before it was accepted; I just posted a comment and moved on. And it's been suggested to me in the past that I should run for ArbCom. Ugh, no. Imagine what a time suck that would be. No thanks, not with a family and full time job. My hat is off to those who step up to volunteer for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic! I saw that you were previously involved in regards to this article's creation/deletion. I strongly believe the editor is the actual band member, and has been at it for some time to see to it that he has his own article on Wikipedia regardless of notability. I feel for this editor..I really do... At the same time, it appears we're going around in circles here, and felt it appropriate to let you know. Thanks. OSU1980 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no beliefs about the identity of the author except for a conflict of interest as demonstrated by some of the promotional text in the article. I have left a comment on the deletion discussion page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. I appreciate your feedback. OSU1980 02:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by describing the recent vandalism as a "non-malicious content-based edit"? It's exactly the same kind of vandalism (making up offensive and nonsensical plot summaries) that this user (it's the same user operating from different IPs) has been trying to put in the article for months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, that's what I get for glancing at a diff via popups while answering the phone, and then trying to write about what I remembered seeing.

In any case, rather than protecting the page as you asked, after examining the edits for various IP addresses, I blocked the entire range 72.70.224.0/19 (that's 72.70.224.1 to 72.70.255.254) for 3 months. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, hopefully that will put an end to it. Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A, did I understand correctly that you moved Average Directional Movement Index and then move protected it to stop a move war? Is that kosher? Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea Dicklyon had raised this with you: I came here independently to do the same thing. First, I was going to say, it's clear you have a close knowledge of the topic. This is obvious from some your edits, and is to be respected—you've done some good things there. However, when it comes to the use of an admin tool to cement your version of a title when you're clearly involved in the article – and more broadly in the matter of title capitalisation – a serious breach of admin policy has occurred. Have you read WP:INVOLVED, which was part of your undertaking with the en.WP community when you went for adminship? It's a central policy that is designed to protect both admins and non-admins: for admins, its proper application has the immediate benefit of forestalling accusations of CoI and policy breach.

By protecting your version of the title after you seem to have had a minor skirmish with Dicklyon over it, you have indeed prompted this accusation. What is surprising is that you cited "Move war" in your edit summary as a justification, when you yourself have been involved in the "war"—at least in a couple of slow-motion reverts over a while.

I have no intention of taking up the caps issue here—I just don't care enough about it, and article stability is more important than the revert sequence I've seen you engage in. I'm sure Dicklyon has no wish to further engage in a sequence of reverts. But your breach of WP:ADMIN can't be passed over. The only proper thing to do is to undo the protection of the page title and find another admin to consider the matter (and if they think it's right, to protect it).

I ask in good faith that you do this as soon as possible. If there's a problem in interpreting WP:INVOLVED, please ask me and I'll explain (or be put right by you, if I'm mistaken).

And if I may raise another point: you've reverted ?two newbies' edits there over the past few months. One looks reasonable and was adequately explained in your edit-summary; but another few of your reverts had either no edit-summary or a possibly gruff one (just, "we go by what the sources say"). I hope these newbies were not so discouraged that they left, or at least no longer edit. I'm keen to encourage new people to contribute, and I hope you are, too; but perhaps there was a history behind these users that explains it. Tony (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon showed a willingness to ignore WP:BRD after I reverted True strength index back to uppercase, and instead engage in a move war. I suspected that such a situation would occur again, and I fully expected to receive complaints about it here. Those expectations have been met, and I appreciate the communication.

Because it is clear there is no consensus about how such article titles should be capitalized, the move Tony1 made to a number of such articles to lowercase are all contentious, controversial moves that should have been discussed first. Similarly, Dicklyon's move of Average Directional Movement Index to lowercase, without any effort whatsoever to propose the move to lowercase on the talk page, suggested a continuation of this WP:BATTLEGROUND situation, which I sought to prevent, and preserve stability, by protecting it. I thought long and hard about WP:INVOLVED in my action, and decided that a reasonable uninvolved admin with knowledge of the prior drama would do the same thing.

My alternative would be to undo the contentious move, then propose a move back to that contentious version on the talk page to initiate discussion. I was going to do that with the other articles, and I have just done so on Talk:Average Directional Movement Index.

Finally, I am frankly flummoxed as to why Dicklyon would be considered a "newbie", as it was his edits I reverted when I moved the article back to uppercase. If you are referring to something else, it is not clear what. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly he's not referring to me as the newbie; he knows I've been around for years. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was clearly not referring to Dicklyon as a ?newbie. The ?newbies I was referring to (I didn't bother looking at their histories) were/are Faithprice and MarkDavidFunk, as you can see from the page history (redlinks to names). Now, you've completely sidelined the WP:INVOLVED issue, which is not going away. Please unprotect and find an uninvolved editor to judge the situation themselves. This should be done as soon as possible, as a matter of good faith. Otherwise, do you want me to explain the CoI policy for admins? Tony (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to do that earlier today after I initiated the renaming discussion. As long as the debate has been initiated, however, it shouldn't matter to you in the least what the protection status of the article is. It would be up to another admin, not you, to rename it yet again, which you should know by know is a controversial act. You need to have more than an imperfect MOS guideline to justify it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"I...decided that a reasonable uninvolved admin with knowledge of the prior drama would do the same thing"—Then let a reasonable uninvolved admin take care of it. This is not ok. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly why the move request has been initiated. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it ok. I'm relieved that you unprotected it, but you crossed the line when you acted as an administrator in a situation you were involved in. I'm concerned that you don't seem to realize how inappropriate that was. Do not do this again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know how it looks. However, I am following WP:INVOLVED in that I acted in a way that any reasonable admin would have acted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Dear Amatulic,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CupNoodle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

delete edit summary of Wikipedia user aylo54 in revision history talk page of Criticism of Muhammad article.Tvaddict15 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? The edit summary shows a mild assumption of bad faith, as do many other edit summaries on Wikipedia. What part of the policy Wikipedia:Revision deletion would justify deleting it? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

it is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value.Tvaddict15 (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy again, particularly the sentences after the part you quoted. Redaction isn't justified for "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. The edit summary in question says, reasons for removal of this content ive mentioned on talk page of this article;the grounds for including this content look personally motivated and out of context from reality. This is simply an ordinary violation of WP:AGF. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

is it "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.it seems more like grossly insulting.cancel off edit summary edit summary must be meant for explaining reasons behind edits here it is used for insulting.will edit summary of the user just stay there?Tvaddict15 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tvaddict15, I'm also an admin, and I think I agree with Amatulic here. What specific edit summary is it that bothers you? I don't see any that are insulting, let alone grossly insulting. Aylo has made many edits to that page; what is the one that you think is so "grossly insulting"? Remember that "grossly insulting" usually means things like "user's mother is a (*&!@!@*" or "All people who believe in Religion X are (*&($*&!@". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

specific edit summary that bothers me is one in which user says I heard them say this plus when user mentions how there are some who say.that edit summary should be cancelled off.Tvaddict15 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Aylo54 shows the entire history of this user's edit summaries. None of them are actionable.

Aylo54 has edited Criticism of Muhammad exactly once (here). I quoted that edit summary above. It is not actionable. There is no policy argument to redact it, so I will not redact it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

why arent the edit summaries actionable.will they just stay there forever.why cant the edit summaries be redacted.Tvaddict15 (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An edit summary can't be redacted just because you don't like it. Wikipedia:Revision deletion specifically mentions merely uncivil edit summaries as not actionable. So yes, it will stay there forever unless the policy changes. If you want to argue for a change in policy, the place to do that is over at Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals and the community must decide if your proposal has merit. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I visualise that edit summary to be gone.this is not the Day of Judgement take your time make that edit summary go away.An internet identity can't be verified.Mentioned statements online can be false.Motivation behind them can be unknown.Tvaddict15 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of Russia accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour.The edit summary and edits by that user should be cancelled.Kindly respond.Tvaddict15 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been given sufficient response already, above. You have been shown the relevant policies, and have been given guidance on how to change them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any religious group. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Other accounts? My concern is possible copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is block evasion. Praetorian3005 appears to have been created as a result of Imperator1974 being blocked for 48 hours. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI then? I still haven't dealt with the copyvio although I've brought it up at Moonriddengirl's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Raised at SPI. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I created the SPI report yesterday. Thanks for your input there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly comment on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, The wikipedia page for Music Producer Arturo Alvarez was taken down in bad faith by the author. After researching and writing up the page of an industry colleague he deemed worthy of Wikipedia note, he had a falling out on a personal level with Arturo Alvarez and took down his Wikipedia as act of sabotage against him. I respectfully request that the administrator check and verify the validity of all information contained on Arturo Alvarez’s former Wikipedia page, in order to validate that the page was not taken down because of any lack of integrity, but purely as a result of personal resentment on the part of the author. This same author did the same with the page of Salvador Tercero, a music engineer. He wrote Salvador’s wikipedia page, than took it down due to a personal grudge.

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.

My very best,

--Ellathecat (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of Arturo Avarez (music producer) is the only person who made substantial contributions to that article, and the author requested that it be deleted. There is nothing preventing you from creating the article yourself.

The same is true for Salvador Tercero, and as you can see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Tercero, others agree that the only author who has made any substantial contribution has every right to request deletion. If you disagree, again, you are free to write the article yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Admin, please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet

Thanks in advance--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. The question is whether Wiqi55's indef block should be restored since he has broken his1RR for the second time since December. Diffs are given at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. You've already commented there, so this part of my notice is redundant :-). I am notifying you since your name appears in Wiqi55's block log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Talk:Truvia#Controversy section

Hello! You deleted the Trail To Eagle article per WP:CSD § A7. Though the article should have been deleted anyway, it didn't qualify for this criterion, as software is specifically excluded from its scope. I'm not actually sure about what should be done now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A7 includes articles about web content. Mobile apps qualify as web content, as far as I know, because the web is the only source for them. After looking at the A7 criteria again, I admit that this interpretation deserves some discussion, since the A7 criteria were probably developed without mobile apps in mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call mobile apps web content; effectively I'm not sure whether an article about obscure Gmail clone could be deleted per A7, as this would be an edge case. Still I probably shouldn't have bothered you with all of that as this article shouldn't get restored per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably its best to block that page again, as Fountain again removes references and referenced text. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best for you to come to an agreement. You're at 3RR. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

why have you dont answer to my answer??? you just delete!!! its easy... Jean65001 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not ask for an answer. The article was promotional. Just because you don't work there doesn't mean it isn't promotional. If you want, I can restore the article to your userspace so you can work on it there, but in the state you created it, it was not suitable for main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

yes good idea, because its a software that exist, so will work on it for to be good for you.Jean65001 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored to User:Jean65001/Janusvm. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

50.17.128.255 ,contribs ip account has posted at the SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Someone65, i am assuming it is wiqi55 as it has not posted any other comments outside spi--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It has posted from another IP address, Special:Contributions/50.17.15.172, where it has made other comments, including past interaction with Pass A Method. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They are different Ip's the admin Muzemike has already reverted that ip--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I know they are different IPs, but from the same hosting provider, and one made a claim to be the same person as the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, i love ron paul, and i follow USA politics. Only because its the most powerful country in the world (and unfortunately if USA goes to war, so does my country, so i have to see whats going on over there), i dont follow the polictics of any other country. Awareness of american polictians by brits is a one way road. brits here about many politicians (inncluding santoroum and other gop candifated on tv), but i doubt americans ever here about our politicians.

I see ron paul as an honest person. I dont know of any data or statistics about political awareness, so doubt i could make a list about that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I understand that you are trying to encourage using an account, and more effectively than I tried, I do consider this comment [4] to be a bit strong and factually incorrect - a single (aborted) error, not even using rollback. More importantly, is the lack of AGF. Encouraging need not come at the expense of others? Widefox (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider the comment factually incorrect, and I apologize if a lack of good faith on your part was implied; that was not intentional, and the message was meant for the benefit of someone else. I appreciate and thank you for your understanding, and your final point is well taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Not wishing to labour the technical point - and I'm sure you know this better than me - but to ensure we're all on the same page - no rollback right was used in error (it was Twinkle), but yes rollback was removed until I explained my error. (I did point-out the irony - however understandable - of removing rollback for a non-rollback error with the other admin). Widefox (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatuilic! I really appreciate your comments. It's really nice of you to look out for me.

You said:

As an admin myself, I appreciate your goal of being one. However, your account has been active only since January and you haven't even tallied up 1000 edits in main article space. I don't mean to disillusion you, but an WP:RFA for you would be highly premature, and dead on arrival, based on my experience with RFAs. That doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good admin, but you simply haven't yet established an extensive record of participation that the community can examine and trust. I suggest you wait at least until you have a few thousand main space edits under your belt, and try it.

I'll also add that being an admin is really like being a janitor. There is no "leadership" implied by the position. I am continually amazed that people seem to think so. It's a lot of drudge work. If you enjoy contributing to quality content here, you may find that adminship involves a lot of cleanup, housekeeping, preventing disruption, etc., and that takes time away from making quality contributions. Wikipedia needs more good editors more than anything else. I hope you stay. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This merits clarification. I don't have any "burning desire" to be an admin. Didn't plat to submit an RFA tomorrow. If we need more admins, I'd we willing to try, but if it seems like we have enough admins, I'm happy to sit back and just edit. I have no interest in blocking, banned, closing RFCs, or anything that controversial I have noticed that I _do_ need ViewDeleted to intelligently participate in XFD.

Everyone has to pay their dues. My need to "view delete" isn't urgnent or case-specific-- it's just something I thinK I can be trustedto do.

But-- I'm at a crossroads. I can't accept being "doomed' to second class because of my wik-political politcs. If WP doesn't weclome me, I could alsom move to a different platform. I think it's preferable to reach out to a coaliston of my fremies and ask what they think about my general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedia.

If Tarc and others like him want to "sink" my inclusion in to the community, he can-- immediately or a year from now. I won't presume to decide which is the best answer for Wikipedia--- but I want to know whether the communities consideres me 'Welcome' or not. No point in wasting a year just if I'm just going to be rejected-- there are other venues.

I believe in Wikipedia, I want to believe all good-faith editors are on-track to become "full fledged member". If that's no realistic, I'll can always branch outward and find other platform and t start a blog. But I 'want' to join the WP community, if my "political opponents" agree I have the moral character for the job. --HectorMoffet (talk)

You have some misconceptions still.

There isn't a "second class" except maybe for a technical distinction between autoconfirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors who don't yet have 10 edits. There are additional user rights you can have also without being an admin, and some are "administrative" rights. This is not a complete list:

reviewer
account creator
IP block exempt
rollbacker - this used to be an admin-only function
autopatrolled
file mover
edit filter manager

Beyond that, there are no distinctions; your "class" is a continuum, a function of the respect you have gained from the community as a result of your participation. And that takes time.

Some of our most productive editors with the highest edit counts have chosen not to become administrators; they are hardly "doomed" to be second class.

The only valid reason to become an admin, in my opinion, is if you're interested in picking up the mop and helping out with backlogs. There is so much to do that there's no time left for productive editing. Once in a while I take a wikibreak (like I'm trying to do now, see the top of my page) and edit as an anonymous IP, without being concerned by the admin duties I'm taking a break from. It can be draining. There is no end of AfDs to close, no end of articles needing a decision about speedy deletion, no end to article protection requests, no end to usernames requiring attention, no end to preventing disruption from spammers and vandals, no end to reviewing unblock requests, no end to analyzing blacklist and whitelist requests, no end to sockpuppetry investigations, no end to ArbCom enforcement discussions, etc. Gaining access to a few additional tools comes with an unwanted burden that turns away experienced editors who are more interested in contributing good content.

Since I started six years ago, I have never needed to view deleted contributions to participate in any XFD discussion. Even as an admin, I don't need to view deleted contributions for XfD. The only thing I need it for are speedy-delete decisions. I can't see why anyone would need it for XfD. I suppose it's a convenience, and I recall it has been discussed in the community to grant this right to trusted editors, not just admins. I don't know the current status. This happened with rollback, which used to be an admin-only right, but now any trusted editor can have it by asking an admin to grant it.

Your general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedian is to uphold the five pillars as best you can. Be neutral, don't push a personal point of view, be civil and understanding to others, be bold and edit. Refrain from edit warring even if others don't. It's pretty simple, really. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think all those things you say were true of Wikipedia. Six years ago, it was No Big Deal. Everyone knew everyone else, rednames and IP editors got equal respect, etc.

I grow increasingly skeptical if the ideology we shared is still an accurate reflection of how people actually treat each other on our project. The "admin-vandalfighters" seem to be getting distant from the mainstream of the Writer/Editor community.

Most of the admin tools are No Big Deal. But a few are a big deal. We give vastly more oversight to inter-admin disputes. Admins can view deleted, a huge huge advantage in some discussions. Admins have special "approved" venues for off-wiki collaboration.

If it's "no big deal" why are there so few new admins compared to the past? Six years ago, you could get adminship almost on a handshake, whereas now I understand very few potential admins ever make it through the process.

And I personally don't want to try, based on the fact that RFA is such reportedly such a negative experience. but I'm interested in whether my behavior to date is incompatible with future inclusion in the ranks.

I used to believe the theory you share: "Admins are separate group of editors, but all editors all are equal." Unfortunately, group dynamics trump fancy words-- in practice, separate gives rise to unequal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that biographies of the antagonists of OotS should be included only in the article about the OotS characters, like in the case of the main characters. Mithoron (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Anachronist/Archives. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, I was reading the article on Leif Ericson and noticed that the Icelandic version of the name was missing at the beginning (currently only Old Norse and Norwegian).

As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I wanted to check with you, if it was ok that I (or you) added it?

In short, I'm proposing this addition:

Icelandic: Leifur Eiríksson;

Best regards from Iceland, Omnis

Omnis73 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection simply prevents anonymous IP addresses and newly-created accounts from editing the article. Semi-protection was necessary because that article seemed to attract vandals for some reason. Nothing prevents you from making any necessary changes. Go right ahead, be bold and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic!

