|
User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 4
Please comment on Talk:Katherine JohnsonThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you!Thanks, first of all, for the page protection on Super Size Me – I have tired of fighting the (almost certainly orchestrated) campaign of vandalism. Secondly, thanks for the comment regarding my name. I was named for Bonnie Prince Charlie and had family, both Irish and Scottish, at Culloden. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of User:BlackheartedkidLast week, you blocked User:Blackheartedkid, but I believe there is a sockpuppet of this account under User:JackHood that edited briefly before Blackheartedkid and then started again less than one day after Blackheartedkid was blocked. Both users edit Heroes articles and upload non-free images mostly to be included in the Sylar article. JackHood's first edit after Blackheartedkid was blocked was to asked to be unblocked even though that account was not blocked. Aspects (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
AIVYou declined a report at AIV as insufficiently warned. However, warnings are not needed in long term abuse and block evasion. This user has their own abuse filter (filter 777) created by MusikAnimal per this request based on prolonged abuse documented at User:EvergreenFir/socks#Southwest. MusikAnimal, JamesBWatson, and Widr have all blocks these IPs, so this amount to block evasion as well. Please block the IP in question. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please restore Shigeru Sugita, Universe ChampionshipsI am unsure of what was on the page, but the reason given for deletion was "Non-notable athlete". It seems that the first Japanese man to win the Mr. Universe competition (amateur) would make him notable. Winning the contest at all should do that, let alone being the first Japanese man to do so. Arnold Schwarzenegger was likewise an amateur title holder of the contest, and it brought him a lot of recognition. On a related note, if the Universe Championships violated the "WP:Sports event" rules, why not reclassify it? If Miss America is acceptable (originally - and arguably still strongly - based on appearance, rather than accomplishments) can have a page, why not this? One of my big concerns is that removal of the Shigeru Sugita page appears to minimise the accomplishment of an Asian athlete in a time when representation and diversity are more important than ever. Surely there is a way to get this content to adhere to WP guidelines. Indigotraveler (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion Theo KanterDear Ad Orientem, I believe you decided to delete the page with the english translation of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Kanter. I did the translation while updating the content and adding external references and sources. Thus, I am in need of some guidance why this supporting evidence of external source is insufficient for publications. It may be so that I missed things due to unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia editing environment but this was never pointed out on the Swedish page. Please help me by pointing out exactly what is missing, because I have no problem adding sources as long I understand exactly what would be regarded as sufficient. Also, please help me to move back the content once it is acceptable as I put some effort in this and would like to avoid redoing all the work. Yours sincerely Theo Kanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkanter (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Crystal clear consensus?Hello, you were kind enough to lift my recent temporary editing ban but in doing so you seemed to raise WP:consensus to a seemingly impossible standard of crystal clear consensus. The involved parties have agreed that consensus is based upon quality of an arguments and common sense WP:EL. The reasoning in the discussion at WP:External_links/Noticeboard#Beacham_Theatre is becoming increasingly subjective. I feel that crystal clear anything is going to be next to impossible. Last, apparent WP:local consensus is not the same as WP:Consensus but it would greatly impact clarity. Crystal clear consensus is an impossible standard. Could you please me offer guidance or point be to a resource to help resolve this dilemma? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Mr. Universe, et. al.Greetings! I notice someone PROD'd the Mr. Universe competition, and it managed to go the week. You did, of course, correctly remove it per due process. Unfortunately, I can't see why it managed to get the PROD treatment - this is a world renowned body building competition, where Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Reeves, John Grimek, (and others) came to fame. An international contest with nearly 70 years of history, and subject of a TIME retrospective. What are the chances we could get it restored so any necessary improvements could be made? Thanks in advance! Scr★pIronIV 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked user RoanisawesomeHi you recently blocked the above user, I haven't seen an unblock request and the user is continuing to add unsourced and probably false information and has recently created a page that I am sure is a hoax. If he has been blocked how can he continue to edit? thanks Domdeparis (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up, a 3-month block on a dynamic IP address isn't going to stop them. Would you be willing to perform a 3 month block on this IPV6 2001:8003:251F:1C00::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Thanks. 172.58.40.31 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Jean-Marie RiachiHi, the page Jean-Marie Riachi which you deleted is about a very successful Lebanese composer who composed many hit songs for famous Arab singers like Elissa (Lebanese singer). I kindly ask you to put it back. *https://twitter.com/JeanMarieRiachi --Salah Almhamdi (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for cutting a stubborn knot with a great edit. Well done. Please stick around over there. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Abraham Bolden
Hi, Ad Orientem. I saw the comments regarding Abraham Bolden you made in FTN a few months back. You may recall that Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy once existed separate from Abraham Bolden. The story that there was a Chicago plot originates from Bolden, so I agree with whomever made the decision to redirect the former to the later. I think having the redirect work the other way gives undue credence to Bolden's fabricated story. (See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_42#Chicago_plot_to_assassinate_President_John_F._Kennedy.) I also think this is an article that needs to be watched very closely, especially since various mainstream news sources who are ignorant of the full history frequently reiterate Bolden's claims as fact. For example, here is one by Ebony that has popped up since I began my Wikibreak: [13]. Anyway, hope you are well! - Location (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Location. I think your analysis is pretty much spot on. Both articles are dreadfully PROFRINGE but of the two, the Chicago Plot article was the worst. It presents the so called plot as a fact and relies overwhelmingly on non RS/Fringe sources. I'd just leave it as a redirect. And yes I am well, if busy. Since I got
suckered, er talked into this job my edit count has jumped from around 12k accumulated mostly over a three year period, to 17k in just over three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Recent update to Christian Orthodox wiki page...
