This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adam9007. 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.
Hello, you removed a tag which I so placed on an article "Bimbo Oshin" Is it possible you do not understand the implication of your act? By the polices of Wikipedia you ought to have began working on the article as soon as you have removed the tags, please do read on WP:GNG to understand proper notability, and again there is not an importance ascribed to Concept of having her page included in Wikipedia please go and do a thorough job because if article is still as same I would have no option but to move this page to an [articles for deletion] and report you for fraud.
Pay attention and note this, on no account should you take down tags meant for the betterment of the whole Wikipedia group as one community and not start to work on improving the page as soon as can be. If you have any questions I am on stand by anytime. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Before you start lecturing someone with far more Wikipedia experience than you with the tone you've taken, you need to be very sure about your grasp of policy and guidelines. There is absolutely no onus on the editor who removed a CSD tag to improve the article. Removal of a tag shows an editor disagrees with the speedy delete rationale proposed. There is nothing further they must do. --NeilNtalk to me01:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Celestina007: More to the point, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of our deletion policy: in this diff of Bimbo Oshin you add a {{notability}} tag with the edit summary Subject of article barely passes the WP:GNG, and only three minutes later in this diff you add a {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}}. There was nothing unredeemable G11'ish about the article, and if a biographical subject is notable, a {{db-person}} obviously doesn't apply. Adam9007 was fully correct when he removed the tags, and it is you who need to pay attention. Feel free to ask questions on my talk page, and do allow yourself a lot of time to learn the basics. — SamSailor23:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Paul Whelan
Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PjdW97 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, why don't you retire. And do it soon. Then you can stop undoing useful
edits like my one to William Denny and Son. Just because it is not attributed does NOT make it false. As with English law, the burden of proof lies with you. Besides my mere sentence was not controversial, wrong or even harmful. Why you cut it in a nanosecond is beyond me and reminds me why I no longer contribute my significant skills to Nazipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.135.36 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I find it rewarding to source some of these old articles, you get to read about things you didn't know existed, and you're almost guaranteed nobody complains about what you are doing. — SamSailor13:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Removal of speedy deletion tag from Computational_Graph
Hi, I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Computational_Graph. I have explained the sense in which it is made up on the talk page and again in this nomination for article deletion here. User:Adamnemecek hasn't yet given a proper rebuttal to my argument, but since you removed the tag I would suppose that you read the thread beforehand and disagreed with me. As such, I would be happy to hear your input on the article for deletion discussion page. Thanks. Megajuice (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
English
Because the page MOS:ARTCON states that one variety of English must be consistent throughout the article, I switched the spelling of "labor" to the American version, given that words such as "recognize" already use a Z instead of an S, and that the article uses American mm/dd/yyyy dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBD2000 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No reson at all. Just my sloppy attempt at blanking the page and doing the redirect for an even sloppier patroller who couldn't be bothered to do it himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly.. I had moved this article to Draftspace earlier in the day, and removed the A7/G11 tags when I had done that. The user then recreated it in mainspace with a second account, so I tagged it (A7 and G11) and let them know where to look in Draftspace for their previous article. Then someone tagged it G11 in draftspace and someone else deleted it there, and then you untagged the mainspace version and moved it to draftspace again. What a complete mess.
I considered the application of the A7 tag to this article quite carefully, and it was most certainly appropriate in this case. A7 is about credible claims of significance not just a "clear" claim of significance. A claim that a company is "one of the UK's largest accredited domain registrar" (sic) for a brand new company (less than five months old) is not a credible claim of significance, it's a self-promotional claim by the CTO (User:David.harcus and User:Nikkefrend) of the company that is patently false. Nevermind that the statement itself offers no metric, no standard, and no claim that they have been actually been ranked in this manner by anyone. An example of a credible claim would be "Industry Journal Alpha has ranked MonkeyHost as one of the largest..." (then, perhaps, it wouldn't be quite a ludicrous as it seems on it's face). Or perhaps even: "...fastest growing new start-up in the UK, having subscribed 1.5 million users in six months." At least those offer metrics and specifics.
Regarding G11, I continued your process of removing promotional aspects of the draft and I removed the clearly false and promotional "one of the largest" statements. That left pretty much nothing left of the article except the infobox, one bare sentence, and zero sources. You probably should have just let it be deleted. Waggie (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Waggie: Well, this one just says it was founded in 2016. Even if they are one of the UK's largest providers, that doesn't necessarily mean they will be notable, only that they might be. I couldn't verify the claim, but that in itself does not mean it cannot be true. I suppose it can vary, but (I'm not sure this is a good comparison, but it's one I'm somewhat familiar with) Bullfrog Productions became well known about a couple of years after its founding, and they definitely had fewer than 200 employees then. I couldn't find any evidence of MonkeyHost's notability, but it's out of article space (although I don't know what to do with it now...). Adam9007 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It was founded by a (possibly) notable person, the festival worked with a (presumably) notable organisation, and it was attended by at least one notable person. Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That reads to me like notability by association--is my restaurant significant because a star once dined there--and some tenuous connections. I also observed that it was founded in 2016, which doesn't usually bode well. More to the point is whether there's significant coverage. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Significance is a lower standard than notability: it means there's a possibility of notability (or otherwise being worthy of inclusion such as being in another article), not necessarily that the subject is notable. No, your restaurant is not significant just because a notable person dined there, because that's not the sort of thing that leads to third party coverage. Being started by a notable person, however, is. Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Google searches are useless with this LTA's hoaxes. He has been doing this for years, and he has contaminated multiple webpages and wikis with his hoaxes. Please read the SPI and the LTA reports before removing the speedy. It's an AM station, and the claim of 700,000 watts is just crazy. Meters (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It may be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it'll be obvious to everyone. This won't be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a lot of knowledge about radio stations. {{db-hoax}} requires that it be obvious to everyone. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it's an AM station. A speedy WP:G3 does not have to be obvious to everyone. It was obvious to me that the reason behind by speedy would not be obvious to everyone, and that is why I explained my reasoning on the article's talk page. Did you actually look at the talk page before you removed the speedy?
An article about, say, a delicate brain surgery to remove the navicular would be a blatant hoax, but an editor without the knowledge that the navicular is a foot bone might not recognize it as such, despite it being glaringly obvious to many other editors. I suggest that you rethink your approach to removing G3 speedies, or at least do your homework. When someone goes to the trouble of pointing you to an SPI and an LTA there's probably a very good reason. Meters (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello Adam9007,
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 811 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Please reconsider your challenge to the {{db-advert}} at Fortrade. The article quite simply reads like a glossy handout one would expect from their PR department. It is massively POV, contains links to their various products and has no, zero, independent reliable sources. The article would require a complete re-write to address this even if sourcing were found. On top of that the article was created by one edit as the first edit of an account. This is indicative of an undisclosed paid editor. Thank you. Jbh Talk01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is nowhere near G11 in tone. Whatever's promotional can probably be removed. Is there some rule that says articles must be built in a series of edits? Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I'll AfD it. But in case you are unaware 'one-edit-wonders' like this, particularly when they are about companies are nearly always due to paid promotional editing. In this case a quick search of news and the web will show that there are no significant reliable sources. Couple that with the only source in the article being the company's own web site and all the inline external links to their products and services and you get an advert posing as a Wikipedia page. Jbh Talk01:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes attempt "one edit wonders", such as this. Am I being paid to advertise that game? But no, I was not aware of that. As I understand it, G11 (and indeed, CSD in general) is for the worst of the worst. There's plenty in the article that is not unambiguously advertising. Notability, although a valid one, is a separate concern I believe?. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It is more the 'full article created by first ever edit of a user' that rings the bell. We will have to agree to disagree on what is unambiguous (yeah... I know how that sounds ) but in general I believe that if one can transfer a large portion of an article to a glossy pamphlet and it would make a credible handout for a company then it is unambiguously promotional and advertising. Cheers. Jbh Talk02:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you...
For your rapid detection and prompt tagging of the G10 page. The vigilance of editors like you helps keep the project running (fairly) smoothly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Did any of the others contain any threats? I am 99.99% sure this was just some @$$hole kid having fun, but you can't ignore them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'm assuming other admins dealt with them since they weren't listed on the G10 Cat list. I sent a msg to wikimedia about this one because of the threat. Anyway, thanks again for being the guy on the spot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Yes, other admins dealt with them. They were by different editors and all were in the user sandbox. As for this one, I considered reporting it, but also thought there is a 99.99% chance of it being a joke. Adam9007 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an adjunct professor carries a credible assertion of notability - full professor, sure, or maybe an associate prof if they've got something else to support the claim, but adjunct professors with no other claim are one rung up from instructor. In any case, it's at AfD if you'd like to comment. Acroterion(talk)03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Damn, I was looking at the international definition, which looks like the second-highest rank, rather than the American definition. Anyway, I know this isn't a guideline, but I know SoWhy's opinion (he seems to be an expert on A7 :)) is that "Is a teacher at a notable university" is a claim of significance. That's a little vague, so I'm assuming that means everyone, which would include adjunct professors. Also, significance is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
At least from my experience, adjunct professor is the title given by US colleges to at-will employees who would otherwise be instructors to make them feel better about the low pay and lack of job security. Perhaps I've been around too many embittered adjunct professors. Usually they teach one or two classes and have a day job to pay the bills. Don't worry about disagreeing - I have my cranky spells where I decline sloppy or marginal speedy deletions, and sometimes it's possible to disagree on these things. Happy editing! Acroterion(talk)03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: "Don't worry about disagreeing" - I have good reason to worry about disagreeing, although that hasn't stopped me from doing so. Many are probably wondering why I keep doing so given what happens, and I actually sometimes wonder that myself. Something keeps drawing me to that area. Maybe I'm trying to prove something. Prove what you ask? That I know CSD? I doubt most would agree, though I beg to differ. That I'm a complete muppet? I know many think that I prove that time and time and time again. Adam9007 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
None of us are perfect and we often hold ourselves to higher standards than do others, at least if we have a conscience. At least for my part I don't want you to be worried about some point of procedural difference with me: I'm wrong often enough to have lost much right to sanctimony. Acroterion(talk)12:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: If you don't make me worried, others probably will. I'm actually half expecting someone to say "why hasn't this been A7d" on the AfD, or else accuse me of being disruptive or something ("inventing my own notability criteria" springs to mind). You have a mop, which protects you from such things. I have no such shield. I need much stronger justification for my actions than anyone with a mop does, in my experience. If I do something someone disagrees with, they may, rather than asking themselves what did I see that they didn't, just assume I'm an idiot. That has happened often enough that I'm extremely anxious about reviewing CSD and BLPPRODs, although that hasn't stopped me. You have the mop, so people will, naturally, think twice before doing the same to you or those who also have it. I'm actually beginning to think that maybe we should restrict CSD declining to admins, as it's obvious that an admin's opinion is worth much more than that of a non-admin (I have also had my CSD declines reverted because I'm not an admin). But until that happens, I shall be carrying on. Adam9007 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the privilege that admins receive. Honestly I'd rather you were more bold about declining speedies than not, and this particular decline was obviously in perfectly good faith based on what you understood about the faculty position. I think most admins feel that way, though there are always exceptions that reinforce hesitation. My worries center on about real life, relating either to family or professional events, and Wikipedia is comparatively benign. I try to make a point of accepting deserved or undeserved criticism on Wikipedia with as little expense of spirit as I can manage. I hope that you can find a way to that mode too. Acroterion(talk)04:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: It's being bold that gets me into trouble. I know WP:BOLD encourages boldness, but it seems to me if someone thinks you're wrong, then you're not just bold, but reckless. I'm terrified what happened in July will happen again: if it does I will not emerge unscathed. My reputation will be forever ruined and I can kiss goodbye to whatever chance that I might one day become an admin. I'm scared that someone will look though my talk page archives and just decide that I'm wrong and they're right: after reflexion, I'm convinced that's what happened in July. Fear of that (as well as irritation) makes me do irrational things like threaten to retire: my "survival instinct" kicks in if I think I'm under attack or the "attacker" may summon the cavalry. No wonder users (such as MelanieN) think I have a temperament issue. I mean, I can take constructive criticism, but more often than not it's a sugar-coated "you're an idiot", or sometimes even an obvious one. I have Asperger's, so I probably take things too deeply to heart, but sometimes it's obvious that the other person just couldn't care less what I think, and that's extremely irritating. But I suppose I'd better find a better way to deal with it... Adam9007 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
<outdent>I'm not convinced that your reputation is in much jeopardy, and while helping out as an administrator is a valuable goal it's not the epitome of Wikipedia. I've learned a great deal about people and the Internet that I wasn't expecting to and could live without knowing as a result. Age also helps - at 58 I've been through enough challenging and/or scary things to allow more perspective than I had when I was 26 and more inclined to be bothered by things that can't materially harm me.