I am a new user and wanted to kindly ask your help to make a correction for Android (operating system) page, Marketing section. As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I still can't make edits to that :) I added Edit Request to the talk page, but I am not sure if anyone saw this yet. I was hoping you can help me edit the page, please.

In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team."

Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo (it spells Android). Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

--Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) --Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Amatulic! I could really use some advice on how to deal with an issue that is unfortunately starting to spread to other Wikipedia pages. Essentially I want to know if I have cause to go to the WP:RM page and request the admins there to close what I feel is a premature (and slightly bad faith page move).
Here's the short and sweet: An editor at Talk:Champagne expressed a desire to change all reference to Champagne to lowercase. After he encountered some concern and opposition to his wishes, he still went ahead and unilaterally did what he wanted anyways (Kind of BRD turned into Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways :P). Thankfully, he just did this once and responded to the plea to let discussion continue so we could have some kind of real consensus emerge. While discussion has emerged and with one editor on his side, one a slight lean, two opposed and some anons/new users chiming in more or less opposed, it is still pretty mixed with no consensus. This would be fine except now this editor has decided to drag this secondary pages involving Champagne and has opened up a page move request for Talk:History of Champagne to lowercase the title. (Kinda odd since the article is also about the winemaking history of the Champenois in the region, but hey) This, again, seems a bit bad faith and a heavy handed way to try to "force" consensus back on the primary Champagne page by getting this page move to go through. So is this cause enough to go to the WP:RM page? What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you in opposition of the RM some weeks ago that promoted Champagne (wine) to the primary topic Champagne? I don't see how that matters to the present debate which involves the capitalization not of the article title, but of the word as used in the article body. A RM won't change the content, just the title, and the title is already capitalized according to Wikipedia convention. I have closed the RM proposal on History of Champagne on the grounds that a contentious disagreement should be resolved before renaming related articles, instead of spreading the disagreement to multiple fronts.

"No consensus" on Wikipedia means "maintain the status quo" but if you want an official "no consensus" result, you need to have a discussion that has an end point (that is, an admin can close it and judge whether there's a consensus or not). For that you need an RFC. Otherwise you can wait until an open-ended discussion shows a consensus emerging.

Another alternative would be to propose clarifications to MOS:CAPS, which is a flawed guideline that could use clarification, in my opinion, although attempting to change it isn't likely to be fruitful considering the pedantry I've seen in the past from the protectors of that guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I wasn't here to participate, I can't take too much qualm with the original Champagne (wine) move. In all honesty, I probably would have been a weak support since the French wine does seem like it is the primary topic but I can see a strong case for Champagne staying as a disambig page too. As for this current discussion involving capitalization, all I really wanted to see a good faith effort made towards continuing the discussion rather than trying to strong arm one POV on how things should with back door stuff like RMs on secondary pages. For the most part, it feels like the conversation has been pretty constructive (even if long-winded, my specialty :P). But there has been a diverse set of view points presented and some great contributions from editors like User:Encycloshave who have really taken this thing apart and looked at it from a variety of angles. Whether we'll come to a consensus or a "no consensus", I don't know but at least we'll let the Wikipedia process work its way out like it should. Thanks Amatulic for your time! Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Put the History of Champagne RM on ANI here. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good. I had just proposed you do that over on Talk:History of Champagne. Always good to get a second opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A final final final note (yes I know that is pathetic) I have left a new section on the Alkaline Diet Talk page about the blatant bias there. I had presented the text of the holy secondary source they all love to champion, showing that the source confuses blood pH and body pH. One of the people who have been attacking me there then attacked MY use of the term blood pH, not realizing that I was quoting their favorite secondary source. They actually made a good case why anyone using that term has no idea what they are talking about. They did this to discredit ME, when they actually discredited the very source they have been aggressively defending. It is obvious they are biased. There is a team of them. I am done there. I hope that you know the process to take this further and have them restrained. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to do that, and I also don't care enough to fight that battle. Since you did get involved maybe you want to do something about that. In the end it is clear they are unfamiliar with the diet, yet happy to attack something they don't understand, as evidenced by their questions about the diet. I read three books on the diet. I don't follow it and I'm not promoting it. I just happened to pass by the page and saw something written there that was completely inconsistent with the details of the three books I read. 2 days later and I now understand why that page is so incorrect. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PS on a personal note I have been to over 50 countries, many of the same ones you have, and I can say there is some good stuff south of the equator, and I hope you get there some day. I am born in Australia so I guess I am biased... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A final final note (sorry), I seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia. If a primary source cannot be used as evidence of itself, but a secondary source, which is attacking and criticizing that primary source, in contradiction of the facts of the primary source, is used to define the primary source, what is the point of Wikipedia? Someone said that if 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl, then Wikipedia would say that he is a girl, despite the primary source showing he is a boy. Is that the way this thing really works? If so then it seems pretty nuts to me. Maybe the fault is in the setup of the system, not the people using the system? I don't know. As a moderator I assume you understand these things. Perhaps I just totally missed the point of Wikipedia. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, thank you for your third opinion on the Alkaline Diet Talk page. As someone new to Wikipedia editing I am also sadly leaving it. I have done my best to provide some logic and reason to the situation there and I have found none forthcoming. I appreciate your attempts to be involved. I don't understand the Wiki system and I have lost patience trying. Below is my last post on this talk page and probably my last on any talk page. I don't know the technical term for it in "Wiki Language" so I will just say that these people seem to want to own that page and anything that does not agree with their negative view of the diet is rejected. I am not the first person to form that opinion on the talk page. I wish you the best in your Wiki adventures. Take care and thanks. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol, it is good to see that you are asking me for sources and not providing them yourself. It is good to see that you have demanded them of me in the same sentence that you say that you are not obliged to provide them. It is good to see that you say no one is obliged to prove anything to me while you require me to prove my statements to you. I will do as Ronz does and quote a Wiki page about my viewpoint of this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard. I also note that while Ronz was happy to make his comments, when he was asked for sources he went silent. I have learned that Wikipedia is not about facts, it is about consensus. The consensus I have seen on this talk page is that this article is biased. I have enjoyed seeing that people who have no knowledge of the details of a diet are able to pass judgement on that diet. I have enjoyed my time as a Wikipedia editor, and like others before me here I leave you now with your precious Alkaline Diet page which you clearly believe you own. In a sense you do own it between the four of you as you block any opinion here other than your own. You all know how to play the Wiki game to get your own way here. I am fortunate that I do not know how to play these Wiki games. I will now go back to my life... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, can you please warn this editor of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and log the warning in the appropriate place? His editing is starting to cross into WP:TE and he's apparently got a bit of wax in his ears. Thanks. SÆdon ^talk 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, that goes both ways. You are both making valid points but not trying to understand the other's point of view. The anon's opponents seem to be unaware of the distinction between secondary sources and secondhand information, as well as when primary sources are appropriate to use. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I did anything out of line on that page so I'm not sure what you would warn me about, especially in regards to discretionary sanctions; at the most you could say that there was a slight misunderstanding between you and I over the proper use of sources, and that's fine. I now understand your point and I don't disagree. However, I'm not willing to wade through 10,000 kilobyte walls of text replete with accusations of bias and bad faith to find the two sentences in his post that actually address the topic.

I will eventually go in and fix the problems with the page, but one of the problems is not that the Harvard source is a straw man. The nit-picking between the words "alter" and "affect" came off to me as a simple case of semantics, where the main point is that the sense of the words is to refer to "change," which is what the diet purports to do and what the Harvard source says the diet can't do. So what's the option then, to say something like "While Dr. so and so has said blood pH will barely change and only for a short time, proponents of the diet posit that the diet doesn't claim to change blood pH, just to affect it." What the difference is between "changing" and "affecting" is beyond me, but the Harvard source says the blood pH can't be significantly changed by the diet and the diet site says the diet affects blood pH explicitly. Sounds to me like standard fringe POV pushing using a semantics argument to discredit a source that criticizes a POV that is obviously dear to this person. SÆdon ^talk 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page, since you copied your second paragraph there. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. You are one of the good guys. I've left a long comment (yes another wall of text) on the Alkaline Diet page and now I am done with Wikipedia. Success in your life. Maximus 86.93.139.223 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Check this and this. I don't think that the right amount of people were notified and also those who voted understood the problem (since most of the voting took place before I finished my explanation). I, honestly, didn't expect that I would need to break it down to such a level.

That short referendum doesn't reflect the true consensus, IMO. I tried to explain every point that was and could have been raised, on that AfD page. In short, this article is about a Qur'anic verse. And that should have been the end of it.

Everything else will be people's personal opinion on the translation (probably predicated upon conflicted interest) and interpretation, making the state of its neutrality inherently an unfixable or insurmountable issue. Besides, why repeat same thing in two different articles? Why keep two articles more or less about the same topic? If you read my points carefully (which I hope you'd do) you'll find that it's nothing more than a coatrack article. The thing is, I would like to appeal again for deletion of that coatrack article, so could you tell me where to go from here? Or, could we just do something to draw more administrative attention to it? Please help me. Brendon ishere 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The place to appeal an AfD closure decision is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Given that the article is extremely well referenced, I am skeptical that a consensus to overturn the 'keep' decision will happen, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I must try. Do you not think that it's a coatrack article? “extremely well referenced” - only cherry-picked poxy references. See, I know arabic to some extent. I know how clear that injunction is. Just read what I wrote on the AfD page. The article doesn't reflect the present consensus of Islamic jurists and theologians. These jurists presumably know better arabic than me. And they are devoted Muslims too. Why would they choose to lie about what they respect the most? Why would anyone ignore or overlook such an eminent fact? From Pickthall to Yusuf ali, from Arberry to Rodwell all of them could not be wrong. Ibn Kathir even acknowledges that it's permitted. Why would they have an intrinsic penchant for deceiving themselves and their followers about their own venerated religion? Brendon ishere 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you just made an argument for improving the article rather than for deleting it, if reliable sources link those views to that verse. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic please, try to understand what I'm saying. I appreciate your efforts to lighten things up. Moreover, there is a proper way to beat own wife. Why should I present same content in two different articles when one is enough? Tell me that. You do know what a coatrack article is, right? I presented those links just to show that the article cherry-picks sources. Unfortunately, it's inevitable. For once, just go through my points and replies in that AfD page, please. (this page) Brendon ishere 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to engage me in a debate on my talk page? As I said before, WP:DRV is the place to challenge a decision to keep the article. Not here. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to your points. Naturally, there is no reason to have the same content in two articles. That was my point: If you improved the encyclopedic content of article on the verse to include all the relevant issues surrounding it, you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging.

If you want me to look at, comment on, or copy-edit a draft of your DRV proposal before posting it, I'm happy to do so, but beyond that I have no idea what administrative action you expect me to take as a result of your initial post to my talk page. What I will not do is countermand an administrator decision that has already been made, without a wider community discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"That was my point" - wow! hahahaha!!!

"you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging." - I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit. I get it now. Take care. See you at the Muhammad page.

FYI, Could I contact you through your email? If you're not up for it then it's fine. Good..okay bye! Brendon ishere 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information that would be lost to a related article? Care to explain that?

And I still don't know what you expected me to do in response to your initial post here. You do understand WP:INVOLVED, right?

You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view, but I prefer keeping Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria" - that's your opinion. I didn't say I “want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information”. You do understand what it means to refrain from putting words in others' mouth, right?
I just said, "I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit." What is so wrong in that? I don't like it.

"You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view" - Are you referring to the possibility of me sending you something obscene and redundant? If that's what you're concerned about, be informed that it won't happen.

The thing is, for some reason I just wanted to chat with you in private. I don't know if that in itself is inappropriate, or not. Brendon ishere 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of the WP:GNG inclusion criteria does the article fail to meet? Again, WP:DRV is really the best place to hash this out.

I thought it would be obvious that "inappropriate for public view" meant personal in nature. Generally if someone contacts me and I feel that talk page communication would be more appropriate, I'll say so. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Quotations from Sahih Hadiths which are subscribed to by a vast majority of the Muslim world, are not "reliable" if we are talking about Islam? If Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bhukhari are not reliable I don't know what is. Brendon ishere 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think including quotes from Hadith is a great idea, but I have to agree with those who reverted you that (a) the Hadith are primary sources and (b) reliable secondary sources are needed to establish a context between any specific Hadith and the topic of domestic violence. I explain my reasoning more on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh it should not be a problem. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Islamic scholar and his father was a scholar too) in "al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah", vol. 1, pg. 90. Maktabah al-Furqan says, Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence. Sh. Gibril. F. Haddad says here that Sahih hadiths are fully authentic. And Sharia is Islamic law. See the connection?

Moreover, UAE court explicitly says beating is allowed

“According to Islamic law, a man has the "right to discipline" his wife and children, which can include beating them after he has exhausted two other options: admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife.”

I had added it before it was reverted. So you might see beating wife isn't prohibited by Muhammad. Brendon ishere 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted? We have authentic hadith, and we have Islamic law, but the article can't synthesize a connection between them without a reliable secondary source that makes that connection. It may be obvious to you and me, but the fact remains it's synthesis without the sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted" - I don't think we need that. It's obvious that they represent Islamic Court and Islamic law is based on Quran and Sahih Hadith (I already gave you sources for that).

Also, the article is about "Islam and domestic violence". That article should state what it says in Islamic doctrine about Domestic violence. The article is not "connection between Islam and domestic violence". Hence, I don't understand you at all. If these are primary sources they are usable. What's the problem? I would like to know where does it say that Hadith is a primary source? Brendon ishere 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So, can I restore my contributions now? Brendon ishere 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I explained why hadith are primary sources on the article talk page. I also demonstrated that there are tons of preferable secondary sources available to make the same point you are trying to make with a collection of hadith quotations. Two other editors have disagreed that what you added to the article is appropriate, therefore you can't just restore a controversial contribution that has been reverted not once, but twice, without first coming to some agreement with the other participants. It is not obvious that a particular court decision was based on a particular hadith. If you want to make that connection, you need a secondary source that says it. If you don't understand me at all, I don't know what else to say. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I assume good faith mostly. And it should not be that hard to find a source, tell me is Ibn kathir a Secondary source? I, for one, think it is. So, is it? Brendon ishere 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a secondary source! It takes into account Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 2127; Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 11, Number 2141 and 2142. The author holds a Ph.D. in linguistics and is a notable scholar of comparative theology. I hope this works.

Can this be used as a secondary source along with other interpretations of the verse 4:34? Brendon ishere 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we include other verses using the same form of the verb (iḍ'rib)

Quran 7:160^{[n 1]} and 2:60^{[n 2]} :

iḍ'rib — “Strike”

Quran 2:73^{[n 3]}:

iḍ'ribūhu — “Strike him”

Quran 8:12^{[n 4]} :

fa-iḍ'ribū-fawqa — “so strike above” and

wa-iḍ'ribū — “and strike”

Reference:

^ "Quran Dictionary Verse (7:160) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
^ "Quran Dictionary Verse (2:60) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
^ "Quran Dictionary Verse (2:73) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
^ "Quran Dictionary Verse (8:12) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.

"I also demonstrated that there are tons of preferable secondary sources available to make the same point you are trying to make with a collection of hadith quotations." - tons of preferable secondary sources available?? where? Why don't you send me the links and we can work something out. Yup! This is going to be good.

Just for the sake of clarification if you think I'm harassing you or pestering you, I'm ready to leave your talk page, just say so now. (I emphasize this because this question is more than reasonable after my Block. Help me with an honest answer.) Brendon ishere 09:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Search scholar.google.com for the phrases "domestic violence" and "hadith" together.[5] There are many reliable sources there discussing the subject, but as I mentioned on the talk page, these academic journals don't provide the full text online unless you subscribe to them or access them from a university library. I found one full text article and I posted the link to it on the talk page.

A similar search on books.google.com yields different results, but you have to be more cautious about books because some may be self-published or published through vanity presses. But here is one example.

I don't feel harassed or pestered. If I came across as impatient earlier, it's because of time pressure on my end. I take short breaks on Wikipedia but if something pulls me in that demands more time than I can afford to give, I get frustrated. I don't know about your situation, but I know most folks on Wikipedia tend to be college-age or younger, without a career or family, and have plenty of time on their hands. Not me. I have a family and I'm struggling to get a business off the ground. So I may not be available for days at a time. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to reference the books I get on scholar.google.com. I am getting what you're saying but I just don't know how to reference them, can you help?

BTW, 'I don't feel harassed or pestered.' - thanks for clarifying this. Brendon ishere 12:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. Here are two sources, the Orlando Sentinel and the St Pete Times, referring to Hot Rod's as a landmark. There are plenty of other articles about it and there are also plenty of articles about Hungry Harry's Famous Barbecue. I haven't even looked for book sources, but I am sure there are those as well.

Both owners are active in their communities and both businesses are involved in charitable activities and festivals. There is coverage for that as well. The owner of Hot Rod's was a commissioner candidate against former mayor of Tampa Pam Iorio, for example. There are plenty of sources on all of this, although many of them are behind paywalls. I tried to use sources that are available online. If there was something advertorial or inappropriate in either article please feel free to remove or alter that content. I wrote articles on these subjects because they are notable and significant eateries well worth including. They are indeed significant landmarks in their communities. Have a nice weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CORP. These establishments need more than local coverage to qualify for inclusion. I seriously doubt either of these articles would have survived an AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CORP states in the opening that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." These subjects have lots of coverage in reliable independent sources. The Orlando Sentinel and the Tampa Bay Times are major newspapers. Neither is the local community paper in those areas. Can you please restore the articles to mainspace and take them to AfD if you think that's necessary or move them to my userspace so I can work them up a bit more? If the articles covering them were just restaurant reviews or in local papers that would be one thing, but the extent of the coverage is very substantial and focuses on their significance and treats them as special, thereby establishing clear notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of WP:CORP an article must meet. There's more to that guideline that just the lead sentence. The sources you mention above do not constitute significant coverage from multiple sources. The Oralando Sentinel piece is a trivial mention.

Furthermore, the Hot Rod's article was deleted as being promotional — and it was.

