If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Don't be ridiculous. If an editor makes a reply to me that completely misses the obvious point that I am making then it is encumbent on me to point that out. I demonstrated that the English Premier League is not fully professional according to the standards that the football project applies to those pesky foreigners, but the reply that I was given totally ignored the point and implied that I was saying that Wayne Rooney was not notable. To point out the absurdity of that reply is perfectly acceptable in the context of a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You're shooting yourself in the foot here. My edit was nothing like vandalism, but an attempt to bring the discussion to rationality. If you send me another such invalid warning then you are the one who is likely to be blocked. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I owe an apology. The warning above was not intended to be for vandalism. It seems I did not correctly select the warning I had intended to give in an automation tool that I use, which meant that it defaulted to first option in the list, namely the warning for vandalism. Sorry about that. That being said, a warning is in order. If you continue to construe a well established consensus as groupthink and the routine application thereof as wikilawyering, make disparaging remarks about other editors, and more generally fail to assume good faith on the part of editors who disagree with you, there are going to be consequences. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the best way to deal with this for the moment. If Professor Yarmush gets back to me saying he wants the article deleted I'll suggest that he contact OTRS, so that the next deletion disussion can be based on firm evidence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hilton Cowie
Thank you for your work in removing inappropriate CSD tagging. In most cases I agree with you, but in the case of Hilton Cowie I see no indication of significance: He is a race car driver, which surely does not in itself indicate significance. He took part in some races but did not qualify. And he has a profile in a database which seems to profile all drivers. Where is the significance? —teb728tc22:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may well not be notable, which is something that can be decided at WP:AFD if you want to take it there, but I consider that competing in Formula 3 and in qualifying rounds for international Formula 3000 races to be enough to avoid speedy deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 86.17.222.157. You have new messages at Edward321's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deletion review
We discussed deletion reviews being started by IP editors recently, near the top of this page. I think that in most cases, as an IP editor, you would have standing to begin a deletion review, but in this particular case you're (1) starting a deletion review, (2) as an IP editor, (3) about a WMF figure. I would suggest you use an account with a checkable history.—S MarshallT/C20:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, and that discussion most certainly does not mandate closing down all deletion reviews started by unregistered editors. I most certainly am not Mohsinpathania (which you are welcome to have checked with CheckUser), and gave a perfectly rational explanation for why this should be reviewed. All of my edits since last December, when my ISP last changed my IP address, are available in my contribution history, and those for some time prior to that can be seen here and here, which, again you are welcome to have checked out with CheckUser. I did have an account several years ago, but decided to stop using it, which is completely compliant with policy, partly because I was concerned with the way that unregistered editors were treated like something nasty sticking to your shoe, and I wanted no part of that. I can email you my previous account name if you want. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be concerned with content rather than process, and this deletion review is about content, as opposed to the name-calling that contstituted the AfD discussion. Please reopen the deletion review. If you refuse to do so then I suppose that I will have to take this to WP:ANI, but please let's avoid further drama over an article about a clearly unnotable subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty unusual to abandon an account. I won't ask you to disclose your former identity on Wikipedia, but will you tell me that the account was a well-regarded one in good standing and your reason for abandoning it had nothing to do with avoiding scrutiny?—S MarshallT/C21:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it was well-regarded, but that is really for others to say, and it was in good standing if you mean by that that I was never blocked or banned or anything like that, and I have not tried to avoid scrutiny. Actually I have noticed that one of the previous IP addresses that I linked has a link in its history to my previous account, so if anyone is really bothered then it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find out the name that I used to use here, which also happens to be my name in real life. Please be a little less trigger-happy in the future, because that only reinforces the impression that unregistered editors are treated like "something nasty sticking to your shoe", or a "piece of shit" as I would have said before if I had noticed that you are a fellow Hertfordshire man rather than one of those prissy Americans. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for closing this, and I've reopened it. My excuse is that you're an IP address starting a deletion review of a clearly sock-tainted discussion about a WMF employee; but I should not have jumped to the conclusion that I did.—S MarshallT/C21:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments to SwisterTwister
Just a tip: You're wasting your breath. He won't listen to criticism, even when it's clear, polite, and sustained; he dismisses it as drama and incivility. He's been getting clear pushback over his sloppiness since at least his failed RfA, yet he hasn't learned a thing from it. He's here to click buttons and provide "me, too!" comments. (We've both seen him at AfD.) Even after being taken to the cleaners at AN/I last week, he's still patrolling badly, leaving barely-intelligible AfD votes, and being very unhelpful to novice editors who ask for feedback about his AfC rejections. I previously thought this was mere stubbornness on his part, but I actually think he can't help it. I'm not sure if he's struggling with reading comprehension or a learning deficiency, but it's the only thing that explains his behavior—and I'm not pointing it out to be cruel, quite the opposite: I feel bad watching him struggle, and I actually like him and admire his dedication. But I think the community needs to address this: it's not going to go away no matter how much he's warned, and, unlike sloppy editing, others can't just make it right with an edit.
