This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ad Orientem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Ad Orientem. A user, Driante70, is posting personal attacks in Italian at my talk page because I reverted their move of a page. They have previously been warned not to post personal attacks, but they appear not to have a very good grasp of English. I'm at my revert limit on my talk and I don't know how to get them to stop. Ss11216:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I have droppped a line on their talk page. That said, I also would strongly suggest that you refrain from posting on their talk page as well. When you declare someone persona non grata on your talk page it would likely be perceived as offensive to continue posting on theirs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I think all but one of those messages were posted before I asked them not to post on mine, which was initially only because I would prefer correspondence be kept on one talk page. Then I reverted them there because of the personal attack. Ss11217:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done SA's involvement in the Syrian Civil War is fairly peripheral and I am not seeing a sufficient justification at this point. If I were inclined to add 1RR (and at this point I'm not) it would more likely be in the basis of the Arab Israeli dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Mlpearc
Please don't close this out; its harassment if you follow the timeline, certainly not a content dispute; note the call for check-user, for eg. Dunno what you were thinking. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm shocked at the shallowness of your reply, but it reinforces my reversal of you admin action. I'd prefer maintaining article integrity to being "nice" to a bunch of revenge editors, but we are *obviously* here for different reasons (I know you from old). Note WP is not FB. Readers are not served by "nice". You might reconsider your value to the project if thats the attitude. How about judging threads on merit and fact, before sweeping under the carpet as "not nice". Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are making some reference to Facebook, I have never been on there. Beyond which the tone of your comment is bordering on insulting. I suggest you tone it down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about - precisely, and so in future dont go closing threads you have not bother to understand. re Facebook, you ovb consider civility king; don't be obtuse with me, suggest all you want (who do you think you are, given your ill informed & poor judgement threatening behavior here); I'll see you around alright. People who build arguments on castles of sand have a habit of slipping . Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, you are way out of line. Tone it down or don't post here. You may regard this as a formal caution both in my capacity as an admin as well as the editor whose talk page you are abusing with your obnoxious posts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You are trying to shove this down the black hole of civility. Re-read the closure and how this thread reads from my POV. Not once have you addressed the substance of the original thread or even attempted to defend your closure - which just kicked problems down the line...so we can all be "nice". No faith in you; impression is: lacks the conviction of his/her own actions. Hardly the sort I would like to see officiating noticeboards. Block away, responsibility dodging lightweight. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
OK you have just pissed on the welcome mat as well as AGF CIVIL and NPA. You are persona non grata here. If you make any further edits on my talk page I will, albeit reluctantly, block you. You may regard this as a formal and FINAL WARNING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
So civility is actually more important to you than substance. I had figured that out at 11:41, 12 May 2017 [1]. Two questions: are you open to recall, and do you have the stones to follow through on your threats to block me. I question you credibility, again - go for it lightweight; either words have meaning or they dont. Ceoil (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by the chummy conversations on dr whatshisname's talk, as if I was a leper, so you might apologies there. Also, back to the fact of the matter; do you often wade in to AN/I Discussions with a grasp of amounting to less than zero of the facts. That would be concerning, and that you block in defence is well, you can guess. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Belated reply
I was about to post a response on Drmies's page, but the thread disappeared. I was going to say that perhaps I've been around too long, but I don't see anything shockingly abusive in that thread. In future if you feel you're being abused above and beyond, go to AN/I and ask for help. "Remember that I have a big stick and I'm about to use it" means that angry people, perhaps especially angry men, will say "go on, then". It sets the other person up to fail or feel humiliated. SarahSV(talk)04:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think the above is OK and calling me a "motherfucker" elsewhere is not a problem, then you have been around too long. And I do not appreciate your closing the ANI thread which was most definitely not resolved since they are STILL posting on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying I think using that term is okay. I'm saying that, when you're acting as an admin, you should have one eye on how to deescalate. Sometimes letting people shout at you on your talk page is one way to do that. SarahSV(talk)04:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Again you are focusing on the language rather than the substance. I apologies for calling you a "MF", I don't actually think you are like that; I was just frustrated by your unwillingness to engage, and aversion to treat me as an actual person with a real notice board issue, rather than a pest to be got rid of because there was cuss words. Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Your apology is accepted. Now on the substance of your complaint, you believe I acted too quickly in closing the ANI thread. You are correct. I read Victoria's comment, took a cursory look and saw what looked like a garden variety, albeit heated content dispute and I closed the thread on that basis, hoping to calm everyone down. I realized I was in error almost at once which was why I chose not to contest your reverting my close. I regret my precipitous action and the unfortunate exchange that has followed. And I withdraw my "persona non grata." I hope that you will accept my apology and we can move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
(1) Are you deluded, I didn't really apologist to you, I *only* regret characterising you as MF; I stand by everything else. You grudgingly unblocked with a childish tick marks, falling even deeper in my estimation.
(2) all I ever wanted from you was an explanation, but you seemed to see yourself above all that
(3) Re Victoria; actions have consequences, and people more tuned in than you can see through wanton admin abuse. Anyhow, your time line doest add up, and the sudden change in you manner of expression; you were schooled, unsuccessfully.
(4) I realized I was in error almost at once which was why I chose not to contest your reverting my close is an amazing statement; you in effect followed it up with a talk page shut down, then a block, that you then reverted 5 minutes later on advice. This is utter nonesence.
(5) Re reading your last post again, can I reiterate; you seem deluded
Sigh. I don't know what more you want or expect. But I am tired. It's after 1 am here. I suggest you open a thread at ANI and request that I be desysopped. I will look in tomorrow when I have a chance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Precisely *why* adminship is a big deal - this entitled not contributing well whattagonna about it? from the non engaging ultra civ right wing. The untouchables. We'll see. Ceoil (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If I may be so bold. Might I suggest a cooling off period? A time to go drink a Guinness or *gasp* "some god awful American domestic brew", and let this situation de-escalate? I am only interfering because I respect both your work as editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for patronizing, and actually buzz off - have you read up on the context? "What more you want or expect" - entitlement; RFA is a big deal, if we let lessers like this through. Ceoil (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ceoil, please let it go. The template is protected. People agree with you about the redirects, so they'll be gone soon. It's nearly over. I understand the frustration very well, but there's nothing to be gained here. SarahSV(talk)05:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey again, Ad Orientem. Sorry if you're busy, but the other day (May 11), an editor and I got into a dispute on Doris & the Daggers that the t in "the" is not capitalised—I thought this was obvious per MOS:CT, apparently not—and now that editor is basically "threatening" to continue edit warring/restoring their changes, claiming that BRD is basically giving them free license to revert, and that a subsequent revert of their revert would be the wrong action. Can you please protect the page so this doesn't occur and maybe explain to them that the titles of works do not capitalise the t in "the" unless it's the first word? As I said before, I thought this was obvious from all the pages on WP. Thanks. Ss11215:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I dropped a note on their talk page. I am not going to take sides in the debate so as to avoid INVOLVED in case I do need to step in at some point more firmly. For now I see no need for protecting the page. Let's see where this goes. Maybe you can ask for a 3rd opinion per WP:DR? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears they have already asked for a third opinion on WP:3O. The current state of the page has been stable for three days. I don't wish to discuss with them any further, as I thought it was going off on a unconstructive tangent and becoming a waste of time (as it's obvious from looking around and per MOS:CT that we don't do so on Wikipedia and there's no reason why we should make an exception due to one source), at which point I usually wish to bow out of discussions. I still disagree and don't wish to see the page changed, so I still think they should open a discussion at the relevant talk page and get consensus there (along with maybe asking for input at a capitalisation-related page, as you suggested). Ss11218:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice of process until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Personally I agree with Ad's block; 9 blocks in 10 years for NPA and civility strikes me as concerning, but other admins say otherwise. Ce la geurr. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought than onus was on you; being as discredited as AO. The last word isn't the final word, and I have ye guys categorised down pat - wastes of space and attack dogs, lacking either understanding or credibility. At least AO had the balls to block me, for 20 minutes, until *somebody* emailed saying "no!, come up with some reason to revert, it doesn't matter how silly it will seam!!". Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Titanic II
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless anti-vandalism work on Titanic II. There seems to be no end to those who maintain that this ship is going to be built despite all evidence to the contrary.