Sorry, I won't restore them. You have not made a convincing case that a lengthy write-up in a single newspaper plus some trivial mentions elsewhere meet the intent of WP:CORP. You are welcome to solicit the opinion of another admin, or attempt to re-create the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found it necessary to reinstate Class Avesta's block. This may not be a major concern for you, but I prefer to inform other admins when I intrude on one their actions. Tiderolls 19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I have restored User talk:ArchiveMay22, a page you deleted, and moved it into the user's own talk space, which is what they seem to have intended. User talk pages should not be deleted per WP:DELTALK. Spinning Spark 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. WP:DELTALK doesn't apply to talk pages of nonexistent user accounts, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not, but the page was moved from User talk:Londonberry and so does come under WP:DELTALK which covers "user talk pages and user talk archives created by page move" (my italics). The place they archived it to is unacceptable, but it needed moving again, not deleting. Spinning Spark 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

C/E from my talk page: Hi. "Before you restore any more of those references, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#thestopbutton.com to understand what led me to remove them. As far as I've been able to tell, there's been an attempt to drive traffic to this site by spamming several articles, and this film critic is not notable by any stretch, especially in articles that mentioned him in the same breath with Roger Ebert or Rotten Tomatoes. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)"

I first noted that Turner Classic Movies lists this site in their "other reviews." TCM is a moderator-controlled site that is very different from fan sites such as IMDb, and even Rotten Tomatoes, which allows a wide variety of user contributions. When there are so few reviews of classic movies available, having Turner Classic vouch for this site by listing it. No one is driving traffic to this site, it is a bona fide entry at the Turner Classic Movies site. The number of mentions are few and selective, but when so few reviews are available for obscure films, the use of any valid source is appreciated. The few times I have referenced the site has always been in the context of providing a quote and only when the commentary is in line with other reviews. FWiQ, if you wish to document the particular concerns that you have characterized as blogspamming directed to whom, per say???, that would also be appreciated. Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Stevia name in Romanian

I changed the name of English Stevia with "iarba dulce" since Romanian "stevia" it is a totally different plant.And yes, the name that I put in the list is the real plant from "stevia rebaudiana". It's just a coincidence that the name in 2 different languages it's the same: the plant however are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Marianatiru (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2012

Hello Amatulic. I've been having a conversation with User:Usnames, whom you unblocked recently, trying to convince them to choose a less problematic username than the one that was approved. Apart of letting you know so you are aware of the talks, I wanted to ask you about the precedents you mentioned on the unblock request. I'm not aware of any, so I was wondering if you could point me to some of them or any relevant discussion, I'd really appreciate it. Best regards — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to dig up the example I'm thinking about (I recall it was a pharmaceutical company executive who created a name like "PfizerJohn" or something similar) might take several days that I don't have. It would be easy if the discussion were archived on the WP:UAA talk page, but unfortunately I recall it was on the user's talk page, and it involved a few other admins who agreed that he should keep the name. I don't even recall if I participated or simply observed. I have in the past tried scanning my contribution history of user talk pages because I want to have a record myself, but didn't see anything (out of thousands of such contributions it's easy to miss though). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can find something on RFC/U or UAA. Thanks anyway — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out User:Mark at Alcoa. That may be the example I was thinking of. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you move a page without leaving a redirect, as you did in January to Magic formula investing, please remember to check "What links here". Several articles did link to that name via the redirect at the original page name Magic Formula Investing. That redirect was later deleted by another user, making it even more difficult to find the page. It's usually best simply to leave a redirect; if you can be bothered, tag it with {{R from lowercase}} or similar. – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any at the time, although this was several months ago. "Magic Formula Investing" (all uppercase) was moved to a nonexistent redirect "Magic formula investing" (lowercase). When I moved it to its present title, I didn't notice any existing links to the all-lowercase title. I do usually check that. It is possible that the user who moved it originally also subsequently edited some articles to use his preferred title case; I don't know. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You knew this was coming. And it's here. Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

...for deleting my subpage that I had the speedy tag on. Much obliged :) Keresaspa (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent message on my talk page. You will no doubt be interested in this edit. I had already decided to make this edit before I saw your recent message on my talk page, but your message confirms my intention. I don't have time now, but as soon as I do (probably in about 13 hours or so) I will re-assess the sources, and post an appropriate message to the AfD page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. If I were the closing admin, I'd probably throw up my hands in despair and decide "no consensus". Way too much poorly formatted walls o' text. If I get any time I may go through it and try to fix the indentations for clarity but today I'm pretty busy at my job. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If an admin decides "no consensus" I won't complain. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You will no doubt be interested to see these edits: [6], [7], and [8]. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. While it bothers me to no end that a user with a strong COI created that article, I must admit he did a pretty good job even though the sourcing was initially sloppy in that no journal titles were given, and that he has been up front and honest about his COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your effort in the survival of the article "PCSO-524." What I really appreciate is the fact that your scientific background and seasoned mind could set aside the uneasiness created by the looming COI I presented and look at the facts - in spite of how sloppy, poorly formatted and incomplete they were. For someone who has made a living as a science writer in the health and fitness field for the last 25 years I'd say it was indeed a bit embarrassing. There is no doubt this article would never have survived had it not been for your efforts. I think this resource is amazing in not only its scope, but also its tight controls. While I did have a rough time in not only being blocked, but also going through the "AFD wringer" I learned quite a bit and have come to respect Wiki even more. It seems almost impossible that with the sheer enormity of this resource that both you and Mr. JamesBWatson put forth such effort and patience while I fumbled and bumbled my way through this first article. I can assure you the next one will be much smoother.

And therein lies a concern for with I would hope I could get some of your sage advise. I am very uneasy about touching the article ever again because of my potential COI and and anything I put forth being construed as "promotional." However there is a bit more science that could be added regarding the actual extraction and processing of PCSO-524 that could be added to the "history" section. The actual growing and harvesting of the mussels and the extraction process is quite fascinating and certainly unique (read "noteworthy") to this specific marine lipid extract that further goes to explain its content of 92 actual omega fractions (only 30 of with are mentioned). How could I present these added facts without jeopardizing a potential delete query?

Thank you once again for your heroic efforts on my behalf. I hope my future contributions will not tax the system so badly. --Romano Writes (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

...go about getting a userpage deleted if it is specifically set up to look like an Wikipedia article? I see what appears to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE at User:Kasyfil yohan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I don't believe we have a policy that prohibits userpages from appearing as Wikipedia articles. You can try putting a {{db-person}} tag on it, but it may get declined because that's clearly his userpage and the information on it is about him. The content there now just basically shows biographical data rather than promotional content. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the self-promotional-seeming aspect of the format that he used in his setting it up to look like an unsourced WP:BLP that made me consider WP:FAKEARTICLE. But as User:Kasyfil yohan's page shows his age as 16, I'm willing enough to accept that as a newb, he is still trying to feel his way around and probably does not know there are perhaps better ways to tell us about himself. I've politely sent him to WP:PRIMER to help him in artcile contributions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there we go again... History2007 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PowerShares. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please readd the "weasel words" template to the top of the article which had been edit warred away? There is currently an active discussion on the weasel word issue with the article on the talk page and that template would help attract more editors to the discussion. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It might. Often it doesn't. That template was part of the edit war. One version of that article was as contentious as another. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, revert warring over a problem template is one of the surest indicators that an article needs increased attention and surveillence. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, I think blocking revert warriors, especially established editors, is more helpful than protecting an article, because established editors should know better and locking an article prevents other interested editors from improving it. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why it was just for 3 days. That article is normally quite stable and often days go by without edits to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Cheese and deleted the main article but the second article nominated has not been deleted. Did you miss it? noq (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I missed that, but the two articles are distinct. The band may not be notable while the artist may be. Or vice versa. And the discussion seemed relevant more to Government Cheese than Tommy Womack. I just deleted the second one, but I would have preferred to see a separate AfD on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, unregistered and non-autocongirmed accounts may not move pages at all, so you placed a protection that doesn't actually do anything whatsoever. I've unprotected it, because a protection that doesn't change the status quo at all just clogs lists of protected pages. (Notice that Special:ListGroupRights gives the move right at "Autoconfirmed users") Feel free to protect it again with an effectual protection. Courcelles 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered about that while I was doing it. I figured IPs couldn't perform moves, but I wasn't sure about registered users. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[9] I agree but didn't know how to resize. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the "upright" image thumbnail setting is useful for images taller their width, and occasionally go through a random article setting all the images appropriately. It automatically reduces the default size of the image by something like 20%. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:74.56.169.34. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

By convention, the first offense edit warring almost always earns a 24 hour block regardless of whether it's an IP or registered account. Resuming edit warring immediately after, anything goes. 72 hours is OK but I'd have probably raised it to 5 days. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comment at User talk:Academic Editor and just wanted to point out that A Nobody is one of the few editors to achieve the distinction of being banned by Arbcom and by the community at the same time over different issues (see discussion). I'm not sure that even Arbcom could unblock him without community consultation.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew he was banned, but didn't know he got banned twice at the same time. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to decline the A7 on the above referenced article. I'm not the originating editor, but recognize that the article not only indicates importance and significance, but as the founding editor of an international academic journal published by Elsevier, it meets the topical notability guidelines for academics. See #8 of WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to request that you consider restoring the article. I'll do some cleanup and add some citations. Could you let me know who created the article? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Actually, could you restore it to my subpage here: User:Cindamuse/Paul Cloke. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you have declined the wrong speedy deletion and moved to a redirect the page Stream TV. I was working on it with also the pages Stream S.P.A. and Miro Allione (still on my sandbox). It's ok if the redirect remains there and i replace the wikilinks here with Stream S.P.A.? Thanks for the help anyway... --Allions (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I redirected both Stream TV and Stream S.P.A. to Sky Italia. Sure, you can replace those links. Either one will redirect to the same article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, why both redirect? Stream was for 10 years one of the most important televisions in Italy. At the end was merged into Sky Italia because being bought by news corporation, (Murdoch company). So it has also an international importance. I think is very notable. I also uploaded the company logo: here. --Allions (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither article had any substantive content; in fact, both were nearly identical, so it made sense to redirect them both to Sky Italia, which mentions both companies. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree to redirect one into the other, two were too much and were identical, but why redirect both? it was a stub and i was still working on it, with a little time it could became a normal article like the italian one: Stream TV and Stream SPA. Can you revert one of the two redirect (or allow me to) so i can keep working on it? --Allions (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert either one, preferably the one you feel is most notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll revert Stream TV (more notable, has many wikilinks into it) and i'll redirect the other one to it. Thanks for the help --Allions (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I can close the AfD if you'd like. Let me know. On a side note, I'm always hesitant to dismiss a removal of a speedy deletion tag by a non-author. Obviously the account that removed it is an WP:SPA but my thought is that it's better to take the time that hastily mark articles for speedy deletion. Do you think there's a definable line for reverting non-author removals of speedy deletion templates? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw, damn. I am usually more careful than that. I simply did not notice the AfD tag. I saw the speedy tag, read the article, then I examined all the sources. Based on that, I deemed the A7 speedy tag valid, so I deleted it.

Had I noticed the AFD I would have reverted the speedy tag myself and let the AFD run its course. To me, that's the "definable line" you asked about: If an AFD has started, it's best to remove speedy delete tags unless the comments in the AFD suggest that speedy deletion is appropriate. Through my carelessness I broke my own rules.

I do think the article qualified for speedy deletion. After looking at the AFD, I find it disturbing how many SPAs have chimed in. What do you think? I'll restore the article if you want to let the AFD run. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I'm sort of concerned about their activity on other pages. My gut tells me they're different people collaborating off-wiki. I would guess that their intent is in good-faith but they could still cause a lot of trouble. 'm watching their talk pages for any sort of red flag that would signal the need for an SPI.

I don't really see that the article will ever survive AfD. It's probably a clerical issue at this point. Maybe letting the AfD run so its lack notability is clearly spelled out to new users would be the best plan. If it somehow invites a lot of ballot stuffers, that would definitely be a downside. It's up to you. Six one way, half dozen the other. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I doubt we'll have a problem with it being re-created. I took responsibility for the closure and closed it. Sorry for the mix-up. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was any better way to handle that. No worries on my end. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was about to decline the speedy as it wasn't right - but is the player in fact notable? He appears to play for a university side, and I don't think they are in the leagues listed in WP:ATHLETE. I'm no expert on sport, and would like an opinion from someone who probably knows more than I do. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no sports expertise either. I didn't look at the Texas Longhorns article; I just assumed that was a professional team. Shows you what *I* know about it.

That said, WP:ATHLETE does have a section on college athletes, WP:NCOLLATH. The Dallas Morning News reference is significant coverage of Foswhitt Whittaker, and one could argue it has a national circulation sort of like the New York Times. Dallas isn't local to his team's home in Austin, either, so this would be at least regional coverage. The Sports Illustrated reference is just a table of stats so that doesn't count. With one valid reference, he probably doesn't qualify. However, I see lots of other sources online, like this one that names him one of the "best undrafted available players" of 2012.

I think this may qualify for deletion, but probably not speedy deletion. There may be more to this Whitaker guy than the current article indicates. But I don't really know. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly - but http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1144267-the-biggest-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-foswhitt-whittaker seems to think he's been erratic and may not be drafted (a process I still can't understand in American sport terms). Peridon (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted? It is not promotional in nature. The article is entirely encyclopedic, with objective information presented with accurately cited sources.

The article fits the Wikipedia definition as indicated below:

All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contenteditor291 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, which should be obvious to anyone without a conflict of interest. Several sentences contained unsubstantiated puffery, such as "All MOLLY MAID staff follow the same practical, functional cleaning system in every room of the house" and "stronger products are necessary to meet our high cleaning standards". That latter example, using the word "our", was obviously written by a company representative — you, perhaps? If you are associated with Molly Maid, please refer to WP:COI for further guidance. In a nutshell, the article read like a combination of company brochure and business plan. Therefore, it was deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI. I had James restore the page to my user page and I will work on it as part of the Article Rescue Squadron. It does not appear that bad of an article. Just needs to have the promotional content removed and notable citations added. Wish me luck! --Morning277 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied to you on the talk page regarding the New Jersey winery external links. I read through WP:ELNO, and although it's a bit vague, crtiterion 5 may prohibit these links. I will not restore them. NJ Wine (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know of any other NJ wineries that might be notable, that don't have a Wikipedia article? I find it difficult to believe there's only that one currently in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I replied to your request denial on the whitelist page, but figured I'd write you here as well. Thanks: Thanks for reviewing the case. The third review MAY work. However, just for your information, links 1, 2, and 4 are not actually reviews of the film, but reactions to the trailer. Those reviewers have not seen the film yet and are just working off the trailer and synopsis. I think a review from someone who actually attended the premiere would be an important part of the article. Review #3 seems to be someone who saw some advanced clips, and is dated a month before the premiere. I hope you can reconsider. Thebaueroflove (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock for good behaviour? He used his declared socks to edit after his block ... no way this could have ever been acceptable as an unblock. Please fix ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious.

...and he came clean about those socks. He also feels the pain, and blocks are not punishment. I am convinced he understands the consequences of recidivism. I am convinced he wants to contribute. I also felt that the existing duration was excessive. Given those things, I reduced the duration. I plan to watch him like a hawk; any evidence of disruption and the block is restored, for a longer period. If you feel differently, you are welcome to restore the block, but I ask that you give him a chance to prove himself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because of the socking after the block, this was one of those situations where you're required to discuss with the blocking admin, as per policy. Unilateral reduction was very inappropriate. His belief that "see, the encyclopedia is falling apart without me" is further proof that he needed to remain blocked as that's his sole argument for unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the policy, and I do apologize. We are discussing it now. Are you truly convinced that a probationary reprieve is unwarranted here? I'd like to extend this editor an olive branch.

If you are adamant about it, I can restore the original duration or split the difference if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the original block length was overly generous, but based on escalation. His "rush" to get back at it shows he doesn't understand the reasoning behind his block whatsoever. It's still therefore not punitive, it's protection, which is of course the purpose of blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it seemed to me that the prior discussion about his block on his talk page showed that he understood and agreed with the reasoning for the block, and there was no need to rehash it in the recent unblock request. I took the entire talk page into account in my decision to reduce the length, including his demonstrated enthusiasm to work on articles in his own space while blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not the case as can be seen. I have, based on this discussion, not only re-implemented the original month, but removed his talkpage access for improper use of it during the block. Please note, after his block evasion, I had intended to increase the block length - but chose not to as part of WP:AGF. I'd be happy to extend it to 3 months, but I don't think that would be good for the editor or the project in the long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Gotta run an errand now, will post an apology when I return. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI (to both of you), after Bwilkins' block modification the user did this on the Simple English Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I blame him for his feelings in spite of the inappropriateness in venting them. He is understandably frustrated by getting caught between two conflicting admin decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, blame the admin instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions. Sheer brilliance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. But his reaction is like being let out of jail only to be dragged back in a few minutes later. Understandable. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He appears to have calmed down per this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to review some of the changes be debated at Talk:Wineries,_breweries_and_distilleries_of_New_Jersey#Reverted changes. NJ Wine (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for revising the page history for this article. I had improperly reverted the move of the page, resulting in the split page history. NJ Wine (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I had to do the same thing on the talk page. It's done. It wasn't as much of a problem as I expected, since there was zero to little overlap between the two pages. Merging histories can be a mess if each version of the page continues to be edited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I am not returning to work on the article/list. I don't need that kind of nonsense and petulance in my life. I have more important things to do than waste my time only to deal with someone acting territorial. Let him win for now, if he does it again, we'll act accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be back sooner than I thought, User:NJ Wine was blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. See his user page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic. You recently participated in this discussion; I'm leaving this message on your page to tell you that your input would once again be greatly valued. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Would like to invite you to comment on Talk:Misha_Bryan as there is a discussion on why the page deserved deletion. You are listed as deleting the page. Thanks! --newzealander 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewzealanderA (talk • contribs)

The proper venue for your discussion is WP:DRV. I have deleted that talk page because it is associated with a nonexistent page, but I have restored its content to your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If you could restore the Misha Bryan deleted article to my user space to work on, that would be great. NewzealanderA (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! FYI - I have edited the Misha_Bryan_(singer) article and presented it to User:Sionk to review. Thanks for restoring it to my user page. Of interest, you might want to know that this same user has done the same type of deletions elsewhere using the same non-Wikipedia arguments. One is going on right now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_Devlin_(singer). The discussion there is very similar to the one had for Misha Bryan. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic - you are invited to offer your opinion at User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B#User_Consensus_Request regarding X Factor contestant Misha B - User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. Thank you for your time!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Amatulic-First thanks for providing so much high quality information on wine and everything wine related. I recently wrote an article on Mouvedre for my company blog and thought it might warrant a mention on the page given the Dr Vino reference as well as others. It's found at http://www.uncorkedventures.com/blog/Mourvedre

Anyway, I thought it would be a "better" approach to contact someone I saw actively editing wine sections and ask for inclusion rather than add the link myself since that clearly looks like Spam.