To whom it may concern:
Please do not get offended but I am currently pursuing my Master and Doctoral Degrees in Theology.
Accordingly, the Catholic and Christian Orthodox faith were united as one until the great schism.
My recent edit was only meet to draw distinction between the Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches.
I pray that one day these two Christian Churches can set aside their differences and be reunited once again.
In the true spirit of humanity we need dialogue first before summarily dismissing ones opinion.
Take the utmost care, Giorgos Trifon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Trifon (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Bill Murphy entry
The assertion about "conspiracy theories" in the Bill Murphy entry is disparaging and unsourced. It should be removed. Besides, there's no "theory" when government officials meet in secret to develop and implement courses of action. In many respects government is OFTEN "conspiracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CXPowell (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have opened a discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Please feel free to join that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Heads up
Hi,
This user that you blocked for 24 hours is an obvious sock of LTA User:Catcreekcitycouncil. For the record, even if this isn't this sockmaster, they've created another account here. Thank you. 212.199.114.161 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also this account might be them too, which was blocked by Amortias. 212.199.114.161 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've changed the block to indeff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
your sock block of User:Hmonglames
Wack-a-mole time. See [14] by User:Sunuprugs Meters (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked and article protection upped to ECP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't realize this was Cat Creek Council until you tagged the first one. Meters (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That attack page
Well, I'm sorry I missed the fun - would be curious to know what was at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Jeh . Jeh (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Ad Orientem:
I have just today noticed that you deleted the article about the Canadian company Taraspan. The reason given by the PRODing editor, SwisterTwister was that the article had been created in contravention of the paid editing policy, that the article was promotional, and that the references were mainly warmed-over press releases. It's true that the original draft article was very promotional, and was created by an intern working at the company. It had been previously deleted twice for this reason. However, it was created a year before the paid editing policy was created, and it was properly posted in WP:AFC, where COI material is allowed until reviewed and de-fluffed. Accordingly, I rewrote the text to include just facts, and added multiple references to articles in mainstream Canadian newspapers. While some of the ones I added do include quotes from the company's founders, this is because they were interviewed by journalists, and none of the interviewee's words were used to support the text, only those of the journalists. I moved the draft to mainspace when I felt that it was adequately supported.
I didn't see the PROD at the time. If I had, I would have removed it and added more references, such as this one from the national newspaper The Globe and Mail and this one from the National Post.