Hi Ad Orientem. You previously blocked the user Tjdrum2000 for adding unsourced content, but they are still doing so; see here and here. I have sent countless warnings for various things (OR, disruption after restoring changes reverted by multiple editors), before and after you blocked them, but they are still at it regardless of what I have sent to them. Should this result in another block? I don't know what else there is left to do and I don't know if it's worth dragging up a whole ANI case for. They have received sufficient warning but still persist and do not explain what they have done. Ss11214:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure they're going to learn otherwise. Yet again, after you warned them: changing genres, addition of unsourced content here, here and here. Ss11200:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedical. I have reblocked them for 72 hrs. Just as an FYI I am out of town for a family funeral and won't be back and editing with regularity again until the first weekend in June. In the meantime if something comes up and it's time sensitive you should probably seek help from another admin or one of the noticeboards. For now, I try (not always successfully) to check on here briefly maybe once a day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to congratulate you and thank you for identifying, knowing and tracking down the user responsible for vandalizing Fifth Harmony's Awards and Nomination article. A user try to accuse me of the destruction and reverting when you correctly identified it. I called that user out and when I found out that you identified the person I wanted to thank you. Thank you, for identifying the person and not trying to place the blame an a person like me. Best wishes for you! Welcometothenewmillennium15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem, I was just randomly searching for a page when I came across The School of Life, an article that you deleted after an expired PROD. I believe that an editor had previously removed a PROD tag on the same article just a few weeks before its deletion, hence making it necessary to go to AfD instead of a second PROD. I don't know if this just slipped through your fingers, or if there is something else related to the article that I am missing, so I decided to write to you and clarify the situation :) . MikeLynch (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. I missed the earlier Prod and have restored the article. I've also posted the {{old prod}} template on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Hi I saw that you locked down the political correctness article. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for
any difficulties I've caused. With that said, I realize I am a lowly IP editor who has been debating with an upstanding long-term contributor. The knee jerk reaction may be to assume I am the root of the trouble. I ask
you please, when you have a moment, look over the talk page for the last month (starting with the artwork section.). If I am the one screwing up, then I can accept that, but I think there is a bit of a tag team situation going on. I truly would appreciate your observations and feedback. Thank k you 2600:1012:B012:ABC:11D5:F991:8F09:6EF6 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Apprecire
A closer examination suggests you are likely correct. I have removed the page protection and have pinged Pincrete to alert them that they need to discuss this on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not very experienced with editing Wikipedia, so i don't really know if im doing this right, but i wanted to discuss the locking of the object sexuality page (as im fairly sure im the reason for it.) I would like to appeal that my edits were not vandalism, and that as a member of the object sexuality (os/or) community, i was only fixing it so that the topic wasn't being unfairly sexualized. thank you. 2605:6000:F508:D800:A92F:73B8:F01:7B1A (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I suggest that you post this for discussion on the article talk page which is not protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, just so you know, the community rejected the use of extendedconfirmed protection for high-risk templates here. Could you reconsider the protection level? Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk12:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Please also notice that there is no need to add protection templates (and your edit in that regard was reverted twice now by two different editors). They are added automatically as part of the documentation subtemplate. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I was under the impression that five were allowed unless it rendered the main page unbalanced. But I will keep it to four in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I had a quick check around the instructions and the magic "four" appears to not be anywhere to be found, so my apologies, but we used to limit it to three, then four if it could fit on one line and one line only for most browsers and most resolutions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think your block of nastradamus was a bad one. He/she was merely attempting to counter baseless pro-somaliland POV pushing. Currently, in the Las Anod page suggests that the city is located in Somaliland despite (a) almost nobody in that city identifying as somalilanders as evidenced by their creating Khatumo and (b) the international community recognizing the city as being in Somalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.206.198 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but I stand by that block (which has since expired). They made multiple attempts to disrupt a 3RRN discussion and then actually deleted it! Given the brazen level of disruptive editing I think they got off light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Block of Ric Faiol
I'm quite confident that after you blocked the user Ric Faiol, they have evaded their block and continued editing the exact same articles they would of Shakira's under the IP address 5.90.115.219 (talk·contribs). It is the exact kind of edits they would make, no summaries, just chart position updates, and I'm quite sure if a CheckUser were run, it would find they geolocate to the same area (however, I have not requested this because IP addresses will not be disclosed as being connected to an editor). Is there anything you can do about this? It happens all the time with blocked editors. They just don't get the message that they should not edit while their account is blocked and/or cannot help themselves. Ss11211:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the templates. Curious, have you read WP:PINKLOCK? It says, "It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists – the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community." Here are the following templates: Template:Old MfD (used on talk pages), Template:Calm (used on talk pages), and Template:Primary source inline (mainspace). If the risk of any template doesn't rise to what would have been "full protection", may you please consider lowering the protection to "semi-protection", which is also used on templates? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Interesting. If the IPs post date an actual account it can be dealt with summarily as socking. Otherwise we will have to wait (not long I suspect) for them to make yet another blatantly POV type edit and then they can be TBanned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, @Ad Orientem:! Just want to inform you that an anonymous user has the same behavioral patterns that made you recently block 112.198.73.9. Both are constantly monitoring Korean-related pages for any edits and once they spot an anonymous editor, they put sockpuppet templates (Bertrand101, AkoAyMayLobo) on the talk pages without sufficient proof or any formal investigation. Additionally, they contact user Xdeluna when put in a tight spot. They are really a big factor to constant edit wars in pages. The user I'm reporting, like the one you have blocked, does not contribute constructively to any pages but only focuses on tagging IP users. I hope you can intervene. Thank you! 178.164.53.25 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. You refer to an anonymous user (IP) but you have posted contrib logs for 6 IP's. Are you talking about one editor using all 6 IPs? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, @Ad Orientem:. Deliberately or not, the anon user in question edits in different IPs (though all are in Singapore). My point is, this user and 112.198.73.9 that you've recently blocked have the same editing style and focus. I'm pretty sure they're not the same person, I'm just pointing out that they have the same behavior which caused another anon user (112.198.73.9) to be blocked recently. 178.164.53.25 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a dynamic IP. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done here short of a range block which I generally shy away from. (I've done only three.) I suggest you take this to WP:ANI and request assistance from one of our more tech savvy admins. Perhaps Sam Walton can help. Sorry for the inconvenience but this is beyond my competency. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Ad Orientem, I've done even fewer range blocks than you have (0). @Bishonen: is the person I run to, though she is probably asleep at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Switching those IPs is not deliberate on the part of the user, it's the ISP's fault. But they are indeed all one person: this is the case when the first four digit groups are the same. Since you blocked the 112.198.72.0/22 range for three months, Ad Orientem, I've done the same for 2404:E800:E610:1D5::/64. (Not being otherwise a tech-savvy admin, I'm always rather pleased when I get to perform my one trick, which is to rangeblock IPv6.) Bishonen | talk10:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC).
