2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Blatant and unashamed refactoring of another editor's talk page post
I decided that this was one of the rare occasions when changing another editor's post is reasonable. Please reprimand me severely if you disagree. (Incidentally, the editor knows full well that evading a block by using sockpuppets is unacceptable, having been told that in his guise as other sockpuppets.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would we call that a time out? Thank you for correcting my finger slip. Yes, I know that he has been told on other accounts' pages, but he had not been so warned on this one and he hopes, if unblocked, to make this one his only page. So it was for the record, and to create continuity.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I quite often post a large chunk of explanation on a blocked editor's talk page about stuff which I know full well he or she has already been told. My comments are ostensibly addressed to that editor, but in fact they are there as a record to help other editors who may need to know, such as administrators reviewing unblock requests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was strongly tempted not to refactor your post, not because of a misplaced reverence for Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, but because the idea of creating an account to avoid a clock seemed like a pretty amazing idea, and worth preserving. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled
Hey, I am a new editor on wikipedia. I already have submitted 2 drafts of general use. This time, i am also writing about on page optimization, if you may see my draft. In meantime i am learning how to use externel reliable sources and for that i used my clinic from where i am taking treatment and what resources for reliabilty i saw i used them. It's ok if you delete my draft article but why have you deleted my user page. It's not ustified. Plese revert your commited action. i want to complete my draft and be continued with wikipedia.
Meenakshi Rana (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for the deletion of your articles are contained in the deletion notifications; I understand that this is clear to you. You are correct in saying that I deleted your userpage; it has also been deleted, prior to my action, by another admin. The reason is straightforward, and is completely justified. A userpage is intended to be a page on which you may, if you wish, post details about your activities, hopes, expectations, skills, interests, etc., as they relate to your editing within Wikipedia. It is also acceptable to include brief biographical details. We do not want to know about your past or present employment, your family history, your education, etc. The page is about you as a Wikipedia editor only. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created a page and submitted it for approval but it was declined, and deleted. The message I received is: If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. The deleted page was Draft: AutoBuy, and I have new content for that page to submit. I wanted to contact you as it said to first contact the person who deleted the page. Should I just go ahead and resubmit my content? It will be different, more neutral content. Thanks in advance for your help. Crystalhartwell (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have revisited your draft. As previously submitted it is grossly promotional in phraseology, and would need a total re-draft to be acceptable. Eliminating all the adjectives would be a good start, although not in itself adequate. Do you have a commercial relationship with this company?--Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. May I submit the revised content (I understand about eliminating adjectives, but not just that will make it adequate)? Should I go back to the original draft page and resubmit, or start a new page? Many thanks again. Crystalhartwell (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I re-submitted for AutoBuy. I hope I did it correctly. Eager to make any further changes to the new content in order to have it approved. Many thanks in advance.Crystalhartwell (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding inappropriate deletion of CSQ Research Canadian Think Tank website at csq1.org
Can I ask you to restore this Canadian Think Tank listing page please? I have explained politely citing facts, that Deb's assessments of: A7 No Importance - Does not apply. Economics, Government Policy, Politics, World Peace NGO Organizations are discussed in more than 150 pages of researched articles and books at this website. Content exceeds sites of other Canadian Think-tanks two or three-fold; and G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Does not apply. The site documents Worthwhile Venture Impact Campuses, Transition Economics, Maturity Modelling for Government Policy Globally, Certification Programs for Projects Mgmt & Technology Investment, and articles also support Wiki documentation in Economics, Kondratiev Waves, World Peace and others. I just noticed the deletion and question why these very subjective points were not raised for many much more trivial sites presented as Canadian Think Tanks by Wikipedia - Do you have the content text that I added here in May?
I do not see any text by you in May, on this or indeed any other topic. The article you mention appears to have been created by you in late June of this year, and consists of some three lines only; it mentions none of the things you list in your message to me, and does not appear, from the text, to possess any encyclopedic notability. Had I come across it I would have deleted it, but in fact I did not; it was deleted by Admin Deb. It follows that I am not prepared to restore it. You are entirely at liberty to ask the delting admin. If you do so it will save time if you sign you post, which you did not do in your post to me. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"23:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Dude, did you even check the page? Or just hit delete? I went through the requirements for a users page and hit them all. Seriously...
You will note that I repositioned, and correctly titled, your unsigned message. To answer your question, yes, I read the whole page. It absolutely does not fulfill the requirements of a userpage. The personal data appropriate are your skills, intentions, aspirations, expectations, etc. in the context or your editing within wikipedia. Your expertise on kettlebells, which is obviously important to you, is of no interest here; and your editing work on Wikipedia, be it past, present or future is not mentioned. I suggest that you review the userpage requirements, which you say you have gone through. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, you deleted a page I created for Sheikh Tarik. He paid me to create the page hence the content is almost the same. Can you let me know how I go about this since this is the write up he gave me? Regards MUK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukaiser (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just get shocked today that i received the message about the Speedy deletion of Chlara Page, it claimed"A tag has been placed on Chlara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.discogs.com/artist/4457401-Chlara. "The wording is similar because i'm the person who also managing the discogs artist profile. And i have all the right to post the information about Chlara because im the person who hired by her record company to edit her profile, instead the information of Chlara in other language is partly WRONG!
Chlara's page is not just for us. Its also for her fans or new fans that who listened her facebook live streaming/ public performance and more performance to know more about her! Therefore, if anything i can do better or you want me to show more sources and evidence to prove my right to all my wordings, please let me know and give me and Chlara a chance to be on Wikipedia, make Chlara's page to the public again.
I see Wikipedia's point and i will discuss with my boss and send the required documents, since im just employed as a part-time staff, it takes time to communicate to my boss. Please hold the Chlara page and we will do that as soon as possible. Thank You!
Very Sorry about that, the situation is that im the part time staff of the company evomg and the boss is often here, and my English is not really good but i tried to understand it. My question is that if i want to activated my Chlara Post i need to send a "statement of permission"(Which is the template from wiki) to make my Chlara content available? And do i need to provide more statement to prove that? Very sorry about my confusion.Josearce3 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have waiting for a month, can you help me to check if you received my Boss (Ashley)'s official email or we have more things need to give you? We want our artist on wiki and we can't stand that the unofficial Chlara wiki is still there but our official one still cannot going on Wiki. Please help !
There is an issue with User:Mehrdad 12. A friend of mine stumbled upon this historically innaccurate map (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:131Etendue_de_l%27Empire_Fran%C3%A7ais1.png) added to a the French colonial empire page. It was created by the afforementioned user. User:Mehrdad 12 has accounts on the Persian Wikipedia as well as Wiki Commons. He freqently falsifies image edits and contributions without sources and adds his self created images to articles. Most of his edits have been reverted by me, or others such as User: LouisAragon. I feel his image edits in particular are damaging to the integrity and mission of Wikipedia and Media Wiki.
I have a good reason to suspect that this is User: Artin Mehraban who formerly had a sockpuppet account as User:History of Persia. The MO is very similar. Bad English, no reason for edits, false information, and focus on revising Persian History, "Afsharia"("Mehrdad 12" associates with this on the Persian Wiki, and "Artin Mehraban" edited this article on the Persian Wiki) and image editing without sources. I also should point out that the name is very similar (Mehrdad v Mehraban.) I am bringing this to your attention because i believe action needs to be taken to block the account based on the history of edits. -- User:R9tgokunks (gespraec) 04:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sockpuppetry appears to already have been noted and acted upon; both accounts you mention are checkuser-blocked. as to the map in Commons; I am not an admin, or even an editor, there. I take your point about the map, and suggest that you take the matter up within the Commons framework. Obviously, of course, I have no authority within the Persian Wikipedia.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hi, I notice you did not ping me nor left any comment while deleting a page I created.I still say that it justified its notability and have started a DRV.Bingobro(Chat)04:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the author in this situation is not a policy requirement within Wikipedia. As to the article, I suggest to you that this airline may well achieve Wikipedic notability when it commences operations; until that, in my opinion, it has none. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Anthony Bradbury. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I created a page and submitted it for approval but it was declined, and deleted. I attempted a contest, but the removal was very quick. The message I received is: If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. The deleted page was Ray Brown (Producer), and I have new content for that page to submit. I wanted to contact you as it said to first contact the person who deleted the page. Should I just go ahead and resubmit my content? Should I do this from an account not named for the Wikipedia entry? Did you have concerns with references or notability? Do you have the deleted page as the copy editing and links and references were work I would like to retrieve and edit as possible.Ray Brown (Producer) (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did not, in fact, create an article; you created a userpage, although I assume that this was not your intention. The edit you created is correctly quoted by you as User:Ray Brown (Producer). A userpage in Wikipedia is a page on which a user can indicate his/her interests, skill, achievements, expectations, expertise, etc. as these factors apply directly to his or her Wikipedia editing. Brief biographical details are acceptable, but a retailed resume is wholly unacceptable.