Unless you object, I plan to reinstate the article and add the two extra references. If SwisterTwister still thinks that the article can't be made acceptable through editing, he can always take it to WP:AFD.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- No objections. Ping SwisterTwister -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of James Rajasekar
Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the page on James Rajasekar— your deletion logs cut out part of your explanation with ellipses. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterEditor500 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- The PROD was a little wordy but the bottomline is that it states the subject fails WP:PROF. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
User account "Hassane" is not registered
The "Hassane" page you deleted was linking to me "Hazzane" as there was no such user as "Hassane" and couldn't create/register my account with the user "Hassane". I'm Hassane Let's Talk! 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are you requesting that I restore the page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
NFCC enforcement
With regard to this discussion [15]: This is by no means the first time the issue has come up, and it's pretty clearly a settled one by now. See, for example, Talk:List of 20th-century women artists#Deleting valid and important images, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_24#Frank_Auerbach, Talk:Kay Sage#Images and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_31#File:Untitled_painting_by_Larry_Poons.2C_ca.1964.jpg. Modernist doesn't accept fundamental elements of NFC use policy (and says as much here Talk:Abstract_expressionism/Archive#Images_2), but has had no success in changing it (and it is basically WMF policy, not merely local policy). Basic NFC enforcement is exempt from edit warring limits, for good reason; and when matters are as clearly settled as this one there's no need for repeating the same discussions ad nauseam -- especially when Modernist trots out bad faith claims of vandalism and all-caps edit summaries like "YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG" rather than arguments rooted in policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
'MOAB'
IMO, continuing to omit 2017 Nangarhar airstrike from ITN is not reasonable when it remains a prominent topic on mainstream news outlets and the death toll, according to Afghani officials, has risen to more than 90. Suggest reopen. Sca (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Done-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sca (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Requesting talk page protection and user page just in case.
Hello, I already put in a request for talk page protection but I figured it might be wise to add protection to my user page as well, at least temporarily. I would also appreciate a longer block on the talk page . Thanks ahead of time ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 15:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've protected your talk page for 2 days. Indefinite protection is extremely rare. Ping me if the problem returns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
ITN
Hi. The article Kulbhushan Yadav was moved to its current title Kulbhushan Jadhav. Since you posted his news on ITN, would you be able to correct his spelling there? Thanks in advance. Mar4d (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem! I was reviewing this user's contributions for repeated COPYVIO edits, but I can't find which edits (other than maybe the first one) that introduced them. Am I missing something? Can you list these edits so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Oshwah, I was just about to drop you a line on this subject. I took a look their contrib log and it looks like most of their edits have been reverted as copyvios. See here. Let me know if you think those were bad reverts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am actually having 2nd thoughts here, mostly because they look like a new editor. I may lift the block. and post a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think they're just new too. Plus, looking at each diff in their contribs, I don't see edits that blatantly paste text in that's clearly taken from an external source without attribution... they all seemed pretty small (in fact, they remove more content than add), which is what made me hesitate to block when I was looking through it at AIV. Let me know what you find and decide; I just didn't find any edits that made me think, "AHA! Yup! For sure...", and I thought maybe you did, which is why I asked you here. Wanted to see what the heck I missed ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've already unblocked them. And I agree this looks fairly small potatoes. Frankly I think I am guilty of leaping w/o adequately looking here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Meh, It happens; nobody is perfect. Hell, I've certainly made my fair share of mistakes :-). To me, you're not learning or growing if you're not making mistakes... it's a normal part of getting experience and wisdom under your belt ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've already unblocked them. And I agree this looks fairly small potatoes. Frankly I think I am guilty of leaping w/o adequately looking here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think they're just new too. Plus, looking at each diff in their contribs, I don't see edits that blatantly paste text in that's clearly taken from an external source without attribution... they all seemed pretty small (in fact, they remove more content than add), which is what made me hesitate to block when I was looking through it at AIV. Let me know what you find and decide; I just didn't find any edits that made me think, "AHA! Yup! For sure...", and I thought maybe you did, which is why I asked you here. Wanted to see what the heck I missed ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am actually having 2nd thoughts here, mostly because they look like a new editor. I may lift the block. and post a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
User:RockHarper at it again
Hey Ad, I know you were tracking the constant disruptive editing of RockHarper (talk · contribs), well he is doing the same type of disruptive edits as before, mostly again on MasterChef Junior (U.S. season 5). I tried giving him one last final warning with no luck. What's your call on this? - SanAnMan (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's time to take this to ANI. Their refusal to discuss or respond to all of the warnings and blocks is troubling. It doesn't look like all of their edits are disruptive but enough appear to be that something needs to change. But I would be more comfortable if the community weighed in on this. And in any case I can't unilaterally impose a TBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Works for me, the AIV report has just been Twinkled. Thanks for your help and all you do. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Re: Gameshakers71
They've gone and made another copyright violation, so they still don't get it. Regards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Amaury. Can you provide the diff and a link to the source of the copyrighted material? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Diff. Material. Changing a few words around does not make it any less of a violation. Also, just for reference, the previous violations involved summaries for future episodes, so those were pretty clearly copyright violations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Blocked for 12 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Diff. Material. Changing a few words around does not make it any less of a violation. Also, just for reference, the previous violations involved summaries for future episodes, so those were pretty clearly copyright violations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1RR question
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the 1RR on DT, does that mean that if you revise content, and that gets reverted, and you then come back and revise the same content again less than 24 hours later, is that a 1RR violation? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think merely revising content is necessarily a revert if it hasn't been the subject of any recent discussion or editing. I can get some links on that if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- 1RR means that you don't reinsert material or edits that have been challenged by reversion. If the edit in question is substantially the same as one that was reverted then you are violating 1RR. I would also point out that people should be seeking talk page consensus before making major changes to the article. Discretionary Sanctions is not limited to 1RR. The bottom line is that we need to show respect for other editors and the broader community when editing articles about controversial figures. If someone is habitually not doing that then they can be sanctioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
{e/c] I'm not all that familiar with the sanctioning on ArbCom pages. but these edits seem to me to be violating 1RR imposed on DT, and there are more like them.