As for Asperger's, on WP that's a feature, not a bug - the encyclopedia wouldn't be what it is today without contributors on the Asperger's/autism spectrum. I'd say I've known at least half a dozen self-declared Asperger's/autism editors who've mostly done fine, and who have received significant support from the community. We just have to remember that sometimes you can't judge interpersonal relations as others do, and that's OK - other things compensate, like focus and persistence, and as long as you can recognize when another opinion is valuable or can ask for one it works out. Added to that is the ease by which someone on the opposite side of the ocean can casually assert that you are horribly wrong (this is the Internet after all) and have it show up in half a second on your screen in your home, and it's easy to be knocked off stride. It might be harder for you to shift your focus, but it's still a skill worth cultivating as best you can when you find yourself feeling scared about interactions on Wikipedia - a positive time out. Acroterion(talk)02:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: For me, it's more of a bug. My reputation is already in tatters with some editors. My Asperger's also means I have difficulty with social interactions. I have trouble forming connexions with people, and sometimes even reluctant to do so, or just disinterested in that sort of thing. Although that applies more to real life than here, I still have trouble handling situations I'm not used to handling, such as disputes, and I am particularly anxious if it involves CSD (especially A7). My Asperger's means I take the criteria very literally, to the point where others get extremely irritated. It is even to the point where experienced editors are accusing me of "making up my own criteria" or "having my own vision of Wikipedia", which are of course rubbish. But it's the fact that people believe them that gets me. I'd like to believe my Asperger's is an advantage when it comes to things like CSD, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming :(. I'd also like to think my Asperger's helped me in getting articles to GA, but I don't think a neurotypical would have much trouble if they put their mind to it. I believe MelanieN said something (I don't know exactly what) about Asperger's a little while ago, but I don't know if anything's happened yet. Adam9007 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
removal of speedy
I reverted your edit back to G11, as I feel confident it fits - It's best to wait for an admin (who can approve/remove, as opposed to just removing) to see it. Garchy (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:CSD gives anyone (expect the article's creator) the right to remove a CSD tag, not just admins. No-one has the right to insist that only an admin may review a CSD tagging. Adam9007 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct, "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice" - I did not see any attempt to fix the issue, nor do I agree that this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (even under the current criteria, G11) - in this case I've chosen to revert your removal, and have notified you of such. Garchy (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it can be made encyclopaedic at all - that's my point - unambiguous advertising, hence the speedy delete. It does not need to be rewritten. I'm not new to the block, nor am I a deletionist. Try out the duck test. Garchy (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor has proposed a merge. It is unlikely to be unambiguous if one did such a thing instead of G11. Besides, WP:G11 does say it needs to be rewritten: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". It may have the odd spammy bit, but that doesn't make it a G11. Unencyclopaedic does not necessarily mean advertising. Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think what they mean by "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" is that the article can be deleted, per G11, in the case that there is no redeeming quality and the article would require a rewrite - making it not worth it. I still think that's the case, but it's obvious we disagree and I'm willing to drop the speedy to find a better solution. There is no content within this article that needs to be merged, as the historical club is covered here - the article that I redirected, and tried to speedy, is simply a pub opened across the street by "Cavern City Tours". The page offers absolutely no references - there is no content within the article that is encyclopedic and needs to be carried over, as it is essentially an advertisement for a tourist tour. Garchy (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You wrote:
> Your recent edit to Al Franken seemed less than
> neutral to me, so I removed it for now.
I don't fully remember my added paragraph, and since you removed it, I cannot review. But from memory, the para was not really about Franken - it was about the election. Surrounding paras on Franken's page had info and numbers from 2009. I cited an article from 2012 with updated numbers, that I added. I would think this is a good thing? I am sure better wording than mine can be found, but should you not then improve my "un-neutral" wording instead of deleting the para?
For full disclosure: I have nothing against Franken, mainly because of a lack of knowledge about him. But I am not impressed by the quality of eletion processes in the USA. :) See table "Perceptions of Electoral Integrity" on
[1]
Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_Squad
Paul Whelan
Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please.
Hello there mate. So I have been working on a page (Ravinder Maan), and I was hoping you would let me know how to verify it and fix all the issues with the tags.
Probably not, but I was under the impression that pages that are evidently being worked on should not be hastily marked as reviewed, especially if tagged for a non-critical criterion? Adam9007 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Advice on deleting drafts
Hi Adam, I'd appreciate advice on deleting drafts. I nominated Draft:Ray Eller and several other drafts for speedy delete but they were reverted. How else do I go about proposing the deletion of these drafts which I believe have been created to promote a non-notable band (see the edit history of the creator). Cheers, Del♉sion23(talk)23:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(In relation to Steve salis) I think you need to be more careful and through in your new page patrolling. This article was obviously incorrectly categorized at creation and as part of patrolling you should have moved it to the correct title (and realised it was salted, then attempting an AFD). Easy to miss I'm sure but make sure to check page capitalisation as part of New Page Patrolling, it is very important. (Only bringing this up because of the DRV concerning the article now...) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: If I remember correctly, I attempted to move it to the correct capitalisation, but it was salted. I didn't know what to do other than leave it... Adam9007 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay fair enough... Well seems like no one actually knows the correct thing to do but either CSD if applicable or take the safe route of an AfD... At very least notifying the admin who originally salted the page is a good idea. But no big deal, happy editing/page patrolling! Good luck out there :) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: I've had another look at the article, and for the record I agree that it was nowhere near G11. Whatever the author's intent, the prose is hardly exclusively promotional. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Concerning my restoration of the "Influence" section in the Dungeon Keeper article.
I think one of the reasons that the game, or arguably the series it spawned, has notability is the influence it has had on other games and the reviews (which are given references) in the restored segment are of reviewers comparing newer games to Dungeon Keeper.
I do not have any problem with the segment being moved to the "Dungeon Keeper (series)" article if that is deemed more useful.
@Wowaconia: In the "The Making of Dungeon Keeper" article by Retro Gamer (which covers the development of both Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2), there is a section at the end about Dungeon Keeper's influence. As the two games are of course identical in the aspects that have influenced other games, I get the impression that it belongs in the article about the series. I think the Retro gamer article reflects that, but I could be wrong, as I can see how it can be considered that the first game is ultimately where the influence comes from. Do you think I should start a discussion? Adam9007 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you could move the section to the article about the series and post on the talk page for the article about the original game that you thought it was more helpful for that segment to be in the series article but that you are willing to revert if there are objections to the move. I don't think anyone will mind as long as the info is preserved somewhere.
--Wowaconia (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Amir Bramly - can you please take another look for Afd?
I recognize the original failed WP:BIO (I intended to make a short stubby entry in English (2,000-3,000 bytes compared to the Hebrew 29,000) after it settled in Hebrew, but the stubby entry mainly focused on the BLPCRIME - which was a no-no - I read BLP guidelines extensively after the feedback here).
I completely re-did it - building it up -only- from pre-crime + civil court proceedings (which have been finalized in the sense of final liquidation orders) - and leaving the crime bit as a one-liner ("As of February 2017, there is an unresolved criminal trial proceeding against Bramly") - which bears mentioning given the civil case coverage there (+ample coverage of Bramly's claims of being a modern day Dreyfus - from NPOV). It is now also amply sourced and should be OK NPOV/tone-wise - and is actually in some areas probably better than the Hebrew (as I did some things from the ground-up) - I will migrate some stuff back to the Hebrew once it sits in the English for a while (and a few more other eyes & edits). Thank you! 07:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)
What is the significance you see asserted? It is literally a company description and listing of products. It doesn't even bother to make claims of of the number of clients it has, etc. Also, just to make it clear here, this has nothing to do with the fact that we disagreed earlier today at an AfD over A7-- I just really am curious on this one as to what you see as the claim. All I can see is an unremarkable tech company written by a likely paid-editting account that didn't even bother to hire a good marketing person to write it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those out. They didn't look like blue links to me when I saw the page. Those pages are actually really interesting because one of them was G11ed but removed by what appears to be a sock or meatpuppet of the page creator in 2008 [1]. The other page has a similar history in terms of clear COI-editting. Honestly have no idea what those pages notability is because its not my field. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Holcombe 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. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: "A-Space hosts a Books Through Bars program, the Philadelphia Anti-War Forum, and meetings of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)"??? "Myth debunked"??? What do you mean? Are you referring to my essay? You know, I'm actually seriously considering taking it (and the similar-ish essay WP:A7M) to MfD. This is getting ridiculous: it is clear to me that both essays are just too far outside consensus (your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Holcombe reinforces that belief). Following WP:A7M, as I have discovered, can easily land CSD reviewers into whole heaps of trouble, and that's just not acceptable :(. I am well aware of the rule that says user pages about Wikipedia-related matters normally are not eligible, but I may have to ignore that rule. Adam9007 (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. As an aside, I think your decline of Mila Shak was good on the A7 grounds, though I think AfD is probably better than merge for several reasons. Anyway, despite my being shocked that dog fashion models exist, it has actually helped me formulate my views on what factor connections to people should have in A7. Cheers :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Future Routes
Adam9007 I removed it because the flight was under "Future Routes" and now that the flight is underway it is irrelevant. It is now the future. I thought I clearly explained that when I said that "the future is now", the line I used when I edited it. Canadian997 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how to make Hullabaloo Wolfowitz stop with his constant attacks and vandalism on the Axel Braun page (and others). The reference links he is posting on Braun's page are web archive files, while the current versions of the same pages show different content. Case in point, Braun's real name which is Alessandro Re and not Alessandro Ferro. This is the link to the current version of Vanity Fair's article [1] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz keeps using.[2] Wolfowitz is clearly acting maliciously and only because i pointed out that his references were incorrect. Going back to a previous version of an article from a major publication that has since been amended shows intent to vandalize. Same for the Rhett Pardon article on XBIZ, this is the current version [3] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz is posting.[4] Thank you for your attention.2605:E000:2D8E:BA00:D86:D2E9:2CE2:630C (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that it makes a credible assertion as being essentially an extra in a film is neither notable or significant whatsoever and neither is the claim. Merely being an "actor" is meaningless as well. Additionally, those sources don't support anything in the article. Add to that, I removed several of the hoax claims. Please also see this discussion: User_talk:Ivanvector#SPICHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Credible means plausible, not verifiable. All the claims in the article are plausible. The role in 2.0 appears to be bigger and is supported by one of the sources. He also appears to have a larger than extra role in Ant Story. Remember that most of the sources are in foreign languages, and we can;t rely too much on Google Translate, as it may have difficulty recognising names. I think this is a simple case of non-notability, although there could be foreign language sources. Adam9007 (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue isn't language here - the article is pretty much the definition of full of it. This is pretty much an identical recreation of the last deleted version of this article where he also claims, in addition to being a famous Bangladeshi star and internet personality, to have a masters degree in Wikipedia. As far as A7 goes, I understand most of the nuances and you and I disagree on the meaning of plenty of things but this is where I disagree specifically as it pertains to this article: b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability? I see nothing that plausibly implies he could be notable - merely being an actor is a job, just like being a trash man and when you combine that with the unnamed parts included in the article, it is more an assertion of insignificance. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Actors should have that coverage before creating an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't. Speedy deletion aside, having minor parts in 6 films, 4 of which are unreleased hardly makes anyone notable. Literally no sources in any language talk about him specifically or in depth. Having a name appear on the equivalent of another language iMDB is meaningless too. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
None of which is relevant to WP:A7. There is an indication that he could have coverage. Whether he actually does or not is for normal deletion. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
In my last reply, I said "speedy deletion aside" for a reason in response to your reply above that. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest though because I certainly don't think that article makes any plausible claim, as I said earlier. A7 requires some common sense too - literally anything that exists could have coverage. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯23:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is there - I was saying that literally anything could have coverage, not that it does so using that without qualifying it with some common sense is a bit silly when talking about A7. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯23:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I everyone! I noticed that there was a discussion about the qualifications for applying a CSD tag for A7 here. I thought I'd help explain for those who might benefit from it. :-)
Basically, A7 and A9 can't be applied to an article if there's a claim of significance... but we're missing an important part here - the claim of significance must also be credible. Credibility in an article is a test as to whether or not the claim is logically valid and reasonably plausible to occur. Significance is a test as to whether or not the credible claim would cause the subject mentioned in the article to be notable if reliable references were sourced. It does not require sources or citations; it's simply whether or nor the claim would assert notability if referenced with reliable sources. If the article makes a claim that is both credible and significant, then the article is not eligible for A7 or A9.
I hope these examples aren't too silly:
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 10,000 years old" - Significant? Yes. Credible? No.