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearing a backlog, need advice
Clearing through old requests at CAT:UNB, and came across User talk:RealJohnBambenek. I don't know enough of the background of the case to close his request intelligently, but it looks like you do. Can you resolve his unblock request one way or another? It's been 9 days and probably should be taken care of. Thanks! --Jayron3216:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was an out-of-process deletion, not "normal practice", so the puzzle is that you aren't encouraging an administrator to follow "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had it remained as an article, with a previous history of AfD resulting in a "no consensus" decision, then a speedy deletion would be very unlikely although not forbidden by policy. But any draft which is neither edited nor submitted within six months may be deleted under CSD category G13. And it was. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read the CSD policy, as there is no ambiguity for G13.As for the idea that G13 can be applied to articles in mainspace, articles in mainspace are not bread that goes stale. There is a different concept that comes from software, where Wikipedia policy and practice might be lacking, which is maintainability. Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As of August 2017 G13 can now be applied to any page in the Draft space. While I personally do not agree with this decision, it was made. There is nothing done "out of practice". Primefac (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I am sorry that you do not like my decision (I assume that you referred to that, not to the CSD policy). You will, of course, be aware that the text remains available if called for. I feel that there is little option is this situation; if a draft exists, has not been edited for six months or more, and the author has been notified of impending deletion, what else is there to do? I am aware that this draft, unusually, had been brought back to draft space from article space, but even so it must be treated in the same way as any other draft. There was, you will appreciate, a lot of time in which the draft could have been edited, and it was not. Certainly I could have returned the draft to article space, or I could have moved the draft into the requesting editor's talkspace, but neither is really in line with current policy. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find your decision to delete it perfectly sound. I was indeed referring to the G13-for-all decision earlier, mostly because I know a fair number of editors affected by it who then have to immediately turn around and request a REFUND. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misunderstanding your point. Even after the change in policy I have tended to avoid heavy-handed deletion of drafts which are time-expired but were not initiated at AfC. Most, surely, are deletable but some can sensibly be saved, by one means or another. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have two problems with this request, which normally I would be happy to at least consider. One is that it was not I who most recently deleted the article; the second is that it has already been re-created.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
I deleted the article because it makes no valid claim of notability. Note that the article was previously deleted some months ago for the same reason. Merely being an actor does not mean that the person described is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedia subject. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Can you restore this article? It seems that you probably didn't checked the talk page where one editor took the responsibility of the article per WP:BANREVERT. I had checked the article and the sources supported the content. Similarly, another G5(1996 Dausa blast) was declined under these circumstances. Capitals00 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always apply G5 rigidly; I will delay on the article you mention only because there is ongoing discussion about it - why there should be is not clear to me. I expect to delete it in the absence of alternative emerging consensus. I will, of course, not restore 1996 Delhi blast.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"13:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Humayoon Shams Khan/ Actor-Model
Hi Anthony sir!
I hope you doing amazing, this is Humayoon Shams Khan , I'm Canadian actor, model and director...
My PR team tried to create my Wikipedia page but since you have deleted my page long back due to some errors, and i'm really sorry about that. It will be amazing if you un deleted my page so my PR team can professional start working on my page because this year my 2 new movies are coming and here is link of my film on wiki " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torbaaz "
You, or as you say your PR team, created a user page here. A user page is intended to contain information about the user's skills, intentions, expectations, history, etc. as it applies to their activity within wikipedia. A brif biography is usually acceptable; details relating to activity unrelated to Wikipedia editing are not acceptable. Your two forthcoming movies, for example, therefore have no place on a user page. The page will therefore not be restored. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged; if someone, not you, wishers to creatre an article - not a user page - about you, this will be assessed without prejudice. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir, I want to inquire one thing, I had created one page name Ujjwal Patni. I want to create that page. I have enough resources and references to create this page but I need you guidance to create page. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.174.8 (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you say you have created the page I am not certain what question you are asking. You sent this message to me while using an IP address; I would suggest that you use your registered account from which to edit. If you want to create a page then you are free to do so; I seriously suggest that, to avoid disappointment, you do so in the articles for creation page, which contains a full explanation and instructions. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Omeezy Chappo
Hello Anthony Bradbury, I was wondering if the Omeeezy Chappo draft can be undeleted. I am in the process of figuring out how to produce the correct copyrighting for the photo I added back in December.
Recovery of deleted page.
Hi Anthony,
I appreciate my page was marked for deletion and so it was deleted, but is there any way you could recover for me the contents of the page and put it back into my sandbox so I can continue to work on it?
Firstly, please note that I have correctly formatted your request, which you failed to sign. The answer to your question; he lacks claimed encyclopedic notability. I will point out that since I deleted the article and you created it again (which you should not have done) it has been deleted again by another admin. If you choose to re-create it you will be running a serious risk of being prevented from editing here.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
You recently deleted Stargardt disease with the reasoning that is was a duplicate, but the article you link as the duplicate is the one you deleted. I think there has been a mix up, could you have a look?
I'm sorry for not being clear, what I was trying to say is you had just linked to the same article twice, so they appear as duplicates but there is only one article. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Hlavní strana has been restored. It was not listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days, so your deletion reason is blatantly incorrect. Please be more careful when using the delete button. --Tavix(talk)23:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is not careful about using the delete button at all. Anthony Bradbury and a few other "Editors" are a bunch of censor artists that determine what the 'FREE encyclopedia' will have in it. They are ignorant about many things and will freely delete content they don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channard (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, many thanks for zapping the first of the above. You may want to have a look at the second, which is the same rubbish in a different guise. He had a third Prof.Daddy Hezekiah, with a full stop, that's thankfully already gone. I've no doubt the author will try again, probably with something like Pastor Daddy Hezekiah. His whole editing pattern is very concerning. Very poor articles with clearly promotional intentions and almost certainly driven by an undeclared paid editing interest. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a couple of days ago I created an article about a card game called Dale of merchants. I think that you though that the article was about a web page or about a web game. It is a physical game that you buy in physical shops (it made of cards mainly (and a dice and a board)) and you deleted the article. The game was first published in English, and due to its sucess its rights were bought in other countries and it was subsequently published in Spain, Portugal, China, Poland, Italy. Moreover, due to its success an expansion of the game (new cards) were published two years later and new expansions are due to be published in 2018 and 2019. In my humble opinion any game that is translated and published in several countries is a relevant and important game. Much more if expansions are released. Other wikipedia articles about games of this kind and success (Codenames, Dominion,...) are not deleted. So, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadorcases (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even as a card game I feel that notability is not shown especially clearly. But the article is harmless, and I have restored it. As an aside please note that it is recommended that you sign talk page edits (but not article edits) which you do at the end of your post either by adding ~~~~ or by clicking on the pencil icon at the top of the text box. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salvadorcases, learn to provide wikilinks when you talk about articles. "The article is harmless"! No it is not - it is probably spam. Anthony Bradbury restored the page, but failed to remove the speedy tag so it got deleted again. Situation rectified. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 22:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the author of the game nor I have any connection with any game company, I just happen to like the game, the same way I like many other games and so I have contributed to some wikipedia articles about games of different companies--Salvadorcases (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I would like to know if there is any way one can turn a pointless conversation into a productive one that can lead to the lift of a ban on an article. Thank you very much.--Salvadorcases (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony, can you kindly e-mail the content of Family of Upendrakishore Ray to me, if there is anything substantial? On a side-note, despite the conversation at this AFD, this part. subject do seem to be quite notable but given the poor quality of the creator's articles, I wasn't much surprised to see it A7ed.Regards:)~ Winged BladesGodric13:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of one part-line stating that this Bengali family exists, followed by a list of family members, all of whom have their own wikipedia articles already. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"13:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little perplexed at your 'speedy deletion' of my draft article on Bach's Four Duetti, partly because I was still working on it and I do think you might have waited to judge it in a finished state. There is no article on the Four Duetti as such, though there is one on the publication (Bach's Dritter Theil der Clavierübung) which contains them. I am sorry you find it 'unsalvageably incoherent and I am of course open to any suggestions. I submitted it because it does contain material on the Duetti, including an explanation of their function which does not appear in the main article. The title would have been 'Bach, Four Duetti' or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Humphreys (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added that the incoherent comment was posted by the nominating editor, not by me. My deletion reason is as I stated it; I should have deleted the incorrect comment, and for failing to do so I apologise.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
You might want to have a second look at this speedy deletion. It's an article that has been around for 12 years and had hundreds of edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have looked. It has 535 edits dating back twelve years, as you say; it is an essay, and discusses things which are largely matters of opinion. I will not contest any move to restore the article, although I may well comment in any discussion thereon, but do not feel that my decision should be reverted. There is no policy here which instills immunity from deletion to articles with a long history.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that it's age prevented it from being speedily deleted. It's just that speedy deletion of long-established pages is very atypical and often inadvertent. And since A11 doesn't really apply to the topic of self, I thought that might be the case here. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that AfD might have been more appropriate. But I am inclined, as things are, to wait and see if there are any other comments forthcoming. I do remain convinced that the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is, in my view and as I said earlier, an essay.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Outline of self. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested, as a member of DigiByte's follower community, to know what were the exact reasons why DigiByte's wikipedia information was removed, because as far as I saw, it complies with the requirements (No SPAM, it is not commercial)
DigiByte is a blockchain technology with open source and free use. It is derived from Bitcoin, which is the mother of all projects based on this technology.