- This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017
- It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017
- Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017
SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay by me, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Will you be commenting on the article talk page? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Possibly if I have time. I'm in the middle of some stuff right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- .Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- If the edit at 02:38 was a revert subject to 1RR then so was this. Right SW3? Anyway, please move this discussion per request above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- .Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know you wanted a copy here. I've seen admins move discussions from their page to article/user talk pages without leaving a copy. Also, can you please comment on the article talk page now? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Another article move incident
Hello. Before I screw up another article move, a few editors moved this article to the Venezuelan economic crisis of 2013–17 article without discussion. They did the "2-title move", where you cannot revert the moves and need an administrator to make edits. I originally made the article since there is an Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government article. The move was unnecessary since there is already a Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela article. Your help would be greatly appreciated!--ZiaLater (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- A 2 title move? Are you talking about the redirect? I ask because I've never understood when we need an admin. I hardly ever make page moves, so not an expert. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ideally article moves should be discussed on the talk page first. Obvious exceptions for moves that are obviously non-controversial. If there is a concern about this move the talk page is where that discussion belongs. Unless there is some reason to view this as deliberate disruptive editing there is no need for an admin to jump in here right off the bat. 90% of these kinds of situations are best handled with a little talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- So what is a 2 title move? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ideally article moves should be discussed on the talk page first. Obvious exceptions for moves that are obviously non-controversial. If there is a concern about this move the talk page is where that discussion belongs. Unless there is some reason to view this as deliberate disruptive editing there is no need for an admin to jump in here right off the bat. 90% of these kinds of situations are best handled with a little talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: It is when a user moves an article to a new name and then quickly moves it to another name. It prevents the revert of the moves and the original article title can no longer be used, so any efforts by non-adminstrative users are futile. It's frustrating when articles are moved without discussion like this.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ZiaLater: Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: It is when a user moves an article to a new name and then quickly moves it to another name. It prevents the revert of the moves and the original article title can no longer be used, so any efforts by non-adminstrative users are futile. It's frustrating when articles are moved without discussion like this.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
page moderator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please consider spending some time as a page moderator on DT. You are very good at sorting things. I think the other editors would appreciate it as much as I would. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence, but unfortunately my recent rather significant edit to the lead makes me an INVOLVED editor so I would be very reluctant to try and take on that role. If I can avoid editing the article in any meaningful way for a month or two I could probably put my admin hat back on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please keep it to a month. (See below) So let's say May 22nd you can become our moderator. Yay. Thanks so much. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- SW3, I have not tried to complain to this admin about you. I don't like drama, and I don't like antagonizing other editors by making complaints about them, even if the complaints are entirely justified. Please keep in mind that if I continue to be on the receiving end of your endless complaints, then I will certainly start responding in kind. Tiny though it may be, this edit of yours which was in response to mine says just about everything that needs to be said here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not quite like that. Always give the full picture with all the diffs. I opened the section here. Then you came along and changed it even though you had to know it wasn't really needed here since we all know what TOC means. But you complained about it here.and now on this page here. Do stop manipulating situations to always make yourself appear the victim like you're doing here and also here. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- You never cease to amaze me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not quite like that. Always give the full picture with all the diffs. I opened the section here. Then you came along and changed it even though you had to know it wasn't really needed here since we all know what TOC means. But you complained about it here.and now on this page here. Do stop manipulating situations to always make yourself appear the victim like you're doing here and also here. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
response to your comment