Done Short term PP (4 days) applied to each article. In the meantime please be sure that this has been referred to SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
User moving redirects to unrelated namespaces to create pages
Hi Ad Orientem. Would you be able to ask the user Jax 0677 (who is experienced and should honestly know better) to stop moving pages to create new redirects? Just earlier, he moved one of Joan Armatrading's album articles he created to another that did not have an article just to create a redirect. He has been asked not to by at least four different editors, and did it just earlier as I was sending him another message about it. As far as I recall, an admin also asked him not do so (I'm not sure who, and I forget when it was—it may be in his talk page's history). Even if I am recalling wrong and an admin did not warn him, it is a terrible practice, leaves an R from move tag on the moved page that should not be there, creates double redirects (the editor resorts to the reasoning that bots fix everything), and is just not the right way to create redirects. Thank you. Ss11215:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I actually forgot the admin was Tavix, who I thought was just another user who was warning Jax. Tavix blocked them for 24 hours for disruptive page moves, but did they say they wouldn't mind another admin looking into the situation. Ss11218:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ss112. Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner. I have been busier than a one legged man in an Olympic track meet today and this is the first chance I've had to get on here. @Tavix: thanks for handling this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please investigate user Nqr9
Dear Sir
I contact you on to ask if you block Nqr9 from editing this person remove contents and Vandalizes certain pages because he feels the content that's added does not meet his requirement for example if you Edit a Bros page with material that come from a official publication this person removes the contents and threatens you. the person lives in Australia and has no official understanding of UK or European Music history and I feel they need blocking for vandalizing pages and removing content without providing what I feel is reliable explanation. this user is abusing there position.
Hi, just following up with you in regards to this user who I reported to AIV a few days ago. Despite your "one disruptive edit away from being blocked" warning, the user just made this edit, which appears to add fake information to the article. In addition, they also made this edit, which seems almost like an attempt to mock your warning (why would you advertise that you were about to be blocked?). Thanks in advance, KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥15:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Just checked their contributions again, and something is very off with that account. 1234 all seem to be disruptive to me and it appears the editor is continuing to edit based on personal whims rather than on actual fact or consensus. They also made this very strange edit to their user page 5. Cheers, KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥19:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't get what this user is doing either. I really appreciate you dealing with this. I'm honestly getting a bit annoyed myself having to keep coming here to tell you they've made yet another bad edit. So thank you! :) KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥00:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I am pretty positive that Carmen Melendez is now using other accounts to achieve their goal. New user NickelodeonFan46 is making the exact same times of edits as Carmen Melendez, and when the article was semi-protected due to the extreme amount of edit warring by NickelodeonFan46, Carmen Melendez just conveniently happens to come on and reinstatesNickelodeonFan's edit which was just reverted before the semi-protection was placed on the article. In addition, the types of edits made by the two users are incredibly similar. For example, one of NickelodeonFan's edits removed "The Loudest Mission" part of the title 1, which Carmen has removed without consensus several times before. 2345. Thank you again. KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥22:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Normally, unless there's some issue (such as WP:BLP violations or whatnot), deleted articles under review are courtesy-restored if requested so that:
People interested in the article can get to the deletion review discussion (since erasing the article also erases the pointer to the review discussion; I added a pointer at the redirect target but this is nonstandard, not entirely satisfactory, and somewhat confusing, I think).
People reviewing the matter can read the article, which otherwise it is hard/impossible to consider the matter properly. (Since this was just a redirect, people can find it by backtracking from the redirect target and then digging thru the history, but this is difficult).
There's no hurry; we want to get things right, not right right now, so if you would quickly restore the article Covfefe for the duration of the review, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. WP:DELREV states that deleted articles may be temporarily restored but replaced with Template:Tempundelete, so that the history of the article can be inspected. Covfefe had not been deleted but turned into a redirect, so its history was always available for inspection, and restoration serves no purpose. This is just an invitation for people to treat the article as live and the merge consensus overturned. I request that the redirect be restored and the page protected again, unless the deletion review decides otherwise. Thanks. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Declined As a matter of opinion, I think the requested restoration is not unreasonable. That said, and in hindsight, I probably should not have protected the page in the first place since I had commented on the DELREV discussion which means I am WP:INVOLVED. I have since self-reverted the protection and I think it would be improper for me to take any further admin actions here. I suggest taking your request to an uninvolved admin or WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Well but look at it now. There is no way for readers to find information on the topic now, at all. I mean, legislation was just filed, the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, to put tweets under the government records laws. Why are we so determined that people who come here seeking background on this topic should get nothing. If we actually do think that readers are better off searching Google for information instead of coming here, why do we even have this project? I'm a little perplexed. Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Yikes! I apologize. I've been rather busy and my talk page is getting a lot of traffic today. I'm afarid your message fell through the cracks. As I mentioned in my last post on this topic, because I've commented on both the DELREV discussion and also the original AfD, I am WP:INVOLVED. This precludes my doing adminny things unless they are of a purely non-controversial nature (dealing with obvious vandalism etc.). I suggest you try and find an uninvolved admin and see what they think. Sorry if that seems like a cop-out, but themz the rulez (and they are very sound ones). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
SNL troll is back
This is the seventh instance in the last six months. Warnings are pointless at this point and, in fact, make the warner appear silly. Surely this is not a dynamic IP because this LTA on SNL is almost the only editing in the past four years. Could a longer block be imposed? If you think I should I will discuss at ANI. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017[edit source]
Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:JanusLogix. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
June 12 2017[edit source]
Who closes a page without knowing ANYTHING about the subject and why would you close a page that is still in development? I can't even begin to understand how you can make an assessment on a page that was just barely created without giving it some time for it to develop. The JanusLogix page he closed is a disambiguation article with parent links on the subject.Wiki Gary (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing of JanusLogix reference page.
June 2017[edit source]
Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:JanusLogix. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
June 12 2017[edit source]
Who closes a page without knowing ANYTHING about the subject and why would you close a page that is still in development? I can't even begin to understand how you can make an assessment on a page that was just barely created without giving it some time for it to develop. The JanusLogix page he closed is a disambiguation article with parent links on the subject. [1]
Damn right I'm upset with good reason. I would expect professionalism and impartiality when looking at articles. If you're too busy to actually look into the situation and give a good explanation then maybe you shouldn't become involved. Let someone else do it who has the time to actually ask questions. Questions and discussion ought to be favored over simply closing without any attempt to actually understand a subject. It's unprofessional and I am justifiably upset. People ought to be upset when a disambiguation article is closed without any justification. I may have been unkind but I've put fourth a lot of effort into the study of Craig Burton and other Novell founders. I intend to do articles on as many of the most influential technological minds as I can. I am personal friends with Steve Wozniak "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak" and I am passionate about technology. I have the ability to actually interview these technological geniuses. This information is part of our rich history and needs to be told in order for the full story to make sense.
Note: The Canopy_Group[2] now has an empty link for JanusLogix because someone lacking intellectual acuity failed to take the time to look into the situation. I could have identified this in less than 30 seconds and I certainly would NEVER have closed an article without first communicating with them. Wiki Gary (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Thank you. Wiki_Gary (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Srbddl2
Hi Ad Orientem. I've recently come across a disruptive editor, Srbddl2, who disagrees with a site's inclusion on WP:BADCHARTS and has now taken to removing the site from that page. They have continued to debate the obvious fact that the site they're using for Serbian music charts is not official and is not considered reliable. Would you be able to have a word with them/warn them? Users should not be removing entries from Wikipedia:Record charts without consensus, which is how they are added there. Ss11218:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It has not been restored because the article made no claim to importance much less encyclopdic notability. Just because something exists (or existed at one time) does not entitle it to an article. When you post an article into the mainspace it is expected that it meets the basic criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia and that this is demonstrated in the article. In this case the applicable criteria are WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sole source cited was of a purely run of the mill sort and certainly was insufficient to establish notability. If you want I can copy the article to a user subpage for you so that you can work on it outside of the mainspace. But it should not be recreated in the mainspace in anything resembling the form it had at the time of deletion. Let me know if you would like me to do this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
= What? ==Wiki Gary (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
So you'r saying a company built by the patented inventor of the network operating system (OSI model) is not notable enough? The very network operating system used on EVERY SINGLE computer in the world. You are also saying that the Canopy Group which has a current Wikipedia page in which JanusLogix is already listed among other companies - that by the way already have pages, in the same column is somehow less notable and shouldn't be created? Really? That doesn't make sense? What color is the sky in your world? Wiki Gary (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank for moving the page. Perhaps you can give me pointers as to what can be changed to make it acceptable. I read through the links for why it was unworthy and found nothing that applied to JanusLogix. And yes it's true I feel like it's unfairly singled out as vandalism which is clearly not the case. The link comes from Bloomberg research which has been around for a long time but would it have been better to list the State of icis.corp.delaware.gov site which is where the corporation was registered? Unfortunately there is no way to directly link their search. You have to put in the company name and file number which is 3466079. [3] I'm not sure there is a way to put that into a reference. Wiki Gary (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK first your draft is certainly not vandalism. In it's current form though it doesn't indicate its claim to encyclopedic notability (see WP:N). The two guidelines that deal with notability for this subject are the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and the guideline for business and organization (WP:NCORP). Here is what NCORP has to say...