If nothing else I hope this can be the beginning of a conversation. I am happy to help out in the wine section when possible- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAselstine (talk • contribs)

Hello Mark. Nice to meet you, and I like your blog article. Unfortunately, links to blog articles are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia (see WP:ELNO for guidance) unless the blog is written by a recognized authority on the topic. The Dr Vino link was not appropriate either (and even if it was, it didn't enhance the content already in the article). Someone else has already removed it.

Thanks also for not adding that link yourself; it speaks well of your integrity. Asking another editor or proposing a link on an article talk page is always the best course of action for someone with a conflict of interest.

External links are a convenience for an encyclopedia, not a necessity. All an encyclopedia really needs are references to reliable sources, and even those don't need to be online. The best contributions you can make to Wikipedia are content contributions, rather than links. My own family has a successful winery, for example, but I would never dare add a link to it anywhere or even mention its name; it just isn't relevant to this project. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I question whether this is a valid username block. She seems to be Shana[in]Marketing[for Inova]. I don't see how this is a username violation, since she's not marketing anything called Shana. It's a COI and spam problem, certainly; but not a username problem, regardless of how I feel about marketing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The account was engaged in promotional edits, and gave the appearance of a marketing company contracted by Inova, so I blocked accordingly. If this is a name like Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs) then you're absolutely correct the user name isn't a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Update (also responded on your talk page). The username is fine; I found what appears to be her LinkedIn profile. I will change the block and block message accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic. I nominated the redirect "Lado Kingdom" for speedy deletion because there never was such a Kingdom. The article "Lado enclave" was renamed as such by a hoaxer. After this was corrected the redirect (and the adjoining talk page) remained somehow. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does seem to be an alternative name preferred by those with political allegiance to it, based on my Google searches. Therefore, I felt the redirect was reasonable. It certainly isn't an official name, but it's a name that some use. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will not contest this and I thank you for your time & effort. It just seemed to me that it was strange to have a redirect based on a hoax. But since the hoax exists..... some people might come looking for it I suppose. One remark however. Searching on Google will only redirect you to the original author of the Wiki article and two of his friends from Denmark.Greetings! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant references to "Lado Kingdom" I found were mostly forums and blogs (for example this one from 2007), but it wasn't clear that the authors of those postings were related to the author of the Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic! What does that mean? Of course I know that Dischi Ricordi was a subsidiary company of Casa Ricordi, but they're not the same thing and I don't see why so different things should be treated in the same article (Fiat and Chrysler are part of the same company, but we have two different articles). Apart from that, the article Casa Ricordi doesn't even mention what Dischi Ricordi is and why it's related to Casa Ricordi, so that redirect makes no sense: the reader searching for Dischi Ricordi does not get any information more than if the redirect didn't exist (on the contrary, the reader runs the risk of confusing Dischi Ricordi with Casa Ricordi, which are related but anyway different companies). If any information on Dischi Ricordi will be added on en.wiki, it should be put into a new article; in the meanwhile I think the link should be stay a red link. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable redirect, especially since the Ricordi Group's web site, linked in Casa Ricordi explains the connection. All that is needed is a sentence of explanation in the Casa Ricordi article. It is not unusual for topics on which articles do not yet exist to be redirected to a related topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention with User:Fightingagainstlies on the Oktay Sinanoğlu article. I've been trying to communicate with him (via his talk page and the article talk page) and offered to help, but he didn't seem to want to collaborate. Thanks for stepping in and allowing him a chance to cool down about it.

P.S. I know you're busy on weekends, so don't need a reply, just wanted to say thanks. P.P.S. Really like the fractal user box you have on your user page. Vertium (talk to me) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice you unblocked User talk:Wikitam331. Now, that may have been fair enough, but when he says "It's not like I voted multiple times in the discussion", that is manifestly untrue. He accepts that 76.125.166.228 is his IP address, and clearly voted here, in support of the move request that he himself had proposed. Just thought you ought to know this. St Anselm (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock of Wikitam331 [10], your summary said Editing while logged out does not appear to be an attempt to create the illusion of multiple participants -- did you look at Talk:Reformations? The account and the IPs all !voting in the move discussion. If it were a simple matter of forgetting to log in, I wouldn't have bothered. However, this user and the IPs are being a PITA in that ddiscussion. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked carefully at that page before making my decision. I saw multiple comments and one vote from the IP address. There is one IP address there, as explained by Wikitam331, the other one that appears isn't his, and I also addressed that in my unblock response. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make the following statement with a straight face Assuming that 12.165.27.130 isn't you, your IP address edits don't give the appearance of trying to create the illusion of more participants than there were. Even granting that the other IP is not a sock,This vote, along with this comment do not seem so innocent. But if Wikitam331 behaves appropriately going forward, this is a moot point. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what happened when I userfied that page? Check out my help desk request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird. I have re-userfied it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your help, I confess I wasn't quite sure of what I was doing. Thanks for sorting out. Much appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed clear what you intended, so I just performed the move. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Specifically it is this thread. Note that Miszabot was re-enabled and attempted to archive but there was a blacklisted link so it didn't write the page...unfortunately it can't be undone by a non-admin because of the link. We need help getting the threads back, Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I had just figured out how a non-admin could do it after I asked you. By editing from this rev, taking care of the offending url and then copy/paste over ANI making sure to restore any subsequent comments. I'm trying to make sure I know what to do next time. Thank you for straightening that out.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All I did was show the bot's diff, and then I clicked on "undo". The next screen said the edit could be undone, which means nothing added afterward would be disturbed, so I just 'cleaned' the URL and submitted the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey mate, block is over now. It was horrible. Just want to thank you again for your help and for replying to my posts last month. Kept me in check and now I want to start off with a clean slate. Anyway I have one question, what will happen to my other 2 accounts. The 3rd one I made was for evading but the other 2 have been along for a year now (I think) and I dont want to sign in to one of the other 2 accounts and than log back on to my account (this one) and see that my IP Address is blocked. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to FootballinIndiaWiki, IndianFootballPlayersWiki, and RedBullNewYork2012, those are already blocked, so there is no danger of you getting blocked again for logging in to them. If you have others, let me know and I can block them too without blocking the IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying is I can log onto them and then log off them and still edit with my IP Address and this username. I dont mind if that is the case as I only use FootballinIndiaWiki and IndianFootballPlayersWiki for the watchlist (basically in order to keep things organized I made those two) so I can stay logged on Google Chrome and use Safari for the other two accounts. I am hoping to delete RedBullNewYork2012 completely. I dont have any others. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that you removed links to a blog I referenced in the Sherry article. That blog (or column or online magazine) is the only English language source of the new Sherry legislation. But note that you did not remove references to two other blogs in the External Links section. Feel free to act consistently by deleting these other blogs and tidying up the content as necessary.--GinaKendal (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My purpose was to clean up a specific links you added. Thank you for pointing out the others; they are now gone. Be aware that English sources are not necessary. Particularly if official sources exist, as they did in the articles to which you added those links, the official sources should be cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A user you blocked seems to be evading an indefinite block by using this account to recreate this article. The article has been marked for speedy deletion and I have marked their userpage for G11 deletion. Think we need to start an SPI? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend starting an SPI just to establish a record, because I suspect this isn't the last sockpuppet we'll see from this person. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I proposed a format for this article on the talk page and would like your suggestions (my intended project for upcoming two weeks after I finish up my two current ones). On another topic: Where did all the deletionists come from regarding the list? I'm inclined to split the list into its components (wineries and breweries) and look forward to an NJ beer article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested format sounds fine to me.

On Talk:List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey, I have no idea where the sudden deletionist attention comes from (and note in a section above on my talk page as well as my WP:RFA that I've been accused of being deletionist too, but that's a common misconception about m:precisionists). I note that Agne has chimed in with some comments. Given her professional knowledge and being the Wikipedia Wine Project's greatest contributor, if she voices misgivings about an article's existence, I consider her view to merit special attention. I do agree with her that the list could be more encyclopedically useful than a collection of red links, which essentially is all it is at the moment. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic.

I am writing to you not about my wife Lena Pessoa (yes, she is my wife, and I agree with the fact COI is important for the american wikipedia's community) but about this affair generally speaking.

About that article, before you arrive there with a cool attitude, I had been agressed by 2 censors, I forget their name and you destroy Lena's page, including the "talk" part of it. I just noticed about them, 1 was a Indian from Dehli, signing Eagle something, and watching him, I notice he was not "cultural" at all. The second one, beside being a God Freak, was angry because in certain references I talked about, Lena Pessoa was only referenced in "One" page ! This is the heart or my feeling of today.

If you are a musician, you can use as references a record. Anybody in the world is able to have 1 record printed, you have major companies or louzzy one, you can pay for the publishing of the record, blah blah blah.

If you are a writer, the same constatation apply.

If you are a Scientist, like you, you may have citations in Scientists Newspapers (very important, this is one of the propagation system for Sciences), books with you name, if you are famous ... I would not say that you may have books and be a crook, for instance in France we have these brothers Xxxxxxff ...

And if you are a designer, architect, then you need to proove your work with Books under your name ! a book talking about the more luxuous store in the world where you have 1 page, not even mentioned on the cover, is not good. You cannot reference something like 3 stores in New York, 1 in Miami, 4 in Los Angeles, 1 in Dallas, just to mention Usa, even if you can show pictures on differents internet sites ... Yes, Designers are suppose to be "social", go everywhere to piple a lot, they cannot be quietely in their house, reading books, traveling, waiting for their clients to come to them !!!

So voila my feelings,

A bientôt :-)

Mouzaia (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Previously I recommended you create the article in your own userspace first. I think I may have moved it there. Unfortunately, another admin deleted it as a copyright violation of http://pt-br.facebook.com/DeuxL?sk=info -- Wikipedia can not re-publish content that already exists elsewhere. I recommend you try again, create User:Mouzaia/Lena Pessoa in your own words, and I am sure there will be no problem.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) explains how a person can merit an article on Wikipedia. The criteria are not negotiable. The subject must have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Without such references, an article can still avoid speedy deletion if it explains explain why the person is notable. But still it may not survive WP:AFD without adequate sources.

As I wrote to you on your talk page, I am happy to review the article when you have added sufficient reliable sources to it, prior to moving it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying my own work ? because the text on Facebook is my text ...

Also 'Not negotiable', OK I am not going to negociate anyway.

But in fact, in that French Paper called Le Monde, there was a very good article about Wikimania published yesterday, I am so sad to read Wikipedia is sick, now I know more why.

Thanks again for your help.

Mouzaia (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have permission to copy text published elsewhere. Just because a Wikipedia account claims "it is my text" or says "I give permission" does not mean it is true. Wikipedia needs some sort of official permission from the copyright owner, with proof that the owner is who he claims to be. See WP:CONSENT to learn about how to accomplish this. However, I think it is easier simply to re-write the text in different words.

I would like to read that article you linked to, but apparently it is unavailable to non-subscribers. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You ask for it ? you got it ! but in french :-(

Mouzaia (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I can't download the file. Oh well. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Computers :-( here is a dropbox url ! hope it is better ! Mouzaia (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Google Translate worked very well. I have seen similar articles in English. Improving editor diversity is a good thing, and a visual editing interface may help. But I disagree that a visual editing interface will solve the problem of declining contributors. As Wikipedia has grown, so have the policies and guidelines grown in number and complexity. As you have observed yourself, it is difficult for a new editor on the English Wikipedia to be familiar with all the rules. I believe this difficulty in learning the rules is a reason for the decline in contributors. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

difficult to understand difficult rules :-) à bientôt Mouzaia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is in regards to your rv. As I stated in my original edit summary I recalled hearing about a policy that links mentioning a Wikipedia page need to be done as ELs since mirrors and such would convert normal internal links to links on their site- rather than to the Wikipedia page which is the true destination. Unfortunately I can't seem to remember where this was, are you aware of some policy I'm not? Thanks, OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I reverted you, I also started a discussion on the talk page, so please continue this discussion there. I'm interested to see your argument about why you think one particular wikilink on Wikipedia merits singling out as an external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see the thread there. Missed it in my watchlist. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, greetings. I'm not sure what to make of this but there is some odd activity from a Ho Chi Minh City IP in the archive resets to Talk:History of Champagne. As closing admin perhaps you might wish to have a look at it. I'm not quite the purpose is or what influence, if any, it was meant to have on past or possible future RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case the IP edit seems to be related perhaps to a possible planned future RM which hasn't happened yet. Wheras in cases like Talk:Praha_hlavní_nádraží it relates to making previous contrary/failed RMs invisible by setting up bot archiving. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be reading too much into it. The edit simply sets up auto-archiving for that talk page. It looks like a proper edit to me. The 60 day age for archiving may be a bit short considering the average activity on that page, so I changed it to 365. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, yesterday I might have been, hence the cautious tone. But today it's now a cluster of a dozen IPs all working to the same modus operandi. Naturally not all the archiving of previous RMs has clicked in yet, and Talk:History of Champagne is among those that hasn't archived the old RM yet. I have only listed the ones that have actually potentially affected already closed RMs here. 60 days is typical of the forward looking resets of the IPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were two RMs on Talk:History of Champagne about a month apart, and the first one appears to have been archived. It's no big deal, archiving talk pages is not a bad idea, so I'm hesitant to categorize this activity as disruptive. If a talk page is normally not active, then you can remove the template or extend the archive age trigger. 1 or 2 years is fine for a low-rate talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, done when logged in archiving is good. FYI the IP which reset Talk:History of Champagne archive has just been listed among the IP cluster in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Though it is not among the planned RMs at User:Kauffner/RM incubator. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi...a NPOV has been pinned to the Misha B page. I believe its unfair as though I am a fan, I have honestly tried to be neutral. Apart from a brief period a few years ago I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning as I go. (I am not good with stress) Your wise comments would be appreciated. Just for your information and hoping for your comments

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==

Hello. Just to let you know ...This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard The thread is "Misha B, Talk:Misha B". Thank you....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity in Wikipedia's policy on what uncontroversial maintenance actually means, hence I cannot allege that there was some mistake on your side. In any case, I reverted the unexplained move to "Haute tension" by LF (talk · contribs), not discussed or announced nowhere in the acceptable form. Unfortunately, I cannot restore suppressed edit histories, including a quite fine redirect, properly sorted with {{R from other capitalization}}. Also, your deletions largely concealed (from non-sysops) LF's actions and his attempts to provide a substantiation for the page move which is now reverted. I hope, you are willing to restore edit histories of the redirect and its talk page – just go to [11] and [12] and follow restore … deleted edits links. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Looks like you repaired the moves, and I have restored the histories. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Now I can go marauding with impunity! :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. You still aren't exempt from being blocked directly, though. Happy marauding! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh...um, I'll just slink away then. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry — until just a moment ago, I overlooked the fact that you weren't ready to unblock this user, so I unblocked him half an hour ago in order to enable a WP:CHU request. I don't think it would be right to reblock when he's made no more edits, but please note that I've given him a strict no-more-spamming warning with a reminder that more spamming will result in an indefinite block that's likely to be permanent. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, actually I was prepared to unblock him as soon as he could assure me that he understood the guidelines, but your warning is assurance enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would ask you to explain (and possibly amend) your closing statement in regards of article's sources: upon reading CBSNews' item I had impression that it lacks depth of coverage, as the article doesn't discuss the features and workflow of this piece of software. To make it clear, I propose an imaginary test: would you be able to identify the subject of this article if all "Easy Projects.NET" occurrences were replaced with "XXX"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is borderline, and spent a while waffling back and forth in my closing decision. In the end, I determined that nothing in WP:SIGCOV requires "depth of coverage". The CBS source constitutes an article written by a seemingly notable author writing for a major national news organization, both independent of the product, devoting an entire article (albeit short) exclusively to reviewing the product. This is far more than a trivial mention. The fact that it isn't a detailed review doesn't invalidate the coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG.

As I stated in my closing statement, I invite anyone who feels the closure was improper to open a WP:DRV issue to overturn it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I filed the deletion review request. Hope you don't get offended. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMPROMISED#Compromised_accounts - Here it says I can request the unblock if I can demonstrate I have control of my old account, which I do. The thing is, nobody know my password and can't enter my account neither my e-mail, but I do use the "remember me" while loging in. My account isn't compromised. Nobody can't access it except me. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well User:Wustenfuchs is blocked indefinitely. For your new account User:FuchsWusten, you might also consider implementing Wikipedia:Committed identity as a further means of proving that you are who you say you are if you're ever blocked in the future due to a compromised account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer all of my edits to the new account? And why is so impossible to unblock the old one as I proved It's still under my control. Also, another problem. I never said my account was compromised, and because of misunderstanding I have all of these problems now. I have control over my old account, and the thing with other people using my account was just hypothetical. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you block a template? [13]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked a user, then clicked on the last section on the user's talk page, intending to add the block message to the end, but I failed to notice that the last section was a transclusion of a template (she had tried to write an article on her talk page and that template was at the end for some reason). So the block message ended up on the transcluded template instead.