I did reply to your comment on Anything's talk but he reverted it so here it is: I understand completely, and I see that you are involved. Your warning to him is the first refreshing thing I've seen in a bit. And yes, I too must dial that back, but I am fully prepared to defend it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clarification_request_on_1RR --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Are you talking about bringing this to the ANI thread? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: No. As Ad Orientem's comments with respect to 1RR were brought up at ANI, they should be given a heads up. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Yes, and I thought i pinged him on ANI and he noted that. I believe he then pinged MelanieN, as you know she's on and off the article. In thinking about it, I should have come to your page first as you also watch over the DT page. That way you could have let me know if there was an issue and directed me to AE. That board would not have come to mind. If you like, you can close the ANI thread. I don't see a need to respond again. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: No. As Ad Orientem's comments with respect to 1RR were brought up at ANI, they should be given a heads up. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Are you talking about bringing this to the ANI thread? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding WesCrusher
FYI, probable WP:EVASION: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlind0. Murph9000 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am content to let the SPI investigation do its thing as long as he does not try to re-post that silliness at the VP. If he does... let's just say my finger is hovering over the block button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Signature needed
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AEladio_del_Valle&type=revision&diff=777003803&oldid=777001943. -Location (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ss112
They must've seen you're not interested in fighting it and have tried to get someone else involved here: on Jim1138's page
Love.Live.Life
Hey Jim, I see you've reverted the user Masheenya on Cover Drive. Can you also revert them on Love.Live.Life? I've gone up to my three-revert limit there, but they have added unsourced content there as well and used a dead link to attempt to cover it up. Ss112 20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you try and sort something out please? Masheenya (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Declined Sorry I have a full plate right now. If you need help settling this I suggest you take a look at WP:DR. If either of you are convinced that there is bad faith or disruptive editing going on take it to WP:ANI. But I would try to settle this civilly first. ANI can be a bit rough for people looking for dispute resolution who go there right off the bat or who are seen as wasting the community's time.
Deletion of Page 'Rubique'
Would like to understand why Rubique company page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal mayekar (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was naked advertising/promotion. We do not allow Wikipedia to be used for advertising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Nubyen deletion
Would be grateful if you could supply me with a copy of the content of the Nubyen page you recently deleted so I can make amendments towards Wikipedia compliance. Much thanks. Finn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfinn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Drfinn I have sent the text to a subpage of your user page User:Drfinn/Nubyen. You can work on the draft there. DO NOT recreate the article in its current form. The article makes no clear claim of notability, is clearly promotional in its tone, and is entirely unsourced. Please read WP:NCORP and WP:V for more helpful information. If the article is recreated in anything close to its current form it will be quickly deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Clarification of Bea Priestley's article deletion
Hello Ad
I'm coming here to tell you on why you deleted that why?
Because she is not notable because she doesn't have a "reliable source" or because I'm not good making articles and they are all bad? or just because I'm not welcome here in Wikipedia, when I just want help and let the readers know about British Wrestling, tell me why? Why?
Why could you not ask at least for someone to improve it?
Thanks for your time
TheBuilder456 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
P.s: I prefer a hard and rough truth than a delusional lie, also if it is to undelete how can I do that or what should I do? Because listen I just want to know the basic of Wikipedia and what I have to do to retain my articles and where I can find reliable sources about professional wrestling.
- Hi TheBuilder456. The article was deleted as a result of this discussion at WP:AFD where the community determined that the subject does not meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. Recreating articles deleted via AFD is strongly discouraged unless the issues identified have been addressed and corrected. While there are many issues which can be fixed, sadly notability really isn't one of them. It's either there or it isn't. And the community determined in this case that it was not. Since the AfD discussion was quite recent and I saw no evidence in the article indicating notability I deleted the recreated article. If you believe that this deletion was in error you may appeal it at WP:DRV. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Chumlee
(Comment moved from the top of the talk page)
Why di dyou dlete my wikiepdia entry? He told me peronally via instagram his ethnioc background!!! that is the source -(unsigned comment from Nicholas20177)
- Personal knowledge is a form of Original Research which is not allowed. Also Instagram is not a reliable source. Please do not reinsert the material w/o a reliable secondary source. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me but as i mentioned before, HE TOLD ME PERSONALLY. You cna't get more reliable than that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas20177 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Again, please read WP:OR. You are relating personal knowledge, and yes we do require a reliable source for that. I'm not trying to be rude here, but for obvious reasons we can't take very editor at their word when it comes to material and claims of fact. This is especially true in BLPs. (Side note: Please remember to sign your name using four tildes. Thanks.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad orientem, I don't think he's listening. So far he's added in ancestral backgrounds for Linda McMahon, Chumlee, Paul Teutul Sr and Logan Sama only one of them had a source, (Paul Teutul Sr ) but it was a user-supplied resource and therefore fails WP:RS.