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[4]independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:
sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
routine restaurant reviews,
quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
END QUOTE
There is more which you can read at the linked page. But this is what we want to focus on. We need evidence that the subject of your article has been discussed in reliable secondary sources and that this coverage was not trivial or run of the mill. This may require doing some internet sleuthing. Paper based sources are also acceptable if the subject is discussed in books or magazines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the FYI. I'm in the middle of something right now but I have semi protected the target page. Hopefully that will slow down the socking vandal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
^"Source" on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story". A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher).
^Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.
Hi Ad Orientem. I was wondering if you could do help out with a situation with the user Drake1986. The issue began several days ago when they removed a mixtape from List of 2017 albums, despite the fact that the consensus is to include mixtapes, as they are regarded as albums, and other mixtapes are featured on the list. I reverted several times, with the only bit of explanation for their actions being one edit summary that "mixtapes are not albums". I then opened a discussion on the talk page, tagging them, and warning them on their talk page. Mburrell restored the material. They then resumed their removal of the content just earlier today, without explanation, despite I and Mburrell explaining on the talk page. I'm not sure how many more ways it can be explained to this user; they are clearly not here to listen. Perhaps their recent activity and refusal to discuss even after being tagged and warned warrants a block. Thanks if you can look into it. Ss11213:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, they've been blocked for three hours, but I think they will come back and continue to remove it. I don't think the three-hour block will due much to curb their disruptive behaviour... Ss11213:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ss112. It looks like another admin has jumped on this and generally I try not to intrude into those kinds of issues unless there is a clear need for more than one admin, which I don't believe is the case here. There'sNoTime is quite good and I have every confidence they will handle the situation. If there is anymore disruptive editing please let them know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I was just about to block them for the bizarre note they left on CM's talk page. In any event I've blocked them for 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you unlock the All Eyez on me movie page so someone could write the plot summary.
Not done Sorry but the article has been the object of a lot of disruptive editing and socking by blocked users. You can propose edits on the article's talk page which is not protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTAVOTE the sole Keep !vote presented (with links) compelling evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that no one attempted to refute. That's enough to pass WP:BASIC. That said I really should have added an explanatory note which I believe I will correct that directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Book reviews have generally been counted towards establishing notability of authors. Additionally two New York Times best selling books would have to be counted as "a significant work" within the context of NAUTHOR #3. However I will take another look in case I was too hasty in my close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
OK out of an abundance of caution I have re-opened the AfD discussion though my general opinion has not changed. See my Keep !vote just added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline
My searches came up empty, but when I added Nov 9 to the name I got results like you did. Un freaking believable. Sorry for the tag. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries. At first glance I thought it sounded fishy too. Point in fact I've had a couple CSD nominations of my own declined in the past because I missed something. That's why we almost never delete pages w/o having a second set of eyes look at it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Your comment at ITN
Where did you hear this breaking news of multiple stabbings on the London Underground? I can see nothing on any news wires or social media.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad, since you did the original block here, would you mind cleaning up on Martha Gruening? The user is consistently creating copy/paste biographies based on that website without proof that they have the right to upload it under our licensing terms. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem, Is there any chance you could kindly reopen and relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Girls of FHM ?,
NMUSIC states "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." - Had I known there was a !vote I would've suggested a merge however as it stands the group as a whole doesn't warrant an article because there's obviously insufficient verifiable material,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to not have participated in the discussion previously, it didn't show up on my watchlist, and I only saw it as it was deleted from a template. Would you be willing to Userify that for me, so I can improve it? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Declined with regret. Jclemens I'm sorry but I don't think I can do this for several reasons. First, in order for me to userfy the article I would have to undelete it and then move it into a userspace. However the AfD did not authorize this and in so doing I would be acting contrary to consensus. Secondly the article was not deleted on a TNT or some other fixable basis. It was deleted for want of notability. It is true that admins have some latitude and I have seen instances where articles have been undeleted and userfied. But almost always that was in cases of a soft delete and/or where the issues that lead to deletion might be correctable. In this case I am not seeing it. There are many things you can fix in a defective article but notability is not one of them. It's either there or it isn't. In this instance the AfD found that it was not. Which means you could not recreate the article in the mainspace until/unless WP:N is somehow established. So for now I am going to have decline your request, albeit with regret. If at some point in the future the circumstances of the company change and notability becomes much more likely please feel free to ping me or any other admin and we can discuss it. Best regards... Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that Notability either exists or does not, AfD is horribly bad at actually assessing it. While I appreciate the sources Tony the Tiger advanced, he lacks the technical background that I have in the U.S. Fire Service, where TFT is a major manufacturer and wins industry press for their products all the time. I expect that, based on my own cursory source review, I can demonstrate notability, and once I've done so, will place the article back in mainspace where any user who disagrees that I've improved it sufficiently can re-nominate it. Were this a trial, I would be appealing on the basis of incompetent defense counsel.
Secondarily, you have the latitude to un-delete and userify anything (within reason, of course), so the assertion that doing so would be a violation of consensus is problematic. You could say "No, I don't want to" and be fine: I can, and will, ask another admin to do restore the article if you still decline to do so. What's most problematic in my mind is you asserting that userifying an article for possible improvement is against an AfD consensus. If you like, we can ask DRV for their opinion on that line of reasoning, but I think it would be much better if you just abandoned it and restored the article. So... Second time asking nicely, would you like to undelete and userify the article so I can improve it, or would you like me to ask another admin to do so and have DRV weigh in on your reasoning? Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am in the middle of some stuff right now but I will consider on the basis of your being in posession of "new evidence" possibly re-opening and relisting the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the article and re-opened/relisted the AfD discussion for another week. Make your case there councilor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
PS I think you will find me fairly reasonable when discussing concerns or issues. However I'm not a fan of ultimatums. And I would note that your original post made no mention of your being prepared to make a case for notability while my reply made it clear that if/when you were prepared to make that case that you should let me know. And while it is true that admins have some discretion in the use of the tools, we are bound like every other editor to respect consensus. You are right that AfD is often less than ideal as a place for sorting these things out, but it's all we have. Which is why I have decided to re-open the AfD discussion vice simply ignoring its consensus and restoring the article for userfication. On which note since I have self reverted my own close following your lobbying, I think it best if I recused myself from the final close of the discussion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the article. That's not actually what I asked for: I at no time challenged the reasonableness of your close, and I didn't necessarily want to work on that article with a looming deadline and a possibility of having the work deleted again. So, I've now got a copy in my userspace, which I will improve when I get a chance to, which is all I was asking for in the first place, and I will participate in the re-opened AfD discussion and share what I find.
On the improvement bit, I'm a bit curious: when I asked for userification to improve an article recently deleted on the basis of notability... what exactly did you think I meant, if not notability improvements? I'm sure if you look back through your AfD closes, you will have seen me pop into AfDs and unload a handful of sources--some resulting in a keep outcome, other times not. If you didn't, a quick look at my user page would have shown you that my work here does tend to go in that direction.