Also, in dealing with this sort of thing, it would help immensely if you logged in. In every discussion in which I see you participate, your views are only acknowledged to dismiss them—yet you are far more experienced than I am. We both know the Florence Devouard AfD and DRV would have turned out much differently if your opinion had been tied to a respectable account. I understand the point you're trying to make, but, by my count, you're not making any headway. How many debates are you willing to sacrifice for a hopelessly lost cause?
Thanks for your kind words. I won't be posting on SwisterTwister's talk page again, because he has made it plain (as far as his twisted syntax makes anything plain) that he doesn't want me to in this edit summary, but I certainly will continue to question his AfD contributions when necessary, even though he never seems to return to discussions to, well, discuss. I know that you mean well in your later advice, but I made the decision several years ago that I would not try to "pull rank" in any discussions by being part of the heirarchy that treats admins as more important than logged-in editors and logged-in editors as more important that non-logged-in editors. Decisions should be made on the basis of the validity of the arguments made, not on the reputation of the person making the arguments. Please don't try to change my mind on that issue because you would be, in your words, wasting your breath. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was sad to see him dismiss you as trying to create "heated drama"; your comment was obviously meant as helpful guidance and should have been enough to make any editor question his actions.
I'll try not to waste my breath, but I must point out that you may be misconstruing my argument. It doesn't seem to me that most editors perceive the sophisticated hierarchy you describe—rather, it's about individuals who are committed to the project and are willing to stake their reputations in their comments versus drive-bys whose judgments are often motivated by factors other than the success of the project. It's not about rank; it's about sincerity.
Even though we aim to make choices based on the merits of arguments, for any given question, there is usually a range of legitimate, policy-backed arguments that can be advanced. Between facially valid arguments, support numbers matter more than the relative strength of the positions, and our guidelines explicitly instruct that only responsible editors' votes are to be counted. SeeWP:CLOSE § Consensus ("If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." (emphasis added)). As with any vote, it would be irresponsible and unfair not to exclude ballots that are cast by participants without an established history.
This clarification made, I won't be bothering you about this further; clearly, if the consequences of your choice aren't enough to dissuade you from it, nothing I could say would change your mind. Cheers, mate. Rebbing 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May 2016
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello.
I apologize for removing your contesting on the speedy deletion, and I have restored your revision. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time.
Sincerely, Lovkal (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dicky Ryan. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note you cannot remove the IP notice per WP:UP#CMT. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes ... "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered." If you prefer not to be identified by your ISP, then you may wish to create an user account.--Cahk (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave it, but I really think that you should find someting better to do than throw pointless templates around. Virgin Media is an ISP, not my school or employer, which are what that template is designed for. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple versions of the Shared IP template - school, organization, government, etc. The template I placed here accurately reflects the fact your IP is registered to Virgin Media, and is a static IP. --Cahk (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rebbing. I can't see what conceivable benefit there could be to anyone in having an unsightly template at the top of this page saying that I am one of the millions of customers of Virgin Media. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My perception is that IP notices are a way of saying, "You're not as sneaky as you think!" Except for {{educational IP}}, I'm not a fan of them even for misbehaving editors: most mischief-makers are dissuaded, perhaps even reformed, by a polite but firm message saying, Hey, I noticed what you did; please don't do it. Ask me if you need help. Thank you! and anyone more determined isn't going to be scared off by any amount of heroic templating. Rebbing19:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 86.17.222.157. You have new messages at Cahk's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello. You have a new message at Safety Cap's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at Safety Cap's talk page.