The DigiByte developer team has as a fundamental interest to provide this technology to the world so that anyone can use it, even in wikipedia it could be used for the protection of user data.
We thank in the name of the community to provide feedback on this, and if possible, re-position the page.
The article was deleted as a result of a community discussion at articles for deletion, which gave a unanimous decision by those editors participating in favour of deletion. AfD decisions are not often overturned, but you are welcome to make the attempt at deletion review page if you wish. I will not personally restore the page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it was not a copy but there was a very considerable overlap. I suggest that rather than trying to make a similar page you just add to the existing one. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rekha Kurup is not only an author of a best selling book, both in India and US, but also a multi-discipline personality.
I had cited at least 4 links revealing her popularity, activities etc.
Even if you think that the article does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant, I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement.
Thanks N Sanu / എന് സാനു / एन सानू 02:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We noticed that, unfortunately, the profile article on Prasanth Manghat(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prasanth_Manghat) was pulled out from Wikipedia. Confessing honestly, we are not the experts in Wikipedia and we might have, however unknowingly, gone ahead and posted some information which you, with a senior and a much respected profile, did not approve of.
We render our unconditional and sincerest apologies, if that is the reason for the profile to be pulled down. We would need your guidance in the same.
We tried to figure out who all are there on Wikipedia in the healthcare segment in the UAE/GCC and found few profiles which, we believe, are not as impressive or far-fetched as that of Prasanth. I am sure you would have gone thru them.
In our defense and perhaps in order to convince you that Prasanth deserves to be present on Wikipedia owing to the sheer interest in the industry on his profile, apart countless of other reasons, we are sharing the profile of Prasanth Manghat, the CEO and Executive Director of NMC Health.
Just few statements as a summary on him:
He joined NMC as the CFO in 2009. Worked on getting it listed at the LSE in 2012. A first from the UAE. NMC remains the only GCC based company, as on date, to be listed at LSE and is a part of FTSE 100.
Guides NMC to buy assets in different treatment classes (Fakih, Americare, Dr. Sunny’s and Clinica Eugin) and forayed into an inorganic growth route in 2015 as he gets promoted to the ranks of the Deputy CEO. He goes international with the acquisition of Clinica Eugin and guides NMC expand further in Spain, Denmark and Italy apart from consolidating at Columbia and Brazil.
Leads NMC to acquire UAE’s oldest hospital : Al Zahra at Sharjah and takes NMC to the LSE 100 as the Market Cap of NMC goes close to GBP 7 billion (March 2018) with a the stock price of GBP 2.10 in 2012 to over GBP 35 in March 2018.
NMC although is a 44 years old company but it was Prasanth, under whose leadership it made a huge turnaround and went global. Accordingly, Prasanth is a much sought-after thought-leader when it comes to subjects like, Healthcare in the UAE/GCC, Tech in Healthcare, the M & A in healthcare and the future of healthcare in terms of IVF, Long Term Care, Paediatrics, Geriatrics and Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) like obesity, diabetes, hypertension and etc..
You will notice that I have deleted the extensive list of links you posted, which I have no need to read. The article still exists as a Draft, and is therefore available for you to edit into an article appropriate for this encyclopedia. I will clarify that comment; the facts which you have chosen to post in my talk page are the facts which should have been included, possibly in more condensed form, in the article. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, thank you for your guidance. Will re-work the article and upload it in draft.
Thanks and Regards
Anurag Kashyap
Head - Corp Comm & Comms Strategy
NMC Healthcare, Floor 28, Corporate Office, Etihad Towers 3,
P O Box 6222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
T: +971 2 4978381 | F: +971 2 6332256 | M: +971 565061147
Anurag Dev Kashyap (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony,
I have redrafted the article based on your guidance.
Would you so be kind as to please go through the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prasanth_Manghat) and share with us your comfort and/or advice if any.
Thanks,
Anurag Kashyap
Head - Corp Comm & Comms Strategy
NMC Healthcare, Floor 28, Corporate Office, Etihad Towers 3,
P O Box 6222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
T: +971 2 4978381 | F: +971 2 6332256 | M: +971 565061147
Anurag Dev Kashyap (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me good enough to submit. Please be aware that while I have authority bto delete articles I have no authority to approve them. That is for the community to decide. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to answer specific questions, but I feel that I have neither the time nor indeed the skill needed to fulfill the role of mentor. I suggest that you go to WP:ADOPT and follow through from there.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft article was submitted, and declined in June 2016. As nothing further was done with the article it was deleted under CSD category G13 in January 2017.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly true. But I did not action the AfD template: I actioned the CSD G7 tag which was at the top of the page(request by author to delete). Looking at it now, it does appear that the deletion reason relates to the AfD, not to the speedy. Probably my error, but the speedy delete takes priority in this situation.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Budmaster could, if he wished, have asked me directly. I do not bite! To answer your question; specifically, I did not delete Budmaster, I deleted user:Budmaster, and this makes a meaningful difference. A userpage must not be used for advertising or promotion of any kind, be it for products, services or organisations. A userpage should be used by a user to indicate his/her interests, skills, aspirations, history, intentions, etc. as they apply to his/her editing within wikipedia. You will presumably be aware that this userpage was nowhere near this format, and this is why it was deleted. Whether an article (as opposed to a userpage) with the same text and entitled Budmaster would have been deleted as an advertisement is a possibility but not a certainty. But as a userpage it was not acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recreating value of Ori Shavit
Hi, I want to create the page you deleted almost 1 year ago, Ori Shavit. The page/value was denied because of notability concerns. Since the person has gained more recognition, has issued a book and already has a Hebrew page (that should be connected via WikiData), I would ask you to please undelete my draft, if that is possible (so I'd continue editing and adding from the same point I stopped), or let me know what is necessary for having the entry rewritten. Thanks, --Nexen.love —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've deleted four redirects created after detailed discussion here as "implausible". I find that hard to follow given the fact sources are listed there. Can you shed any light? I can't see the form the redirects were created in but they seem like classic {{R from nickname}} cases. Thanks. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "the big house" exists, but I do not see the need for a redirect in dialect. Whether an editor looking to read about HMP Barlinnie would expect to find it by typing in "big hoose" is in my opinion unlikely; if this is felt to be an unreasonable view restoring one or more of the redirects will not cause me any grief. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"18:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. An editor, I agree, isn't going to use such language unless perhaps quoting somebody; even then, it'd be necessary to explain in such a way as to make a direct link more logical. A reader, however, is much more likely. I read WP a lot and find nickname redirects very helpful to navigate myself onto topics from elsewhere that I'm peering in on as I read other sites. I can imagine, say, a Londoner or US reader using The Big Hoose or Bar-L in the same way I use the Gunners or tankbuster to read up on stuff. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.11.149.25 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've gone ahead and added citations for the prison's nicknames into the article (though I suspect better places than the lede could be found, but it's better than nothing). -- BobTheIP editing as 92.11.149.25 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Prof Dr.EGR SOLOMON page
Hi Anthony,
Can you please let me know what is the criteria I missed which made the page to fall in deletion category.
Prof Dr.EGR SOLOMON is a famous Doctor in India for the past 50 years and his contribution to the society is vast.
He passed away recently and I created this page in remembrance of him and his achievements which will be helpful for the future generations.
I would like this page to be published and please let me know what details i have to provide for it.
Hello, I am curious as to what was exactly copyright? quotes are quotes. Actual sentences were amended from the original articles and books I used for sources.
HOW DARE YOU DELETE MY PAGE, IT WAS JUST A JOKE I HAD WITH MY FRIENDS AND THERE NO REASON FOR YOU TO CARE! IT WASN'T RUDE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH TO DELETE THE PAGE!
We do not do jokes here; if you want to post jokes, do it somewhere else. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC
Deletion of Casa Pacifica Article
You apparently tagged my page for speedy deletion and then deleted it immediately before I had a chance to respond.
In my original article, I provided a number of citations showing why the subject was notable.
Can you please elaborate on your decision, specifically why you do not feel the subject was notable?
Ideally, you should reinstate my article since I did not have sufficient time to discuss this with you prior to you taking action.
TIA.