As you can see I've spoken to him about this, with a non-template message and his reply was fairly dismissive, and you've spoken to him and his response was to edit Paul Sr's article. He may need a more serious attention getter. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Iran-Israel proxy conflict article sanctions
Hello, it came to my attention that you have recently tagged the Iran–Israel proxy conflict as "ARBPIA" article, which is an apparent mistake and contrary to the WP:GS/SCW general sanctions, which were installed in order to cover Syrian Civil War-related articles and topics (see 2013 motion for more details). I assume your action was good faith and possibly motivated by erroneous talk page ARBPIA tagging on 9 February 2017 by user:Shrike (notified), who must have not been aware that WP:GS/SCW general sanctions supersede ARBPIA in relevance to Syrian Civil War since the 2013 motion. The Iran–Israel proxy conflict has been tagged on talk page as WP:GS/SCW since February 2014 and should include Template:Editnotice SCW 1RR (not ARBPIA). Logically, you can also notice that Iran is not an Arab country, and hence Israeli-Iranian tensions are not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, though are indeed relevant to the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. If any corrective action is required let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the edit notice on Iran-Israel proxy conflict article should be changed from ARBPIA notice to GS/SCW notice (Template:Editnotice SCW 1RR). Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you!GreyShark (dibra) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the edit notice on Iran-Israel proxy conflict article should be changed from ARBPIA notice to GS/SCW notice (Template:Editnotice SCW 1RR). Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i found more Syrian Civil War-related articles which were marked ARBPIA instead of SCW&ISIL sanctions. Could you change the 1RR notice as well at Hezbollah, January 2015 Shebaa farms incident, Imad Mughniyah?GreyShark (dibra) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Reply
What's wrong with ethnic celebs? I used a source for Paul Sr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas20177 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for citing a source there. Unfortunately it does not meet our guidelines for reliability. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS for a more detailed explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a book source for Rick Harrison. It's called: 'License to Pawn: Deals, Steals, and My Life at the Gold & Silver'. It says he is of Irish descent in the book so can i use the book as a reference? Do i just type in the name of the book when adding a reference i.e [1]?
- (Talk page stalker-like reply) Nicholas20177, please sign your posts with ~~~~ . As to your question, please read WP:CITE, it will explain that to you. In fact , right at the top is an example that you can follow, so it would be a quick read for you.
As to the book, I checked it, it appears reliable, my only concern is it's about Rick Harrison, the son and not the older Rick Harrison, so the information may not be accurate for Rick Harrison Sr. Other than that, the book appears to be reliable. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 14:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Talk page stalker-like reply) Nicholas20177, please sign your posts with ~~~~ . As to your question, please read WP:CITE, it will explain that to you. In fact , right at the top is an example that you can follow, so it would be a quick read for you.
50.93.144.6
50.93.144.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Hey,
It looks like you and User:Materialscientist conflicted different block durations for this IP. Just passing this along. Thanks. 59.166.130.102 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem, could you help out at this BLP? I've requested a user block and page protection--persistent addition of poorly sourced personal gossip. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unfortunately, the gossip by the blocked account is locked in, but one can only ask for so much. Fashion model bios seem to be magnets for this sort of stuff. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just reverted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) I saw. Double thanks, and have a great weekend. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- You too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) I saw. Double thanks, and have a great weekend. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just reverted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unfortunately, the gossip by the blocked account is locked in, but one can only ask for so much. Fashion model bios seem to be magnets for this sort of stuff. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on sources
I'm working through some of the early modern papal conclaves ( Papal conclave, 1724 was the first I started on, and now just expandedPapal conclave, May 1605 for DYK). I've noticed in some of the others that the sourcing is in my mind pretty bad. Namely, they rely on what I can tell are self-published sources this source typically for lists of electors and ones from this series for describing factions. The latter one appears to be by a classics professor, but have not gone through peer review. This also makes a lot of appearances in some of the articles. Doesn't look self-published, but I'm also not quite sure if the original publication would be RS.