If you interpreted anything as an ultimatum, my apologies for the poor phrasing. I regularly call out mistakes admins make at DRV, the closes get overturned or modified in ways the original admin wasn't inclined to do when I asked them the first time, and I move on. I expect that the admins overruled learn something from it, but I certainly don't lose sleep or hold grudges or anything of the sort. Hence, relying on the next step in a dispute resolution process isn't intended to be either personal or punitive. I've been through quite a few far more monumental things in my time here, and again, the point of this whole conversation is educating you on what you are allowed to do within admin discretion--if you don't take my word for it, DRV would be happy to tell you you can userify a non-attack, non-copyvio, non-promotional piece like that in a heartbeat. You've been an admin for what, six months? It's entirely reasonable for you to not yet fully grasp the tools at your disposal to improve the encyclopedia, so keep on learning and collaborating without feeling bad about it! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
G6 draft
Would you mind G6ing Draft:Amber Zaidi and moving Amber zaidi to it? I had draftified hoping they would fill out the template there rather than keep recreating in main space, but seems they recreated as I was sending to draft. Also probably needs rev del on the DOB when I remove itTonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
HI Ad Orientem. I saw you conditionally unblocked Tjdrum2000. Just letting you know, they used IPs to evade their block on music articles, and the issues some editors had with them (myself included) were not just restricted to music articles—they rearranged the leads of film articles and also added WP:OR genres to those too. I don't know if you will be keeping a watch on this editor, but for these reasons, I do think they need to be monitored. Ss11217:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of their problematic history. Most of it seems to have been on music related articles though. I have either cut them a lot of slack or given them a great deal of rope with which to hang them-self. We shall see. But if they get blocked again during the next 12 months, it's game over as far as I am concerned. That said, please be careful as there is a fine line between keeping an eye out for disruptive editing and wikihounding. In other words don't go after honest and minor mistakes that anyone can make in good faith. But any obvious disruptive editing will be dealt with in short order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Come on buddy. I've probably been guilty mislabeling a minor edit sometime in the last week. Let's try to encourage and help this editor if at all possible. WP is not exactly drowning in new editors and a lot of older ones are leaving. I am kinda getting the feeling you are just waiting for them to do something that you can use to get them reblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Their talk page is on my watchlist, so I'm not "waiting for anything", just notifying you that it's barely two hours after their unblock and they're already being sent warnings. As for the subject of the message I linked to, they label all their editors as minor; I wouldn't consider significantly rearranging an article's lead a minor edit. Ss11223:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Mabdul That's a damn good question and at the moment I don't know. XFD Closer usually does a good job of auto-removing links to articles deleted at AfD but in this case I'm not seeing the connection to the deleted article. Hmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Well the problem is that the reference-section (in this case) is no longer a new headline because it misses at least one new line. Can you review your changes and undo them (if necessary). mabdul11:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits on the page you linked. If you see any other issues on pages you are watching related to the auto de-linking from this AfD either let me know or you can just go ahead and revert as you think appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Another disruptive editor in film articles
I'm sorry to bring this drama straight to you, but I'm having a problem with Koala15 (talk·contribs). I reported him to WP:ANI, but no admins have replied yet. He's doing the same thing as Tjdrum2000 – removing citations that explicitly say one thing and replacing them with citations that require original research. For example, in Grown Ups 2, he blanked a citation to the American Film Institute because it doesn't say what he thinks it should say. He replaced it with a citation to a Variety review which doesn't explicitly label the production company or distributor. This was specifically addressed in this discussion, where the consensus was that we should use sources that explicitly label this stuff. Koala15 knows this, because I've told it to him. He's ignoring consensus and edit warring to restore content based on his own original research. Can you please block him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this users contributions? They are going wrestling article to wrestling article removing links to WWE Hall of Fame from them listing them as spam. How is linking another Wiki Article spam? This is a long time editor so not sure why they are doing this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
OK fair enough. I have not done a forensic examination of their recent editing, but I do agree that there are some edits that might justify a request for a more detailed explanation. Which is to say I'm not altogether sure of their rational either. I suggest dropping a friendly line on their (insanely long) talk page and see where that goes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help in the matter but clearly it was a waste of time and I should've just reverted and been done with it, Just another reason why I don't message users with the "I've been here longer I'll do what i want mentality." Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
PS unless the word "Superstars" is specifically used in RS non-affiliated sources I'd support removing it as promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
News outlets, IE: CBS,ESPN, etc. even refers to them as Superstars. So again I don't see spam or promotion. Either way I'm not edit warring with them over it, just because HW is clearly above having discussions and following policies, I'm not and I refuse to play childish games with an editor who has the history and reputation that he has and then end up being the one blocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me15:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a very good judgement call. Right or wrong, you are (almost) always wrong when edit warring. The next step is to open a discussion on the article talk and or ask for a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. See also WP:DR for other suggestions. Since I'm acting as an admin here (and am not sufficiently familiar with the subject) I am not going to jump into this particular content dispute. But if you ping me to the discussion I will keep an eye on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Your AfD close (Brussels stuff)
I find your closing argument extremely puzzling. The main point I raised (and the nom as well) was about WP:LASTING. What is the lasting significance of the event? Nobody has even pretended to answer the question, because they can't. And you don't mention this argument at all in the closing statement. There is no "continuing coverage" of this matter at all, except for the regional news coverage about how the trial is going. Or are you counting the Trump stuff as "continuing coverage"?
I know how these AfDs go, and I have no real expectation that sanity will prevail. Most people didn't even bother to make an argument in their "vote". But I don't get your closing statement at all. Kingsindian♝♚08:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
But I did reference that issue when mentioning my aversion to WP:RECENTISM which also includes the WP:10YT which, for the record, I think the article probably fails. The problem here is that it is not possible to state that definitively when the subject is still getting coverage in reliable sources. IMO this AfD was premature if you are hinging the delete argument on LASTING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Re:A Friendly Word of Caution
Hi Ad Orientem. I've read your message. My edits on List of The Loud House episodes are always NOT distruptive/vandalic (since the first time I worked on it), but a user named Amaury and maybe also IJBall are doing personal attacks against me. And then they see destruptive when there's not: here's the proves [5] & [6], and finally my outburst about it [7] (in the paragraph "Episode titles"). Luigi1090 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ren (singer)
Hi. I'm not sure what's possible exactly, but you deleted this page on Ren of the group NU'EST, but I don't believe there was legitimate reason for doing so. The user who gave it a strong delete cited their reason as "Nothing outside of Produce 101/NU'EST. In addition, he is not as notable as Cosmic Girls' Yeonjung." However, Ren (also known by his birth name Choi Minki) has done many notable things outside being in a group and one of the finalists on Produce 101. He has modeling, acting, and activism credits as well which are not things that appear on their group page, and is planned to have some individual activities such as interviews and CFs as the year goes on. It's really detrimental to foreign fans to not have a place like this where all his information is stored and easy to access in English.
As far as unreliable sources, which seems to have been the biggest reasoning behind deletion, I would first like to point out that platforms like Allkpop & Soompi, while not traditional news sources by American standards, are some of very few sites that translate Korean news articles into English, meaning for many people they're the closest they can get to "legit" news without being able to read Korean. Regardless, I am confident I can find "legit Korean news sources" if that is what is so desired by the administrators or evaluators, as I understand Korean.
Why I'm writing this boils down to: Making a new page from scratch is tedious, so if it's possible to "undelete" this page or at least for me to get the last version of the template, that would be really helpful as many would like this page recreated.
Unsure if this is built into XfDCloser or if that uses Twinkle, but regarding this sort of delinking, please try not to simply delink all instances without checking to see if it would instead be more productive to simply remove mention. Delinking makes it harder to find problematic entries in lists. If not delinked, I would've spotted the inclusion of Elude in the comparison of webmail providers via "what links here". Instead, I came across it when I visited the article for another reason, and I cannot tell where else it was included -- where it should now be removed -- because a search for "elude" returns more than 4000 hits. Changing from red to blacktext also makes it harder to visually spot inappropriate entries in a list. In short -- and I realize this is more of a problem that I have with Twinkle than with any of its users -- I really think it's better not to delink deleted articles in lists (as opposed to in prose), since in the vast majority of cases it's more appropriate to remove and delinking makes that harder. Thanks for reading to the end of my rant :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. This is actually not the first complaint I've gotten over the auto-delinking. I think I am just going to bypass that in the future. This may leave a trail of red links in some instances but there have been at least a couple cases where the auto de-linking has screwed up the formatting of a given page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate there's some personal preference involved here. Personally, I find the advantage of delinking everything somewhat outweighed by the various issues, but I recognize others may disagree. I just file it under any other semi-automated edit (best to make sure it's an improvement before saving), though that does make it a bit less convenient. Meh. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
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.
Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Ad Orientem. Thank you for the message on Calvin's talk page. I was asked not to post there, but just letting you know; after I reported them to ANI last year, I did try and avoid them as best I could. I continued doing what I do. Then I was accused of hounding them on Scared of the Dark by fixing typos after edits had been made minutes before, even despite that being a page I created and had on my watchlist. However, they continued—and are still trying to do so every week—disrupt my updating of Billboard's charts. A simple observation I made months ago (and others can look back and see through their contributions) was that it appears they started doing weekly updates to select Billboard charts after our first conflict last year—thus it would appear they have deliberately tried to step on my toes in this manner, to cause distress to me as they very well aware this is something I took upon myself to do on a more committed basis than them. I have done nothing of the deliberate distress-causing sort to them. I pointed this observation out to them, but I was accused of "ownership" of updating charts rather than pointing out what I saw to be true. I was made aware that yes, Calvin did occasionally make edits to Dance Club Songs and related Billboard charts years ago; however, I am referring to the process of updating Wikipedia pages with the new peaks achieved on those charts each week. I am not trying to tell somebody else what they can't do, but my only message/request to Calvin would be that he not revert my edits (whether directly or indirectly; he did so before telling me last week I shouldn't do this to him given "our history") and to stop interrupting charts I updated regularly weekly before he did, whether out of spite or whatever else. I have zero interest in what Calvin chooses to edit, and so his accusations that I am hounding him somehow make no sense to me and never have. Just to reiterate: my main concern is he stop trying to cause distress to me through choosing to update charts I updated on a regular basis before he chose to do so, in what seems to me to be out of spite. Ss11200:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The first rule of peace negotiations is to avoid reciting grievances. Both sides will have their own list and it is never productive. Don't stare at the rear view mirror. Focus on the road ahead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then my request "that he not revert my edits (whether directly or indirectly) and to stop interrupting charts I updated regularly weekly before he did, whether out of spite or whatever else" still stands. However, I know this will be refused due to his evident interest in said Billboard charts (particularly the Dance Club Songs chart) and that I will be accused of "ownership" because I'm trying to "claim doing something I can't claim a sole right to do" (nor guarantee other editors won't do so either), even though this is not what I'm trying to do and merely am pointing out I updated said charts weekly before it appears Calvin did (and I repeat, this is from having looked at his past contributions months ago when we first had problems). I understand Calvin made edits to these articles throughout the years. My point is that he did not update the number one regularly weekly, nor the list of number ones, nor go around to individual song articles and update the positions there regularly. Ss11201:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I am not playing referee here. If you are looking for that ANI is this way. I am trying to broker a negotiated settlement which is pretty much impossible if nobody is willing to talk to the other side. Let's move this to Switzerland so we are not talking on multiple pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The last part of my message was simply pointing out what I previously saw—that yes, Calvin edited those articles on and off for years, but mostly in what appears to be a cleanup capacity and not regularly updating the number one. I am trying to offer a "settlement". I repeated that above. I just don't think it will be agreed to. Ss11201:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Calvin999: Ad Orientem created User:Ad Orientem/Switzerland for us to work out our differences on. You also have reverted me at your talk page before; a simple look at the history of your talk page proves you have done so; opening find and typing "Reverted edits by Ss112" pops up twice in that configuration; as does "Undid revision [...] by Ss112", etc). You also say you're "not tit-for-tat", but yet you have deliberately started doing the Dance Club Songs chart five minutes before it updates now so I can't do it; it's there in the page history. You clearly have accessed a source to find the chart positions ahead of time to prevent me doing so. You know for a fact that I regularly update the Hot 100 chart positions. You knew this last year when I created the ANI report about you, and I was doing chart position updates before then as well, so what I do with the Billboard charts has nothing to do with you or "preventing" you from doing it. You absolutely have problems with me and it would be best to stop trying to deny it; you threatened me with admin notification in retaliation yesterday, have previously told me to "cease and desist" from posting on your talk page, claimed I have "wikihounded" you and singled out my threads for removal from your talk page, calling them "nonsense additions". That certainly tells me you don't like me. You are very clearly aware I mostly do the Billboard chart updates and have tried to step on my toes and do everything you can yourself first to cause me distress. Ss11209:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything you feel, I felt. Difference is, you admitted to spiting me with edits a few months ago. There lies the issue (pun not intended). That's all I am saying here, as Ad has created a special page and I don't want to clog his user talk. — Calvin99909:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of your history with editing the page. I was saying the "commitment" to updating the number one and the charts of a week (and then adding the new peaks to song articles) is not something you did for that whole time; Ericorbit appears to have mostly added the #1. That's all I was trying to say there. Let's move any further posts on the topic to the Switzerland page. Ss11210:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Semi-Protected x 3 months This article appears to be a magnet for disruptive editing and judging from the page history it looks like a long term issue. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the diplomatic relations, but also being responsive and helpful about other issues I've contacted you about here. Not sure if I've thanked you properly for it, so here's a barnstar! Ss11210:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
look at how he acted. he claimed the victim when it is clear this is a subject that you would want other wikipedians to have time to think and reflect upon.
FWIW: i have no interest in this whole discussion.
however, i found the compromise User:FutureTrillionaire had made, by offering to change the first two paragraphs (a big task for a big figure), was so kind, that the "victim"'s complaints of reverted insertions a mere 24 hours later was reflective of a primitive and thoughtless being.
i do not regret what was said. it was on point and fitting for a serious subject for many people (again i have no horse in this race)
WP:CIVIL is not optional. If you can't make a point w/o breaching that then you need to find a way or ask someone for help. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ss11204:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I need to ask you for some help. Our new article ´Environmental Conservation Right´was recently deleted and we don't understand why.
We work in a NGO in Chile, the Conservation Law Center, and we worked 20 years trying to get this new law enacted. Now we want to promote this new institution because this will bring more conservation people to Chile. We really work for the environment and this is urgent.
Also we want to show other countries with a continental legal system that they can create this new institution in their own country. This is why the article also explained many things about the legislative process.
It has been a lot of work, and we have lots of people behind, and a lot of university research behind. The main thesis was approved in the University of Edinburgh, and we use the same language of the approved PhD thesis. It is well based.
I changed the draft several times to make it better but it was still deleted.
I need to ask you for help on how to achieve this because we are totally confused and disappointed.
Please we hope you can help us.
Now we have a new draft and I really want to upload it. It is much shorter but should direct people to the right sources.
Please help!
Hi ConservationRight and welcome to Wikipedia! Ok, I've taken a look and here are a few quick answers to your questions. First the article was deleted following a WP:AFD discussion. That discussion can be found here. The upshot is that there was a consensus that the article does not meet a number of our criteria for inclusion. The three that were cited are that the article was not neutral in its coverage of the subject. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOPROMO. That the subject likely did not meet our standards for encyclopedic notability. See also WP:GNG. And lastly that it was probably too soon to assess the notability of the subject. If you are consiering trying to recreate the article I strong advise you to read all of the above links along with WP:YFA Also as you have a direct connection with the subject it is important that you understand our guidelines for editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest. This can be found at WP:COI. Once you have read all of these guidelines if you still wish to proceed, you can submit your draft at Articles for Creation. You will need to clearly declare any connection you may have with the subject and also that the article has been previously deleted at AfD on the draft's talk page. If you wish to contest the deletion of the article you may do so at WP:DELREV. However as an experienced editor I have to caution you that I believe such an appeal is extremely unlikely to succeed given the clear consensus at the AfD discussion. I hope this helps and feel free to contact me if you have anymore questions. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. When you post on a talk page or anywhere outside of an actual article or draft, please sign your comments. This is done by typing four tildes (~~~~). -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
German Wikipedia
Hi Ad Orientem. I was on the German Wikipedia earlier and decided to see who from the English Wikipedia I knew had made contributions there. I came across that you had protected pages there a few months ago and was confused—I thought administrative powers only applied to the language Wikipedia they were originally given on? Ss11200:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Since I had just recently filed an WP:AIV report of my own, I came across the report that was made for this IP. It was odd because the IP address had no edits (including the edit filter log).