Not so. The page was tagged for speedy deletion by DGG who is, incidentally, a vastly experienced editor. I deleted the article approximately one and a quarter hours later. I have just reviewed the article, and do not see a reason to reverse my decision. You have the option of seeking a community view at deletion review. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TappyToon Deletion
Hi, I just wanted to know why TappyToon was deleted since it met all the requirements. It's a webtoon website like Spottoon yet this page was deleted. Is there a reason for that? AquilaXIII (talk) 02:11, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
I strongly disagree with your decision to speedify this article instead of proposing for deletion so that people interested in Estonian and/or LGBT issues could have a say and true consensus could be formed. It is in Estonia a well-known ultraconservative/anti-gay hate group (cf. Save Ulster from Sodomy) that has 24,700 Estonian Ghits and a number of English Ghits: [1], including a mention in The Independent article Estonia becomes first former Soviet state to legalise gay marriage. Its leader Varro Vooglaid is often seen in talk shows on Gay rights issues representing the views of the opponents and the adherents of the organizations are often seen in anti-Gay rallies. Thus, I recommend that you undelete this article. Regards, Miacek(talk)17:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was going to delete them on the spot, but in some cases (like, when it's not someone doing Imaginary Survivor on their user page) I follow this process. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richmit
Why did you delete my page? This was my page that I wrote for fun about MYSELF. It was not harming anyone and was not on the public domain. It was for me and I wrote it nearly 10 years ago while at university during my dissertation years. I find this a completely unacceptable. You had no right to delete this as it was mine. You never asked or even questioned what it was. You just deleted it. It was a story and history that I created for myself as a memory. You have deleted a memory. This is seriously ridiculous as it was not harming anyone. I am seriously upset about this. Why did you not ask?! Richmit (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the page was created by you and about you. You are quite wrong in saying that it was not in the public domain; all Wikipedia pages, including userpages, are public and universally available. Whether it was harming anyone is wholly beside the point; it was inapprop[riate as a userpage. In Wikipedia a userpage is intended as a locale in which an editor can write about his skills, aspirations, expectations, intentions, etc as they apply to his/her editing on wikipedia. It is not intended to be used for anything else. the text still, of course, exists. it you wish I can post it on your talk page. Let me know. If I do this please do not shift it back to your userpage; that would now, after this conversation, qualify as dispuptive editing. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ma still awaiting the Anthony and have been awaiting for over a month. Please advise when you will be posting my deleted page for me to save elsewhere. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmit (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you compare the length and significant detail contained in those two articles, as compared to the one you are asking to be restored. I also suggest that you should look at the long article Umar Khalid which was deleted by community decision in 2016. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Accesscrawl: I suggest you work on it in your sandbox or draft space (Draft:Umar Khalid). That way you have time to work on it without someone coming along and deleting it as unsuitable for main article space — which was the case here. It's a good practice to avoid using main space for drafting articles. Draft them somewhere else and then move them to main space when ready. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at deleted page
I was looking at random AfC submissions to accept or decline them, and I found Draft:Humphrey Lloyd Hime. It seems to be very well sourced, and based on what this person's done in his life and how many books reference him, it seems to be a notable topic. I was thinking about maybe accepting it. However, I realized that you had speedy deleted it when it was in the main namespace per WP:CSD#A7. Are you able to take a look at the deleted Humphrey Lloyd Hime page and see how it compares to the draft? Thanks.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time?13:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Anthony, pay attention and at least wait for a response to the Editor's questions
Anthony, you reminded the Users to be nice, and we suggest to also be nice. You deleted the page that was in dispute for deletion not waiting even 5 min for a response, when the Contest for Deletion was posted. Reasonable time, at least several hours should be given for a response. Plus multiple discussion supporting the page were listed on the Talk page, but when ListedforDeletion was started by Lem, it was lasting only for 1 day, ignoring almost an year of history of discussion by other users. Same day when Lem listed the page for deletion, he obtained to "Delete" opinions and deleted the page, not allowing other users to vote. This is against the policy "be nice" or even the policy to base a deletion on consensus. Please review and undelete the page "Geodakyan Evolutionary Theory of Sex". It is the theory of mathematical biology and not a self-promo, considering that the author of the theory is probably about 100 years old.KaiStr (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The page which I deleted was a re-post of an articles previously deleted by reason of community decision at articles for deletion. For this category discussion is not appropriate, given only that the articles is the same as the previous on; I checked, and it was. If you wish to make the claim that the AfD was conducted incorrectly, and please note that I did not contribute there in any way, then this is the wrong forum in which to argue it. You should, as was suggested to you earlier, go to deletion review. Incidentally, while I agree everyone should be nice I do not recall saying so in this context.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with being specialized in my field, and me having just one topic of editing? Neither of you know mathematical modeling of evolutionary theory, but somebody should inform the public about important ideas. However WP:COI is not applicable here, contrarily to Mr. Lem's position. I understand that Mr. Lem doesn't is caught up with his hate against Russian science but, Anthony, perhaps you should be more careful about the judgement on whether or not a consensus was reached for deletion of the 1st page? Clearly Mr. Lemm unilaterally organized "a quick kill" after hammering this page for a long time (just please review the Talk of the deleted page), launching a clear personal vendetta on the ETS Talk page. Then, miraculously, 2 "delete" opinions showed up immediately when Mr. Lem launching the deletion, and the whole decision about "consensus" was based on those 2 opinions (conveniently coming out of the bushes in the same day, what the odds?), not from people who work in this field. The consensus was not based on the opinion of people who participated in the discussion on the Talk page and they didn't have even a chance to notice the urgency or might be didn't have a chance to response within 7 days. This ETS theory is not shared just by 2-3 people but by a whole generation of Russian scientists. It is sad that Anthony hesitates to reverse his (too rushed and not based on consensus) action, and even didn't let me reply to the initial "speedy deletion" message when the page was posted for the 2nd time. The rules indicate that I can contest the deletion, and I contested it right away. I have to be given a chance for posting explanations, however you didn't give me time to post it: within several minutes the page was deleted. Considering his actions around the 1st page, Mr. Lem should be excluded for bad practice and bad faith - what mechanisms of protection against Editorial biases does Wikipedia has? Also, please post the link here to the archive of the deleted Talk page - I want to copy all the material of the former discussion and make this matter more public. Apparently, Wikipedia is affected by "human nature" and showing the flaws of it will improve future editing. KaiStr (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with Nothing is wrong in editing in your area of expertise. The badly wrong thing is the relentless promotion of the work you are associated with. This is called "conflict of interest" and disallowed in wikipedia: WP:COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in missing the point. I have no interest in discussing the AfD, and no intention of doing so. The deletion which I performed was on the basis that the article, having been deleted at AfD, must not be recreated. As you have been told repeatedly, if you are unhappy with the original deletion take it to deletion review. You will gain nothing at all by arguing here. Please stop doing so. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This morning, I received a message from you accusing me incorrectly of a copyright violation on a wiki titled "David W. Barre." You apparently discovered a .pdf with identical text that I had uploaded a day earlier, but which I have not been able to figure out how to delete as it is not a text file. I responded to your note by posting a protest, asking you to check the author's name on both items, mine "Wilkenw." In spite of this, you or someone else erased my wiki, apparently without bothering to check that I had posted both items.
So, how do I get rid of the .pdf, so that I can re-post the "David W. Barre" wiki which I have authored??? Bill Bill Wilken 00:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkenw (talk • contribs)
Being an active AfD does not preclude speedy deletion if the speedy criteria are met, as they are in this example. I will not wheel-war as the issue is essentially trivial, but for the record I do not agree with your action. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Bradbury I wanted to follow up on the page Albert Schröder and the question of whether I deliberately created a false article. The answer is that it is false and was being done so for the purposes of a University project. Following it being flagged as a hoax I immediately flagged it for speedy deletion as I do not want it to remain on wikipedia. I wanted to thank you for the time you have spent to fact check the work on wikipedia. The thesis I am working on in University has been to document the increase load of false or misleading information that has been created on the web. Over the past few months myself and two undergraduates have been stress-testing information sites of varying reliability in order to gauge how efficient and fast that site’s administrative community is at eliminating and fact checking false information. My apologies for unnecessarily taking up your time however hopefully the results of my research may hopefully, in the future, be applied to better help the curating community in combatting the spread of disinformation online. Infinityplatinum (talk) 5:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hi Sir, You deleted an article that I was working on with User:Natureium to eliminate all promotional tone or content. Please retrieve or put that in my sandbox so I can fix the issues, so you can check. I tried hard to find quality references and information. I'll appreciate your help. PLease help me learn. Thanks Calabond (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi, Tony. Welcome back. I hope you had a good break. Probably I should take a break soon, too. We all get a bit worn out at times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page Emily_L._Spratt
I want to request the undeletion of page Emily_L._Spratt.
I added the needed citations that the previous discussion demanded. I carefully reviewed the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability and Spratt does have significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. I have provided verifiable evidence of this subject’s notability in the references. This subject has been notable since 2005 upon receiving a major award, therefore subject’s notability is not temporary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerWilson (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article. The majority of the citations you include are irrelevant in terms wikipedic of notability, either being bare mentions of Ms Pratt or being articles by the subject of the article and therefore by definition not independent secondary sources. There are, however, two citations which mention her in some detail; this is barely enough, but is adequate to qualify for retention or the article. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Växjö United FC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thanks, Nzd(talk)11:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your limited command of the English language makes it difficult to understand what you are asking. You appear to be asking how you can capitalize on your musical skill in Wikipedia. The answer is that you cannot. Apart from that I do not know what you are asking. Note that in Wikipedia you cannot write about yourself. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It has been deleted by Ian.thomson. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see if they are the same, as if so we may have a problematic editor on our hands, jumping accounts to copy/paste deleted content. Once again, sorry for hassling you, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Stormy clouds: I'm pretty sure it's the same user. Den10 Music registered their account before User:Diddaler was deleted. I think the name change was innocent and they just didn't realize they aren't supposed to promote themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Hi AB,
You deleted this article following the outcome of this deletion discussion.