A dumber goof I once made was blocking myself by accident instead of someone else, thereby destroying my perfectly clean block log. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You speedy deleted Talk:Vu TelePresence just after I contested the deletion. I think it should be restored because a newbie editor requested help ther and may not have had time to see the response. BYTE and all that. Cheers. --agr (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for restoring just the talk page of a deleted article. If you want to communicate help to someone, wouldn't it be best use the talk page of the editor who needs the help? I often answer contested deletion comments on user talk pages because I know the user won't see the response on the deleted talk page. You have the ability to extract content from the deleted talk page; please consider doing that.

Also I note that the author of the original article has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, apparently used multiple accounts to edit that article, and is fully capable of using WP:AFC or working on it in his or her own user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com . Bohat Bohat Shukria! edge.walker (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is Guinness World Record Team by the way. I must check some of their other edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was a username policy violation. I think the account is trying to be constructive but doesn't know how yet. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Chris Cross article was evidently written by the subject or their agent. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article Mark Ashwell. There was nothing wrong with it. Can you please sort this out for me as its your problem not mine, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was about someone who owns a non-notable company, happens to be chairman of a local football club, and apparently has only local coverage. I agreed with the nominator that the subject failed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Amatulić (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic. I had contested the speedy deletion due to notability of the Rocky Rivera article, and was intending to include more resources proving so, such as [14] and [15], in addition to citing I'm_From_Rolling_Stone. Are those sufficient sources to restore the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincetessence (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those sources would satisfy the folks at WP:RSN, so I have restored the article to User:Quincetessence/Rocky Rivera for you to work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted. It is usually best to work on a new article in your own user space first and then move it to main article space when it's more complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip! Sorry, it's been a few years since I've edited on wikipedia. User spaces are new to me (regardless of whether they were actually new). Remembering to sign this time, Quincetessence (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You marked this edit minor, when it was actually a revert of non-vandalism. This is a violation of WP:MINOR. Please do not use the minor flag except in the case of trivial, uncontroversial changes. This change was neither. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Errant mouse click, force of habit. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem; mistakes happen. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, I'm rather concerned about your unblock of Thewolfchild (talk · contribs). Why did you do this without first consulting me as the blocking admin? (as is required by WP:BLOCK#Block reviews). I blocked this editor for his consistently aggressive manner, which was continued in the various unblock requests and an email he sent me asking that the block be lifted about a month ago. I don't impose indefinite-duration blocks lightly, and I think that lifting this block on the basis of a not-very-genuine looking single sentence unblock request was not a good judgement call on your part. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I should have contacted you first.

The fact that the unblock request contained a single sentence was irrelevant to me. He had answered your own question in detail, and his responses to others were detailed and had evolved toward civility. He complied with the prior admin who declined an unblock request to take some time off. It appeared to me that he met every condition imposed upon him. I decided to assume good faith that redemption is possible, therefore I lifted the block and have been monitoring him closely, ready to re-block as soon as he shows any evidence of recidivism. So far his edits have been mostly to his own user space, with two other constructive edits in article space.

And, I should have written my reasoning above on your talk page before taking action. Please accept my apologies. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you're keeping an eye on him hopefully not much damage is likely to occur. However, his unblock requests - including the email he sent to me - were equal parts good-sounding commitments and promises of continued aggressive behaviour, which explains why they were turned down by various admins, so this really should have been discussed before any unblock was made. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Every few hours I look at his contributions. Not much activity. I sure wish Wikipedia had a "watch user" administrator function that gives me an alert when a user has made an edit. I believe it's been proposed but rejected as too easily abused for stalking. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've often wanted that function. From memory, even listing editors you're keeping an eye on in your user-space (eg, a list of {{user|x}} templates) is severely frowned upon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in this case, the result was keep or delete? None of the arguments where refuted as perhaps you noticed.Farhikht (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the closing rationale? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And with respect, I didn't understand why a promotional artcile, created by a SPA user, with some references written by the subject, all of them non-reliable, should be kept? You didn't even relist it.Farhikht (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether someone is an SPA doesn't matter to me; I consider the merits of the arguments presented regardless of who makes them. The fact is, there was some independent coverage that caused the article to squeak by. Perhaps I erred in closing it as 'keep' rather than 'no consensus, but I saw no reason to re-list it as the debate was already fairly extensive. I have no objection if you bring my closure to WP:DRV (which may result in re-listing), or wait a couple of months and propose it for deletion at WP:AFD again. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This has just been recreated again and is still a copy vio. Maybe needs salting?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author claims to have removed the copyright violation, although he keeps restoring the article with the db-copyvio tag on it. The article is really about content available on the web, so it meets WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion. I left a note on the author's talk page; if it's created again, I'll salt it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to know what kind of Notability i should provide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_%28programming_language%29 is pretty much same. both open source zlib licensed scripting languages released in the same year. AngelScript also have many major games and applications released with it. http://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/users.html I was about to write that section. found lack of a wikipedia article to be dissapointing. so i made an account and started writing. it has many well known games written with it. I want some more criticism about the article. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saejox (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Squirrel has barely adequate independent coverage demonstrating notability. I suggest you create the article in your own user space (e.g. User:Saejox/Angelscript) and work on it there. That way you don't have to worry about it being deleted while you improve it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick note to thank you for deleting Brown anole leaving way for a page move! (No need to respond.) – Paine (Climax!) 18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day Amatulic. First of all, thanks for your guidance; I am quite new to the Wikipedia thing (debuted yesterday) so my apologies if I did anything wrong or that generated additional work for you and other moderators. I contested the speedy deletion status due to the page being work in progress while I gathered notability evidence for the Vive la Difference band. They have been selected as participants for Channel 31 music show/competition but is yet to be announced as the show is not airing until several months. As I noticed several articles discussing participants to various notable TV reality shows, I assumed this to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. The page is now deleted but maybe this decision can be reviewed? I did not realized that the tag that was in the header of the article was for the speedy deletion and should not be removed, I have now a better understanding of the way the Wiki works and have been reading the fundamentals on first pages/articles. Sorry for messing up with the tag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbejac (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When the band meets the criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BAND, then it would merit an article. See also WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia generally does not publish articles about things that haven't happened yet, and never publishes articles on non-notable topics in anticipation of future notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one before. That'll come very much in handy. :) Peridon (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I use it only for obvious cases. Some bands are borderline notable but don't quite meet the thresholds in WP:BAND (like maybe they've released one album through an established record label, not two as required), in which case mentioning WP:GARAGE is needlessly insulting. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have made a few new comments in the talk page of Mata Amritanandamayi. I am hoping you can look at them and comment. As you probably remember you locked the page for one week there due to edit-warring. I am very new to Wiki and, with the lock on the page being removed on 24 August, dont really know how to proceed. Can you explain/suggest on the talk page there? Thanks.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted Mike Martin (American guitarist), but you forgot to delete the redirect Mike "2of5" Martin. Bgwhite (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rafał Kwaśniewski shouldn't be deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

He played in (and created) very popular Polish musical groups, which had golden and platinum albums. Dsflkuz (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 results in deletion if the article makes no credible claim of notability. Of the three bands linked to articles, Deuter is a different person and not a band (and the article does not mention Kwaśniewski), the Dezerter article lists him as a past member (and there is no indication that Kwaśniewski created the band or contributed to its success), and the article Kult (band) does not mention him at all. The person who nominated the article for speedy deletion could not find any credible claim of notability, and neither could I. Therefore I deleted the article.

You are welcome to re-create the article in your own user space as User:Dsflkuz/Rafał Kwaśniewski so you may work on it there at your leisure without worry about deletion, and then move it to main article space when the article clearly demonstrates notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but why did you delete Qaxach Tower? As far as I am aware, that was the original page; Kachaghakaberd was the recent cut-n-paste move of it, not the other way round. I know because in fact I repaired another identical cut-n-paste move just two months ago, histmerging stuff back into Qaxach Tower; back at the time I told editors to file an RM if they wanted it at the Kachaghakaberd location, so I'm now a bit irritated they succeeded in getting their way in this rather out-of-process way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit the histories of both pages confused me. One or the other had to go; given that I also found no reliable sources for Qaxach Tower as indicated by the AFD nomination, I decided to delete Qaxach Tower. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

But in doing so, you deleted almost the entire legitimate page history. The clean way of dealing with such a situation is a history merge. (Somebody else seems to have taken care of that now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that just now. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you just nominated an article I wrote for speedy deletion 23:55, 23 August 2012 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Grassroots shakespeare london (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:CSD#G11 - unambiguous promotion) The company is award nominated and making big changes in the London fringe theatre scene. This may not be important to you, but is considered important enough by the judges for recognition or the audiences who watch the shows. It has real significance and has been recognised by prestigious newspapers such as London's The Evening Standard, which has a circulation on 700,000, a significant number on a small island. Furthermore, it is more more 'unambiguous promotion' than the Royal Shakespeare Company having a page. Can you please reinstate this page as your reasons do not seem to make sense. I wonder if it would have been preferable for you to contact me and request that I address your points, which I could have done. Stellagirl21 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC) stellagirl21 (talk)

Please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages. I didn't see yours until just now, because you posted it in the wrong place.

I did not nominate your article for deletion. Another user (Osarius) nominated it. I deleted it. I deleted it because it qualified under two speedy deletion criteria: WP:CSD#A7 in that it contained no credible explanation of the company's significance, and WP:CSD#G11 in that it seemed promotional. Even if it wasn't promotional, it still did not contain any credible claims of significance.

You are welcome to re-create the article in your own user space and work on it there (e.g. User:Stellagirl21/Grassroots Shakespeare London) without worrying about it being deleted while you improve it, but you may want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you consider writing an article about a topic with which you have a close association. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could you please restore the page Orwa Nyrabia? I made a terrible mistake, I wanted to delete the draft on my user page User:Zozo2kx/Orwa instead, because it was a redirect, I ended up adding the template on the actual article. Is it possible to restore? (I already nominated it to DYK). Thank you, and sorry! Yazan (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist already restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope someday you will go beyond the equator, especially Indonesia. Among G20, Indonesia has stable economy, not as the other countries with decreasing growth because of European crisis following the US mortgage crisis. Indonesia is vast archipelago countries with area same with Europe and is dominated by domestic economy and only a third is come from export. Ludin a New Zealander who married an Indonesian girl is the architect of the stealth technology missile vessel which can runs 30 knots, can overcomes 6 meters wave and do not need deep water. By the way Bali is only one of 33 provinces in Indonesia and you will find any spectacular moments in any other part in Indonesia with 900 more of languages, but more than 90 percent of them speak Indonesian language and understand English in major city. Aviation business growth more than 15 percent a year becuase of people need speed and Low Cost Carrier aircraft are available. Passenger ships is modificated to Ro-ro ships to accomodate the cargo and Indonesian Navy need more missile fast patrol boats which should be built in Indonesia.Gsarwa (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting information, thanks. The closest I've been to Indonesia is Singapore. I'd like to go there some time, but in recent years Indonesia has not seemed like a safe place for westerners to visit. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to be honest. Today is safer than a decade ago, but many people who living from any kind of brokerage frequently still blowing the bad issues of Indonesia, because if foreigners make direct business with Indonesia, they will reduce their jobs. Malaysia and China recently make many direct investments in Indonesia because they know well about Indonesia; Malaysia and Indonesia mostly one same ethnic and China has good relationship with Indonesian Chinese Overseas. Indonesian is vast country, so there are many very safe place, but at the other end of Indonesia there are safeless place. Australian tourists is still number one in Indonesia and make Indonesia is their second home country with lenght of stay more than 2 weeks or more. To be objective, in Wikipedia: Global Peace Index, Singapore sets on rank 23, Croatia is 35, Indonesia is 63 and followed by Serbia 64, Bosnia and Herzegovina 65, Albania 66, Moldova 66 and Macedonia 68. By the way, no land mines in Indonesia.Gsarwa (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person responsible for creating a page for cortandfatboy, a podcast in Portland, OR, which you recently decided to delete. I wasn't aware that the show was the subject of a deletion debate back in 2011. I looked through the comments that were made in the original debate and I think a lot of snap judgments were made. In short, I think there's plenty of solid citations to warrant a page for the show, many of them dating from 2011 - 2012. There seems to be no clear, straight-forward process by which to pitch a new version of a deleted page on Wikipedia. More than anything, I'd just like to know why the new page was so quickly deleted without any sort of proper review? Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted hastily, and it already had ample review. The old deleted version, the version in the page history of the redirect Cort and Fatboy Show, and your version appeared substantially the same; therefore, the original deletion decision (the "proper review") still holds. Moreover, the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy repeatedly underscored the point that a podcast having received attention from major news outlets doesn't make a topic notable unless that attention constitutes in-depth coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The 'keep' proponents argued that that trivial mentions, routine local coverage, or even in-depth coverage by a blog make a difference. They are wrong.

That said, if there is any significant coverage since the time of the AFD, then the AFD decision can be overridden. I've seen hit happen before. But you'd have to include it in the article and base your arguments on those sources on the talk page. I didn't see anything that would have changed the decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. I could argue that there's plenty of articles on Wikipedia with less merit and flimsier sources but I'm sure that would only net me a "Other Crap Exist" tag. I guess my biggest questions is why, in this day and age, are blog posts being instantly negated as quality sources on Wikipedia? Everyone from the NYT to 15-year olds use them to communicate. Same goes for podcasts. It's like arguing that television is a short-lived silly fad (i.e. an impossibly outdated and short-sighted opinion, especially coming from a group of people fighting to prove the merit of Wikipedia, itself a new medium). I think the biggest beef the naysayers of the page have is the supposed lack of "in-depth coverage." Several of the sources *did* provide that. Take, for example, the Oregonian stories and the KGW one too (sadly, the clip of the hosts being interviewed has been taken down). There's also the documentary to consider. "Trivial" implies a passing mention, a single line or quote. In each of those stories, the hosts/show were the subject or were featured prominently. I, honestly, believe that those who killed the article couldn't look past the word "podcast" and the silly title of the show. So, yes, removing the article was an unfair, snap judgement. I'd also like to mention that "Aboutmovies," who placed the speedy delete tag on the cortandfatboy article, is the author of numerous Wikipedia articles about obscure Oregonian lawmakers and professors that have no place on the site. Hypocrisy in action. Multnomahblues (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are by their nature self-published sources and are therefore unacceptable for use as references. See WP:SPS and WP:ELNO for further information. There are exceptions, such as if the blog author is a recognized authority on the topic he is writing about, or if the author is a notable journalist. Blogs hosted by major national news outlets such as the New York Times are often deemed acceptable.

You are welcome to try again, but I highly recommend working on the article in your own user space (e.g. User:Multnomahblues/Cortandfatboy) so you can work on it at your leisure without fear of it being deleted. Just be sure it has better sourcing and significantly improved content over previous versions before trying to move it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Ultimately, the problem I'm running into is deletionists. I think the sources are there to warrant a page for this podcast: a cover story in the Mercury, a series of blog posts from the Oregonian, etc. I feel like no matter how much time I dump into this, and no matter how many citations I find, someone's just going to come along, give the article a quick glimpse and drop a "speedy delete" tag (as happened last week). The sources are already there. So what to do? Multnomahblues (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem may be the sources. Local coverage, even a cover story, isn't a strong indicator of notability. Blog posts aren't either. One thing you could try is open a discussion at WP:RSN to gauge the community's view on the sources you used. I think you will find that the regular participants there don't make snap judgments. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go that route. Thanks again for your input/advice. Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried WP:RSN and didn't receive a response before my entry was removed. Another editor suggested that I attempt a deletion review. As I understand it, I'm supposed to place this tag here since you're the admin the rendered the verdict to delete....

==Deletion review for Cortandfatboy==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cortandfatboy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Multnomahblues (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I participate in reviewing proposed new articles at Articles for Creation. An article that has been proposed, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crowe & Dunlevy is ready to move to article space as a start level article at Crowe & Dunlevy. The page was salted in 2011 after you speedily deleted a promotional version for the 4th time for A7/G11. The previous page was apparently created by the firm, then a sock (I'm not an admin, so I'm just going off of your edit summary). In any event, I believe that the current article is ready for creation. If you could unprotect the page and drop me a line (either here or on my talk page, I would appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I think the article at AFC still has some problems (sources are mostly local or not independent of the subject), I agree that the article is acceptable for main space. I have create-unprotected it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the article is not perfect, but I also found sufficient sources from outside the local area to be comfortable with notability. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

don't waste people's time with bullshit Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

this edit on your part is unacceptable and disruptive. It is a legitimate request on his own talk page. Let an admin deal with it (which I have). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR, esp when it's so obvious. Don't call me disruptive when I'm not. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I call it like I see it, and you are of course free to disagree. I consider WP:IAR to be a lame excuse that I have never had to use in my years on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. we can diagree :) Now will you please revoke the guy's talkpage access, he keeps vandalizing your post. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP who did that. I'll gladly revoke his access if he does it while logged in. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So... you accepted the request? :P [16] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems he vandalized his page as I was replying to you. Talk page access now revoked. Please understand that I reverted your first blanking of his unblock request because it makes it easier for other admins to review the case if needed, without having to hunt through the page history, and WP:BLANKING suggests that unblock requests should stay on the page while blocked (although it pertains specifically to declined unblock requests, I like any unblock request to remain while blocked, declined or not). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But the IP you blocked actually undid the vandalism to your post. Look at the history... [17] You blocked someone who really did nothing wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crap. You're right. Too much stuff going on all at once, was looking at the wrong diff. Fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I understand Autism Cymru was deleted - or should I say I noticed a red link in a template I built for Autism resources. Is it possible to bring back the page and put it in my user space and I'll fix whatever needs to be fixed to get it ready for prime-time? It would be better than starting from scratch, I'm guessing. But you might know better than me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I userfied it to User:CaroleHenson/Autism Cymru, including its entire editing history. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! It's like magic!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, did you see the note to not have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEXEY_SOROKIN automatically deleted.