I was about to make this comment below the report, but ended up (edit conflict)-ing with the AIV bot and saw that you had already blocked the IP address:
(Non-administrator comment) The IP has no edits (including the edit filter log). This looks like an WP:ANI issue IMO; if someone (possibly User:Eddiebow) was trying to reset your account password then they were possibly trying to hack into it...?
Was there any way that you could tell that the IP indeed belonged to User:Eddiebow? The IP had zero edits logged, including the edit filter log. Regards. 78.116.155.248 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi 78.116.155.248. The IP address corresponds extremely closely to a number of IPs known to be used by them. Closely enough that based on that evidence and the statement of an editor of very long standing I think it likely beyond reasonable doubt that they are the same. That said, you do raise a good point about zero edits and I am considering reversing this. I think I will seek a 2nd opinion on the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The whole situation just seems a bit odd, here... I don't know the habitual behavior of this sockmaster and have never dealt with their socks before, so I had no idea that the IP closely corresponded to them... 78.116.155.248 (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That has been tentatively identified as one of their IPs. The more I am looking into the history, the more this looks like a prolific vandal with an axe to grind against Pdfpdf. I am going to leave the block in place for now. If that IP wants to appeal it they can. In any event it's not an exceptionally long block. I wish I was more comfortable with range blocks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I find that {{blockcalc}} is helpful in determining blocks (I've used this tool to report potential rangeblocks to WP:ANI, etc). The results from using the "blockcalc" template should show up below:
Eh, It's only 11:30pm where I'm at. I can probably stand another hour or so before I fall asleep with my laptop in front of me; thanks for all the help! ;-) 78.116.155.248 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this user - they haven't edited since Ponyo blocked them on the 28th. Last edit was 15:46, June 28, 2017, and they were blocked a few hours later - 18:34, June 28, 2017. Did I miss something when I declined to block that user at AIV? SQLQuery me!02:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, you did not miss anything. I however did. I thought their last edit was on July 1st. Clearly I need new glasses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for double-checking, AIV seems like it gets a lot of bad reports lately, wanted to make sure I wasn't declining people that needed a-blockin SQLQuery me!03:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries and I appreciate the heads up. Lately I have been declining about half the reports at AIV mostly on lack of warning or no editing since being warned. That said, based on their track record I agree with the OP about 65.122.245.242. If they were a registered account I'd have indeffed them per NOTHERE. And I'd give good odds that AIV will see them again. But due process must be observed so the next block can wait. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Original and traditional name is Bombolone in Italian language, but banner advices to me stop to move in Bombolone name as title: I don't understand the reason! Further: 'Bombolonas' is Spanish language!Snerza (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Do you want to name the article "Bombolone"? If you do, then I will need to remove a redirect by that name first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that you blocked 192.76.8.73 for "disruptive editing". What about the editing did you regard as disruptive? If your block was a response to the report on this IP address at WP:AIV then I would be interested to know why you disagree with the following, which was a message to post there which I was writing when you placed the block:
Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. The editor has removed laudatory commentary, which he or she clearly regards as promotional. The fact that you personally disagree with that assessment does not make it vandalism, and the constructive thing to do would be to civilly explain to that editor why you disagree, with a view to trying to reach agreement, not posting warnings about "disruptive editing" and trying to get the editor blocked,
After looking at the cited referencing more closely (I had dismissed the 2nd one as affiliated) the first one doesn't support the removed text so I think you are right. I am going to lift the block. Good catch! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking at it again. (You mention the referencing issue, which I had also noticed, but in the message that I never got to post at AIV I decided not to try to write an essay covering every possible aspect of the case.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You might want to drop that note you were writing or some friendly variation on the OP's talk page. I can understand what they were thinking but as your closer examination showed, at least the last edit was probably a good one. Thanks again for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
a) they also removed properly sourced material (with sources even in the lead, and more sources further down in the article) about Lund being one of the oldest research universities in northern Europe, and consistently ranking among the top 100 universities in the world (reducing it to just a "public university")
d) an IP belonging to Oxford University "toning down" articles about multiple other universities, in effect reducing their status, should IMHO be seen as COI-editing (especially during the summer months, when school's out and mainly staff remain...), just like edits where an IP belonging to company A is "reducing the status" of a competing company would be seen as a COI-edit, and as disruptive editing
e) it was reported as "disruptive editing efter final warning" at WP:AIV, not vandalism, and editors repeatedly editing in a disruptive way are handled, and blocked, at WP:AIV every day, making it the correct venue for the report...
@Thomas.W: I agree with some parts of what you say, but disagree with other parts. Unfortunately I don't have time now to explain my thoughts on the matter, but I will try to get back onto it as soon as I do have time, which I hope will be within the next couple of days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Thomas.W. I suggest you take this to ANI and or SPI. I am guessing JW is busy and for the record I am as well. I apologize but this sounds like its a time-sensitive issue that is going to require some time and attention which I can't give right now and I don't want you waiting in the "admin please hold que" listening to elevator music until one of us can get back to you. If you want to wait I hope to have a little more free time tomorrow or Friday. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to do anything, you did what you (and I) felt was right, JBW voiced an opposing opinion, and I posted my reply above to show they were wrong, as information intended for JBW, posted here since I felt it belonged in this discussion. If the same editor continues the disruption I will take it to ANI, if they don't, none of us will have to do anything. - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: It is clear from edit summaries that the editor in question believes that the content he or she has been removing is promotional in the way it is expressed. It is entirely in line with Wikipedia policy to remove promotional content. Clearly you don't agree that the content should be removed. Your first step, apart from reverting, should have been to explain to the editor why you disagreed. Simply posting messages about "disruptive edits" and suchlike, with no attempt to explain what you regard as disruptive about the edits, is not likely to help. Good faith editing is not vandalism, whether or not you or I or anyone else thinks it is wrong, and whether or not there is conflict of interest. It is impossible to know how often non-vandalism cases are dealt with as a result of inappropriate reports at AIV, because it is not usual for administrators to post to AIV on blocking an editor, so if an editor who has been reported to AIV is blocked it is rarely possible to know whether it was because of the report there or not. However, no matter how frequently or infrequently an administrator chooses to deal with a problem which was not vandalism but which he or she has become aware of because of an inappropriate report at AIV, doing so does not in any way change the fact that AIV is for vandalism and (for some reason) spam, and other reports don't belong there. You mention sources. Some of the disputed content is supported by suitable reliable sources, as you correctly pointed out, but some of the sources are not reliable, not independent, or both, and if I remember correctly some of the content was not supported by sources at all, though I have not gone back and checked now. However, that is not of much relevance, since the edits you object to were done (as far as edit summaries indicate) for reasons of promotion, not for lack of sourcing. The long and the short of this is that you have raised perfectly legitimate concerns, but you have not handled them well. In my opinion it is only in quite exceptional circumstances that it is acceptable to block an editor when nobody has explained to him or her what is considered unacceptable about his or her editing.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: These edits have been going on for years (see messages and explanations I posted on User talk:145.108.180.136, an IP belonging to Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, where that person obviously was at that time, just over two years ago, one of the many times I've done it...), so the person behind it, and it is per WP:DUCK a single individual, with identical edits, identical editing style, identical behaviour etc etc etc, knows very well why they're being reverted. And yes, even "prestigious" is indeed sourced, to a reliable source independent of the subject (University World News, source #7 in the article, describing LU as "one of Europe’s oldest and most prestigious universities"). Personally I don't care if it says "prestigious" or not, what I object to is their total refusal to wait until they get consensus supporting their edits on the talk page of whichever article they do it on (because Lund University isn't the only one), and then make their edits, if they get consensus, that is. Instead of trying to get their edits in by brute force. - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@JBW: It's bedtime here and I don't feel like spending more time on this, but before going to bed I'll be frank and outright, and tell you what brought me here. All admins are entitled to an opinion of their own as to what is blockable and what isn't, but opinions vary, so instead of declining the report, as you did, and then come here and start this thread, bearing down on Ad Orientem for daring to have an opinion that differs from yours, you should have done what other admins at WP:AIV do when they're not sure about a report, and pass on it, leaving it to someone else to decide according to their opinions, and whatever current praxis at AIV is. Because if there are no takers, i.e. no admin willing to act, the reports will just go stale, and will then be removed by a bot, but if you decline a report, and then bear down on whoever has an opinion that differs from yours, you're trying to decide not only for yourself but also for everyone else, even for admins who are perhaps more experienced at dealing with reports at AIV than you are, and perhaps know what the current praxis at AIV is better than you do... - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please be informed that I work in this company and I`m convinced that FxPro deserves an article on Wikipedia, as it's clearly one of the top companies in the forex market (40+ awards - http://www.fxpro.co.uk/group/media/awards). This article has been live for several years, and it looked like it was compliant with Wikipedia rules. Yet, at some point that article became out of date, so I decided to ask an "experienced" Wikipedian for help. It appeared to be a mistake, though, as the page is deleted now.