June 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this recent edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Etruscan literature, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉)20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not create this article myself, so am perfectly entitled to contest speedy deletion by removing the tag with a clear explanation in the edit summary. Please revert your non-policy-compliant reinstatement of the tag, which constitutes clear edit-warring. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Please read WP:CSD which says, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." I am not the creator of this page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Bernard Cousino. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I did not create this page myself, so was perfectly entitled to contest speedy deletion by removing the tag, per WP:CSD. Please check such things before throwing templates around. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the message again. It a) doesn't say you create the article, and b) NO, you cannot "contest" speedy deletions by removing the template. Follow the instructions. Struck as you seem to be correct GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been tagged for lack of notability since 2010. The tagging has not been contested. No counter argument has been initiated since the tagging. No discussion was started! There comes a time that we have to clean up an article or do away with it, as the case might be. Six years is arguable an adequate period of time. If, even at this last hour, you object to the deletion proposal because you believe the subject of the article is sufficiently notable please argue against the deletion in the appropriate forum. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the person who wishes to delete an article to start a discussion at WP:AFD. I can't comment in the appropriate forum until you create the appropriate forum. Your reinstatement of the WP:PROD tag, which calls for deletion without discussion, is clearly against policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See link. The rule followed was precisely the one defining the proposed-deletion process : PROD "is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles than the articles for deletion process (AfD), and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion." I do no intend to get involved in yet another senseless, tiresome argument about the worthiness of BLP articles tagged for six and seven years. There is a process for the obvious; you want the lengthy process. Have it your way.-The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And part of the WP:PROD process is that anyone who objects to the decision can contest deletion by removing the tag with or without explanation, but I always choose to give an explanation, and then it can't be reinstated. You are the one who did not follow the process, and you know it, so please don't come here to defend the indefensible. I see that you have now followed the correct process by starting a discussion that can lead to consensus, which is the way things are decided here rather than by one editor's possibly flawed judgement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that are judged not to merit being listed in Wikipedia due their subject's lack of notability are not part of an "ongoing project" but deleted forthwith. The subject of the specific article was judged to be notable, per Wiki standards, so it stays up. I do not know that project you are referring to by "WP". Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, first of all please let me thank you for your comment on the deletion page of Pal Milkovics I am very new to wikipedia and this is my first article and it seems to me I could be responsible for the page to be deleted. Can you help me with your advise how to avoid (how to improve) the deletion of the page? I have no interest at all to do any PR to Milkovics (as someone suggested it), I have just updated and article of which is there since 8 years with new information. I am not sure how is the voting for deletion works, but I got no real feedback (except from you). Thank you for your time. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chat shit get banged
−
−
Chat shit get banged
Talk page etiquette
Hi 86.17.222.157,
We're involved in the deletion discussion of JonTron at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron (5th nomination). I noticed you're changing Wiki mark-up on other people's comments. Per WP:TPO, that is discouraged to do so. You're adding another asterisk (this little thing: *) on comments that aren't yours. I personally think that an asterisk should be used for a !vote, so it's easier to pickout votes and/or comments. Please don't take this the wrong way, as I don't think you're doing it intentionally, let alone to harm the discussion. Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK17:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.
On a sidenote, why don't you create an account? An account isn't bound to a single IP address, and it allows for personal customization. Editing from an account is also anonymous in the sense that nobody can automatically know your real identity (unless you dedice to share that information of course). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK17:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked WP:TPO before making those edits, in particular the paragraph Fixing format errors. It cites "providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation", and this one certainly did help in better navigation, and, while it says nothing about adding bullet points, it does say that removing them is allowed, and, in nearly all cases, deletion discussions are formatted with bullet points before each comment. If you want to change that practice then surely it would be better to suggest this in the appropriate place rather than format your posts differently from everyone else's.