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 65 years old" - Significant? No. Credible? Yes.
@Chrissymad: My point was that there are many things that tend to not have coverage, so saying that anything that exists could have coverage is a bit absurd. @Oshwah: Thanks. That's how I see it too. Playing a roles in notable films - credible? yes, unless the claim is obviously fantastic, which in this case is not. Significant? Yes, as it could cause the actor to have coverage. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
In that specific example you're citing: I would look at the notability of the film that the person is being claimed to have played a role in, and what the specific "role" was. Being a janitor that swept the floors for the set of Home Alone wouldn't fly as crediblesignificant... lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Actually, it would be credible, just not significant. But in this case, in at least 2 of the films he plays a named character, so unlikely to be an extra. Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you have removed my edit on Oysters SF page due to lack of citation. I have made an edit, because I have been following the phone's page on the official site, and it has disappeared. I was a witness. What could I add as a source in that case? A page returning 404? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.206.56 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We need reliable sources (sources that are known for accuracy) to verify information. If there's a news article or something similar that covers it, you could cite that. Unsourced statements containing "appears to be" also constitute original research, which is not allowed as an encyclopaedia summarises what has already been published. Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not new to this so stop being terse. If you check the history, it was already speedily deleted once today and the creator simply recreated it so at least three editors disagree with you.
What is the claim to notability that you see? They have not release an album, but they may, shortly. They are not signed to a major label and the album is not going to be released on a major label. The album has not and likely will not chart. So what sort of credible claim to notability did you see? I am assuming good faith and not nominating for speedy again, but unless you give me a good answer, I will take this further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Notability is not the same as significance. The band has a notable member. If having 2 is notable (see WP:MUSICBIO#6), the having 1 is certainly significant. Adam9007 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I Fully understand. Having one member is not in any way significant. You're just making things up. Feel free to delete or I'm putting the speedy back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you advise why you removed the speedy tag from this article - being a member of staff at a school doesnt confer notability and I cant see where significance could be shown for such a position either so am unsure why the tag was removed. Recreating the article as a redirect to the school after it was A7'd seems strange as I cant see a reason why someone would be searching for that person on Wikipedia so as to be a valid redirect either. Amortias (T)(C) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
He's not just a member of staff, he's the headmaster. There is a consensus that a strong connexion with a notable entity is significant. Besides, there's WP:ATD, and WP:FAILN, which support redirecting over deletion if possible. Adam9007 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong connection is generally taken to mean a permanent association or connection, the founder of a business or charity, a musician who founded or who is normally associated with a band, that sort of permanent connection. Employment, particularly roles where the person may be re-assigned, move for promotion/demotion etc, really don't count as a strong connection, and definitely are not the types of thing one should be creating redirects for. Nick (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Managing Director is likely to be the same situation, unless the MD is the company founder or is more significantly involved with the business in some way. I'd agree with you on that. It's nice that you're starting to understand now. Nick (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We're discussing redirects - if the MD, CEO or other is notable, they'll have their own article. If they're not notable, they won't. If they're not notable but are significantly connected to a topic we do have an article on - such as being the founder of the company, we may choose to redirect their name to the company article. In the context of the headmaster issue, as I've said a couple of times, being employed (maybe - there was no reference to actually confirm that) by a given school really is not a strong and significant connection, and doesn't therefore make for a sensible, plausible redirect. Nick (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's correct. The role of MD, CEO or equivalent is simply a job posting, you would need to demonstrate a more significant connection between the subject and a reason to redirect visitors to the company article, particularly if there's no meaningful coverage of the individual within the article. The sort of meaningful coverage which would justify a redirect would be a corporate history which talks about a founder, someone involved in a company management buyout etc. We're drifting far away from your headteacher redirect which started all of this, in the case of your headteacher redirect, there was no reliable source which confirmed that is his employment, no coverage of the individual within the article and no significant connection between the headteacher and the subject beyond it being his current place of employment. I wonder now if you're deliberately avoiding getting the point, but for the moment, let us consider what happens if you create redirects for every head teacher and every company director. How do you maintain that, how do you reference it, what do you do when the subject retires or is no longer connected with the article we have, what happens when they move job positions and you can't determine their next position. When I say significant connection, it needs to be a connection which exists long after they've moved, retired or died, such as founding a company or starting a school. There's going to be no connection of any sort for Michael Davies (Headmaster) if he takes six months off reaching to set up a llama sanctuary, is there ? Nick (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nick: By that logic, Donald Trump's presidency to the United States is not a strong connexion to that country or its government. It is simply a posting after all, and he's bound to leave the position eventually. Same for prime ministers and heads of state. I'm not suggesting you said that heads of government or state are not significant; I'm saying that that notion fits your logic. It is therefore flawed. And A7 is relevant, because all this started with an A7 tagging, and because of WP:ATD-R. Adam9007 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States of America is not a significant role? That after he's left office, the only place his name will be found will be in the alumni editions of the White House Magazine? I'm sorry, but your strawman arguments are really starting to fall flat. The headmaster of a school, barring an exceptional tenure, will only be remembered by the school itself. There's a reason little US children learn every President - they have a lasting impact. I'm not sure if you ever had the high ground, but continue on this line of thought and you'll quickly lose it. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Are you talking to me or Nick? I did not and am not suggesting for 1 nanosecond that presidencies and being Prime Minister and such are not significant. I said that such a notion fits with Nick's logic that temporary associations are never significant. Adam9007 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I highly suggest you re-read that paragraph, then. Not only did Nick never use the word "never", he said it needs to be a connection which exists long after they've moved, retired or died - it was you that then said By that logic, Donald Trump's presidency.... Clearly being President of a country is a connection that exists long after they've left the office. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Will Trump still be president after he dies? No. It is a temporary connexion. By contrast, being the founder of something is permanent, as the connexion exists for ever. Adam9007 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
So former President Obama is no longer a former President? Or Washington? Jefferson? Lincoln? They may have temporarily been in office, but you're really pushing it to say that they only have a "temporary connection" to the White House. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not say that. The word "former" says they used to be so, but not any more. If the connexion created by being a CEO no longer exists after leaving, how is this any different? Does the coverage gained (if any) as a result no longer matter? If Presidency is permanent, so is CEO. Adam9007 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm clearly talking to a brick wall here, and rather than insult you by quoting you back to yourself (again) I think I'm going to walk away. For future reference, when at least four editors (three of which are admins) tell you your opinions on A7 might need readjusting, you should at least give it some consideration. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. how exactly was it unconstructive? all I did was add a part that said comparing editors to serial killers. it said comparing editors to Nazis and dictators could result in you being blocked. but what if someone compares an editor to a serial killer, they'll be let off scott free. I personally think that should be added so no one compares any editor to a serial killer.
Of course not, but it's already been reverted once by Gap9551, so you're better off talking it to the talk page. It seemed non-constructive at first glance because that's not the sort of thing I'd expect to see there, so apologies for that. Adam9007 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Boomer Vial:"He is an actor,Model and the televsion presenter." is far from "Unambiguous advertising". He's probably just not familiar with our guidelines. Adam9007 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Micro Machines (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theme Hospital you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destruction Derby 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Ortiz (wrestler), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Request that the blocking admin revoke WidrinBaltimore's talk page access. They will do it for this sort of thing. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please explain what about any of these sources you found reliable enough to remove a well placed A7 specifically for "Article cites reliable sources"?
Which leads me to my next question of why you removed a speedy tag on Umeash Sahhaaii - what credible claim of significance? Being CEO of a thus far, non-notable company? Or was it the totally reliable sources?
This isn't even a question of whether it's actually notable or not or significant but the fact that not a single one of those is an RS. Did you read any of them? If you found something else that would support a claim (of which I see none in the first article) why wouldn't you add it to the article itself? I also would like to know what claim EFC has, because I see none. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that press releases do not count towards notability, but I'd have thought that being interviewed by a major newspaper or magazine does? Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's potentially an RS for establishing something exists but not significance when one is being interviewed about themselves/their own company, especially in this case as there is nothing to support any claim of significance in this article (because there is none.) This wasn't followed up by coverage of the subject(s), it was a writer being the mouth piece for the CEO and literally nothing else. Also my mistake, I read review and not interview. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, they're obviously worthy of someone's attention. :) I have access to plenty of interviews with video gaming people such as Peter Molyneux in various publications. All of which are about themselves and/or their companies or games. Are they not reliable? I have used some in certain articles (including GAs). Interviews can support lots of information, not just their existence. Adam9007 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 They're not reliable sources for establishing notability, so while A7 isn't about notability, this also applies to significance. Someone talking about themselves isn't likely to be subject to editorial oversight or fact checking. There is nothing of significance in either article...so please restore the tags. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Someone talking about themselves isn't likely to be subject to editorial oversight or fact checking. Whoa. I have cited interviews with Molyneux and others in Dungeon Keeper, and cited interviews with the developers in Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) (its first FAC says we should do so). Are you really saying they're not reliable because they come from people closely involved? The principle is the same as what we're discussing here. Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 Use some common sense here - the principle is NOT the same and in THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT as I said "There LIKELY isn't any editorial oversight or fact checking" IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE. I didn't realize I had to clarify every single detail. There also is literally no claim of significance in the article(s) nor was there in the interview, which you'd know, had you read any single one of the sources. I get it, you have FA/GAs, we're not talking about the quality of the content but a total lack of significance being established. It's fine to use interviews after this has been established by actual reliable sources and even if that weren't that case, the interview is the CEO talking about himself and not even the company. What specifically about these two articles did you find to be credible and significant? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: I see. It sounded like you were saying that those sorts of interviews are not reliable, full stop, the end. What I found significant about it is that the interview is a clue that he could be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007: You still didn't answer my question though - in the article specifically, what was significant and credible? An interview is neither. Would you care to restore that A7? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯03:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: Could you please explain how can something we knowis true is not credible? The whole point of the "credible" bit is to exclude obviously fantastic claims, because nobody in their right mind is going to believe them. The interview is not just credible: it has been verified. As for significance, as Nick points out, being interviewed by such a publication is a clue the subject could be notable. That's my understanding of significance anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Chrissymad, I went ahead and took these to AfD. I wouldn't have contested them myself, but I don't think the decline is completely out of left field because I have seen a few keep !votes on similar articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said, they've got someone's attention, so they're not completely unknown. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this? :) Adam9007 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I was saying your decline was probably good on A7 grounds, but went ahead and took it to AfD since I agree with Chrissy on the merits on the article, and didn't see the need for you to have another extended A7 debate here... those don't tend to do anyone much good! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a deliberate determination here not to get the point, or if it's something else and we're all just really bad at explaining things in policies and on your talk page, but to repeat and to clarify: The principle is not the same, Adam. I can write my own (auto)biography, it doesn't prove I'm notable. It could be published by a reputable published, but it still doesn't prove I'm notable, though it's a clue that I might be. I can be interviewed, it doesn't prove I'm notable but it is a stronger clue that I could be notable. Interviews are tricky - they're ideal source material when you demonstrate notability, but they're generally useless to actually prove that notability, given there's a difference between an in-depth and brief interviews, and any sort of interview in a specialist publication and any sort of interview in a mainstream title.
If there is significant, in-depth coverage about me, which I am not involved with, then we begin to reach the threshold for notability, and when we reach that threshold, we can have an article on me. When we have an article, all sources can come (back) into play, even if they, on their own, do nothing to assert notability. We can use my autobiographies, my interviews and other material to reference the article - indeed, source material doesn't need to be connected to the subject of the article at all, only to be broadly (and ideally, specifically) relevant to the claim(s) being sourced. TL;DR - interviews are fine for sources but not usually able to demonstrate notability on their own. Nick (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nick: I see. You're saying that interviews are considered non-independent sources if the interview is about the interviewee or something he's involved with, even if they're published in an independent one? Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That's correct, it's (what I consider to be very clearly) stated within the notability guidelines where it discusses what sources can be used to establish notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and it goes on to clearly explain what independent of the subject means "...excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." with the footnote which says "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.". What I would say, is that common sense comes into play here - an in-depth interview in a major newspaper or magazine, or for a significant website is a good indicator that the subject could well be notable, and that suitable sources which demonstrate notability are more likely to exist. If a short interview in a non-notable magazine is all that's being used to claim notability, it's much more likely that no sources which could demonstrate notability exist, so you would use interviews and autobiographical material as a starting point in searching for evidence of notability - following up the same publications and the same journalists as those involved with the interviews, running through other material published by the same publishing houses, that sort of thing. In short, interviews and autobiogs can't be used as indicators of notability, they're no guarantee someone is notable, they shouldn't be used to remove an A7 tag, but they're a useful starting point in determining if there are other sources which can prove notability. Nick (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nick: But are interviews produced by the interviewee, or whoever conducted it? Going back to my Dungeon Keeper example, I have cited the following interviews:
Elf Destruction - An interview with 2 of the programmers published in a primary source and conducted by someone involved with that source. Reliable, but not independent.