The main reason I am asking is that there are several GAs from about 10 years ago that seem to be built on this sourcing (ex. Papal conclave, 1769). I'd personally feel very uncomfortable expanding any of the early modern stubs with the information, and have been removing the lists and expanding based on current scholarship. Just wanted to pick someone elses brain on for thoughts on the sourcing for the larger articles in the series. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Tony. I haven't had a chance to go through all of what you posted and linked yet, but in general I think your concerns are probably justified. I will try to get you a more detailed response once I have a chance to look more closely. This is going to be one of those topics where reliable secondary or tertiary sources may be thin and I'm not really sure where to point you. For some information the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911-13 edition) which is in the public domain may be helpful, but I am not sure how much detail they go into with respect to all of the papal conclaves. You could also post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics requesting help with sources. I know some people off wiki who have strong academic backgrounds in Catholic Church history and I will see if they can offer any pointers. Beyond that I'd suggest asking for input at WP:RSN. It's quite late here and I need some sleep but I will try to add more tomorrow once I have had a chance to wade a bit deeper into this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Very familiar with Catholic Encyclopedia. I tend to try to avoid it for more recent sources where possible for a variety of reasons, but it was useful in the May 1605 conclave on background. My larger concern is that the current early modern era conclaves tend to be focused on cardinal lists and separating the lists out into factions. That seems bad prose and also bad for Wikipedia if those lists are based on self-published sources. I have access to recent secondary/tertiary sourcing, but none of them confirm the listings. Anyway, if you could take a look tomorrow and provide a second opinion, it would be appreciated. Some content work to get over the humdrum of the mop :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for page
Dear Ad Orientem,
As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.
I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.
According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia. Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker-like note). Ad Orientem, I've replied to them on their talk page already, essentially, telling them to create their own draft ( with a link to wp:draft) and a link to "Your first article" and "WP:PAID" with advise to read them carefully. I won't spam the rest of it here, but it's a fairly long ( but not TL:DR :) ) reply. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ License to Pawn: Deals, Steals, and My Life at the Gold & Silver
- ^ https://www.creamfinance.com/#home
- ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/habits-and-routines-of-entrepreneur-matiss-ansviesulis_us_58cf643ce4b0537abd95727c
- ^ https://www.inc.com/magazine/201603/noah-davis/inc-5000-europe-2016-fastest-growing-private-companies.html
- ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/habits-and-routines-of-entrepreneur-matiss-ansviesulis_us_58cf643ce4b0537abd95727c
- ^ http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFFWN1H10D
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianmitchell/2017/02/20/meet-the-fintech-ceo-making-money-easily-available-anywhere-in-the-world/#5a39bb19f724
- ^ http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150929005886/en/
- ^ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/creamfinance-partnership-with-mintos-to-offer-investments-in-loans-in-georgia-2015-09-29
- ^ http://www.labsoflatvia.com/news/latvian-creamfinance-nabs-a-21m-investment
- ^ http://www.techbullion.com/creamfinance-among-fastest-growing-europe-2017-inc-5000-rank
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianmitchell/2017/02/20/meet-the-fintech-ceo-making-money-easily-available-anywhere-in-the-world/#5a39bb19f724
Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done I fundamentally disagree with MOS:GENDERID and don't think I could constructively contribute to the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
SNL
The Saturday Night Live troll that you blocked a few weeks ago struck again. Thanks for your help. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like they have edited since you posted your warning on their talk page. Let me know if they do anything disruptive in the near future and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Here's the problem. It's slow motion trolling that has gone on for four years. There no doubt that it's the same person because almost all of their edits follow the same pattern. They will wait another month, maybe two months. My warnings don't stop it. I think a longer term block might get their attention. But, as I said when I first reported this at ANI, maybe I'm overreacting to an annoyance that doesn't cause any immediate harm since they always immediately revert. And I respect that you have to be judicious in handing out blocks. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Sundayclose. Sorry I am a bit slow in getting back to people. I've been buried in the real world. My suggestion for this would be ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Here's the problem. It's slow motion trolling that has gone on for four years. There no doubt that it's the same person because almost all of their edits follow the same pattern. They will wait another month, maybe two months. My warnings don't stop it. I think a longer term block might get their attention. But, as I said when I first reported this at ANI, maybe I'm overreacting to an annoyance that doesn't cause any immediate harm since they always immediately revert. And I respect that you have to be judicious in handing out blocks. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Illegitimate Barrister