As regards editing without logging in, I've said everything that I have to say in conversations higher up this page. I see that I have been a little brusque here, but that's because I have to rush off to cook dinner, rather than anything deliberate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A wikilink is an internal Wikipedia link, that links to articles. JonTron isn't a wikilink, but by adding [[ in front and ]] at the end it become one. So [[JonTron]] will show up as JonTron. And considering that you're the one changing my comments, I again point to WP:TPO that starts off with: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Enjoy your meal. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. I changed "Anita Sarkeesian" to "Anita Sarkeesian" in another user's comment, which is to add a wikilink as allowed by WP:TPO. I also changed the format, not the content, of your comment to conform to standard practice at AfD. Since you object so strongly to this I won't do it again, but it is pretty standard practice for editors to make such formatting changes to conform to the normal practice at AfDs - it has been done to me many times - and I don't see any reason for you to make such a meal of it. Once again, AFDs are nearly always formatted with each comment having a bullet point, so it's easier for anyone reading the discussion to see where one comment ends, which in the case of many inexperienced editors may not be with a signature, and the next begins. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Do you really believe that calling for the deletion of an article about a very notable feminist who has suffered extreme harrassment, including on Wikipedia, is not clearly misogynistic? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re:AfD on Philipp Frankhauser
Hope you don't mind that I'm moving the rest of our conversation to your talkpage, but the length of text on the AfD about the AfD was growing a bit unwieldy in comparison to what was being said about the article's subject and his (admittedly obvious) notability.
True on the part about life being boring otherwise. Agree that the article is miles away from being a deletion candidate, but the amount of coverage alone isn't necessarily an indication when one can't speak the language to check how many of them also are reliable and independent. (I've seen some subjects with absolutely massive amounts of coverage that all boil down to little more than the same few press-releases re-repeated across venues, yet that on numerical value alone look impressive. Highly so, even.) In either case, the article was in such a messy state that I can well understand how someone could list it at AfD—the great majority of similar articles with similar starts and similar states after the promo-speak is removed are indeed definitely *not* notable, and at least on AfD, the idea that this subject lacks notability can be easily and clearly disproven (and if necessary, later linked to). I can understand your stance, though. If the article hadn't had such a messy start, I would have been rather confused at what it was doing at AfD. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren Southern AfD
Hey just a note that I had to revert part of your edits to the discussion. (look at these diffs: [2][3]). While they look like vandalism, due to their repetitive look and considering your other contributions, I'm going to assume good faith in that it was some kind of technical error on your part. Please examine any tools you are using so that none misbehave, and I also suggest reading the full diffs in the future to catch stuff like that. Happy contributing. Opencooper (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't intentionally add those phrases to the discussion, and have no idea what "creative loafing" even means, so have never even written that phrase. This does look like some kind of technical glitch, so thanks for cleaning up. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh okay, thanks for clarifying, and sure thing. Maybe two edits collided on the Wikipedia servers like comets haha. Anyway it's not a big deal, just wanted to make sure a tool on your end wasn't acting up. Opencooper (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said that your edit was clearly factually incorrect, and it was. That is a statement of fact, rather than anything about what kind of faith you have, because you said that the subject lacks mention in reliable sources. You didn't even need to do a Google Books search (which, incidentally also shows that your statement was factually incorrect) because the article was already sourced. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I'm pretty sure that you've noticed a vicious cycle by now - you're an IP user, and as such, whenever a problem arises, you'll be the first to be scapegoated as opposed to registered users. I'll give you my honest opinion - if you can't be bothered to create an account, then I'm not sure why you're even hanging around on this encyclopedia. I really do hope you understand that a lot of your kind are vandalisers and trolls, and we most certainly don't appreciate them. Can you really blame the majority of the Wikipedia body for reinforcing the "impression that unregistered editors are treated like 'something nasty sticking to your shoe', or a 'piece of shit'"? No, you can't. I'm sorry, but when you said that abandoned your old account, it sounds like you're just making a sorry excuse. I can't possibly think of any plausible reason that you'd rather let others continue to scapegoat you instead of getting a NAME for yourself. Also, it's highly insulting when people like you, that can't even be bothered to make an account, lecture people with NAMES. You have NO NAME, being corrected by a NO NAME (aka NOBODY) is DAMAGING to our pride. Go on, keep dreaming that the majority of the Wikipedia body will someday respect IP users on the same level as registered users. Well, get this - it'll never happen. So say goodbye to your dreams. I wish you in becoming a happy scapegoat. Yeah, no. Just create an account and get this over with. Your kind should NEVER, I mean NEVER be permitted to participate in any activity that the Big Boys (registered users) do. Creating an account is only a few procedures, and then you're done. You must be out of your mind if you think the alternative is actually better for you. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've just confirmed that you are not one of the "Big Boys". I see that you were warned about not assuming good faith a few days ago. It seems that that warning hasn't sunk in. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quit acting like you're my equal. Someone that has gotten so many warnings like you has no right to criticize me, whether or not they're inappropriately given. Your contributions all amount to nothing, because you're just a nobody. Please - don't make me laugh. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. Continuing to remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard05:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ARUNEEK, I presume you are talking about my removal of the WP:PROD template from Zachary Braiterman. If so then please read WP:PROD, where you will see that anyone can contest deletion by removing the tag. If you want to discuss deletion then the procedure to use is described at WP:AFD.