As you can see from my edit summary here I have adopted a "let's wait and see" attitude to the re-creation of the article.
Your thoughts about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am confused as to why my article was recently deleted? I believe I cited independent sources from the company, and I have no affiliation with the company myself. In fact, it appears there are far more schools associated with CLT in 2018 than in 2016 when somebody first created this article. Please let me know your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed sanfrancisco (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original article with this title was deleted as a result of a community decision at AfD. The article you posted says less than the original, but what it does say it says in exactly the same way. Your sources and lack of affiliation were not a consideration.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that MCC214's English is worse than Fauzly's, because I don't think that they are two different people. I think that they are the same. I will be filing an SPI.
Point taken. I had thought about it, but did not have any substantive evidence to go on. Clearly you have gone into it in more depth. For the record, and without in any way arguing against your statement, I do feel that the English used in the MCC214 account is worse than that used in the Faulzy account; obviously it is easy to imitate a lack of linguistic competence, to a greater or lesser degree.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; thank you for pointing it out. There was a long run of inappropriate edits about volleyball which I deleted, and this one clearly got mixed in with the deletable ones. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question on a few G6s
I wanted to ask if you'd reconsider two of your recent G6 deletions:
You deleted Man la Yahdhuruhul Faqih a few days ago with the rationale that Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih already exists. That doesn't seem to be a valid G6 reason, in particular as it contradicts A10; as it had been around since 2008, it should have been redirected.
You deleted Cocksucker with the rationale redundant. Likewise, that isn't a valid G6 reason, in particular as it was a perfectly valid soft-redirect using {{Wiktionary redirect}}.
I figure I'd ask you since there are two at once, but it seems to me they were both improperly tagged and should be restored. ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: I will not argue with you, except on this page. But I invite you to return to Cocksucker. You will find that it goes nowhere and says nothing. As to the first deletion you merntion; I concede that there is an "al-" in one version ad not in the other. I believe that typing either version will default to the same page at present, but will revert my deletion if you wish.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: Having restored the article I took another look at it; I suspect that it may well still qualify for speedy deletion under a different category, but obviously will let another make that decision. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the quick response. You and the tagger were quite right that it was a duplicate of Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, so I've redirected it there. As for cocksucker, yes, it's not anything of great significance, but it is a redirect to wiktionary, so it's not nothing. If you think it should be deleted, I don't have any real thoughts on the matter, except that it should go through WP:RfD. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great American Hypocrites
Hi Anthony. There's a discussion at the Teahouse about Great American Hypocrites, which you deleted as an attack page. It was previously a redirect to Glenn Greenwald, the author of a book titled Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. As there is nothing in the page history that constitutes an attack, I assume the nominator misinterpreted the title as an attack on Greenwald himself. Either way, I don't think it meets the G10 criteria. Would you mind undeleting it? (Or object to me doing so?) – Joe (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
You deleted this in 2012. We now have Kurdish Dog Breed claimed to be a 5000 year old dog breed. The original draft Draft:Kurdish Shepherd Dog seems to be copied from here but by only a few days.
Ah, now this is only FYI as I've deleted it. Mohamad137026 was making the same edits and was blocked for copyright violations, the article mentioned above was created by Bukan1400 who turns out to be a sock. So I've CU blocked both. Doug Wellertalk15:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing of North Korea, 1950-53
You recently deleted the above page as an unambiguous copyright infringement. I don't think that should have happened because it is largely an expansion of the "Bombing of North Korea" section in the Korean War article, started by me from various sources. The "Sourcewatch" article appears to be a copy of Wikipedia, not the reverse.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Finnusertop's comments, which have since been deleted:
1. Yes, it seems the "Sourcewatch" article was created first, but both articles were created by Tednace based on material from other Wikipedia articles.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
What happened? I have gotten so much constructive criticism from other editors and without a warning you delete what I have worked on/edited for months? I apologize that I am not an experienced editor, but a heads up would have been nice. This is so demotivating and I am really sad inside. Can you bring back the article so I can correct what you don't like?
That is not true! It was completely ready to be published. The comments of references and sources were all corrected!! All of them! And a copyright violation should be pointed out. Not a reason to delete months work. Can you please bring it back!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.77.141 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will not return it to article- or draft-space, because copyright violating articles must not exist in either. I will restore it to your talk-page, but if you post it without complete re-wording to avoid copyright violation it will be deleted again. Remember that close paraphrasing is not acceptable.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Ross
Fr Anthony Ross - it's possible that you may have had adequate grounds for deleting the article about him. Since you did not state them, and left me to lucky dip in a blanket wikipedia paragraph for what they might be, I would ask on what grounds you consider this action to have come within your definition of being "nice"?Delahays (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Admin I wrote an article & added many notable links of it including MTV Music Chart , Newspaper , magazine but when it comes to review your mods bring people & decline the article as we fought with each other. If you think the article i wrote is not notable then explain why mtv music have wikipedia pages here ? If still not notable you can delete I'm done with it , thanks for everything dear admin.
Hi Anthony, would you mind restoring Jacob Wohl to my userspace? You can delete my existing Sandbox and place it there if you like, or wherever is easy. I noted you were the deleting admin here [3]. As of the past couple of days a great deal of news articles have appeared about him and I suspect these, combined with some of the earlier stuff, would satisfy the GNG. I'd like to give it a go. EnPassant (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for assistance with challenge to article redirect/merge
Hello.
A few days ago, editor Hyperbolickcreated an article on Blexit. When I saw the article, I then added additional info and reliable sources to the article to ensure that the article is well sourced. Unfortunately now, the article has been merged into the Candace Owens article, without any prior meaningful discussion to achieve consensus. On the article's talk page, the editor Hyperbolick suggested merging the article, and only 15 hours later, without waiting for any editor (e.g. those editors who contributed to the Blexit article) to appear to make their opinions known, the article was merged into the Candace Owens article. I protest against this merger as it violates WP:MERGE: there was no merger proposal, there was no merger discussion, and the time between the suggestion and the actual merger was just 15 (fifteen) hours. I also kindly ask you to please restore the Blexit article, so that we can have a meaningful discussion on whether or not the article should be merged. This way we can achieve community consensus in the usual proper way. Thank you. 77.2.2.197 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't how to reverse a merger or a redirect, and so I decided to contact an administrator for assistance. I went to Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and picked an admin from that list. Besides, the merger was in violation of Wikipedia's Consensus Policy. The information page on merging stipulates, that discussion must take place prior to a merger. If you cannot or will not assist in this case, pls kindly point me to an info page where I can inform myself on how to undo a redirect/merger myself. Thank you. 95.114.82.207 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing a merge requires admin permissions. I suggest that you attempt to find an admin willing to do this, which I am not, at WP:ANI.
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Hi, can you please help me locate the previous discussions that prompted you to move pastırma to pastirma? I am asking because even English language sources spell it pastırma. Phoenetically, it would make more sense for it to be spelled Basturma (but that creates the confusion of the b being replaced with a p sound in spoken language). "Pasteerma" just doesn't make any sense and only seems to serve the purpose of replacing ı with i, which is not correct in English or any other language. Seraphim System(talk)21:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I was going to move the page but I saw it had previously been moved by a well-known sockmaster in the area so I took a closer look at the history instead of completing a unilateral move. I saw in the move log for the redirect [4] that you had moved it to Pastirma in 2013 (so long ago you probably forgot). Due to the history, I wanted to check if you would be opposed to my moving it again. (Right now I am leaning towards Basturma as that seems to be more recognizable in English) Seraphim System(talk)19:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anthony Bradbury. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Anthony Bradbury. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I was looking to write an article about a pianist, but saw that a page was created and deleted a couple years prior due to not meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICIAN. Seeing that you participated in the deletion discussion, could you approve for it to be created again? I believe it now strongly meets notability requirements. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nathan_Lee)
The musician in question has since won a major competition, and received news coverage in both the New York Times and the Washington post.