Various interviews with the developers in the Official Guide Book. Reliable, but not independent.
"Welcome to the House of Molyneux" - An interview between Peter Molyneux and PC Gamer. Yes, Molyneux has a close connexion with the subject, but he didn't conduct the interview, PC Gamer did. Same with the "An audience with peter Molyneux" by Edge, and I think I have another magazine interview which I've been meaning to use in the article too.
Are the latter examples significant? If so, wouldn't the case being discussed here also be (it was produced by the newspaper, which appears to be notable (see The Economic Times)? Adam9007 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the significance of your Dungeon Keeper example - you're using interviews quite properly as a reliable source for your article, what you're not doing is using the interviews to establish notability for the article. I think we're getting confused again. Interviews and anything else which is not independent of the subject of the article cannot be used to establish notability, but interviews and anything else can be used to source the article after notability is demonstrated. Nick (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Depends on what you think are the chances of it being deleted. If you're sure nobody will object, you can use PROD. Make sure it has not been PRODed or listed at AfD before though. If it has, AfD is the only option. Adam9007 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, are you legitimately removing the speedies, or just doing it because you can? I haven't actually looked at them. And Hawkeye75, if Adam is removing every one of your speedies, it might be worth thinking about whether they should be speedied. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he has removed every speedy deletion. One of my old articles that I created (Daniel Keem) is extremely more notable than all these YouTubers articles that I am adding speedy deletion tags to and it got taken down. Hawkeye75(talk)00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, Keem's article is deleted, and based on the 13 references I removed from the Flentzeris page, I'd say that there were more than just one reference. The question of if she's notable, however, still stands (and I'm leaning towards "no"). Primefac (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, you're an admin so you probably have more knowledge on this subject matter. You've been a good third opinion, so is it safe to re-nominate it for speedy deletion? Hawkeye75(talk)00:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well, one of the issues is that a lot of people (including myself) have no idea what a credible claim of significance is for a YouTuber, and I'd honestly assume that anyone who has more than 100K subscribers might pass that incredibly low bar. I do my best not to get into that type of pop-culture notability debate either because you'll inevitably get into parsing what counts as a reliable and non-trivial source, given that I'm sure most of these people have plenty of links in their articles since their known for being on the internet. If someone wants to delete them, I think AfD is the way to go if you actually believe they aren't notable. As an aside, this user is autopatrolled, which given the number of deletion nominations and the concerns expressed here I find odd. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Lothgar Online
Ah balls. I should have checked to see if it was a browser game. I'm a dinosaur and come from the era when most games were too big to download. TimothyJosephWood22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Reply to statement 1--Ministers(esp. low-weights) are present in so many innauguatations of so many stores/etc and to bolster their PR.Don't know what lends you the idea that opening by min. leads to automatic credibility.
Reply to statement 2--That's the best reply.Every G11-able / A7-able article contains something like this(We are the leading company in this country in this field).
Reply to statement 3--Another one on the lines of 1!
Adam9007 removes speedly deletion tags all of the time and then when it's taken to AfD it's deleted, shortly thereafter as a speedy delete. I am also curious why, could you kindly enlighten us, Adam?ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, regarding the above, you removed the prod. The reference is to sound broadcast, which even though it doesn't play, would still be an invalid source, because a sound file, played on a browser is not a reference, as we are not trained forensic sound engineers, hence the prod. scope_creep (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I think the key phrase in BLPPROD is If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period. Given that blogs are not (99.9% of the time) RS, then adding (or even having) a blog as the sole reference does not count. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:BLPPROD also says To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). The blog was already linked to and therefore invalidated BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jackgodders/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please explain
What claim of significance you continue to find here? Is it Established in 1994, The Titanic Players is an American improvisational theatre group with presence on six university campuses:? Or maybe the list of college campuses? Or is it their sponsorship by a non-notable entity? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯00:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I was discussing this with Chrissymad elsewhere and I was actually defending your actions (it's rare, but you've been right on occasion), but really... I am astounded. Because three universities exist, groups at those universities automatically have a credible claim of significance? I have no words, and I'm honestly done trying to defend your actions. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You really have no understanding of this criteria and what significance is. Many colleges, notable or not have plenty of groups and clubs. It doesn't make them significant and there certainly wasn't a claim of anything in this article. Please stop assessing speedies... CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯00:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Being a fellow editor considering retirement, I can understand what you are going through. I can only offer support and say hang in there. You are an excellent editor in my view! Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
A7's
I'm going to make this suggestion again: When removing an A7, do a WP:BEFORE before. If you find sources indicating the subject could be notable (not that it makes claims of significance) remove the A7. If not, let the A7 tag stay and let an admin decide how to handle it. --NeilNtalk to me01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I could do that. But I'm bound to run into someone to whom that does not solve the problem. But frankly, I'm actually wondering what the point in carrying on at all is: all I ever seem to do is cause conflict and piss people off . Adam9007 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, the reason why people get pissed off is because it often appears that you aren't doing any BEFORE work. NeilN isn't telling you to cut it out entirely, he's just saying that you should be a bit more thorough and (if in doubt) leave it for an actual admin to handle. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Adam, you've probably gotten more advice than you've wanted today, but I'm going to say this as someone who likes you and has tried to get others to be a bit less dramatic in the past: a lot of the tags you remove are borderline and within an admin's discretionary zone. I've stopped arguing with you over them and just started taking them to AfD because I think arguing is a waste of everyone's time here, and I have encouraged others to do so because I really don't like that you feel bad every time it happens.
At the same time, I think you should understand that consistently having CSD tags removed that are well within the discretionary zone for CSD can sap people's morale. NPP can be a thankless job and while I agree that some of us who do it can be trigger happy, and I have learned a lot from you, SoWhy, and some others and truly thank you for that growth experience, I very much understand why others might feel frustrated, and their feelings of frustration are just as valid as the feelings of frustration you get. Neil has given you this advice before and I think it is the best practical advice anyone has given you. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Funny you should mention SoWhy: it's mainly (I'll admit I'm not perfect and do make mistakes, but I remember many similar conflicts as a result of following advice given in his essay WP:A7M) following his advice (and to a lesser extent, Ritchie333's) that has got me into this mess What do I mean? The above example had at least 3 plausible redirect targets. How am I supposed to know which one is best? I thought the whole point of CSD is to immediately delete pages that obviously have no chance of anything other than a delete result in a discussion so as not to overwhelm XfD. Right now, it seems that is not the case. I hope this wasn't too irrational, but after this, I felt I had no choice. It really is ironic it ever existed if people are saying I have obvious issues understanding A7. Adam9007 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You know, it's probably better to say, "yes, I will try that" to my suggestion before that suggestion (or worse) is forced upon you by the community. --NeilNtalk to me02:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think following those criteria are what makes people frustrated with you. I mentioned it as a positive on my end, I really do appreciate it, even if your views and theirs don't naturally align with my own, I can learn to see why you all think that way, and it makes me a better Wikipedian, and I have changed some of my practices because of it. I think a lot of the frustration coming your way is that many users on this talk page and others have tried to explain to you why they disagree with your actions or why they might view it a bit differently than you, and to some people, it looks like you don't see why they think the way they do.
My best friend and I in real life have very different views. He's slightly to the right of Lenin and I'm what you would consider a Blairite. We get along very well because while we disagree, we both understand why the other thinks the way they do and genuinely respect the other's viewpoint. I don't think you disrespect anyone on here, but I also don't think that I have ever seen you say you might be right or something along those lines. Every Wikipedian is a person, and when they feel like they are talking to someone who doesn't listen, it can make them get mad. Neil's advice is so good, because it helps you see what other people might see. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
When someone comes to this page asking about an A7 tag removal, I feel like I'm being placed under wiki-arrest or something like that. It's always up to me to prove myself right, rather than for others to prove me wrong. Guilty until proven innocent is how it feels. No wonder I go on the defensive. my essay was supposed to be a line of defence in that I don't have to keep explaining the same stuff over and over again. It plainly wasn't working, and as nobody agrees with it (despite most of it being supported by policies and guidelines), I thought "what's the point?". It's not that I don't respect others' views, it's that they keep going on the offensive if they don't find my explanation adequate for whatever reason. Frankly, Wikipedia will be better off without me if that's how people feel, because there's no way I'm going to win. I'm actually beginning to think that it was a mistake for me to join in the first place . Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
All of that was sad, and like I said, I do not believe you mean to not listen to other, just that others might view it that way, and how people view things is often as important as what we intend. I also think others need to see why you might feel attacked, and should try to understand why. I won't post much more, because I've already wasted enough of the WMF's server space on this, but I do hope you don't retire. You do a lot of good work. Maybe just take a break from the area's that are causing you stress for a while. Anyway, have a good Good Friday. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Look, I had a rather shitty day myself... made a mistake and got skewered for it. It happens to all of us. You don't need to leave the project, it's just that we need you to reconsider how you're applying tags if you want to continue in that particular area. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fully feel welcome here to contribute anywhere else, in fact I recommend it. This site is full to the brim of different places and side projects to explore, and I even after being here 10 years still frequently bounce around from place to place to keep my interest up (and to not get too irritated with one area either... which happens). Don't let yourself be limited to this singular task, you're worth so much more than that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I long to be gay, but I can't just walk away from an area hoping my problems will go away because they won't . I need to find a way to make it not cause stress. I can't do that if I'm away from the area can I? As for my essay, if and when its credibility is restored, I might ask for it back. I really didn't want to U1 it (heck, it won me a barnstar!), but it was a matter of principle: I've just lost my NPP right over it. What'll it be next time? Life imprisonment? The death penalty? This is not good for someone who even might want to be an admin some day. It's not doing my health any favours either. Maybe I'm taking all of this too seriously, but what goes on here affects me in real life too. Adam9007 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, I know. The only reason the NPP flag was removed was due to editor concerns regarding some of your reviewing... it doesn't mean that it can't be restored in the future, and it certainly isn't some form of mark on your editing here. Most importantly, the best thing is to not take any of these flags too seriously. I'm not saying to not take the project seriously (as you and I both do), but just to not worry too much about something that can be restored in a flash on request once you've shown you have relearned the relevant policies. Some days it is indeed stressful here though, so don't take my comment as a brush off of your valid concerns. But, also don't stress out about losing any chances of running for adminship. I assure you, if you spend the time to take in fully the editors' concerns above, the reasonable members of community will see your improvement and will not hold something like this against you. I really hope you don't take any of this to be a personal affront to you, as it is definitely not intended to be. We're on a never ending climb here, and we all need to help each other improve. This is nothing more than your fellows pulling you back on track. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to do much else here until June. I have 2 outstanding GANs. I wish they'd hurry up and get them reviewed so that they are over and done with, because I need a wikibreak. To which policies are you referring? If you mean A7, I naturally had to have my essay on it deleted until the situation is clarified. The policy seems to change frequently: sometimes a claim is significant sometimes it isn't. One moment CEO is a strong connexion, the next it isn't. How exactly am I supposed to "learn" anything that works like that? That actually kind of defeats the purpose of WP:CCSI, and is the perfect recipe for conflict. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for this. I was so eager to rescue that badly written essay of an article that I failed to notice there is already an article on the subject. You are right, A10 is the correct tag for it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious, Adam? I tagged an event with BLPPROD, which accuses a living person of a crime - with no sources, you undid that TWICE, added no sources and then went back and added a "no sources" prod. Why? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯01:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Technically speaking the perpetrator is a living person, so BLPPROD would apply (because it's about the kidnapping, not just Ridgeway). However, it's a moot point now as I have added a reference (which took thirty seconds and could have saved us all the drama). Primefac (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I beg to differ, for it says: This deletion procedure does not apply to such things as lists of people or biographical information contained in other articles. This is not a biography of the perpetrator. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We can argue semantics all night, but the point is that adding one reference would have saved everyone the trouble. It literally took me thirty seconds to google the name, find a source, and put it into the article. If you can't take the time to fix articles when you find them tagged with deletion notices, what good is removing it? Primefac (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
And sorry Chrissymad, the same thing could be said for you. I know it was mostly a knee-jerk reaction to add back the BLPPROD, but you could have also just fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You can just do a little google search about Lol, papua new guinea and you can see some results. Hope this helps :D
01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XS2003 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Metodo della Scomposizione dei Parametri
I am writing a second time Page Method of decomposition of the parameters, to explain that it is a page that deserves to be in Wikipedia. The previous page has been deleted, on the grounds that says nothing. Perhaps this new page explains more about the importance of this method, which is applied by many companies.