He is one of the most talented fashion designers of 2012 and is at NY Fashion Week which is top 1% of 1%, I sited press like L'Officiel, InStyle, Depesha (Seattleseanhowell (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Both ALEXEY SOROKIN (the title of which violates our WP:TITLE guideline) and Homo Consommatus were nominated for speedy deletion. There seems to be a question of what is notable, the designer or the design. The Homo Consommatus article is still there, with speedy deletion declined.

Two separate articles are not needed, because the designer and the design are so new. I suggest merging the information into one single article (adding to Homo Consommatus in this instance) and renaming the article as appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not so new and one is a fashion house the other is a designer who was a photographer before. Very different things. (66.108.170.225 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)) Please undelete. This makes contributing really not worth it.

One article contained substantially the same content as the other. After considering your request, I will later today restore the article to its proper name (not all uppercase) and redirect Homo Consommatus to it, because that article is too short to warrant being stand-alone. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, restored to Alexey Sorokin and Homo Consommatus redirects to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a 2nd opinion. Is this a bit to spammy? I see it as an attempt to slide in the external link and promote rather add content. Dloh cierekim 22:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like a press release cited to the primary source of the press release. Yes, it screams "spam" to me. Not only that, it promotes a blog, which is too new to have any notability or reputation that would qualify it for an external link, let alone a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ironflood. Thank you for your feedback on the link posted. What I didn't understand is how the other external links on wine tasting page are more informative and relevant than the link I provided? Wineta isn't an author blog, the Wine Tasting Guide articles are written by a sommelier who breaks down what wine tasting really is with more information and tips than the Wikipedia article, which is understandable as external links should be used for extra references and additional knowledge.

I look forward to hear your thoughts. my talk page —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, this is Justin. I noticed you undid my edits on the oral rehydration solution page. I made the change because 1 level teaspoon of table salt is approximately 6 - 6.25 grams. This is double the amount that is described in the words of the text hence the change to one level half-teaspoon. Do you disagree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.144.37 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the Talk:Oral rehydration therapy. You see, the cited source says (verbatim quote): "A home-made solution containing 3g/l of table salt (one level teaspoonful) and 18g/l of common sugar (sucrose) is effective but is not generally recommended...."

In this case, where there's an internal inconsistency the cited source, we need to figure out what should actually be stated in the article. Perhaps it would best to leave the imperial units off altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The user has asked a question on your revert and I have explained what I see but your reasons may be different. The discussion is here. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, my reasons were different. I was thinking that WP:NOTABILITY outweighed WP:MEDRS. I posted a comment on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Mustafa Kayabaşı page although he's got a match in a fully pro league? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexus14 (talk • contribs)

I deleted it because only a few days ago we had an AFD that decided to delete the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Kayabaşı. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello There, i understand that you deleted a page i have created "DNA Despot" and now its protected against re-creation, and you Have the right to do so, and i just wanted to say i am sorry for the mistake i did, but all the problem that i forget to cite the recourse and write the reference i don't know why, but please gave me a chance to re-create the page with the reference and citing the source of the information and it will looks good and complete without mistakes, if you cant give me a chance, i will ask you to create it and i will send the text and you just click on "show preview" and if you found any mistake then its OK to delete it permanently and thanks and i hope you answer me and help me with this.Mc ahmed 3man (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Mc ahmed 3man/DNA Despot. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Amatulić. Does the series of edits starting here warrant another post to the 3RR noticeboard? Tiderolls 23:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Multiple reverts in a row, but not back-and-forth warring. I'd say no, it doesn't cross the threshold, because it could have easily been one revert instead of several piece-meal ones. However, the behavior does suggest that re-protecting the article may be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with your take, generally. I only bring it up because the user returns to the article immediately upon the lapse of protection to reinstate the version they were edit warring over previously. Tiderolls 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

i never Wrote Never Anyhting False And Gossip In Actress paoli dam page,paoli dam really gave 2.5 minute Full Nude Oral Sex Scene In Bengali Language Film Chatrak(2011) Directed By vimukti jayasunde she herself said that here are links http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-20/news-interviews/31214057_1_french-director-bigger-challenge-vikram-bhatt And http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110910/jsp/entertainment/story_14486573.jsp I MEAN paoli dam can give nude sex scenes But We Can't Wrote About It. Please Please Unlock actress paoli dam page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.195.156 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to the article, please use the article talk page, or use the {{edit semiprotected}} template on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you feel user Ckatz did the right thing in protecting the page, or why you felt it necessary to invoke the banhammer threat regarding my edits and failed to assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.164 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You were editing in good faith, yes. However, we have a guideline MOS:FILM that you apparently disagree with, and edit-warring with a guideline is not going to result in your desired version being kept, and is rather going to result in some sort of administrative action. To prevent further disruption, CKatz protected the article for a mere 24 hours instead of blocking you for edit warring. I merely stated that CKatz's response was more generous than mine would have been. I don't see the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If in your opinion, I was editing in good faith, then why did you write, in the history "Rv disruptive/unconstructive edit", and point out "we don't use weasel words"? This shows you have a pre-bias built in here and should not have gotten involved.

I very much disagree with the guideline, especially in this case. The guideline essentially says, we cannot refer to polls of user reviews on film aggrating websites, because people may stack the poll. Well, so what? People who like a movie, like the movie, it doesn't matter why. So, in the end, two sets of film reviews on a webpage, (Rotten Tomatoes in this case) side by side, one notable, one not? That's absurd.

Blocking is supposed to be used as a last resort on Wikipedia, not a first one, so your threat here to block me for an edit war you simultaneously call "good faith" and "disruptive/unconstructive", is uncalled for. Not good admin work. You seem to get a lot of that, if your talk page is any indication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.30 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your disagreement with a Wikipedia guideline is really not relevant, and your repeated edits in contravention of that guideline was disruptive. That film guideline derives from WP:RS. The fact is, user-generated comments are not considered reliable sources for an encyclopedia. If you have a problem with the guideline, then you can try to gain a consensus to change it, but individual articles are not the proper venue.

You were given two chances to work with the community, one that ended with article protection from another admin, another ending with your block. You were edit warring, you were blocked. Standard practice. Now you seem to be working with others, and that's fine. If you have a problem with my admin actions, you are welcome to take your case to WP:ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic. I noticed here you advised a blocked anonymous editor to email an account creator to request an account, or create one themselves at another location. The preferred method is actually for them to request an account through the Account Creation Interface, as a) you need to have an account to use the Emailuser function, and b) ACC allows checkusers to confirm that the person requesting the account wasn't the person the block was meant for in the first place. Just letting you know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that. I had thought the users designated "account creators" could create accounts for others on request, but your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'm confused by your statement that you need to have an account to use the Emailuser function. I could swear I have gotten emails from anonymous users in the past. I wasn't aware their ability to do this had changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, they've never had that ability; you need to have an email address in the system in order to send emails, and IP editors don't have access to preferences. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic, I noticed that you had reverted some of the edits made by me on the splitting of the moon website. The reason you gave was that you felt that it was hampering the neutral nature of the article. While I cited credible sources that the hoax was propagated on a large scale by a person of eminence Mr. Zaghloul El Naggar. I see all the claims were completely baseless and were propagated on a large scale. Moreover these were even published by Jarfariya News Network- which should serve as a good reference. I fail to see how this affects the neutrality of the article. Infact I feel that not mentioning the source of the hoax/claims is affecting the neutrality. Hence I request you to reconsider the reverts you have made. I even feel that it is only logical to have a explanation about the faults of the claims. If the hoax slayer explanation is not credible enough I shall communicate with NASA Lunar Science institute for a better explanation. However I request you to let the source of the claims be in place. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be pretty busy over the next couple of days so I won't be able to address your thoughtful comments properly until then. Please post the above on the article talk page and we can continue there. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.~~

If you have objected to my system-generated "errors" in my use of weblinks, I have corrected those, and my writing now more closely follows Wikipedia's general style.

However, my use of sources which you acknowledge as "reliable" is reliable and honest.

If you find my writing to be "all very interesting", it is likely that others will also find it to be so.

However, kindly refrain from removing truth.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you will be blocked from editing if you continue your disruption. See WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not tolerated here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The facts I have included pertain directly to the core of Robert O. Young’s writings. I have carefully removed any evidence not based upon reliable sources. All my references directly support my statements of fact. I have footnoted nearly every sentence from sources that directly support those sentences. I fail to see how my writing doesn’t exceed any imposed WP:BURDEN.

I am quite certain that I have not synthesized in any way except that which only the most extreme interpreters of the term “synthesis” could accuse me of. If recognizing that Young’s “pH” for vinegar is [likely not WP:CIV, removed by author] akin to stating that an automobile could travel faster than the cube of the speed of light, then I have done so {remember, the pH scale is logarithmic, and yes, that is what the numbers are}. If recognizing that one set of numbers neither coincides nor overlaps with another set of numbers, and stating that fact constitutes synthesis, then I have done it. However, in such an overly strict interpretation of the definition, any sentence construction varying from plagiarism {verbatim copying} would also be liable to the charge of “synthesis”; because any variation from the original author’s words could be argued to be “synthesis”. It seems to me that that is not what Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become: because Wikipedia says that authors should write in their own words, carefully rephrasing reputable sources’ information, so as not to plagiarize (WP:NOR). Nor do I believe that Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become, a hiding place for [likely not WP:CIV, removed by author].

Furthermore, WP:CALC seems to allow precisely this sort of observation , and the “calculation” required is even more essential to the root of mathematical thought (a rudimentary determination of equivalence) than those mentioned there (arithmetic, adding numbers, converting units), because “the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.” See Equality_(mathematics)

If you still say that my writing is WP:SYN or fails to meet WP:BURDEN, please state precisely where or how my writing fails. Perhaps you could help?

As you can see, your repeated objections have encouraged me to further refine my writing. THANKS.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over that edit, and I don't see anything that would stretch much beyond a Chemistry 101 level of background knowledge. I'd suggest adding {{cn}} to anything that isn't obvious rather than reverting. It should not be difficult to source or rephrase.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it still isn't acceptable. It's basically a criticism written in Wikipedia's voice, using sources that don't criticize the book. It is pure WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Note the word "imply" there. I see someone else has removed the section, yet again. If you want a section describing how wrong Robert Young is, then find a reliable source that says it, but don't say it by combining information from unrelated sources that don't even mention the book.

To the anonymous IP address adding it: Start using the article talk page to discuss your changes, if you honestly cannot understand why your addition contravenes Wikipedia policy. You will not get this material added to the article by edit-warring. That will only lead to a block. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if my newbie ignorance of WPs and my sending you the Template:Uw-delete3 has offended you, I apologize ~~and strike~~. All that I saw was that someone (you) had deleted hours of my work: a mere 40 minutes after I posted it. That seemed entirely unwarranted to me at that time, and it was difficult for me at that time to perceive any “presumption of good will” in regard to total deletion. Further, I didn't well-understand the purpose of Article’s “Talk” pages [as may be inferred from my “It’s not ‘talk’.” in the Edit summary of my second attempt].

I have also removed my comments regarding Young’s competence – which I placed only on your “Talk” page. Although I still regard them to be truthfully accurate, they likely do not comply with WP:CIV; and perhaps not with WP:BLP or WP:NPA.

I have now studied WPs. I hope that you will now find that my now-proposed text is acceptable, or offer improvements to it, or at the least: very specific objections. While I do have a POV, I continue diligently striving to add information to this article: from a factual, footnoted POV.

The WP:BURDEN is yours, Amatulić, to provide WP:RS to expose my “out-of-context quotations”, “multi-paragraph rant…exactly”, “non sequitur”, “putting words in the mouths of others”, and “fabricat[ion] of straw-man criticism” within my proposed text as the “junk” based upon a “foundation of ignorance” which you either state or imply Talk:Robert_O._Young that it is. It bothers me also when people quote others in an out-of-context fashion. Where did I do so?

If you are going to forcefully assert what someone (Young) ‘‘means’’ when they write something in a book {i.e. Young’s meaning for “pH”}, it would seemingly behoove you to have read that book. Why have you “been involved with this article for years” “[w]ithout having read Young’s book”?

Please see Talk:Robert_O._Young for further Article-specific commentary. 67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic. I have just found two emails you sent me on 17 August and 19 September. You may or may not remember that I told you emails sent to that address might wait a long time before I found them, and so it has turned out. (By the way, I also had some trouble figuring out who the emails were from, as your emails didn't use the name in the form "Amatulic", and the original conversation was so long ago that I had forgotten who it was.) I can't see anything else, other than the point you mention, to connect the IP to the two accounts, but I haven't done a thorough check of the editing history, so there may be evidence there. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of identification, and yes, I understood that any reply may be delayed; that was not a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention that your recent whitelisting of a MoneyWeek.com URL may have been unnecessary - the quote that the whitelister wished to reference had already been sourced from a different publication, during the whitelist dicusssion. (By coincidence, a London newspaper happened to reference the exact phrase, the day after the discussion was started.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I have reverted myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This user is trying to say that a 3rd season of Tai Chi Chasers will come on 4kids.tv but there no evidence that it will. I need this user blocked so as not to have any edit wars now. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You went through all that warring without even trying to communicate with the user or leave a warning? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to tell the user to stop in the edit suummaries. Maybe reasoning just isn't enough, and I want the user to be blocked? -Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So far there has been no disruption since a warning was left on that user's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete it? Lots of other dance crews that participated in the episodes didn't get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjancewicz (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each article stands on its own, and the existence of one article is not dependent on others.

I deleted it because (a) it was unambiguously promotional, and (b) participating in an episode of a show doesn't demonstrate notability; see WP:GROUP for inclusion criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You kindly speedily deleted {{PhawrilaTron}} and The QeJezzoz Show The Movie; both have been been recreated, by the same editor, at {{PHAWRILATRON}} and Talk:The QeJezzoz Show The Movie. I've issued a warning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted them. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why you deleted the Blyve page. When I first wrote it, I admit, it was promotional in nature (only because at that point I was unaware of the rules). I rewrote it to be completely non-promotional and yet you still deleted it. I would have been 100% open to edits, suggestions, corrections, etc... any chance it can be undeleted and reposted with whatever corrections are appropriate? In all honesty, the pages of competitive products are equally (if not more) promotional than even the first version I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveblogger (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only did it seem promotional (using unsubstantiated puffery such as "top brands" and "key benefit") but it wasn't even sourced to show that the company has any notability. See WP:CORP for guidance on that.

It can be undeleted, but since you seem to have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance), you may be better off proposing at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I can restore the article to your own user space if you want. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, it would have been better to say, hey...change these two things versus acting so quickly. In terms of notability, write ups aren't the appropriate measure for success. The Blyve company is actually used by "top brands". Please restore it to my user space and I'll update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.249.125 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it was better to delete the article. Changing the puffery would not have saved it from deletion.

On Wikipedia, notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple independent sources. That's all that matters. A company's "top brand" customers are irrelevant. Again, see WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Companies do not become notable by having notable customers. I've sold books to Tony Bennett, William Rehnquist and Charlton Heston, but I didn't "catch" their notability; see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate line of reasoning. In either case, I will append articles to show "notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveblogger (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could you please take a look at this discussion? Fry left a note on my talk page. Regardless of the merits of it, I think he's being somewhat overwhelmed by the onslaught.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's now migrated to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave my impression of the fracas over on ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic,

Please confirm that you have received my introduction message ending with hope to have motivated you to work in Social BPM mode :-)

Noticed by chance that you have been checking posts on Jesus / the Trinity this night (or day, not knowing your time zone). I have recently developed a theory on the Trinity... Would be ok for me to set up a web page to share with you?

Not necessarily something for Wikipedia tough... is about comparing the ITIL model with the Trinity... will elaborate on a web page...

And sorry for having set up a sub-page instead of using this LOVE functionality. As I said it is not intuitive to find the messaging functionality.... using a heart symbol to write a personal message seems a bit weird to me...

P.S. : I am also an engineer, keen to use technology for free knowledge sharing. Furthermore as I am working for Colt Technologies, the european leading information delivery platform any idea to use new technology is realistic.

Cheers

Thierry Cheffounet (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulić,

The article on Social BPM is now ready for review.

Hope everything is conform to Wikipedia policy.

Best Regards

Thierry Cheffounet (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić, you might want to check out the edits Maxordan (talk · contribs) made to their talk page (I've replaced the declined unblock request and your comments which followed). But I thought I'd let you know given the reason you revoked talk page access. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest do you consider "and any other notice regarding an active sanction" in WP:UP#CMT to include block notices (as opposed to reviewed unblock requests) related to current blocks? In other words, would I have been ok to replace the block notice as well? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That section (which I've always referred to as WP:BLANKING) seems to have evolved a bit since I last looked. Particularly I don't remember that vague clause about "any other notice regarding an active sanction", which I disagree with, because it would prohibit users from removing warnings from their talk pages, which used to be perfectly acceptable. Declined unblock requests or Arbcom-related notices should be the only things that matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic,

Please restore The Bra Doctor to my user space so that I can edit it in order to comply with the 'encyclopedic' guidelines.

While I appreciate your immense and cumulative contributions, I would really appreciate it if you could be a little less trigger happy when it comes to new users.

At minimum, you could have left a message in my Talkspace before you deleted it so that I could take appropriate action.

The entry in question is based upon fact. I simply did not have the time to insert the references that were necessary.

I appreciate your cooperation in restoring the article so that I can work on it.

Teri LeDantec — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeriLeDantec (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing 'trigger happy' about speedily deleting an article so unambiguously promotional that it cannot be salvaged. References were just one problem. Every single paragraph was promotional in tone. If I restored it with the promotional fluff removed, there would be almost nothing left.

Have you read and understood Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?