There's absolutely no way this could have qualified for deletion. I know your deletion was in good faith, but having reviewed the page, and talking to the actual author of the page, via email, G7 could not qualify because CBlewer has substantially modified the article from the one initial edit of the "original author" up to the point they requested the article deleted in bad faith. I will be happy to discuss via email if you wish. :-)—CYBERPOWER(Chat)00:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll love to know why you deleted an article on Eyitayo Ogunmola, which I created, without prior notice of any sort of contravention. Moreover, it was an article in progress. Thank you for an expected response. ReoMartins (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Ascentium Capital
Anthony, thank you for noting the update. I have requested to retrieve the article. Previously, Davisonio had reviewed the article and gave the decline reasons, and that is why I noted the changes to Davisonio's suggestion on his talk page. I understand that the reviewers are busy and intentionally did not want to resubmit the article before hearing from Davisonio. Please retrieve the article. I will work on it further and resubmit it. Thanks for your help! IrfanAli512 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like get a copy of that deleted draft and make the necessary changes to get it published. Is there a way you could provide the original draft && give me some insights on what I need to change to get the article published?
I will place a copy of the deleted draft in your talk-page. Please note that the draft was deleted as being a copyright infringement: any re-creation must be in your own words, without either copy-pasting or close paraphrasing. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"10:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the Kirsten Nimwey article
Hello! How many commercial publishers you can court mostly writing in Tagalog if your book is not a localization of the Bible, or a handbook for schools supported by the government, or like that?
There are a Wikia page of the The Explorers universe and regular illustrative work on the Mr. Mac Bible series for years to be kind of notable too.
I regret to say that I have the remotest idea as to what your unsigned comment means. If you lack skill in the English language I suggest get a native English speaker to help you. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say in short I’m appealing to you to challenge the deletion of the mentioned page Kirten Nimwey. There was a notion of lack of notability for that subject from Cabayi resulted in a speedy deletion nomination you had executed, but I’ve put some additional comments on that you’ve barely understood above, though.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
The article provided just the basic info about the company. I don't understand how that's commercial.
What was the problem exactly ? Mention to specific products ?
The article was very clearly a promotional piece designed to advertise the company. If you are unable to recognize this, then I suggest that you refrain from creating articles until you have gained a better understanding of editing principles within Wikipedia. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amardeep Sada
Hello Anthony Bradbury,
I've been looking around for articles to add on wikipiedia and have noticed one in particular that looks very interesting. That of Indian serial killer Amardeep Sada. I was going to add it but I noticed that you had already created it and that it was subsequently deleted. I was just wondering if you'd be interested in working with me on creating and expanding it if I make it as a userspace draft? Please let me know what you think.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create this article; I have not created any articles for a number of years, and never at any time about Indian serial killers, or indeed any Indians at all; or any serial killers. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"18:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On looking back four years I see that on December 21st 2014 I deleted the article as being a copyright infringement; that does not imply any enduring interest in the subject. You are wholly free to create a replacement article, being of course careful to avoid copyright or other WP:CSD problems. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Commander of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
This page does not promote any business or any other organization whatsoever. It is a page about a school alumni group. Please consider and reply me soon. Thanks_ _ Supun999 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. The problem is that the article was not deleted as being promotional: it was deleted (in July 2017) under category A7, which is lack of claim of significance. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring Draft:Radiology Cafe
Dear Anthony
I would like to continue completing a draft page for Radiology Cafe, but it was deleted. I'm happy to start afresh or you could restore it whatever is quicker? What should I do?
Chrisgdclarke (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
My name is Amelie, I would like to create a page called AEVI, a company in Financial Services. (No affiliation) I have created a very basic draft but noticed that you previously deleted one with this name. I just wanted to check before I submit.
Amelie: I am answering here as I am uncertain if you look at your (blank) user talk page. I did indeed delete the article you mention. I did that at the request of the editor, but the record shows that said editor received three messages in quick succession giving as opinion the judgement that the company lacked wikipedic notability. If you can show that this condition has been overcome then I see no reason why you should not create your version. I suggest that you do it as a Draft in WP:AFC.
YGM
Hello, Anthony Bradbury. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
The creator of the article is virtually the sole editor thereof. He is a checkuser-blocked serial sockpuppet; I am very unenthusiastic about restoring his article. If you choose to do it yourself then I shall not object to your action; as the article is not overlong, if there really is essential information in it can this not be extracted with article restoration? ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Shivaji Sondhi
Hi, I had a system crash while editing the draft article Shivaji Sondhi. Can you restore it please?
I am not clear as to what you mean: the draft article remains in the archives, so any problem your system has experienced is irrelevant. To apply for restoration of the article (which I deleted in May of last year) use WP:REFUND/G13.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry - I am not being difficult; the deleted article is the only one retained in the encyclopedia. When your system crashed I am afraid that it must not have saved your work. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AB, hope all is well. It appears you just deleted this page.[5] I had addressed the issue a few minutes ago, so I find this a bit odd. I had also left a message on its talk page as well, but no one replied. Yet it just got deleted. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
...was a legitimate sports biography before being replaced. diff I don't know that it would survive AFD, but there is some third-party coverage. I'm assuming you deleted it because of User:CataracticPlanets's A7 tag, and didn't see that he reverted himself (and the hijacking) just before you deleted. Please restore the versions dated in 2017 and 2018. —Cryptic00:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, User:Diannaa went ahead and restored. If deleting the college football player actually was intentional, we can discuss at AFD. (I'd probably be in favor of deletion myself, just not as a speedy.) —Cryptic03:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Fintelum page was deleted under G11, however, I don't think that this should be the case. G11 states "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" and I truly do believe that the article was written in a neutral fashion. I anticipated that, if the article needs some fixing, it would be noted in the talk page, not simply auto-deleted. That's why it was added to the draft, not published. —Magickriss 09:19, April 25 (UTC)
Maybe some tips on how would one write it in non-promotionally so it would comply with your views of what is promotional? —Magickriss 09:03, May 13 (UTC)
I would like get a copy of a deleted draft for "Draft:Dynamic Yield". It said there was a draft created on this topic in 2016, but since I'm not the creator of that draft and I'm just getting started on submitting articles, I want to see why the last submission was rejected to learn a bit more about article creation before I attempt submitting one. Can you provide the original draft & give me some insights/tips on what prevented that version from being published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebe-Retta (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony can you restore the "Draft:Yamani Nayar" without the exhibitions list? I think the exhibitions are the portion that were G12 copyright from the saatchi page [1] The rest is good original text with citations. This is the approach used for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Juliette_Losq which had the same problem. I will rework the list.
Thanks for your help.
BartholomewSenior (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
I don't know if you get undo notifications, but I thought I'd drop a note regarding the ones I just performed on some of your recent edits. If you're giving a user the text of a deleted page, please make sure that you're not pasting copyvio content when you do it! Also, it's generally not a good idea to have "article text" on a user talk page, especially if there are WP:AFC headers such as {{AFC submission}} - things like that should probably restored/copied to a user subpage or emailed. Primefac (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
{ping|Primefac} OK, noted. Are you saying, then, that if a bona fide editor posts a copyvio in draft, which gets deleted, and he then asks for a copy of his text to correct it I should refuse him?----Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to complete this pending article which was deleted by you due to inactivity "Creating Draft:Ted Neward". Professional commitments never gave me enough time to do additional research and put external links and references. Please restore this page, so that I can attempt this again. Thanks a lot. Akatyayan (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
I noticed you called my article about Verdis a 'hoax'. I'd like to state that Verdis isn't a how and if it was, you could do the same thing to all other micronations out there including Liberland.
you have deleted my article OMLP2P due to following reason: - A tag has been placed on Draft:OMLP2P requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.expressbusinessdirectory.com/Companies/omlp2pcom-C843734.
I see that you have reviewed and deleted my draft for the Christopher J. Gramiccioni page I was creating. You deleted the draft based on G11 and G12 and I assure you that my intentions are not to promote or violate any copyrights. If my draft is restored I will be sure to make the necessary changes to make this article acceptable for Wikipedia guidelines. If you are unable to restore my draft to Wikipedia I would still like a copy of it through an alternate medium (email or my talk page).
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Hey i saw that you recently deleted Pradeep Khadka cause of Copyvivo article. Pradeep Khadka is a well-known award winning Nepalese actor with mutliple blockbuster movies. Can i start his article ? Let me know , thanks. Owlf17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anthony Bradbury. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "KLASK".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi I just created a new page for a South Korean TV drama titled 'Designated Survivor: 60 Days' but it has been speedy deleted due to copyright issues. I would like to edit the page so as not to infringe the copyright issue, however the whole article is gone. Do you have the original copy so that I do not have to type everything again? Because the copyright is only for a small portion which I can edit quickly.
Thank you very much.
Wojciech Waleczek
Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? I would appreciate this a lot if you could review it or tell me who could review the article. The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Christopher J. Gramiccioni
In addition to the post from June 27th on this page I would also like to add that I had permission from the source http://mcponj.org/meet-the-prosecutor/ to use their information, I understand if the language was too similar but as I said before I am willing to make the necessary changes. With the permission from the site I see no reason for speedy deletion under copyright and would appriciate you restoring my draft or sending me a copy to rework it. Thank you again.
I do not in any way dispute your statement as to permission granted by the source you specify. I am afraid that a simple statement to this effect id insufficient. Please follow the appropriate links in WP:COPYVIO.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will you Review this Draft?