However, it's up to you to decide whether to keep it or not. Thanks for the attention!
Method of Breaking down the Parameters
How to Calculate not directly economic performance of the business, related to ethical issues, moral, social, environmental and cultural, which introduced the modern concept of "corporate social responsibility" and anticipated his more recent developments .
It was conceived and proposed by the economist Italian Giancarlo Pallavicini in the 1960s, under the assumption that the business entity, while being oriented to the profit of those who promote it, should not be neglected, but explicitly aware, a number of instances regarding the man and his social environment, cultural and natural[1]. Not as a mere statement of principle, but in a concrete way and be calculated the same way as profit. After a first experimental application at the Cariplo in 1960, aims to assess the contribution of individual bank branches to the development of the "special credit", then delivered mainly through the Mediocredito Lombardo, this method was published by 'Publisher "Giuffre "in 1968 in" integrated structures in the Italian distribution system ". A proposal at the time revolutionary, taken up and developed in its assumptions by other economists, and especially by Robert Edward Freeman, in his essay "Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach", published in London in 1984. Only in recent times is, however, understood in its value as calculation results are not directly economic tool, able to exert its effects on the end result, and to add value to the company.
If only for the fact that the internal and external demands to the company, to which the method refers, characterize ' "habitat" in which the company operates and influence the possibilities of life and success of' enterprise itself. In addition, they positively involve stakeholders (stakeholders) internal and external to the company, by bringing value.
For this, the growing interest in the "corporate social responsibility", manifested at the beginning of the new millennium and which has received a further boost by the global crisis that began in 2007, first in finance and then the real economy, is emerging so more and more marked the need to consider, and then to evaluate specifically, the degree of affirmation of ethical principles in the economy in general and in particular in the financial asset. Is thus establishing the principle that such an assessment should be resorted to new methods that go beyond the so-called "codes of ethics" and "social audits" and over the same "quality standards", to get closer to the criteria which, in the years in 1960, they inspired the "breakdown of the method parameters."
According to the initial setting of Pallavicini, exhibited in the "Preface" to the aforementioned volume, it is to operate "... formulating new hypotheses of setting and interpretation of quantitative determinations of greater and more frequent relief ... ... where the abstractions of their 'survey, which covers the business phenomena in the economic aspect and influences the environment in which the company operates, are quantified so as to put forward a concrete contact with the complex attitudes of the administration. " References to this method, at the time revolutionary, wanted to be, according to its creator, a "contribution ... at the appropriate approach to this and want to be primarily intended to draw the attention of all those men of science and operators economic, follow very carefully this matter. "
Originally this method proposed to articulate the final objective of the company in a series of parameters, considered that, in addition to profit, no longer identifiable as the only goal, a series of components having a not directly economic, but not unrelated to 'need to provide an adequate income. Components that can bring value to the company, the positive effects in the projection and consolidation in the enterprise, to improve the perception made of them by internal and external stakeholders to the company and for more harmonious compose in the economic system which the company She participates.
According to the parameters of the method, the different directions is necessary to proceed regarding:
1) the objective articulation of economic activity, which is brought into contact with the concrete phenomena of the company and the environment in which it operates, via a subdivision that assigns to each component a clear overall target rate did equal to 100;
2) the analysis of the business, which must take into account the complex process and product function, the individual actions in which it branches, identifying each of the possible effect on one or more components of the overall objective;
3) grouping of individual classes and sub-classes and various actions, making it possible to assess the degree to which they nourish or oppose the pursuit of the different components of the company's goal;
4) the qualitative articulation, which must be reported to the quantitative aspects of each class or sub-class of shares, based on the volumes of business done in order to arrive at a quantification expressing the role played by each of them in the pursuit of 'global objective and articulated, from which to extrapolate useful addresses to direct the choice of the best operating opportunities in their different aspects.
This initial articulation, which brought together the headline profit and results are not directly economic, it has subsequently accompanied a different application, designed to overcome the inherent difficulties in admitting in decision-making representatives of categories alien to risk capital. The inventor of the method has developed specific hypotheses accounting for the goals not directly economic, to be placed at the side of the regular accounting in the reporting currency, on profit alone. Experiences of this approach have been initiated abroad, and especially in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, of which Pallavicini was the first Western consultant for the reform of the economy, especially at the time of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. They then suffered a setback with Boris Nikoleevic El'tsin, less sensitive to the consideration of matters not directly cheaper and less inclined to combine profit with social.
The method of the decomposition of the parameters was also used for the evaluation of the contribution offered by the individual operating units in companies and uniforms were also held with application in assessing the effectiveness of public investment, according to the settings mentioned in the cited work "integrated structures in the distribution system Italian". Its use is characterized by flexibility in the setting, which is correlated to the ups and downs of the economy, through the reconsideration of the weight of each partial objective of the business, within the more general goal by turns chosen .
The global crisis of 2007 and the frequent replacement of private debt with public debt seem to allow a more direct decision-making intervention by representatives of stakeholders also foreign capital and promote the development of forms of assessment are not directly economic activity enterprise, in the same field of measurement of profit, of which the method of decomposition of the parameters is an undisputed anticipation.
In fact, the vicissitudes of the economy, caused by the global crisis of the first decade of the third millennium, seem to move towards a recovery of initial setting of this method, in which profit and economic objectives not directly take part in one of the result of processing ' business activities, while the necessary monetary aspect, in its separate accounts, recovers the role that is theirs as a tool aimed at achieving the overall objective of the business.
Desiano (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Desiano (talk·contribs), Looking in here for a moment, I would advise trying to rewrite it in more idiomatic English. It might help to use shorter sentences, because the connections between the long phrases within a sentence are not obvious. It might be necessary to work with a native English speaker who knows the subject, or find an English language published source. It is very difficult to see if the article makes sense, because it is almost impossible to understand. First of all, you need to define "Parameters of the method" in this context--does it have anything to do with the computer programming concept of Method (computer programming)? I'm not aware of the term being used in economics, at least in English. You quote the definition ""... formulating new hypotheses of setting and interpretation of quantitative determinations of greater and more frequent relief ... ... where the abstractions of their 'survey, which covers the business phenomena in the economic aspect and influences the environment in which the company operates, are quantified so as to put forward a concrete contact with the complex attitudes of the administration. "-- but the book is in Italian, and the translation is not using the words in the ordinary English sense. If I understand it, the basic idea is that in judging the quality of an economic enterprise, one must take account of all the relevant factors, including the social as well as the financial. That would seem common sense, and the material here just makes it hard to understand. I may of course be wrong in my understanding of it, but if so, the fault is that it is not presented clearly. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
References
^ "Strutture Integrate nel Sistema Distributivo Italiano, Giuffré Editore, Milano, 1968, pag. V and from 53 to 58
Being the child of a notable person is not the sort of strong connection to someone notable that counts for A7. The sort of strong connection that might possibly count is something so close that it might cause a reasonable person to think there should be an article--a president of a notable company, for example. I do not want to add to the somewhat excessive criticism of your speedy removal, but it would be much more productive to try to actually improve Wikipedia than to just make removal of impossibly bad articles more complicated. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007! I ran into your talk page, and I see that you're considering retirement and that your "stress meter" is at the highest level. Looking at your recent messages here, it looks like you've run into a lot of heat lately with speedy deletion tag removal and whether the removals were correct or not. I understand how you feel; getting a lot of heat like this is stressful and I know that you're only trying to help and do the right thing. I see you around and reverting vandalism quite a bit, and I haven't seen any problems at all with your work in this area (at least not any that I can remember). I certainly hate to see someone as useful and committed as you leaving the project - it's very hard to keep good recent changes patrollers around... especially those that do so long-term and without burning out.
My advice to you is this: address the current concerns on your talk page here, take a break for a bit, get your stress under control, come back when you're ready, review the A7 guidelines and what credible claim of significance is (to refresh yourself and make sure that you didn't forget anything), and take things from there.
Like I said, I understand how you feel and how much of a downer and disappointment it is knowing that you're under more heat from other editors over the same area. It's not fun, and it really does take a toll on you... especially with how much time and effort you put into the project. This is where my advice will help you significantly - take a small break for a bit and clear your head. It will make a big difference with how you think and move forward after you return. If you need someone to talk to, my talk page is always open to you. You're welcome to chat with me any time you need to. I hope you take my advice, and I hope you learn, grow, and move forward from this and with a better outlook on everything. I don't want to see you go :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Thanks. It is extremely stressful knowing that my every move in that area is being watched, while everyone else gets to gaily go about their business a usual. What makes it more so is that I have read through WP:CCS, WP:A7M, and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 multiple times, and have been somewhat involved in WP:CCSI, and even wrote my own essay (although I've had it taken down due to judgement being passed on me with the quote "clear issues with CSD knowledge". I felt it was inappropriate for me to have one after that .). After that, I think I should have at least some idea what I'm talking about, even if I'm not perfect (who is?). As it is, I'm frequently accused of WP:INCOMPETENCE or "making things up" without any real explanation as to how. No wonder I'm not in a gay mood. Yes, I do need a wikibreak, but I'm waiting for GANs of Theme Hospital and Micro Machines (video game) to be finished. Hopefully, if and when I get back into a gay mood and my essay's credibility is restored, I'll ask for it to be restored, because I (obviously) like it and I know some others who do as well, and I'm not actually sure they are aware it's gone yet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Hopefully no one minds me adding on to this thread - we've had our run-ins (minor, but usually relating to removals of speedys) - even with that, I would hate to see you go. Take some time, clear your head, and come back re-energized and ready to take on the project! There are plenty of editors here to help you along the way, just ask. Cheers, Garchy (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Garchy: "take on the project" - you mean challenge it with the aim of crushing anyone who disagrees with me? It's been said that's basically what I've been doing (although not in those words). Adam9007 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Aircraft Restoration Company
I was trying to create a page relating to the aircraft and their history that ARC operate from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. In order to do this I simply dropped some text onto the page which seems to have been taken as the final version but was really meant to just act as a memory jogger for me whilst I built the page. Is it possible to unlock the page whilst I work on the real content much of which will be of historical interest to anyone researching these planes. RoyH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You'd have to ask an administrator to unlock (undelete?) the page. But copyright was a concern, so you may have to write a new page. Adam9007 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you reverted my proposed deletion on the ground that "article already includes sources". The bio has only a single references which is unreliable and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Could you please revert your edit or otherwise I will have to nominate the page for deletion. But since this is uncontroversial page (created and expanded by the subject himself as you can see in the history), a proposed deletion will be more sufficient. Initially I marked it for speedy which was a mistake on my part. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Good call on the tag removals, Adam. "He was elected to the Markazi Shura and the Executive Council of the Jamaat e Islami Pakistan" He might meet WP:NPOL. --NeilNtalk to me00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the page for deletion now. I thought proposed deletion would be better since it was not a controversial page but anyways. --Saqib (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib: PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions, not pages. There's a lot of behind-the-scenes movers and shakers belonging to a national political party that are notable. Thanks for opening the discussion. --NeilNtalk to me00:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
My most recent change
I was referencing the episode First Born from the seventh season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, though at the time I couldn't remember the episode's name. I was also, though I did not remember it at the time, partially mistaken in what currency was being dealt with. On that I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.100.194.233 (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Reply