I suggest you read that, and start over, this time in your own user space rather than main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You noticed my contestion on the talk page? Please explain why you deleted it speedily despite that what I wrote.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with the nominator that there was no credible claim of notability. Any non-notable company having customers in multiple countries (I have plenty such customers myself) can claim to be "international". That is not a claim of notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for stoping by and leaving comments I have added more refrence as you have mentioned. if more refrences are needed plz let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEBORAH1111 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You put an unblock request at User talk:Eff Won on hold on 19 September, and the user is asking for action on it. Perhaps you could revisit it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked AGK, the blocking admin, to clarify the block reasoning, but that hasn't happened. I am not convinced that Eff Won's protestations are genuine, but I am not convinced that he's a sock either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This was the last version of AGK's talk page before the discussion was archived. I see that you attempted to get useful information, but didn't the help you had hoped for. However, I feel that, since AGK did not get back to you, it is now well past the time when it was only fair to the user requesting the unblock to make some sort of decision and settle the matter one way or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and dealt with it myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethelbug (talk · contribs) is soliciting Film Comment. I'm wondering if it is worth contacting the magazine to see if they have some misguided policy about adding their links to Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethelbug is blocked. Is there some other account that's also doing this? Also, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be a place to propose blacklisting if their site has a history of abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I'm not happy about doing that because filmcomment does seem to be a legitimate reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic. My English is not perfect but it was clear to me that the article is about a film. I've restored the page and made some modifications. It isn't perfect, but I think it has potential [18]. Please, let me know if you disagree. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have declined the speedy deletion nomination. Thanks for fixing it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite Youreallycan's mistaken G10 nom, the version before Jorge mireles's vandalism was not an attack page. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I had looked at the last 3 edits to verify the G10 but should have looked further back. I've restored the article minus the attack-page edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - please take a second look at the article history - see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Danuel_Pipoly - there is a claim that the historic content was good - I assumed .. incorectly I think - that the vandal had created it ? - Youreallycan 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote to Ian above, I have restored the article but not the disparaging edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol - sorry - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Danuel+Pipoly Special:Log&page=Danuel+Pipoly ] - I see its back - I have a very poor intenet connection today - regards - Youreallycan 18:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. While looking at the revison history of this article, I noticed you declined G-4, and converted it to a redirect. However, the page to which my article was redirected is going to be deleted soon, so...could I restore it to its previous version? I would nominate it to DYK if you let me. Thanks in advance.
LlamaAl (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it will be deleted (actually you are the only one who voted 'delete' so far).

If you restored it, it would be deleted quickly based on G4. I converted it to a redirect because it had been a redirect earlier in its history. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. But what if UFC on Fuel TV events in 2012 is deleted? I had added further sources, an image, etc. to UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier.--LlamaAl (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my first edit attempt on WP. It seems that there are some procedures for dialogs, but I have not found them yet. As for the proposal and your counter, I believe that "the outer edge" contributes to the sentence so I propose: Was - Thermal energy causes some of the molecules at the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere have their velocity increased to the point where they can escape from the planet's gravity. Should be - Thermal energy increases the velocity of some molecules in the outer edge of the upper atmosphere to the point where they escape from the planet's gravity. Tkphelps (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. Talk:Earth would be the best place to respond, so that others interested in the article can contribute to the discussion. I have no problem with "the outer edge" but I still think that the original grammar and your proposal seem awkward, which is why I proposed some more concise suggestions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please protect this page? It was deleted because of this vandal. (76.102.49.177) —Vermount564 Vermount564 Vermount564 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have protected it from being recreated, after seeing the number of times you have removed the speedy deletion template in spite of warnings not to do so, as well as blanking those warnings from your talk page. It currently doesn't meet WP:CORP notability guidelines for main space. Notability is not inherited just because some notable people founded the Gym.

I recommend you work on that article in your own user space, then you have ample time to get it into shape without worrying about it being deleted. Drop me a note when you think it's ready and I will review it, and I can also override the create protection to move it to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) Daicaregos (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to take issue with your interpretation of WP:PORNBIO. She has never won an AVN award, as far as I can tell - she was merely nominated in two categories, one of which WP:PORNBIO specifically excludes. Further, she still fails to meet the general notability guideline. In my opinion, the original AfD should still apply. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The AFD certainly does still apply. No other interpretation there (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I declined it due to the multiple nominations but didn't realize that one was excluded.

On the other hand, I'm finding some independent (but in-industry) coverage of this person in the form of interviews [19] [20] so it isn't clear to me that she no longer meets WP:GNG guidelines; however, I won't object if you restore the speedy tag or use a prod instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens. I see you have undone your decline, thank you for that. I just didn't want to keep deleting it over and over without some fresh eyes on it in case I'm wrong. Frankly, I wouldn't have been that worried about deleting it to begin with if it wasn't for the prior AfD. Thanks again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your declining the speedy of Daniela Dakich? Your summary said, “notability asserted, and promotional material can easily be removed”. I read the article carefully, and what I saw is that she is a wannabe actress who has played a few (nameless according to imdb) roles. Where do you find asserted notability? And while the article is far from the worst promotion I have seen, I could find little if anything that would be left if the unencyclopedic content were removed. —teb728 t c 04:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for deleting this page. But do you know why it still shows up in Google search? It was speedily deleted so that's permanent right? Will it be removed from search options soon? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfoerster (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The article asserted notability. To survive a speedy deletion nomination, an article needs only to make the assertion, but does not need to support it with references. And I obviously disagree with your assessment about promotional content; only half the article could be considered unambiguously promotional. But it hardly matters now, as someone else deleted it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that an article needs only to make a credible claim of significance or importance. Where did you find such an claim? I looked but couldn't find any such thing. I ask despite the deletion in order to calibrate my sense of what qualifies. Or to put it diferently, do I need to recalibrate my sense of what qualifies, or is it just a matter where people could reasonably disagree? —teb728 t c 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to recalibrate. Speedy deletion is always a matter of where reasonable people disagree. That's why it's structured so that one person proposes speedy deletion while another person (an admin) reviews it. If both agree, the article is deleted.

In this case, phrases like "was a former child TV star in Yugoslavia", "performed in over 700 theatre shows", and "often does voice over for Microsoft products" were enough of an assertion of notability for me to decline speedy deletion, because those claims could conceivably have sources backing them up. Particularly the first statement asserts that the subject meets WP:NACTOR seemed like a strong enough assertion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. —teb728 t c 19:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for deleting the Akash Maharaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_Maharaj) wiki entry, but do you have any idea why it still shows up in google search and why the first line ("is a former Yale student whose acceptance was rescinded..." shows up in google search despite the fact that you deleted it? Will the entire entry be deleted at some point? And is this decision final? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfoerster (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It shows up in searches because Google cached the page. Eventually it'll clear but it may take several months for Google's spider to access that page again and learn that it no longer exists. You might try exploring the procedure Google recommends for you to remove a page or site from Google's search results. I can't offer any other advice. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, the article Fusiondirectory, speaks about a free software. You have deleted it, saying that it is a promotion. But this is not a promotion, just a lead to knowledge of the existence of this software, its functionality, the community that develops. Thanks. Poterealpopolo (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is also not notable, and was deletable for that reason too. Wikipedia is not the proper venue for giving exposure to a product, regardless of its cost. Yes, the article was promotional, because it clearly existed to enhance visibility in the guise of informing, without providing any credible evidence of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (software) for further information. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me out? I mistakenly nominated Avacor for deletion, here WP:Articles for deletion/Avacor. I immediately withdrew the nomination, and asked for a speedy deletion under G7. In the meantime, another editor User:ReformedArsenal edited the AfD, before it could be speedy deleted. I do not wish to nominate this article for deletion, yet it is being credited to me here as the nominator [21]. Could you please delete this AfD? Then ReformedArsenal can start a fresh one if he wants, I wish him well. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone else already closed your nomination before I saw your message. All should be well now. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I recreated this article, you can tell me if I am correct in doing so? Because they charted on numerous Christian songs charts.HotHat (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you did pretty well there, paying attention to WP:BAND criteria. Looks good to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

you recently deleted a page about a band entitled fraudulence the band is signed, has been featured by radio stations, and has released an album. ARE THEY GETTING IN YOUR WAY!?!?!? maybe let someone finish writing a page before you delete it. sorry for these harsh words but good fight 3 hours of gathering information and trying to make a decent looking page for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerbutch (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Being signed isn't enough. They need to release 2 albums according to WP:BAND. And there needs to be evidence of being on rotation on radio stations.

I can restore the article to your user space if you want. That way you can work on it without worrying that someone will delete it before you finish it and move it back to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

please do. i will refrain from publishing it until they have been on national radio station rotation, or qualify according to WP:BAND but they certainly are not a group like the ones described in WP:GARAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerbutch (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it to User:Spencerbutch/Fraudulence.

And I beg to differ -- your entire second paragraph just screams WP:GARAGE, with statements about the band looking for members, not making money, having a fake record label (one they made up themselves), not putting out an album from an established label, and so forth. While WP:GARAGE is neither a policy or guideline on Wikipedia, and it borders on the ridiculous in its examples, it does serve as an aid to identify bands that haven't yet become notable. I apologize if WP:GARAGE is a mischaracterization of Fraudulence, but that second paragraph certainly gave me the impression that it fit. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

i can see how you would get that impression, especially from the last sentence. however, may i discreetly remind you that Epitaph Records and Fat Wreck Chords were originally not 'well' established, and yet look at them now. i do, however, understand that Fraudulence is not yet 'happening' and therefore i will refrain from attempting to publish an article, having one in my userspace i can work on and edit is good enough for me. again, thank you very much for your feedback, in part because this is helping me get used to the wikipedia markup language. -Spencer (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you declined my move request - maybe you didn't understand what I meant. The film Bad Channels is sitting at Bad Channels (film), yet its soundtrack album is sitting at Bad Channels. If anything, the film should be at the primary topic, and its soundtrack album relegated to Bad Channels (album), not the other way around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I get it now. I moved the album to Bad Channels (album) and the film to Bad Channels. Thanks for clarifying. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes better sense this way round... --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to clean up any "what links here" misdirects resulting from these changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Starlet (film) is the only article with that title so should not need "film" in brackets. Am I missing something? Have I misunderstood Wikipedia policy? Film Fan (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Starlet has a lot of entries in it, and Starlet (film) appears to fail WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic is actually the dictionary definition, which is also mentioned in the disambiguation page. I would rather move Starlet (disambiguation) to Starlet because the title itself is a disambiguation topic that contains several other topics, none of which would be considered a primary topic that "owns" the name.

I declined your move request because I suspect the move would be controversial, and G6 is intended only for uncontroversial moves. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I left this as a comment on WP:RPP, but since it got archived without a reply, I'm posting here too. Looking at the page history, I'm only seeing one revert, so how is that an edit war that requires full protection? Given that that specific editor has been contributing to the discussion on the talk page for other discussions as well, I don't see it as a content dispute, merely someone jumping the gun on a discussion. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't looking at the most recent revert but the history over the past couple of days which had undiscussed reverts by the same person. I objected to the RFPP request to fully protect the page indefinitely, so I figured a week was a good compromise.

Examining it again, I think you're right. I'll change it to semi for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the silverlock you made it as opposed to the goldlock I requested is that a silverlock doesn't solve the problem. The problem isn't IPs making unnecessary additions, deletions, or vandalism. The problem is autoconfirmed users making adds, deletions or substitutions before a consensus for them has been reached on the talk page (and, since Lvs. 1-3 are full; you can't just add willy-nilly). The only way to force this to happen, I'm afraid, is semi-protection. The problem with this is that this page is a relatively unique case, a project that is a list of a defined size p b p 01:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the comment immediately above, I no longer agree that there is a problem. I see additions and changes, with few reverts. This looks to me like the page is being actively built and maintained, and it doesn't look much like a content dispute, which is what full protection is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You have declined the move that I have requested. The page subroutine begin by "In computer science, a subroutine, also termed procedure, function, routine,...". As no other page is named "Routine", it follows from MOS:DAB that this page is the main topic for "routine" and that "routine" should redirect to this page, where a hatnote {{other}} should be added. Therefore I do not understand that you declined the technical move. Please, reconsider your decision. D.Lazard (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also see WP:DAB#Linking to a primary topic.

We don't call something a primary topic just because we have one article that happens to mention the term in the lead sentence. The subroutine article would have to be primary to the term "routine" with respect to the word's usage and/or long-term significance. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the computer-jargon context meets either criterion, compared with all the other entries on the disambiguation page, particularly its dictionary definition.

I declined your move proposal because it would be controversial. If you disagree, you may start a WP:RM discussion about it to determine a community consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't agree with your speedy deletion of this - I had in fact declined an A7 speedy five minutes before you deleted it, and told the tagger and the author so, because I think the claim of representing both Great Britain and Bulgaria at ice dancing is a "credible claim of importance" enough to pass A7. (Google confirms that it is not a hoax). Unless you object, I would like to restore it, with the BLP-prod I had added. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I see what happened. I had a dozen or so Wikipedia tabs open on my browser, all for articles that had been nominated for speedy deletion. By the time I got to the Sarah May Coward article, I failed to refresh the page and so I didn't realize that someone else had declined the speedy nomination.

I did not see any credible claim of notability because there are hundreds of non-notable skating events going on around the world every year, with participants from multiple countries, and this article made no mention of which skating event was represented.

If it were me, I'd userfy it to the author's sandbox, but since you had already prodded the article, I just now restored it as it was. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on it. It may well not survive, but it's a new author who may learn from it. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking your advice[22] and chasing this guy through afd. Just a heads up. Happy editing! Dengero (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good. I wasn't comfortable speedy-deleting because it wasn't an unambiguous clear-cut case of failing WP:ACADEMIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now created an account under Alan Liefting's IP address. Johnragla (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday I posted a new article Runcorn RFC. there were no existing articles on this particular Northern Union (or now known as rugby league) club. today I find that the article has been deleted. - no comment on my talk page, no e-mail to let me know, in fact no reason other than "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" I have previously written over 500 articles and never come across this action or attitude before. Help. what have I done wrong? Alanfromwakefield (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Article space must not have empty articles. Your last edit to that article was to blank it completely. Someone else noticed, and tagged it appropriately for an admin to delete, assuming that your intention in blanking it was to delete the article yourself.

You are welcome to re-create it, or I can restore it to your user space for you to work on further, before moving it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. I started the article in my sandbox, transferring it to the user space, and eventually to an article. But I possibly deleted the user space too soon, and the article appears to have disappeared somewhere into the ether. I have a record of the article, so will re-instate it. Sorry for any problem caused Alanfromwakefield (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is in regards to the a7 take down of "Hunter (Web Series)" without insertion quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qores10 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. There is nothing in your email that could not have been posted here on this talk page.

Your article Hunter (Web Series) was correctly deleted under the criteria of WP:CSD#A7, because it contained zero assertion of significance or importance as A7 requires. Please also see Wikipedia:Notability and particularly Wikipedia:Notability (web) for inclusion criteria.

You wrote, This article is relevant as it provides reference to viewers of the web series to find out more information about the show that they may not be able to find else where. That is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means to enhance exposure. Please see WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia is not to be used for your purpose; that is a policy. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is also a policy. It means Wikipedia does not publish "information that they may not be able to find elsewhere." Any information that isn't already available in reliable sources cannot appear in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish original content.

You wrote, We can include relevant material regarding our web series and how it was created. Not if the material isn't already verifiable in reliable sources. Otherwise, any original material you would provide is irrelevant.

Again, the article was deleted because it met WP:CSD#A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Furthermore, your use of "we" implies that you are editing in behalf of a group or organization. And as the creator of this series, you should also look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for further guidance.

Sorry, but I do not see a convincing argument to restore the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You have deleted my wiki page for band Those Dirty Words. I was informed that if i changed my username that all was ok. It has still been deleted. Can you please advise what i need to do to get the page back up and running? Thanks Weepop54321 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My deletion of the page had nothing to do with who created it (I didn't even look at who wrote it). I deleted it because the page met two different criteria for speedy deletion:

WP:CSD#A7 - no credible assertion of notability
WP:CSD#G4 - article was previously deleted as a result of a deletion discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Those Dirty Words

It seemed pretty clear to me that your band is up-and-coming. That isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. You must have already arrived. WP:BAND lists the criteria a band must meet before it merits an article on Wikipedia.

As to what you need to do to preserve the article, you need to prove using reliable sources that the band meets any of the criteria described in WP:BAND. I recommend you work on the article in your own sandbox and get it into shape before moving it to user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I just realized my reply to you here might have come across as snippy... sorry. I saw your point as well, but I guess it just came out kinda sorta wrong :) Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 03:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? No, I didn't see it that way. From my end, it probably didn't come across that the very idea of that article gave me a chuckle and put me in a light-hearted mood. Had I known about WP:HOTTIE at the time, I would have jokingly used it as a 'keep' argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, please can you return the article iPhone 5 back to its previous semi protection state (before it was fully protected). I believe the semi protection was till June 2013 although I cannot be certain. Thanks. --Tacita620 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. The semi protection was until 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC). ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I saw some of your comments on WT:CSD and noticed that you're a well-trodden editor here who knows wiki-policies well. I am glad to tell you that most of your views are not so different from mine on the issue. But still, I had some things to clarify. A7 seems to be a very elusive criterion, albeit I'm slowly getting there. As a relatively ham-handed new page patroller who is still grappling with the correct procedure of using criterion A7, I had few queries for you:

You wrote, "A7 just allows that assertion to be unsourced" could you elaborate this point please?
Can I not nominate an article for speedy-deletion that has a source yet doesn't indicate importance of the subject?
What if I think the asserted importance is a blatant lie? (I guess then I should probably use other means than CSD, right?)
Does there exist such a category of topics which can make a subject automatically notable as well as beyond the reach of CSD? If yes, which is it?
Note: if we had to resort to AFD for every article
1. that simply asserts importance without a source
2. that simply has a mention in a source but no importance.
3. with foggy claims of notability which can practically fuddle a sane mind
it would probably take a decade to get rid of all the non-notable/obnoxious articles through proper discussions (lack of information is better than misleading or false information). Also, people point to these semi-notable permastubs in order to call in question the credibility of Wikipedia at large.
Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable.
Seeing that almost every single deleted article is easily retrievable and to get my bearings in place, how big a mistake is it to rashly nominate an article for speedy-delete in good-faith?
In light of the previous queries, isn't the utility of WP:A7 obliquely linked with Wikipedia's core policies of notability and verifiability?