Hello,
Some years ago you deleted an attempt to create an article page for 'Domicology' citing A11.
Would you mind taking a look through the start of this draft page to provide some feedback as to how to best augment this draft to pass through the review process? The claims of significance for this page are that the profession of Domicology is the only in the world that explicitly utilizes lifecycle sustainability frameworks to examine the relationship between the life cycle of the built environment and the lived experience of communities; and that this field of study is currently being conducted exclusively at Michigan State University (Though other institutions of higher education have since referenced Domicology in their own courses).
The desire to have this article added to wikipedia is that additional information regarding the social, environmental, and economic impacts of blight and abandonment (information originating within scholarly, peer-reviewed publications) can be added to the page. This information is not currently offered on the 'urban decay' article. The temporal dimension that Domicology offers on these phenomena is significant enough that it warrants creation of new article (or so I believe).
Please take a look, and let me know the best way to proceed. I don't have any interest in 'gaming the system' or utilizing wikipedia for self promotion, instead i'm most interested in showcasing important scientific research that will genuinely further the mission of wikipedia as a whole.
I understand your reason for posting here; it was a useless exercise. This is an encyclopedia, and data is found, when looked for, by the title of the required page. It is not like a book where you can scan through the pages. The only way to find your userpage, as an ordinary reader, would be to type in the exact page name, which is "User:Chriscush765". How would anyone searching for employees know that? It is possible, with specific instruction, to search for new pages, which can be checked to determine if Wikipedia policy is being followed; that is how your page was noticed and referred to me for consideration. Advertisements, including resumes, are always deleted. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I came up to the page and tagged it for speedy deletion, what I thought was that I saw was in the category of unambiguous advertising. It was my gut instinct really. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. You might be interested to know that the above user is requesting an unblock, some 10 years after you refused a similar request. They were 14 at the time so 10 years is quite a significant interval. Do you have any feelings either way about their request? --kingboyk (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ten years is a significantly long time, during which people can change. However, as I made a determination on this block before, albeit not the final determination, it is not appropriate to make a definitive judgement on his new unblock request. The admin who placed the block remains available, although clearly it is unlikely that (s)he will retain a specific memory of it. It should be noted that this editor was known at the time of the block, to have used at least eighteen sockpuppet accounts. I propose that an admin finding the unblock request should be left free to make their own decision. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"13:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Draft:Henry Ohaegbulam
Hi Tony, you deleted a draft I was creating for Henry Ohaegbulam due to the fact that it was believed to have been created for advertising purposes. I want to ask that you kindly restore the draft for me. I was going to effect the necessary changes but it got speedily deleted before I could find the chance to. Please, help resolve this and restore the draft. I'll make every necessary adjustment in less than 12 hours of the restoration. If you cannot grant this, please tell me why so I can avoid such costly mistakes during the creation of future drafts. Thanks a lot. DHOPE4YALL (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the draft which I deleted. I am sure that you had perfectly reasonable motives in its creation, but nevertheless it appears that the entire draft is essentially a promotion piece of a person without adequate encyclopedic notability. You are wholly free to seek a community view at the deletion review page. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
@Ponyo: I protected after a request at RfP, as indeed the article was getting repeatedly recreated, but have taken the protection back to extended-confirmed. Am off to work now, but please ping me when you did the redirect, and I will reprotect fully. Lectonar (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of protection when I moved it; the page linked to John Worboys, which I created, so I got a ping. I checked previous speedy deletions and those versions were sketchy, the current one is quite different. A rush to salting this when she's clearly not a nobody is not a balanced approach. Fences&Windows23:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that the discussion, which covered a large number of templates, could reasonably be taken to include other templates which were in all significant features similar to those for which deletion was agreed. If you feel that this is not the case I would appreciate explanation of your reasoning. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CSD criteria have very narrow definitions and are not particularly open to interpretation. The templates you deleted failed to meet several aspects to qualify for speedy deletion under G4. They were not: a) recreations of templates that were previously deleted; b) sufficiently identical copies in terms of content, not purpose—G4 has never been broad enough to cover the latter; c) previously deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. The deletion of these templates appear to be out-of-process. ƏXPLICIT23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you say, although possibly not with full agreement therewith. But I have no wish to argue the point; it does not seem to me to be worth arguing. what are you suggesting? ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that these templates did not meet the CSD criteria and should not have been deleted under G4. The speedy deletions noms should have been declined. The templates should be restored and sent to WP:TFD.
On a side note, let me see if I can get better understanding of your application of G4. Let's take File:Fantasy Ride Deluxe.jpg for example, which is an alternate cover for the album Fantasy Ride. It deleted as a result of this discussion because the the only difference between that cover and File:Fantasy Ride Standard.jpg was the color scheme. Would you argue that G4 is broad enough to be applied to all alternate covers where the only difference is color, even if they were uploaded before the discussion took place? ƏXPLICIT03:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Just curious why you thought this user page was worthy of deletion. We usually allow editors to post a bit of information about themselves on their user page and he wasn't "promoting himself" or any business. It seemed harmless enough and it was a brand new editor, he had only been active for 45 minutes. LizRead!Talk!22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:The first userpage you mention contains only personal information, including links to a variety of media pages, which seemed to me to be inappropriate. Would you not agree that the userpage should at least focus primarily on wikipedic activity, with personal information as a secondary subject? If editors use the project as a vehicle in which to discuss their own personal aspects exclusively we run the risk of turning into a variant of Facebook.Your second example seems to me not to be at all controversial. It is a clear and obvious promotional piece, again without any obvious relationship to wikipedic activity.These are my thoughts, which still appear to me to be sound. If you feel that either of these userpages do in fact deserve to exist, then please go ahead and restore them; I would not agree but will not contest.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"09:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had some difficulty in identifying the page in question, as you posted it in a sandbox under your username, and then did not sign your edit. Your draft consists of fifteen words only, and do not indicate any notability for their subject. Are you aware that a longer article about Ujjwal Patni, who may or may not be the same person, was deleted (not by me) some seven years ago?----Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Registering your opinion by reversing an already closed discussion is an incorrect approach. In my personal opinion the deletion reason stated is a valid one, in that Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of trivia. Nevertheless, if you feel that the redirect is valid then feel free to take it to deletion review. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"09:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article delete (Question)
Hi Anthony Sir
I have nominated few pages for deletion 7 days has been passed but the articles are not deleted now i have two concerns how the pages were approved and patrolled by editors if they were not notable and how come now editor saying that the page is not notable and no references found in google. i have put the tag on 13 september and 14 september but the pages are not deleted yet kindly let me know is 7 days enough or there is other criteria ?.
Like many of the comments I see om this page, I am writing to ask about a deletion of a page that I created for Parag Vaish.
I tried to make sure and include links to show "credible indication of importance" such as a link to his appearance on Fox Business Channel, a link to his newest book and also to his public speaker profile. What else do I need to add to make this fit your guidelines/the guidelines of Wikipedia? I can definitely use some guidance.
He has been a leader in closing the gender pay gap. I thought about including that info and just blanked out on it. Would that be worthy of inclusion?
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
The article had secondary sources and required to be written again for some obvious reasons of promotion.
I did submit it again. Can you explain the reason for deletion?
(SmartCaptcha (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Hello. There has been a confusion about my draft and the article Luis Dato. I am quite new in the wikipedia and i did not know the rules well. i deeply apologize. I revised the Draft: Luis Dato to the wikipedia's standard. Please review it. Thanks.
Stephentalla (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I may owe you an apology; I am uncertain. I do not seem to have deleted your article about Luis Dato, although I agree that some admin has. I appear to have deleted your userpage, at your own request. It may be that your request was intended to refer to another page; I do not know. O
Please clarify for me which page you intended to have deleted - if any - and which you intended to remain. If it helps, I do not see anything wrong with the Luis Dato article. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anthony. Out of frustration, I requested my userpage to be deleted. The reason was, my article Luis Dato was deleted (by Bearcat). Apparently, there is a copy of the article in the Draft and i decided to move it as an Article. the move was a mistake. and i conceded and i apologize. perhaps, you could help me revive the article Luis Dato. I have a copy of the article in the Draft, though.
Stephentalla (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have reviewed and deleted my draft for the OBAKEIDORO! page I was creating.
If my draft is restored I will be sure to make the necessary changes to make this article acceptable for Wikipedia guidelines.
I would like to delete all the references pointed out and resubmit.
If you are unable to restore my draft to Wikipedia I would still like a copy of it through an alternate medium (email or my talk page).
Let me first apologise for the delay in responding to your post; I have been out of the country for just over a week.