Firstly I apologise for the inappropriate content of the edit I recent put on "female", I was experimenting whether Wikipedia had a security or defensive system in place for wrongful comments, and if it was not taken down in the next 24hours I was going to remove it myself... however my expectations were met and you have taken it down, however I didn't know that there was a sandbox. But thank you for providing my solution, finally I can assure you that this experiment will not take place again. Helpful user (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to offer to resurrect this essay, if only to stop you from complaining on every thread related to CSD that you "used to have a personal essay". It's your essay, it's how you feel, and there's zero reason for you to delete it and then complain that you're being stifled. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Okay. I actually miss it, but my reason for having it U1d was because I felt it wasn't right given my reputation. On reflexion, maybe that wasn't the right thing to do? Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've restored it. In reply to your philosophical question - having it deleted was like someone insulting your dog, so in response you had it put down. If you like the dog, keep it. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted Chrissymad and removed a G12 deletion tag from the Hull Barrett article. Do not do this. If an article has been identified as a copyright violation, it needs to either be deleted under the G12 criteria, or alternatively, you need to request all revisions which contain copyright content be deleted, so either way, the issues are identified in the deletion log. The reason for this is that undeletion requests need to take into account the original deletion reason, and any articles deleted under G12 or with revisions which were deleted due to copyright content would only be undeleted if the copyright issues are resolved (such as the source being made available under a suitable free licence). If an undeletion request was to be received with the log entry being for a G7 deletion for example, the article would likely be restored with little or no fuss, something we wouldn't want. We also like to review deletion logs and deleted contributions of users to review if there is a history of copyright violations which may require remedial action or a block. Nick (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking it was no longer a G12 as a blank page cannot be a copyright violation. The author blanked the page, which is normally taken as a request to delete the page, hence the G7. The copyvio revisions can always be RD1d. Adam9007 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you're deliberately choosing to miss the point - but as I've just said, this is about creating a log entry for this page so that anybody reviewing it in future knows that it contains copyright violating content and cannot be readily restored until the copyright issues are addressed. And I note you didn't deal with the copyright violating diffs in any way when you were playing with deletion reasons - no RD1 requests, just a generic G7 deletion request, so your claim that "The copyvio revisions can always be RD1d" would be no thanks to your unhelpful meddling in things which you lack competence to involve yourself with. Nick (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought that admins check the page's history for copyvio concerns and decline to undelete the page if there are any? Is there really any point in putting a RD1 tag on a page that is going to be deleted anyway when admins can just RD1 them anyway? Or are you saying that we might as well just delete it under G12 to avoid that hassle? Adam9007 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I would usually undelete on request, run the text through Earwig's copyvio tool, and if necessary, re-delete with the correct (G12) deletion reason to provide the necessary log entry. The other problem which occurs in cases such as these is that we can't undelete and leave a blank page, so we would restore the article with all diffs, revert back to the last diff with text, and that immediately creates a copyright violation which has to be deleted under the G12 criteria, which to my mind makes G12 deletion of a user blanked article which was a copyright violation the sensible approach. As to whether there's any point in RD1 deleting diffs of a page - if you're going to accept G12 deletion is the sensible option, then no, because the copyright issues are highlighted in the deletion log, but if you're going to contest deletions and replace G12 tags with G7s, and you're aware of the copyright violations, then yes, you need to do something which can generate suitable notifications and log entries for administrators dealing with the deletion and any future undeletions. Nick (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, there's no guarantee I'll get the RD1 tag done before the page is deleted. It's not like PROD or AfD where there's a whole week. Even G7s can be deleted at any moment. Maybe both G7 and G12 were applicable? Adam9007 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You removed my post on the page, Bard college at Simon's Rock, saying that I didn't have a source, I go to the school so I don't know what other kind of source you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelaneyG (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 Could you explain what logic there is in directing the name of someone's child to their article, particularly when it doesn't even mention them? ATD-R says if it's useful. How is that useful to a reader? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 How is that a useful redirect for a reader? You're missing that key part. Also, I came here to let you know that I find your poor declines to be disruptive and despite being asked by dozens of editors to stop assessing speedies, you persist. You've demonstrated a clear inability to understand certain criteria and your repeated suggestion to redirect anything related to another subject per WP:ATD-R indicates to me you do not understand this either. So again, please, please stop otherwise the next step will be going back to ANI. And that isn't meant to be a threat but to inform you that your behavior is disruptive and people have run out of patience. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Your post reminds me of this (I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but nevertheless it did). Please don't; it's counter-productive because it gets me in a state and makes me do bad things. I just want to be gay; not having to stress and worry about everything all the time (don't we all?). That doesn't do anyone any good. But anyway, I do not redirect just anything related to a notable subject: this RfC says that a strong connexion with a notable entity is a CCS, and WP:CCSI says Has a credible association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague (per WP:INVALIDBIO these pages can be redirected instead of deleted). A son is a close relative. SoWhy was talking about starting an RfC to promote that essay. Because of this discussion, I've had to suggest he gets rid of that statement. It's just as well given my frustration over receiving such contradictory information and frequently begin accused of things like "making things up" that I didn't do something really stupid like MfD it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 Someone popping into your talk page to tell you your behavior is disruptive isn't someone picking a fight with you, it's warning you that your behavior is not consistent with what is accepted at Wikipedia. The fact that you are still refusing to see that there is an issue and address it meaningfully is really just an indication of where this is headed. Adam, I've tried with you, others have too but you're now telling me that editors shouldn't tell you when you do something wrong because it will upset you? Wikipedia requires collaboration, if you can't do that, I don't know what to tell you. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯01:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not what's being said. It's how it's said. Plenty have just jumped on the offensive without giving what I have to say a fair hearing. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
How better can any editor beg you to stop assessing speedies? Being nice and giving you guidance didn't work. Being assertive and telling you to stop didn't work. Going to ANI less than a year ago didn't work. I would genuinely like to know what you expect here. How can an editor bring to your attention an issue and get a meaningful response and change to your actions? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯01:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Because the advice I'm given is so contradictory it is untrue: first MD is a strong connexion, then someone else comes along and tells me it isn't, first downloadable software is software, then someone else says it's web content, first WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7, then I'm told it does etc. I just don't know who or what to believe any more. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I'm not talking about this subject. I'm talking about how editors can approach you about your behavior and get a meaningful response and a change in your behavior. You are sometimes wrong. I am sometimes wrong. Everyone is sometimes wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you make an effort to not continue repeating that same behavior. That is the issue here. So again, i'll ask you, how can an editor approach you and get a change in your behavior without a 6 page long essay being given to them about how not to approach you? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯01:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If you don't know what the hell you're doing well enough to figure it out on your own then maybe you ought not be doing it. Just saying. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)01:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I hate to pile on, but I kind of agree with Chrissy and Ks0stm; if you're still getting confused with A7, maybe it's time to consider other places where your talents might be better used? You seem to have a fair number of GAs under your belt, maybe getting back to content creation and less in the CSD/PROD realm? Primefac (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't be following them, they're not policies. They're not even guidelines. These are user essays, they're some light background reading to enable you to understand what other users think, in this case, about deletion. I could write a user essay which says every user called Adam should be banned from interfering with Speedy Deletion tags, and from what you've said, you would actually follow it. What you should realise by now (but I don't think you do) is that essays don't need to have any firm grounding in policy, or reality, or even normal convention and everyday practice here on Wikipedia, they can have some ludicrous ideas and can quite easily get someone who follows them blindly, without injecting their own thought process into proceedings, into a lot of trouble (as you're starting to see now given the frequent, repeated level of complaints and warnings about your conduct you're now encountering). These essays should do no more than shape your own thinking, you should not follow them without fail. Nick (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
And might I ask, how do you have time to spend doing your continual Speedy Deletion Tag "clerking", but not content creation ? Nick (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
shape your own thinking. In other words, follow their advice? How can they "shape my thinking" otherwise? And these A7 essays do have basis in the guidelines: all this WP:ATD stuff is backed up by WP:FAILN, and of course WP:ATD. As for having time to do CSD reviewing but not content creation, I can't write a GA in a matter of minutes, like I can with other stuff. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: I think you missed my point: it doesn't matter whose advice I follow (with all this WP:ATD-R business, it;s SoWhy's and Ritchie333's), because sooner or later someone will come along and say I'm a complete nutter. That's what frustrates me.It just seems like I'm wrong no matter what I do. I do things one way, I'm disruptive. If I do them the opposite way, I'm still disruptive. If I go in-between, I'm still disruptive. I have no idea what the "correct" behaviour is any more. It seems to depend on who's talking to me. So, in response to your question: I don't know. I could stop doing WP:ATD-R, until someone else starts preaching about how I should do it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I have grown as a Wikipedian because of your work and because of advice from people such as SoWhy and Ritchie. I think their advice is best for people who tend to have a happy trigger finger on CSD tagging. You tend to be the opposite. I've said this before, but I think NeilN has given you the best advice of anyone. If you don't want to stop CSD review, you should follow that advice. It will save you a lot of stress, just like following Ritchie and SoWhy's advice has saved me stress on the opposite end. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It has given me a different perspective on how people view some new articles. I value different perspectives even when I might not agree with them. I tend to be more cautious with CSD now, which I don't think harms anything and in many cases could help. I mentioned it because I don't want you to think that your work doesn't have value, but I do think that you should take Neil's advice I linked to. Every one of these talk page discussions takes time away from editing the encyclopedia, which is a negative. Neil's advice is very good: I think if you follow it, you will have a lot less of these conversations, which is good for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Your disruptive actions are pervasive to the expansion of Wikipedia. Stop reverting edits about topics you are not working on and let the people working on those articles do their thing. Strifecnd (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I wasn't edit warring, I was removing unsourced content. I thought I was supposed to do what per WP:BURDEN? I thought persistent addition of unsourced content was considered disruptive? Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yes, that sort of content should be either sourced or removed. No, you should not go back-and-forth seven times with another editor trying to keep it off the page. WP:BRD and all that. Take it to the talk page, maybe try to actually find some sources? It was clear that the other editor wanted that information on the page, and wasn't going to stop. As for the content itself, it was not blatantly false nor harmful, so I didn't consider it vandalism, and such content isn't exempt per WP:3RRNO.
That user had previously been blocked for adding unsourced content, and his attitude towards me here speaks volumes.. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
And WP:3RR is pretty clear on that - if they're edit warring, you leave them a notification, then you report them to the 3RR noticeboard, and then they get blocked. To reiterate my original statement, you don't just keep reverting them until someone else notices. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Stress
Relax. Take some time off. Read a good book or take a short vacation. We've all been there. A couple years ago (right after my dad died) I got into it with another editor and popped my cork. I took a good six months off and finally came back. Don't quit. But don't let the place control your life. I am thinking of taking the weekend off and heading to the beach (southwest Florida here). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Think of it as an enforced wikibreak. Everybody needs time off. Serously, I'd take the whole week off. Wikipedia will still be here. Far too many people don't know when to step away for a little bit and smell the proverbial roses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I see you are having a wikibreak, and that's fine. I don't really know why you would take a break while you still had an outstanding nomination waiting to be reviewed, but nevertheless, Theme Hospital's verdict was that if minor improvements listed were made, the article would be swiftly given GA. From these variables, that will no longer be able to happen. Thus, if there are no changes, I have to deny it. From here, Theme Hospital will most likely sit in a state where only very minor improvements have to be made until re-assessment and given GA status is complete. When/if you come back, and if someone hasn't already (this article gets little attention), please make the minor improvements and re-nominate it for its third assessment.
@Manfred von Karma: I was originally going to wait until they'd finished before going on wikibreak, but as this was reviewed so soon I thought it might as well do it, or it'll fail and I'll feel even worse, which is of course the last thing I want right now. At times like these I wonder if I'll ever be gay here again: I'm always stressed, and worrying and fretting about something. I'm even worried this will fail! Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Haha! It's fine. The main reason I picked up this review (along with NHL 17) is that I had fond memories of playing it years ago. The article is very good and I have a soft spot for obscure PC games. After this, you should go on a nice long break -- from the looks of things, you deserve it! Manfred (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations! Theme Hospital passed the re-evaluation and is now a Good Article. The GA listing process is still underway, and may take from five to ten minutes.