I'm only posting this here to avoid bloating a long AfD page worse than it already is. I think you should try to read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE more carefully. Not a single routine crime log has been cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Mukilteo shooting (2nd nomination). One of the ways that we know this is not a run-of-the mill crime is that the crime caused multiple non-routine events which occurred at later dates. I don't need to list them; see the citations. And you actually misread my comments; I didn't confuse you with the nominator. I posted that both the nominator, and those offering opinions (that's you), have a burden to make an effort before participating in an AfD discussion. So here we are, filling space correcting simple misconceptions based on reading comprehension failures. Huge time waster. If it were true that you can't establish notability citing only news media, then the notability guidelines would say in plain English, "you can't establish notability citing only news media". It's not that simple.
You feel all this is patronizing and condescending, and therefore uncivil. I actually think it's patronizing to ask "Could you point to some of that ongoing coverage?" when the AfD provides a convenient link to Google News where the ongoing coverage is right there. Nobody likes being told they're wrong, and that leads to feelings of incivility. But sometimes there's just no way to deliver the message without someone's feathers getting ruffled
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Oluwa2Chainz, I did assume good faith the first time that you deleted my searches for an alternative name, but it is difficult to maintain that assumption when you deleted them a second time. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bilal Akbar
Whatever your personal thoughts about the deletion policy and the way it is implemented, it is abundantly clear that all unssourced biographies of living people MUST be tagged for deletion. Please remember, again, to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do in the article summary at Bilal Akbar. Incidentally, this article remains at risk of deletion since the single reference provided does not demonstrate notability. Senior officers in the armed forces are not inherently notable and notability must be demonstrated through reputable, independedent sources. VelellaVelella Talk 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not true that they MUST be tagged for deletion. The obvious alternative is to spend a few seconds looking for a source. My edit summary didn't say anything about your good faith, but about my lack of understanding of your mindset, and I still don't understand why anyone who is interested enough in building an encyclopedia to be here would choose to tag this article for deletion before taking those few seconds. And do you really believe that the chief of staff of the Pakistani army might not be notable? If so then please take the article to WP:AFD where you will find out whether others agree with you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are extremely good reasons why I (and possibly many others) accord less weight to he comments of anonymous users. I have noticed on several occasions that you throw your weight around a lot on Wikipedia, in fact less than 30%of your edits are spent adding content. WADR, if you want to act like a forum moderator, I suggest you register an account, edit for a few years, then run at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is fair, taking a swipe like that. Everybody does their best. Every editor has their preference. I will be putting it through Afd. scope_creep (talk)
I don't understand English more, and I want of you (( If you know the complete rules of how to work with Wikipedia )) that please add this resource and text about Atena Daemi in this article (Atena Daemi).
Hello! I've seen some of your edits, and I really appreciate the contributions you're making to Wikipedia. I'm glad you're helping the project! You may wish to consider creating an account. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself).
I see that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina P. Ramet you wrote, in connection with the editor signing "Quis separabit?", "I'm rather shocked that such a long-standing administrator doesn't understand that fundamental point about the way that Wikipedia works, and, if I could be bothered, would make a proposal that admins should have to go through reconfirmation after a number of years." In fact, the editor who signs as "Quis separabit?" (and whose user name is "Rms125a@hotmail.com") is not an administrator, as you can see here, and I don't know how you got the impression that he or she is one. I certainly agree, though, that if an administrator were to create such a totally inappropriate deletion discussion, it would raise questions about his or her suitability to continue as an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnorantArmies: Yes, you seem to be right. The comment I quoted came immediately after a sentence mentioning "Quis separabit?" and I took it as referring to that editor, but rereading it I see that it probably didn't. I also made the mistake of thinking that "Quis separabit?" had created the deletion discussion, but I see now that it was another editor, who is indeed an administrator. Going back to the point that "such a long-standing administrator doesn't understand that fundamental point about the way that Wikipedia works", in my experience when an administrator shows a remarkable lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is virtually always a "long-standing" administrator who has been around since the very early days of Wikipedia, when virtually anyone other than an outright vandal or other seriously disruptive editor could easily become an administrator, provided they had been around for a few months. Also, the administrator in question is equally virtually always one who is scarcely active as an administrator, and very probably not up to date with policies. In this case, it is an editor who became an administrator in 2004 after editing for about four and a half months, and who has only one administrative action logged since 2013. @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, in view of your comment below, you may be interested in reading this, and @Owen:, since your actions are being discussed, it is a matter of courtesy to call your attention to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson:..."I certainly agree, though, that if an administrator were to create such a totally inappropriate deletion discussion, it would raise questions about his or her suitability to continue as an administrator." Just so :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a small world .