After he was reported and then blocked at Commons, he sent me a self-reverted FU message at English Wikipedia: [16]. He's done this before back in December 2016. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Downtown_by_Petula_Clark_UK_vinyl_A-side.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=778356987){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=753365742){kind=link}
- Blocked 24 hrs per WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
Administrator changes
Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
Technical news
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
Miscellaneous
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Pinged you in four sections
Hi, a few minutes ago, I pinged you in four separate sections on Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I am posting this message here so that you would not get the impression that wikipedia mistakenly pinged you multiple times. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks I will take a look at any requests for comment, but I am not comfortable closing any contentious discussions since I am heavily INVOLVED with the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I just saw your comment in the talkpage of the article. I thought it was the discussion itself that the closer needs to be uninvolved. On the other hand, whats your opinion? I mean, is the source good enough to close the discussion? Thanks for the reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
User reported at ANV
Hi Ad Orientem. I saw you blocked the user Whippyice will for adding unsourced content after they were reported at ANV. I have reported the user Tjdrum2000 twice now at ANV for adding unsourced content and making disruptive edits in much the same vein as Whippyice will. They have been warned by various users for adding unsourced content across music and film articles and they are still doing it and refusing to explain these unsourced additions, provide any edit summaries, or change their behaviour. They have previously been blocked for disruptive editing. I don't think this fits something to be reported at ANI as that is a last resort and there's no back-and-forth edit warring, just the same disruption. Can you please take a look at this user and block if necessary? I don't think what else will get them to stop. Thank you. Ss112 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked 72 hrs -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI
This editor, User:RoyGoldsmith, made an interesting, and very accurate assessment on trying to get things done on the DT article. here. I think it speaks to precisely why we need a moderator there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you but I said "I don't know anyway of fixing this..." A moderator would only increase the "noise": the ratio of main article contributions to talk. As long as we have consensus as our primary rule of resolving debates, we'll have to let the TALKers calm down. And that takes time. But we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to get it "right" till at least a year goes by. IMHO. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @RoyGoldsmith: Well, Ad Orientem actually solved a very knotty problem with one sentence, really. That's why I brought your comment here. I think he could help fix the very problem you spoke about. You really nailed it on what goes sideways in these RfC/Survey sections. If you change your mind, and want to come back, your opinion is always welcome there. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to act as an article moderator here primarily for two reasons. First I have edited the article recently enough that I must be considered INVOLVED which means I can't act as an admin unless dealing with something fairly uncontroversial like naked vandalism. And secondly I am not on here enough to properly monitor that article which is an incredible time sink. If there is a sense among multiple editors that the article needs an admin to keep an eye on it regularly that should be raised at WP:AN, AFTER it is discussed on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @RoyGoldsmith: Well, Ad Orientem actually solved a very knotty problem with one sentence, really. That's why I brought your comment here. I think he could help fix the very problem you spoke about. You really nailed it on what goes sideways in these RfC/Survey sections. If you change your mind, and want to come back, your opinion is always welcome there. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Mireille Issa please undel
Hi, I intend to run Mireille Issa through Afd to see what happens, it might squeak through or not. Please undelete it and maybe encourage whoever prodded it to Afd it instead of me. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done per WP:REFUND. Ping HyperGaruda. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Siuenti: be my guest. In its current incarnation, I still think the article is more of a résumé than an encyclopedic entry, where the really biographical section completely lacks sources needed to satisfy WP:BLPPROD. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
User talk:199.189.81.54 Level 4 warning
Hi, AO, while I agree that a level 4 is appropriate when there is a hint of substantive editing, or when an IP editor is clearly not a SPA whose purpose is to vandalize. That isn't the case with this vandal. Look at the IP's edits since 2013 - not even one edit has been anything but vandalism. They've had ample warnings, but the vandalism continues. See these diffs and what was edited. It's garbage, and it's harmful to WP. Please block. Atsme📞📧 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I took a look at their contrib log before posting the warning and noticed a couple issues. First this IP belongs to a school district and secondly there have only been a handful of edits since 2015. Of those few all have occurred within the last week. While it is possible that this may be the same person it is also quite possible that it is not. In any case with a gap of near two years I don't think I can count disruptive edits from all the way back in 2015. If this is a persistent vandal they will be back and no further warnings will be forthcoming (as long as they don't wait another 2 years). The next time they vandalize I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)