@Adam9007: Everything should be good now. I've added the template to the page and the article has been added to the Video games GAC list. Congratulations, again. Manfred (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Manfred von Karma: Mentioning this here just in case any talk page stalkers know anything about this. I've just come across a GamesRadar piece/thing (not sure if "article" is the right word) about why David Darling loves Micro Machines, and there's an interesting quote: "If you look on Wikipedia, it's listed under party games in general". Where? I can't find that on this article, the article about the series, or on List of party video games. What's he on about? Am I missing something? Adam9007 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Manfred von Karma: It's in the GamesRader Presents Classic Gaming Volume 3, dated 2017. The "article" consists of just a quote by David Darling of Kwalee. I don't know if this bookazine consists of reprints of previously published articles (as is the case for Retro Gamer's bookazines), or if the articles are original. I searched for it on the GamesRadar website, but couldn't find it. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Manfred von Karma: I hope you don't mind, I fixed your linking to the category. You did it wrong and not only did it not show, it put this page into that category! I can't believe I didn't notice that before! Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam - hope you're doing well. I know that you are on a Wikibreak, although given your recent activity I think you'll probably end up seeing this. I saw your new userpage - I like it, it does look rather nice - but if I were you, I'd get rid of the section starting "Why is this page so gay?". Despite the fact that I know you have used that word to mean "happy", you could end up being accused of homophobia (also the page is rainbow coloured, like the LGBT+ flag). I wouldn't want that to happen to you considering you are under a significant amount of stress at the moment. Would you consider removing that section? Thanks in advance, and have a good day. Patient Zero (Public)talk11:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
No, not at all, I support your imterpreation which, after, is the likely one. I was just musing on the degree to which A007 is being deliberately provocative by using language that clearly means something different now to 1956 :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis
@Patient Zero: Actually, "gay" in that context does not mean "happy" (an inanimate object cannot, by definition, be happy! ), but the other meaning of "bright and showy". The colours are not intended to be a reference to the LGBT flag, but I thought the previous colours were too similar, so I changed them. While we're on the subject, I've always wondered whether the LGBT flag has anything to do with that meaning of the word, or if it's just coincidence? As for homophobia, I don't see how calling my user page "gay" is any more homophobic than calling something "straight" in a non-sexual context is heterophobic. If any sense of the word can be considered homophobic, it's the pejorative sense. From what I've seen, some consider even that sense not homophobic because they consider it independent from the homosexual sense. I'd make that argument for the "happy" and "bright and showy" senses: they've been around for far longer than the homosexual sense, and date back centuries. It's like Primefac said: is this really an issue? I suppose it will be if someone actually does accuse me of homophobia, but is that actually likely? That said however, I did, not so long ago, get into a spot of bother over the sense of a word used on one of the userboxes on my page (not sure if I ought to go into details here, but that userbox has since been deleted from my page), so who knows? But I certainly do not consider the use of "gay" in the "happy" or "bright and showy" senses homophobic. If the worst comes to the worst, I could always change it to "gaily coloured" ("gaily" is only used for "gay" in the original senses), or just "colourful". I see no need to get rid of the section. Adam9007 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
usage: Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men ( lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women. Oxford American Dictionary
It's certainly not homophobic, IMO that's an unjustified interpretation. But it is a little jarring - as Kudpung points out above. Sometimes the original meaning of a word gets lost and we just have to accept it. When was the last time you heard someone say that something is "terrific" meaning it is terrifying? --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Colourful may be the better word to use Adam. As Kudpung puts it, the usage of that word to mean "bright and showy" is now archaic. This incident has reminded me of when Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire says "I don't think I've ever tried so hard to be gay and made such a dismal mess of it. I get ten points for trying. I did try." Due to modern English standards, my class and I got a laugh out of this one! Patient Zero (Public)talk10:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I don't think I've ever heard "terrific" to mean "terrifying", but I'm reminded of the word "fantastic" and its sense of "implausible". It's not often (if ever) I hear that sense these days, yet it's not listed as archaic (or even dated) in any dictionary I've read (unlike "terrific" as in "terrifying"). Is it just me? (Yes, I have used it in that sense here on Wikipedia)
@Patient Zero: Hmm.. none of the major dictionaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) list "gay" in the senses of "happy" or "bright and showy" as archaic. Wiktionary says that the "bright and showy" sense is still found. Or are you saying that the problem is that is could be misunderstood? I suppose it could, but let's use some common sense:
"Why is this page so happy?" doesn't make sense.
"Why is this page so homosexual?" makes even less sense.
"Why is this page so rubbish?" - Why would I be insulting my own page? And even if I was, I would not use the word "gay" to do so.
Thus, "bright and showy" is the only plausible meaning here. Tell you what, to avoid any potential for confusion, I'll change it to "colourful and gay". The two words can supplement and support each other . By the way, I have used "gay" as in "happy" when interacting with others here. If any of them were confused, they did not show it. Pinging those (whose names I can remember) in case they want to comment: @Chrissymad, Manfred von Karma, Oshwah, VQuakr, and Toddst1:. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've seen you do it. I wasn't confused, but I did kind of blink - and even wondered for a minute if you were trying to make some other kind of statement. (Unlike the others here, I didn't think of it as possibly homophobic; I thought of it as possibly "coming out" or self-identifying as gay. I decided that wasn't what you meant, but anyone who sees that word nowadays thinks first of the current meaning.) Nobody's telling you that you CAN'T use this word if you want to. We're just telling you that the impression that word gives nowadays is not necessarily the impression you mean to give. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Yes, I suppose tellingChrissymad "I want to be gay" was a pretty daft thing to say . Out of all the synonyms I could have chosen, I picked the one that was by far the most likely to be taken completely and utterly the wrong way. He probably took that to mean "I want to be homosexual" and thought "wtf?". I do wonder just what is wrong with me at times. That said, I do try to keep that use of the word in context. That is, in situations where "happy" is the most likely meaning. Adam9007 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
−
FWIW I understood what you meant given the context and the same for the rest of its usage. I'm mobile so can't respond on full but while I think it's an uncommon use of the word I certainly don't see any issue with it. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯02:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Responding to the ping, Adam, you confused the heck out of me as well [2]. This was in response to "I can't remember when I was last properly gay here." I interpreted that as you were having difficulty with your homosexuality - not something I want to discuss on my user page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Sorry about that. At the time, I thought it was clear what I meant. But you're right: I do have issues. Just not those sort of issues. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam, I would like to thank you for making the save and your edits to Too Tight Henry, my article on the little known blues musician. You placed a refimprove box on the article and I believe I have made the necessary improvements. As I created the article, I don't feel in a neutral enough position to make the call to remove the tag. What do you think? Cheers WhiteSGPlayer (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Trebuchet 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. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
alternative to detagging
{{{Template:In creation}}} is a good template to apply if you intend to attempt a rescue, in lieu of removing the CSD tag.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
untagging CSD's
It is time for you to immediately affirm that you will stop untagging CSD's. And to stop doing it. I don't always agree w/ a CSD tagging, but rather than untagging, I leave it alone and allow the next admin to decide. This reduces disruption.
I only detag if I see a chance to rescue based on a WP:Before search. If you intend to attempt a rescue, place the {{{inuse}}} template on the page while you seek to find sourcing and improve the the article. Request time on the talk page to effect a rescue. Do not remove the CSD tag. If the article does not meet CSD, the reviewing admin will detag it. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Wrong answer. Many users have had this discussion with you. Your untagging has been inappropriate at times. It may be viewed as disruptive. This is now an official advise from an admin. Cease and desist, and affirm that you are doing so.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam, that would be unfortunate. It has been stated many, many times that you have plenty to offer to Wikipedia (you've got what, a dozen GAs?) and it would be a shame for you to quit entirely. CSD/PROD reviewing is the only place where you seem to have issues. Obviously I cannot make your decision for you, but I think it would be a waste for you to entirely quit over one small subset of Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: It's just that no matter what I do, how hard I try, all I ever get is stress. I just can't do it any more: I get enough stress in real life. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think no matter what I do is a bit hyperbolic, your GA work is pretty stellar. But, as I said before, this is entirely up to you to decide. If you do choose to quit, I wish you well. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: It's not just CSD: I thought I had no issues with anti-vandalism until the other day. GAs are about the only good I do here: everything else just gives me stress, no matter how hard I try to avoid it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 I'm going to be frank with you and you're probably not going to like it but I'd encourage you to heed my advice and that of the dozens of editors who have given it before me. Stop reviewing speedy tags. Just stop. This is a clear issue and it is with you. This is not one or two editors picking on you but on this unarchived part of your talk page alone, I count at least six people who have more or less asked you to stop. And what I think frustrates people the most is not just that you are frequently wrong about these tag removals but that you absolutely refuse to deal with the situation and continue to do the same things over and over again. Then there is also this responseevery time you are confronted about the same issue. It is the equivalent of a temper tantrum and we restart this cycle every few weeks. It would be a shame to lose you as an editor but if you will not change the pattern of disruption, I don't know what to tell you. An inordinate amount of hand-holding and time has been given to you and we are still here, months later and not even a year after your last ANI. The guilt trips are also old - you have a problem that needs to be fixed and it can be done simply: stop doing the controversial thing that is causing you (and many other editors) so much stress. So the ball is in your court now, deal with it or don't. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Then there is also this response - I'm not allowed to adjust the stress and mood meters to reflect my mood?
As for the rest of it, well I am now genuinely convinced that WP:CCSI (primarily what I base my application of A7 on) does not belong in project space. Should I WP:RM it, or would that be disruptive (like everything else I do here)? Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 811 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
Other people have said it. I will say it too. Your work here other than removing speedy deletion tags seems great.
As the old saw says - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is just... crazy. Why do that to yourself and everyone else?
If you need a break, please take it, but please come back and please leave speedy tag patrolling alone, and instead do stuff that brings you wikilove, of which there is plenty available for you. Please. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I hate it when you remove tags to get rid of bad pages in WP, especially when don't do anything to fix the reason why the tag was placed. I have never hated you. I do get angry at you. Which I shouldn't let myself express. But I have. I apologize for that. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Sometimes, a page simply doesn't fit the speedy criteria. Even if it won't stand a chance of surviving XfD. I get angry at people who get angry at me for no good reason, though I usually don't show it. As you can probably gather, I've cracked lately. If I've appeared rude to anyone, I apologise. Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Please just stop thinking about patrolling speedy and prod tags. I know it is hard to not pick at scabs. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You're leaving?!?!
Goodbye for now!
I'm sad to see you go! You're a great editor and a great associate. Best of luck with whatever you pursue next. <3 Manfred (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam,
WP:ITSALLGREY was written for admins, but you may find it useful as WP:CSD activity is an administrative action that does not require additional privileges. As you and I have discussed quite a few times, with the best of intent, navigating the nondeterministic guidelines has been quite difficult for you and many of your fellow editors feel it is well into disruption. The advice in WP:ITSALLGREY is pretty good. In your case, turning in your mop would be to avoid speedy deletions.
However, you've now stated that you've retired. I think that is a good decision. WP:DOSOMETHINGELSE. If at some point you feel like you can come back and edit constructively, the community will welcome you back. However, I'll encourage you to think hard about it and be sure of 2 things if you do come back:
You are prepared to deal with valid criticism without the passive-aggressive drama
You are here to create an encyclopedia, and not to engage in asserting your judgement on quasi-administrative issues
I understand wiki-stress. It's real. It can affect your judgement on-wiki and affect your real-life too. It has for me. Perhaps you can overcome these issues. I hope so.
@Toddst1:You are here to create an encyclopedia Funny, that's what I thought we were here to do too . I just don't understand why so many are so intent on speedily deleting pages that really ought not to be (at least without a wider hearing). I can give examples of articles we wouldn't have if I hadn't declined CSD. (this isn't the explanation I said here I would give. That's still to come). Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007: In other words, stop screwing around with CSD tags and go write some articles - if you come back - but don't continue your CSD BS and this passive-aggressive, childish "I'm gonna quit" nonsense. Either quit, or change what you're doing here. And if you choose neither, then as was stated below, many of us will seek long-overdue sanctions at AN. Toddst1 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop feeding your own ego with this nonsense. I'd love to see what articles you've removed the CSD tags from AND which were then taken to AfD AND which were kept by consensus, not just a list of articles you've removed the CSD tags from and nobody could be arsed taking to AfD. We've easily got 50,000 to 100,000 (and probably many more) articles which would be deleted if they were nominated for deletion at AfD, they just haven't got there yet. Just because you've removed CSD tags and the article hasn't been nominated or deleted yet doesn't mean anything and in no way should be justification for your continued disruptive CSD patrolling. And you've let some utter crap slip through because you seem to think just because something exists or has a reference means there's a credible claim of significance and speedy deletion isn't valid. Nick (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Way to completely miss the point. Pretty sure Nick was being rhetorical. If you failed 100% of the time you would have been tbanned from CSD long ago. You're clearly going to get it right occasionally. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't help but laugh at how fucking absurd Adam is getting. From the AfD nomination of Joe (website) he says "The website is not totally non-notable" and his suggestion was to merge the content with Niall McGarry. He didn't take part in the discussion for N0thing. It's further proof (not that it's needed at this stage) that Adam is woefully incapable of determining which tags to remove and which to keep, and that his intervention into the area of CSD is disruptive. There's also sadly no way to know what articles he looks at and chooses not to remove the deletion tags from, and whether they're articles which should have the CSD tags removed. Nick (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, I notice there was no proposed merger by Adam when he removed the speedy deletion tags from Joe (website), it was a simple "de-tag and run" exercise. If the suggestion of a merger was good enough to be made at AfD, why wasn't it proposed by Adam at the same time as he removed the CSD tag ? Everything he does suggests he's on some sort of one man crusade to remove as many CSD tags as possible, with no thought about the consequences, no care or attention being lavished on the articles he de-tags and no thought for the work he creates for other people with his half-arsed CSD patrolling. Nick (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
So, rather than continue a 20th discussion about this that accomplishes nothing, only to have exactly the same conversation with exactly the same problem in a few months, let me spell out exactly where we're at. Largely per this discussion, we are no longer requesting that you change your reviewing habits. You have two options:
You voluntarily agree to stop removing G11 tags from articles all together, and A7 tags from any articles other than those that are categorically disqualified (e.g., educational institutions, books, software, etc.), or
An WP:AN thread gets opened today to compel you to do so, and given the few dozen people who have raised concerns on your talk page, I don't think it's going to be particularly hard to find consensus on the matter
It's your choice. If you want to nit pick the particulars and lay all your pity cards on the table, that's fine with me, but we're going to do it at AN and not here. TimothyJosephWood12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Of ambition, gravity and comfort
Hello again Adam9007. In case you'll still be reading this despite your decision to leave:
I have first learned of your existence in February, incidentally related to a CSD. Out of curiosity and because my account was very new, I was lurking a lot everywhere to learn whatever I can, and have visited your talk page. Here is what I remember reading: "My reputation will be forever ruined and I can kiss goodbye to whatever chance that I might one day become an admin", followed with an answer to you: "I'm not convinced that your reputation is in much jeopardy, and while helping out as an administrator is a valuable goal it's not the epitome of Wikipedia".