I know you're busy with your life outside Wikipedia and I need you to be correct not necessarily quick. Hence, please take your time and ping me when you reply here. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your questions:

You wrote, "A7 just allows that assertion to be unsourced" could you elaborate this point please?
It means that an article that contains a credible assertion of significance or importance without any source to back it up wouldn't qualify for A7 speedy deletion. For example, consider "XYZ company is the world's largest supplier of high-pressure hydrazine fuel valves to the satellite launch vehicle industry." Assuming for now that the article itself isn't a hoax, the statement may be true, or not, but if the company web site shows an association with rocket-launch business, then it's a credible statement. Without a source to confirm or contradict the statement, it is a sufficient assertion to survive an A7 proposal.
Can I not nominate an article for speedy-deletion that has a source yet doesn't indicate importance of the subject?
Depends on the sourcing. If I see an A7 nomination without an assertion of notability, and the article contains reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic, then even without the assertion of significance the article automatically meets the WP:SIGCOV requirements of WP:GNG, so I would decline the A7 nomination. If there's just one source, my decision would depend on the source. I'd speedy-delete the article if the source didn't qualify as a WP:RS (press, release, blog, self-published, forum posting) or provided routine coverage (TV listing, library catalog card, local-interest review). I'd probably decline the A7 nomination if the source was significant coverage in a national publication like The New York Times. As I said, it depends. There's a gray area where I could go either way — and when I can't decide, I look for more sources myself to sway my decision. In these cases I also offer to userfy the article to the author's space to expand.
What if I think the asserted importance is a blatant lie?
That's what WP:CSD#G3 is for. I see a hoax article almost every day I go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
Does there exist such a category of topics which can make a subject automatically notable as well as beyond the reach of CSD? If yes, which is it? ... Also, people point to these semi-notable permastubs in order to call in question the credibility of Wikipedia at large.
I don't know of any specific category for such topics, but individual notability guidelines and WikiProject internal guidelines have such automatic-notability topics. Examples would include all public universities (in fact educational institutions are singled out as exceptions to A7), or any grape variety used in wine-making (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine). As for perma-stubs, if I see those nominated for A7 I'll delete them if the other contributions besides the author's were automated maintenance edits, tagging, or categorizing. If multiple editors contributed content, I decline the nomination and recommend the article go to AFD. Different admins may have different standards on that point, however.
Seeing that almost every single deleted article is easily retrievable and to get my bearings in place, how big a mistake is it to rashly nominate an article for speedy-delete in good-faith?
I don't see any good-faith CSD nominations as a mistake. That's why CSD is a two step process, kind of a check-and-balance: someone nominates an article for speedy deletion and an admin has to agree. With the exception of obvious vandalism and spam, even as an admin, I don't unilaterally delete articles I come across that clearly deserve it. Instead I tag them with the appropriate CSD tag for another admin to review. And sometimes, the other admin declines my nomination. If I disagree with that decision, I'll take it to AFD.
In light of the previous queries, isn't the utility of WP:A7 obliquely linked with Wikipedia's core policies of notability and verifiability?
The utility of A7 is to provide a means to prevent the AFD process from being more over-burdened than it is. However, I agree the link is oblique. "Notability" on Wikipedia and in real life aren't equivalent although they have an intersection. And also A7 requires a claim of notability to be credible, which links obliquely to verifiability.

I hope these answers help. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The answers indeed help me hone my perspective about A7. Your response to my 5th query was almost an archetypal answer that one might expect from an administrator (in a good way). May I trouble you just a little bit more by requesting you to expand your answer to my 4th query focusing on biographies of people (and not institutions or other objects)? I very much appreciate your nice and informative reply. Thanks, Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your fourth question was about categories that would be considered automatically notable. As I stated before, I don't know of any Wikipedia category for this in the context of biographies, although I can think of examples. I'd say a bio that contains a credible-but-unsourced assertion that the person has won a significant or widely recognized award (Nobel Prize, Indianapolis 500, Olympic gold medal, Oscar, Medal of Honor, nationwide election, Pulitzer Prize, etc.) might fall in that category and survive an A7 nomination, although they may not survive AFD (for example, winning a Pulitzer Prize might mean the author's work was notable rather than the author). I can't think of any other category offhand that I would consider automatically notable for the purpose of surviving A7. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Even I thought so! Much obliged for your clear and swift responses. I might even save a permanent link to this thread somewhere for future references. Thank you very much indeed. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking. I will make another attempt of creating an article in a while and will contact you then. Thanks. Giraffe Conservation Foundation (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd better change your signature too. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was searching for some info on the Contao CMS, but I couldn’t find any here, so I decided to create a new article.
But then I noticed it was only deleted recently ('No explanation of the subject's significance'). But according to http://www.cmscrawler.com/tool/ it is a top 15 publishing tool, exceeding most other CMS's on List of content management systems. Before I re-create a page, do you agree this is sufficient 'significance'? And if so, could you please userfy the original page to my userspace, so I can check/rewrite it (as apparently there was also an issue with the content). Thanks! Antheii (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say that number of installations is notable, particularly when some of the lower-ranked tools are used by some of the largest companies. Sort of like databases; Oracle costs over $100K, so you won't find nearly as many installations of that as, say MySQL. Going through the Wikipedia list, the ones we have articles on either make a claim of significance or demonstrate extensive coverage in reliable sources.

I'd say go ahead and try, but don't focus too much on that cmscrawler list. Create the article in your sandbox first and try to find as many reliable sources as you can (not blogs, press releases, or forum postings, but actual coverage in mainstream media or trade publications). Having sources will anchor an article more firmly in Wikipedia than a position in a ranking. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

While this is your image, it is a non-free image (due to the presence of a copyrightable logo) and so its display on your userpage is not allowed by our non-free content policy, specifically WP:NFCC#9. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yes. I spent a good deal of time and effort staging the shot and getting the lighting right. In that sense, it is my own creative work that happens to include a logo. Wouldn't there be a fair use provision to allow me to display my own work on my user page? Especially since what's being displayed is a low-resolution thumbnail?

If not, is there a way to just display a link in the gallery instead of a thumbnail? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you hold part of the copyright to the work as well. As far as Wikipedia is concerned though, even a little bit of non-free (such as permission to use on Wikipedia but nowhere else, or a non-commercial restriction) is treated the same way as entirely non-free. And while fair use probably would let you display that work on your userpage, Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines are intentionally and explicitly stricter than the limitations imposed by fair use.

As to your second question, there isn't a way that I'm familiar with within the <gallery> tags you're currently using to link to an image but not display it. The easiest way I've seen listing both free and non-free images done is to just add a list below the gallery and use the same syntax I used for the section title ([[:File:CupNoodle.jpg]]) to link to it but not display it. You could switch to using a wikitable displaying a gallery (see the first example at Help:Gallery) and then just show a public domain placeholder image (e.g. File:Non-free image placeholder.png or another PD image in commons:Category:Image placeholders) and use the |link=File:CupNoodle.jpg parameter to link it to your image. Not particularly pretty wikicode, but it would keep it within a gallery along with the rest of your images. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reorganized the user page accordingly. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the image is displayed on the user page; I just need a way to keep a record of my contributions. The non-free image is now just a link. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your oversight of a page you protected Antisemitism would be appreciated, parituclarly in light of Wikipedia:ARBPIA - if you can find the time. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall ever protecting that page, and the page protection log doesn't show that I did. Anyway I have put the page on my watch list. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Praxis_Icosahedron&diff=525255977&oldid=525084622

It's the same IP from few days ago, he is following my every edit, writing on other users' talk pages about me, insulting me at the same time... is there any sanctions for this? Every time I return to Wikipedia he writes to other users' something about me or vandalises my user page, or other pages that are related to my user page... --Wüstenfuchs 05:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No time for Wiki today, blocked IP for a brief duration. Have you taken this to WP:ANI? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, few days ago, but nobody done anything... I'll do so again if the IP continues to make incidents. --Wüstenfuchs 15:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like the IP actually insulted Wüstenfuchs, but rather pointed out his pathalogical contempt of Bosniaks, which follow a long history of wikipedia edits. This is not surprising seeing as Wüstenfuchs' edits originate from Bosnia. His edits relating to Syria are an extension of these hateful views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.68 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The personal attack is abundantly clear. As are yours. If you have a problem to report about an editor's behavior, take it up on WP:ANI, not here. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You deleted Template:Ports/doc with the edit summery "page dependent on a page to be deleted". The parent page wasn't deleted, it was turned into a redirect. Is there any reason to leave the page deleted, I wanted to read it. It describes features of Template:Ports that might be useful in Template:Portal. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it because Template:Portal/doc already exists, and the edit history of the page I deleted indicated that the content was merged into Template:Portal/doc in July. I have undeleted it so you can see the contribution history, and redirected it to Template:Portal/doc. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my edit at Diploma mill. All the changes I made were very carefully thought out and I did try to only remove information that was redundant or over-detailed, but I can see why it might have been a bit over-the-top. Specifically I was rewording and trimming the sometimes very detailed country-specific legal information in the later sections of the article. Could you give me some tips on how it would be best to proceed if I want to have another go with some of the changes that I made? Also what 'good content' did you mean specifically? (So I can make sure I keep it if I do make any new edits). Thank you! --Noiratsi (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please accept my apology for that, and understand that I really didn't want to revert you because your work looked like an improvement, but losing 6 kilobytes of content all at once looked to me like something got lost (for example, I don't recall seeing the bit about medical diploma mills in your new version, but it was rearranged so much I may have missed it). I was unable to figure out what was in that 6K.

I'd like you to make those revisions again, but this time do it in small pieces so other editors can more easily track the changes. If you change one section, then edit just that section. If you move content between sections, then edit the page and just move that content without making other changes. That way others can more easily judge what, exactly, got lost in that 6 kilobyte reduction. I couldn't figure it out from the diff between your last edit and the prior version.

Generally if you want to perform a major re-write, it's probably best to do the edits piece-meal as I describe above, or rewrite the article in your sandbox and then invite people on the talk page to compare them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize; it was my first edit after all. Scary stuff. Thanks for the advice, I'll be happy to try again. You're right about the medical bit; I shunted it all the way down the US-specific section. I think the two major losses were a completely irrelevant paragraph about fake visas in Canada and a lot of probably unnecessary quotations from the bit about Malaysia. But hopefully all this will become obvious in the edit history if I make the edits again :). Is it acceptable to make several edits in succession, or should I leave lots of time for other editors to peruse between each change I make? --Noiratsi (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and make them in succession. That way each one can be perused as needed in the edit history. If someone disagrees with one of them, then it's easy to revert and discuss that one edit rather than reverting the whole thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the following which you wrote on Mitantiongrey (talk · contribs)'s talk page: "In particular, your reversion here restored vandal edits by シシシ, suggesting you are associated with that other account. Not only did you restore vandalism, but you did so by reverting the attempt of a checkuser administrator to clean it up."

It's not at all obvious to me that the material in question was vandalism. It appears to me to be a plausible improvement to the article — assuming the existence of the {{Georgian Americans}} template, which did exist until it was deleted by Elockid per CSD G5. It is true that the edit was originally the work of a banned/blocked user (シシシ) — in which case it can be deleted on sight, and any restoration of the edit is potentially suspect — but I don't see it as clear vandalism. Am I missing something obvious here? — Rich wales 02:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I have posted a retraction and apology on his talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's me Mrt3366 (Michael) again searching for some advice. I posted a thread on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about Kashmir conflict, but nobody cared to post a comment with a meaningful conclusion. It has been sitting there for ~6 days. I earlier tried discussing the issue on Talk:Kashmir Conflict also; again nothing meaningful except for an overly diplomatic and inconclusive comment. I tried searching for the right course of action when you don't get a fair hearing, but was unable to find anything in the policies. As you can see I have exhausted most (if not all) other options to reach outside input. What is the point of having a noticeboard to comply with WP:BRD if all it leads to is an impasse (*Jackpot* for filibusters)? BRD even says "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." I chose to discuss. Was it a mistake?

What is going on? Now before you (or, more importantly, others) scream WP:CANVASS!!; I beg you to use common sense and see that the spirit of this request/query is only to improve an article. The issue in short, currently the article contains a quote which (is)

Partial, not full.
impertinent in that context, used wrongfully as an assertion whereas it was a rhetorical question (based on a very biased, rather a jaundiced POV).
Quotation (which is framed as an assertion) is not even in the source.

P.S. You do not need to have any prior knowledge about the subject. I hope you understand my stifling predicament. You may comment here or edit the page if you want (I think will be the best thing you can do to help the issue) or even comment on the relevant discussion pages. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a little problem with the article for Ramush Haradinaj. It mentions this person as being ethnically Kosovar-Albanian, however the hotlink says "Kosovo-Albanian". I changed it some time ago to "Kosovar-Albanian", per the preferred term on the article Albanians in Kosovo. It was subsequently changed back to "Kosovo-Albanian", but without any mention of this change back in an edit summary. Earlier today I changed it back to "Kosovar-Albanian" because there was no reasoning provided, but User:Nado158 changed it again back to "Kosovo-Albanian", still with no proper reasoning. I contacted him on his talk page asking why he feels "Kosovar-Albanian" is wrong and that "Kosovo-Albanian" should be used instead, referring to Albanians in Kosovo's use of "Kosovar-". He answered on my talk page saying again that it is wrong, and it's a mistake. I asked him for a source, but he has not provided one. Instead, he has now also changed Albanians in Kosovo to "Kosovo-Albanians" as well. Because he wont provide a source, and his language suggests it's his opinion or observation, I'm requesting that you please return the two articles' terms back to "Kosovar-Albanian", as "Kosovar" and "Kosovan" are the two proper demonyms of Kosovo (depending on context, respectfully). Fry1989 ^eh? 22:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, since I left a comment on his talk page, a source has been provided. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Which source? Are you referring to this link he added to Ramush Haradinaj? It itself shows he's wrong because it uses "Kosovan-Albanian", which as I said, Kosovan is one of the two official demonyms for people from Kosovo, "Kosovo-Albanian" is still wrong and the hotlinks and changed he made still needs to be changed to either "Kosovar-" or Kosovan-". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I lazily misread the r and n as the same.

OK, time for some independent research.

Here are some interesting statistics regarding the terms Kosovar Albanian, Kosovo Albianian, and Kosovan Albanian:

Google Trends shows that "Kosovo Albianian" is the most commonly searched term of the three. That's not really relevant because search popularity doesn't count as a reliable source. However the same result still holds if "Albanian" is made plural.
Google Ngram viewer results are more relevant, since this shows how common the occurrences are in published books. Here too, "Kosovo Albanian" is the most common term, with "Kosovar Albanian" second. The same results hold for the plural forms also, although they become nearly equal after 2003. "Kosovan Albanian" barely registers; that is apparently a rare term in spite of the news article you linked above.

The bottom of the Ngram page shows links that list the sources scanned, and many of them appear reliable.

The Google Ngram results show that reliable sources can be found to support either of your positions. Because of that, it's helpful to look at which term is most common, to determine what Wikipedia should use.

Normally I'd employ the same practice you have been doing, deferring to using the same term as in the parent article (in this case Albanians in Kosovo). However, based on the above analysis, I am forced to change my view, and lean instead to using "Kosovo Albanian" in Wikipedia articles including that parent article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That will require a change in several templates and articles as well as ignore Wikipedia's demonym practices. I won't take part in it, but if it's to be done, it should be applied universally so there's no flip flops and confusion. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require such uniformity. If it did, we'd be using either BC/AD or BCE/CE exclusively in dating, or using American English everywhere.

Because reliable sources use both terms, perhaps a good practice is to use existing guidance for WP:ERA and WP:ENGVAR as a template for this case. These guidelines say that whatever terminology an article started with shouldn't be changed, but usage within an article should be consistent. Articles using BC/AD shouldn't be changed to BCE/CE, and articles using British English shouldn't be changed to American and vice versa, and consistent usage is required within an individual article.

Similarly if an article was established using either "Kosovo Albanian" or "Kosovar Albanian", well, each is an acceptable term according to sources, so either one is OK, but an article shouldn't flip-flop between the two. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am 173.206.98.88 (talk · contribs) which added an original piece of information to the Wikipedia text for Bollinger Bands which you have taken down for Spam reasons. How is original content written by myself considered spam? This is important information and factual information, and the only reason I added the source is because you need to add a source to give the writing individual credit for his work! I'm not quite sure why I'm explaining this to you, as I don't know who made you the cop for that page but the text for the Bollinger Bands information I added does not have a specific link but you can find it by checking any stock quote on BullishInvestor.com, then clicking on the drop-down menu under bollinger bands which is located at the bottom right hand side of every pager and you will see it there. I plan to educate investors with wikipedia edits for other technical analysis indicators, so I hope we won't have these back and forth games in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterszaf747 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original content. You wrote a section that constituted original research or personal commentary, and you tried to source it to the main page of a web site that does not say anything like what you wrote. The term "Bollinger Bands" is not even visible on that page. Honestly, your contribution looked like a pretty transparent excuse to insert a spam link to that site. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:External links for more guidance. Looking at the Bollinger drop down as you suggest, you should also become familiar with Wikipedia:Copyright violations also.

If you indeed "plan to educate investors with Wikipedia edits", then you had best do so by referring to reliable sources, not by writing original content or copy-pasting copyrighted material that Wikipedia is not authorized to re-publish. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, but you should know. I have now restored the RM result link you couldn't see when you were requested. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm... The move you just performed was the one proposed in the RM that had no consensus. It appeared to me that I simply restored the page to its pre-RM state, but looking at the move logs I am not sure what happened. Maybe the RM was proposing a rename that had already taken place? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I happened across the stevia talk page and saw your section.

I hope you can find some sources that will allow your points to be posted.

Balance is a good thing. Censorship is not.

By the way, you mentioned writing an article about FDA actions like book burnings. I hope you consider writing it. It would be a valuable (and very controversial, I'm sure) addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.60 (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

From Mrt3366: Wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Mrt3366/Xmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
Maybe you like to know that the discussion in the Technical Analysis Talk Page is currently active.
If you are interested to contribute in the present debate, your help will be appreciated.
177.33.146.101 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)