Yes, it is. I noticed the irony that part of the "evidence" against me was that I made a comment that you agreed with.
Please note that you should not remove the proposed deletion notice from a unsourced biography of a living person without providing a reliable source. See WP:BLPPROD. I have therefore restored the notice to János Besenyő, by reverting to the version that was proposed for deletion. If you have a reliable source then please add it, and the notice can be removed. But do not do so again without one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds20:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your edit summary, but your understanding of the policy is incorrect. BLPROD says
To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp/dated}} until the biography has at least one such source.
So your interpretation is that sources can be removed from an article and then it is subject to deletion by WP:BLPPROD? If so then I suggest that you think for a few seconds about the absurd consequences that such an interpretation could lead to. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
September 2017
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Milk fat globule membrane while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. — IVORKDiscuss21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may have started what turned out to be a round of insults. I should not have made those first personal remarks that touched things off. I apologize for that and the other insults that followed. I am redacting the personal remarks that I made. I usually don't get into these kinds of contests. I was wrong to begin making it personal, and did not see it at that time. I will chalk this up to experience. Good luck with your editing on Wikipedia. I see that you do have a lot of experience. And like anyone else, you are entitled to your interpretation of guidelines, policies, and so on. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts and contributions on Wikipedia.
It is kind notice about my reply on AfD Peace Treaty with North Korea
Please refer to the initial version of Peace Treaty attached between U.S. and North Korea: Agreed Framework
It was the part of North Korea Nuclear deal. - page #3 , U.S. promised to provide North Korea with the formalassurance of peace and Security to North Korea.
From my understanding, the current nuclear & ICBM issue would have been removed already, if the agreement was proceeded,
I was able to figure it out this information just only a few days ago because of the news release from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtiming8871 (talk • contribs)
First off, let me say (even though I'm sure you've heard the whole bit before) you should register an account! I can understand why you may not want to, but if there is at least one practical reason that you should it is that as an IPeditor, I cannot send you thanks for deprodding Best Get Going and KRO-NCRV (which are my PRODs). Not to say that I want to undermine what you said above I did have an account several years ago, but decided to stop using it, which is completely compliant with policy, partly because I was concerned with the way that unregistered editors were treated like something nasty sticking to your shoe, and I wanted no part of that and I think you're not wrong on that front. There are several other deprods you've done I think are in good form.
To refute your points, though, 1. One does not need to understand Chinese to be able to determine notability of a Chinese language topic. We do, after all, have this very useful guide If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Coverage is largely in blogs or brief episode coverage. Your contesting of that is fine, my explanation was not as thorough as it normally is. 2. I don't think many of the sources cover GNG, but you could easily find it to be notable under WP:BROADCAST - which I had somehow not found when PRODing it.