When reading it, this reminded me of the link between ambition and stress. Ambition being a great motivation factor, although only my impression, it may also be partly because you want to work more in administration-related areas to prepare for a possible administrator role.
While administrators are necessary for Wikipedia to function, I agree with Acroterion that it is not the ultimate goal of Wikipedia. For instance, the readability and accuracy of articles is more important, as well as the creation of new content. These are things which you appear to be able to do, qualifying you as a worthy editor.
As for the reputation, we all make mistakes and it so far seems to me that six months is a long time on Wikipedia, long enough that even WP:NOTHERE editors can sometimes be allowed back, decisions at ANI cases can also be surprising to me when the problematic evidence presented is months old. We even have WP:CLEANSTART. At RfAs, it is not rare to see comments about an ANI case being too recent and to come back in six months. All this to suggest that I doubt that you have terminally ruined your reputation.
I think that less stress would be experienced if you remained on comfortable ground as long as necessary, leaving ambitions aside for a moment. When venturing further tentatively, if it does not succeed, why not go back to what works and rethink it? Perhaps that the next attempt will be more successful. Or maybe you'll decide that it's not something worth doing if it's not a source of joy.
Leaving completely is your choice and that's fine because there are so many things in life. However, Wikipedia may also be less of an obstacle to good life when taking in account our individual skills and limits, like for anything else. Another important aspect of life is cooperation, helping others where they need help, but also asking and obtaining help in areas when necessary.
If you're really leaving, hopefully my words can also serve in real life and I wish you farewell. And no, I'm not saying that you're an idiot ("I can take constructive criticism, but more often than not it's a sugar-coated 'you're an idiot'"). Far from it. Well met! — PaleoNeonate — 07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: I don't think ambition has much to do with it: it is not my ambition per se to be an admin. That said, I think it's safe to say it's not going to happen, ever, even if I do come back. Speaking of which, it's going to take quite some persuading, as it's to the point where being here no longer feels good: the negative now outweigh the positives (heck, every time someone leaves me a message these days, I worry it's something bad). With this stuff hanging over me, it's almost impossible for me to do anything in a gay manner, even if the stress is mainly confined to certain areas.
But this isn't the only reason I'm leaving: it's also because it seems like I can't do anything right. Take my user page for example. First it was "racist", and now it's (at least potentially) "homophobic" (I can't see where I mention homosexuality, can you? (or any talk page stalkers for that matter?) I couldn't see where I mentioned racist ideologies before, so maybe I'm going blind? ) Speaking of my user page, besides the "I've left" boxes, there are 2 that I wish had no place on my page, but undeniably do. It should be obvious which ones, but they are:
Adam9007 tries to be gay
but encounters too much Wikistress.
This user thinks or feels they are hated by everyone else (or knows it).
(oh alright, '''almost''' everyone else: I know there are a few who like me)
I said I'd give an explanation for my departure, and I was going to (and maybe I still will...) write a long post detailing why, I've barely scratched the surface with this post. The problem is finding the time to do so (especially as I have more important things to do in the meantime, hence this late reply), and I'll have to spend ages thinking about exactly what to say, as I can't even be sure it won't make things even worse. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Chileans
I dint have done vandalism, there is a link or citation added in the article, on the other hand, the user inaki salazar, have done much editing without give references, therefore, he is the vandal, not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.253.9 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've restored your NPR rights, as I feel you have taken all of the past criticisms into consideration and I'm quite frankly impressed with your editing this last week. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we can get to the point where we forget that the last couple months even happened. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: That was unexpected! @Primefac, Toddst1, and TonyBallioni: By the way, I did mean what I said here, but then 1 June came. I had just finished my outstanding university work, and if my calculations are correct (which they probably aren't :)), that's my honours degree finished (assuming I pass these assignments). I'm sure you'll agree that it is therefore unsurprising that I went gay all of a sudden, so decided to give this another shot (although I'll probably be keeping a low profile for a while, hence I'm still "semi-retired"). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I just hope I've passed. Not sure about the cocktail: I usually just drink water . Anyway, does this mean I can get rid of these userboxes:?
This user thinks or feels they are hated by everyone else (or knows it).
Adam9007 tries to be gay
but encounters too much Wikistress.
Or maybe my own version with a "synonym selector" (why? because I like having a userbox that's "better" than someone else's "identical" one ). Adam9007 (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you removing speedy deletion tags again ? You were told, in no uncertain terms, you either accept a topic ban to voluntarily cease this activity, which you are useless at, or we take you to AN/I and enforce action. You ignored that warning and 'retired' in what was clearly a deceptive attempt to avoid scrutiny. Are you going to voluntarily topic ban yourself, or do we need to go through an AN/I discussion to topic ban you ?
Pinging @Timothyjosephwood: about this too. Nick (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, this is disappointing. I thought this had been settled. As for your two recent removals, I actually agree that Muhsin ibn Ali and Tommy Dunker do not qualify for A7. However, that's not the point. The point is that you were ordered by Dlohcierekim to stop untagging CSDs. Here's the link: User talk:Adam9007/Archive 3#untagging CSD's. You had been advised to stop it many times before, but Dlohcierekim made it an order. That meant ALL CSDs, even when you are sure you are right. Even when you ARE right. Looking at that discussion now, I do not find that you ever actually agreed to limit yourself in that way, and apparently you didn't. But you need to. You really do. There is plenty of other constructive and helpful work you can do here. You do it well, it is non-controversial, your talk page fills up with thanks or simple questions, instead of stress-producing complaints about speedy tagging. So your choice now is simple: either agree that, yes, you will stop removing speedy tags, and mean it - or have that topic ban imposed on you by the community. Not in anger, not because anyone hates you - just because the virtually universal consensus here is that your untagging is so controversial that you should not do it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You do need to realize that since you defied a direct order from an admin, he could well decide to give you a block for it. Orders from admins are not simply advice, that you can choose to follow or not. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I don't want to add to the pile-on, but we really have two options here: you agree voluntarily to stop removing CSD tagging on any page and so say plainly here, or everyone agrees to take this to AN to get the broader community's feedback. I don't think anyone (yourself included) wants another long back and forth on your talk page, and I see these as the only ways of avoiding that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
And w.r.t to Melanie's comments, I am adding to the above proposal that we are exclipitly seeking a binary response here with the understanding that the absence of such response automatically qualifies as a rejection of the proposal put forward.Winged Blades Godric17:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I can't order anyone to do anything. My point was to get Adam to stop before someone hauled him off to AN/I. He's a great user and I want to protect him as an asset. If he's untagging disruptively, then that is where this could lead. If he's right, he's right. Going back to sleep. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to say that WP:ANOT (yes, I know it's an essay) says: Admins do not have "command authority" in the sense that some imagine (and no user is obligated to respect or listen to them). But anyway, as for my "deception", I really did mean this. But then, as explained here (as well as a couple of threads above this), I just felt happy after finishing university (assuming I've passed). I'm sure you know the feeling, but when you're so happy, you sometimes do things you wouldn't do otherwise, didn't intend to do, or even intended to not do (especially if you were annoyed when you intended to not do it). As for me being "useless" at CSD, I don't mean to gloat, but I can't be that useless if I've been awarded 3 barnstars for it, and one user even said to me: at the end of the day, you know CSD better than many editors. Obviously, not everyone agrees that I'm useless. That said, if a topic ban is where "knowing CSD better than many editors" will lead, then I assure you I will not be doing it. It's not worth it. (If not, then yippee!) I was going to do an article (you may know which if, as I feel like, I'm being "followed"), although I'm sceptical as to whether it'll survive AfD if it goes there (I only have a few sources, but they might (and that is a big might) just be enough), but I suppose there's only one way to find out... I started doing CSD again to give me something to do in the meantime, as I've just "finished" (I don't doubt there's still much to do if there's to be any hope of it being GA) another one. Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Short of ANI, everyone, there is always a possibility of an AfC. Attempts at discussion have not been fruitful. And Adam, you are too valuable to lose over an issue this silly. Adam, I don't detag CSD's unless I can show some glimmer of notability. That means I have found enough coverage to have a chance at AfD. One I declined and could not source to my satisfaction. If I don't agree with the CSD, I leave it for the next admin to delete. Usually, they do.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'm convinced that certain criteria are impossible to "understand", so I'm just not going to even try any more. It's driving me insane. It is essential that you understand that this isn't just me saying what you want to hear. Adam9007 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is doubting your integrity, Adam. In fact, I think just the opposite. I think this voluntary editing restriction is a great solution. Thank you for finding the right solution! Toddst1 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Adam. I know this causes you stress, and I know that you have been treated unfairly by some people and that you have felt hounded at times, all of which is not good. I think this is the best way for everyone to have less stress in their Wiki-lives, and thank you for responding. For what its worth, I meant what I said in the above section that I am happy to see you back, and I will add to that by saying I am very happy you are involved with NPP: you're quite good at it, and we need all hands on deck. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The sad thing is that my barnstars and the "I know CSD better than may editors" comment should give me comfort, but they don't . Maybe I should write a "Why I hate A7" essay to go alongside (or maybe even replace) my current one? Adam9007 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to treat CSD like I treat ethnic conflicts on Wikipedia: I don't comment on them, I don't edit, I don't go near, in fact, the only time I bring them up is to tell people to stay away from them if they want to be sane. If you think writing an essay will help with the stress, then you can do it and no one here would be mad about it. It just seems to me that the topic brings you a lot of unhappiness, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just not touch it, even with a 39.5 foot pole. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I've decided to issue you with a discretionary sanction notification because of your bulk BLPPROD removals on articles where the sourcing does not comply with the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy or the BLP proposed deletion policy. Your bulk BLPPROD tag removals are allowing significant numbers of unsourced BLP articles to be incorporated into the encyclopedia. You're more than welcome to continue removing BLPPROD tags if you contribute sourcing to articles in a way that brings them up to an acceptable standard for inclusion in the project, but removing BLPPROD tags and allowing unsourced content to essentially disappear amongst 5.5 million other articles cannot be permitted any longer. Nick (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Then you leave me with little choice but to start an RfC to increase BLPPROD's bar to a reliable source. That is not what WP:BLPPROD says. Or are you saying I should have used regular PROD or AfD for those articles? Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You should do what you feel is necessary. The view from the administrators and arbitrators I've spoken to is that a reference or URL/external link which only confirms the name of an article subject is not a 'source' for the purposes of WP:BLPPROD, a reference or EL only becomes a 'source' for the purposes of the WP:BLPPROD policy when it 'supports any statements made about the person in the biography'. This also means that any references or external links which are present, but which do not support any statements made about the person in the biography, or which fail to mention the person in the biography by name, are not 'sources' for the purposes of the WP:BLPPROD policy.
I would also urge you to think about why we have the BLP policy; it is to protect article subjects from objectionable, untrue and defamatory claims being made about them. It's not a game, it's our most important policy and it is designed to protect article subjects in the real world, where what is written about them on Wikipedia (true or not) can have significant consequences. Your behaviour, in addition to being problematic per our policies, is highly objectionable and deeply troubling. You should be thinking, every single time you remove a BLPPROD tag, whether or not you've done the most you can do to protect that person from incorrect, malicious, false or defamatory information being presented about them via Wikipedia, and it's quite clear you're failing to do that every single time you remove a BLPPROD tag and allow unsourced material to blend into the bulk of Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I, for one, would not mind a discussion about sourcing requirements ("names the subject" versus "supports any statements"). I still haven't figured out what that means, and there doesn't appear to be any obvious answer in the BLPPROD talk archives. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It's badly written but the "names the subject" rule should be used in combination with the "supports any statements" rule to ensure that a source which "supports any statements" also "names the subject", and prevents a random source being used which may or may not have anything to do with the subject of the article. Nick (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Given what you've said, it makes much more sense to have the BLPPROD bar at a reliable source, and I do feel it necessary to perhaps start an RfC. A regular PROD can be removed by anyone for any reason, forcing discussion at AfD, which can (and probably will) be avoided if this was to go through. Adam9007 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