Also, I'd like to inform you that since the article is considered for deletion I didn't ask anyone for edits or for participation in the deletion log.
In order not to have any COI, I will not touch this article and will only provide all the needed references instead.
Thus, I'd like to ask you to prolong the deletion discussion for extra 7 days. The reasons are as follows:
1) There were Delete and Keep votes in that discussion
2) I provided some new references yesterday for discussion
3) Two of these new references were picked up by Admin and were added to the article
4) I clarified this situation only yesterday, so there was very short-time to get any feedback from the Admins
5) Some admins suspected that I'm the paid editor, however, I'm not, despite the fact that I'm connected with the company.
Hope for your understanding of the situation and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Any feedback from your side would be much appreciated.
Declined There was a fairly decent level of participation by experienced editors in the discussion which ended with a strong consensus to delete. That consensus was based on two criteria. First and most importantly there was insufficient evidence of encyclopedic notability. And secondly that the article was little more than thinly disguised promotionalism in violation of both WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERT. Of these two issues the latter might be fixable but the former is generally not. Notability is either there or it isn't and all but two of the participating editors said it was not. If you believe that I misread the consensus or in some other way improperly closed the discussion you may lodge an appeal at WP:DELREV. However I must caution you as an experienced editor that I think such an appeal is very unlikely to succeed. Alternatively you are free to simply recreate the article, since I did not WP:SALT it. However this is strongly discouraged unless you have a very high degree of confidence that the new article would be substantially different from the version deleted and that it would decisively correct the shortcomings identified at the AfD. Failing which it would almost certainly be speedily re-deleted under the criteria CSD G4. Further any frivolous or seemingly promotional recreation would likely be seen as disruptive and an abuse of editing privileges which might end with the article title being protected to prevent further recreation and possibly loss of editing privileges for the creator. In closing I also need to note that there was credible evidence of improper efforts by outside entities to influence the AfD discussion. I am sorry that I can't accomodate your request, but I do wish you well and hope you may develop an interest in joining the community and working on articles or content creation for subjects where there is not a COI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem,
Thank you for the reply and your suggestions.
I'd really appreciate if you help me to understand why this article was live for so many years (since 2009) and then it was deleted after some minor changes.
Also, could you please elaborate more on “there was credible evidence of improper efforts by outside entities to influence the AfD discussion“. I'd like to state once again that I didn't ask anyone for edits or for participation in the deletion log.
Kind regards,
Mcmikhedoff (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mcmikhedoff. In brief, there is no statute of limitations for articles on Wikipedia. It is not unusual for articles that have escaped any significant review over the years to be nominated at AfD. As for the external effort to influence the AfD I would think that fairly obvious when you have a job site offering cash to save the article from deletion and one of the Keep votes was a WP:SPA. SPAs are not always bad editors. Lots of people have limited interests and may stick to one or two articles/subjects on here. But when you have a new editor suddenly show up at AfD and that is quite literally their ONLY edit, it raises a caution flag for the reviewing admin. The combination of the two, turns that into a red flag. That said I am not making any accusations against you. personally. But I don't think we need the FBI and a half dozen Congressional committees to figure out that there was something going on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem,
Thanks again for your answer. It looks like you were referring to VirginiaL's Keep vote. Please be sure that I didn't ask anyone to participate in AfD discussion. Moreover, I have no idea who VirginiaL is. I assume that it could be done to harm the article, as it indeed looks very strange. Regarding the job post on Upworks - it stated clearly there, that I'm looking for advice on how to "to have a nice updated page on Wikipedia without any red tags on it. We don't need it to be promotional, it should comply with all Wikipedia rules." Also, I'd like to inform you that I didn't post the link to the page in job description, only several Wikipedians have received it. Apparently, one of them hiddenly used that link in order to put it in the deletion log. So, I'll just delete that job post, as useless.
You have already suggested 2 ways to have the article back: appeal and recreation of article. I do appreciate that. However, both of them have certain cons. Thus, I'd like to ask you if there is any other way to have it back, so that it has no COI and is 100% compliant with all Wikipedia rules?
Mcmikhedoff, you can submit a draft at WP:AFC. You would need to disclose your COI status on the draft's talk page. Alternatively you can add a suggested article for others to work on at WP:RA though there is often a serious backlog there. Also you may ask a specific editor w/o a COI to write the article and submit it as a draft. Perhaps one of the editors who voted Keep in the AfD discussion. Best Regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ad_Orientem, could you please have a look on the list of suggested references. What do you think are they enough to apply for articles for creation? If not - what sources in your opinion would be better to add?
FxPro, a leading global forex broker today announced it has agreed a deal to be an official partner of Asia’s premier club football competition, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Champions League, for the 2011 season. https://www.forexbrokerz.com/news/fxpro-to-sponsor-afc
"We're delighted to welcome FxPro into the framework of Australian Rugby through a now well-established championship that is unquestionably the best of its type in the world," O'Neill said. http://en.espn.co.uk/super-rugby-2012/rugby/story/154336.html
Exclusive: FxPro Returns to Football Sponsorships with a Deal with Watford FC FxPro will be front-of-shirt sponsor for three years. www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/exclusive-fxpro-returns-football-sponsorships-deal-watford-fc/
Mcmikhedoff I have looked at most of what you posted and IMO bulk of the coverage cited falls into one or more of the following categories.
Run of the mill and purely routine. The sort that any business is likely to get.
Purely trivial. A mention in an article about broader subjects etc.
Articles or blurbs about people who are affiliated with FXPro. These may in some situations lend a case for establishing the notability of the subject person, but not FXPro. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.
Articles or blurbs from sources that would not pass WP:RS.
Publicity and or news releases.
Non-notable awards and in a few cases awards that I am not qualified to express an opinion on.
Ok I have protected Sam Hunt for six months based on a pattern of recent disruptive editing which closely aligns with Wikidesctruction's MO. I'm not seeing enough disruptive editing to warrant protection on either of the other two articles. Also both of them are heavily edited by IP's and most of those edits look constructive to me. So there would be significant collateral damage to protection. If you think I missed something on either of these (always possible) feel free to drop me a line with diffs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but again I'm not seeing anything that would justify protection. With a very few exceptions covered by ARBCOM we are not allowed to protect pages preemptively. Thank you for your contributions to the project and your concern about possible vandalism. Feel free to alert me if you see any persistent disruptive editing. Unfortunately I am not always online so if it is an in-progress situation or time sensitive/urgent you can also file reports at WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