Thank you for your contributions, if in the future you determine that you need the assistance of a registered user feel free to drop by my talk page or email me and I'll see what I can do. :) menaechmi (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with point 1 above. The vast majority of sources for a Chinese television show will obviously be in Chinese, so how can you possibly tell if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that coverage is largely in blogs or brief episode coverage, if you can't read such sources? Please note that notability is an attribute of the subject of an article, depending on all the sources that exist, rather than of the article as it is currently written and the sources cited therein. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
September 2017
Hello. You recently removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Habul Chakraborty, without adding a reliable source. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source. If this was a mistake, don't worry, it has been replaced. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the ANI is closed and anyone who should be blocked is blocked (twice, actually!) Basically, if I'd looked at this page first I would never have come to the errrrroneous conclusion I did. Unfortunately the rest of your edits kind of- tied in elsewhere. Not your fault or responsibility. But, this page would have been absolutely convincing (and, indeed, is)- and imagine how embarassing it is to dishcover our previous (and I hope I can say) respectful and mutually-supportive interaction (a context to which I earnestly hope we can return relations). That thought wish and desire being paramount in my mind and guiding my hand as I write, I officially and befittingly apologise to you for everything I am responsible for between the spectra and gamut of spoiling a nice weekend to the heinous accusation of being a long-term abuser of wikipedia whose intent is solely to disrupt and discombobulate the running of the encyclopaedia and the good relations between its volunteers. None of whch have been, are, or will ever be the case I know, and should have known if I had paused slightly over the mouseclick, and would have known if I had, and will have known in the future when looking back. I am a great advocate, in general, of WP:IPHUMAN, but I admit there is a piece of me that on occasion does want our best IP contributors to open accounts- a suggestion which, of course, I'm equally sure that you have considered and rejected beforetimes. Anyway, thanks for reading, and I hope you are keeping well. Take care! — fortunavelut luna14:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 86.17.222.157. You have new messages at Talk:Ughill Hall shootings. Message added 11:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I appreciate you defending me earlier this month. I was accused of being Abnormallylong then some London editor then you; Lol. I still feel that IP's are discriminated against. Maybe we need a taskforce or something dedicated to IP's. 79.67.91.250 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have no idea whether 79.67.91.250 is Vote (X), but given your obvious previous gross incompetence in detecting sockpuppets I must ask you not to make such accusations on this talk page. If you have any evidence then present it at WP:SPI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to be appreciated, but my main object in the ANI discussion was to defend myself rather than anyone else. If a beneficial side effect was to defend someone else too then that's great. I don't see that any taskforce would inprove things, because most of the people who get involved in any editing outside of article space, who tend to be those who treat Wikipedia as a social media site rather than an encyclopedia, would ban any non-logged-in editing if it wasn't for the fact that one of the few policies imposed by the owners of this site, the Wikimedia Foundation, was that it should be allowed. Sadly there are quite a few admistrators who side with the trolls. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you were. I think I might even have made a mistake once myself at some time in the last 60 years, although I can't remember what it was. Happy new year! 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unprodding
I saw you Unprodded 2 articles about chinese departements saying that they are likely to be notable. Do you know which ministry they are departements of? Have you found any references? Are you sure that the departements even exist? Unprodding without addressing the problems is allowed but it is a shame not to make the effort to find the sources yourself. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Regarding removing the BLPPROD tag at Apoorva Muralinath: While there now are sources they don't seem to support any of the statements in the article. From my reading all the three articles would support is that Muralinath is a basketball player for the Indian Railways team, which is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps I've missed something. Gab4gab (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 'thanks' feature does not work on IP accounts. Are you sure you don't want to register? The kind of work you are doing for Wikipedia would be easier for you with the access to some tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
I have several reasons for not wanting to edit with an account, the main one being that I don't want to get drawn into spending too much time editing Wikipedia at the expense of the more important things in life (by which I don't mean paid work), which would happen if I used an account and a watchlist.
But, anyway, the main thing is that you are the one who deserves thanks. We may have had one or two disagreements in the past, but, compared to your immense achievement in building almost single-handedly a new page review system (I still don't like the word "patrol", but that seems to have become embedded in Wikipedia's culture) that strikes the right balance between deleting crap articles and encouraging creators of articles with potential, that counts for nothing. I don't go in for barnstars and that touchy-feely stuff, but I recognise that you have done more than nearly anyone to make the largest Wikipedia such a good encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD
Re your edit on my talk page. You might want to read WP:BRD. It is up to you to raise your contested edit on the article talk page and attempt to get consensus before you restore a contested edit. My talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss a content dispute, since any other interested editors are unlikely to see it there. Your initial removal of the material was inappropriate, as I explained, and whether you understood my explanation of not your restoration of it was also inappropriate. Since the article has now been merged to Niche insurance and that material has been dropped it's moot.
You didn't get the point the first two times, so let me make this clearer. Stay off my talk page. I am not interested in discussing anything with you on my talk page. Meters (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those particular sources use Google Scholar, the best of the Google services for finding reliable sources. Most of them are probably not available for free online without access through a university library, but many other other sources are readily available via any search engine - just maybe not in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please check policy. Anyone other than the article creator can remove a speedy deletion tag. And when you reverted you reinstated the ridiculous splitting of one reference over two columns and gave an edit summary that defies WP:AGF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