I deleted your draft as a copyright violation. Articles here obviously depend on good references, but must be written entirely in your own words. I cannot place a copy onto your talk page because that would commit the original copyright offence (talk pages are not private). I will e-mail a copy to you.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, I received a notification that this article had been deleted, so I guess I worked on it at some point! The reasons for deletion were A7 and G11. A7 is "no importance" which I'm surprised at as her biography is listed on the World Economic Forum site, and G11 is "self promotion" which I'm also surprised about as I usually spot that type of writing and edit it out myself. Were there other reasons? Maybe copyright vio that I missed? TIA. MurielMary (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are in fact several edits attributed to you just over a month ago. I have reviewed the article following your post ad have, after some thought, restored it. I am not wholly convinced that the importance claimed is of sufficient weight to justify retention in the encyclopedia, but retaining it does no harm.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, it is promotional in tone, but no quite enough to fire off my CSD response. If you look sideways and squint, there may be an assertion of significance. Draft sounds like a good place.-- Deepfriedokra17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two previous posts reflect the degree of ambivalence that I felt, after initially deleting the article, when this deletion was questioned. My original feeling was that it was promotional; I am happy if you choose to delete it; or move to draft if you wish.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, Deb. I think draft would be appropriate so I can improve on the tonality. I may have been a bit biased due to my acquaintance with the said person but I created it as a draft and it was approved, I am still relatively new here, but speedy deletion after approval leaves one confused whether it's an opinionated or gender bias thing. It would be more useful if the promotional paragraphs are highlighted. Opatachibueze (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I assume that the apparent hint that I was either opinionated or gender-biased is just due either to my misunderstanding or to ambiguous phrasing on your part?
As to the point you make regarding approval; acceptance of a draft for inclusion in mainspace sets the bar at a lower level than that for consideration for speedy deletion; or indeed, for any deletion procedure. Consideration for deletion of an article which been through WP:AfC is not unusual. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reason for my page being deleted? How was there mis-use if everyone referenced is a relative and all of which are public figures actors, producers, artists, athletes etc. I even left articles on myself which can he referenced on major publications such as IwantEDM.com PenninoAnthony (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You created a userpage: a userpage is intended to be a page about your activities, expectations, interests and actions in relation to your erditing on wikipedia. A brief biographical comment is acceptable as an udjunct to the rest of the text. Information about your family is not appropriate on a userpage, nor are references to articles about yourself. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a right and accurate about famous entrepreneur Muneeb Mushtaq, But again I am getting the message regarding promotional content. If somebody write about himself then it will be consider as promotional. I think on every profile your mood is different. Here is a wikipedia profile which I have follow after several deletion. Now Check it it has same content as Muneeb Content. Please check below content and wikipedia account.
He is the co-founder of Nearbuy and Little App. He served as the CEO from Aug 2015 (when nearbuy.com started) to October 2019. He announced his step down as the CEO in a LinkedIn post,[2] in October 2019.Warikoo started the Groupon India business in April 2011, which is when Groupon entered India through an acquisition. In addition to serving as the CEO of the India business, between 2013-2015 Warikoo also managed the Groupon APAC business of Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines.[3] In August 2015, Groupon India went through a management buyout, where the India management team (led by Ankur) bought out the majority shareholding of Groupon, partnering with Sequoia Capital.[4]
Note: With the name of Muneeb M. Mushtaq it was live 2 month ago but now you are saying it is promotional what is the answers.
I think that I have no further comment to make; please re-read my original comment above. Also note that in Wikipedia writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is strongly discouraged. And articles written about oneself are always very likely to be seen as promotional under Wikipedia guidelins. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Fictional group with no evidence of notability. Fails NPLOT, NFICTION, GNG. BEFORE fails to find any discussion that goes beyond mention in passing/plot summary.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innermost Circle of the All-Highest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Dear Anthony , you have deleted the entire article because it contained a reference of imdb.com if its there we could have removed it but deleting the article is not a solution and neither we are promoting any website.I created this page so that others can know more about this public figure and about him, hence i would request you to please reactivate this article so that i can remove the hyperlink reference of imdb. Thanks Humchandan (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the article, not because of a reference (although in Wikipedia IMBD references are not regarded as valid) but because of copyright violation. That being so I cannot reactivate the article as that perpetuates the copyright violation. If you wish I can e-mail the text to you (if your e-mail is enabled here) but the article, if you submit it again, must be written only your own words. Please let me know. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anthony, could you please send me the email of the entire content with reference and also tell me which content was a part of copyright violation so that i can check it and get it rectified, thanks Humchandan (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You declined my speedy nomination of Taifa (disambiguation) as erroneous. I was wondering whether I misunderstood the criteria, or if it just wasn't obvious to you from the way the page is formatted that the first item on the page (Taifa) is in fact a primary topic. —Compassionate727(T·C)00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that it is my understanding which is faulty. As I understand it, Taifa takes us to two distinct items and, as such, disambiguation is appropriate. I do not understand your comment about one being a primary topic.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait… Now that I scrutinize the CSD criteria more closely, I think it's actually been changed. It used to be that a dab page that had two items but where one was the primary topic was considered unnecessary; looks like that was removed when the criterion was split from G6 or 68 (whichever one it was). I'll ask at the CSD talk page to make sure. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Compassionate727(T·C)15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed a few years ago you deleted a number of World Cup qualification articles which were created by a blocked user. Would it be possible to restore these pages (listed below)? They are notable topics which are useful to Wikipedia, and it would save a considerable amount of effort from having to recreate them. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Death of Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez
Hello User:Anthony_Bradbury, I tried responding to you where you posted your message, but haven't heard back. I'm trying here now.
Hi @TomCat4680:! Nice to meet you. I just typed something up using the above live, but it's unclear to me whether you'll receive it. Anyway, please undelete this "article." Yes, there was little of substance because I did not have enough time to add more. My intent had been to scaffold and fill in the details soon thereafter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxperscientiam (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article contained no content whatever except for an infobox. That being so I do not feel comfortable rec=storing it, but will post it to your talkpage. Please bear in mind that an infobox in isolation is virtually guaranteed to be speedy-deleted. If you create the article again I suggest that you use WP:AfC, and create the infobox after the article. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"23:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be the case. But your draft article was written in a styl4 so far different from styles acceped here as to render it wholly unsuitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I am absolutely not prepared to restore it; if you wish to challenge this decision please do so at deletion review, not here. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the page was not copyrighted at all and was my own work. How can I view the previous page so I can remake the page with the problematic text reworded? I don't wanna restart the whole entire page.
Please help me out. This was my first article and I had a lot of source material (articles, papers, etc) downloaded because I was planning on working on the page today. I didn't think the WWF copyrighted their page because it is a nonprofit and the research in question was funded by the EU. I know better now and it won't happen again, but is there any way I could reuse the rest of the source code please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3ndyBEAR (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that the violation was not intentional. For the future, note that all published text, from any source, should be regarded as copyright protected unless this is expressly denied within or with the text in question.
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはAnthony Bradburyたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP04:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [6]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Sir. After knowing that my draft would take three months to be revised, I received an answer the following day saying that publication was denied on account that there were no footnotes/"inline cites"(?). In reality, the text is not very long but has ten footnotes. Since I'm already used to editor's silly restrictions I saw no alternative but to write to you and request some sense. Yours Peiris Fox (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
I have a problem with citation when ever I am citing a source it shows a warning called" text web ignored help" how it can be resolve thanks have a nice time
I see on 26 April, an article that I had created years ago (14 years?) had been deleted. I know standards were lower in those days and I have not been back to it since. You may even be right in your decision. However I was not given a chance to look at it and improve it. There was no alert. I would have hoped the article's creator would have been notified. I don't regularly review the list of articles proposed for deletion, and neither should I have to.JMcC (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps incorrectly, I did not feel that visiting the original author of the aerticle after fourteen years was appropriate. There were a number of contributors subsequent to your draft, although the end result of their edits, in my opinion, still qualified for a deletion under category A7. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, please re-instate the article so that I can see what it looked like when you deleted it. I may be able to improve it with material and references from the much larger Finnish version. I also want to look through my bookshelves. At present I am staying out in the country, well away from London. It may be a few weeks before I can do my research.JMcC (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No text has been posted on my talk page. You say that you were incorrect in your behaviour when you deleted the article. Please correct your error. It would seem that simply restoring it, would be closer to Wikipedia's policies. JMcC (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me; I did not and do not say that my deletion was incorrect. It was not. Restoring the article would be totally against Wikipedia policies. Why it did not appear on your talk page is not clear to me, but I will re-post it there.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-instated the article. It seems to be impossible to see the discussion that took place with any other parties before the article was deleted, but the criteria that you cited are mystifying. How can you delete an aircraft design organisation that is responsible for the construction of 536 aircraft? What next: Boeing? The article had links to over 20 other articles.JMcC (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have re-instated it, I see that we have now lost the history and talk page. Usually when an article is moved, Wikipedia policy is to retain these rather than just creating a new page. The process you have chosen seems to run counter to this principle. JMcC (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article talks about a student flying club, so calling it aircraft design organization mystifies me. I do not agree with your reinstatemet of the article unilaterally, but will not move to remove it again as this would appear to be harassment, or abuse of privilege. Compaing the club to Boeing appears to me to be fatuous; let us see if any other editors pick up on it.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"13:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equivalent organisations are the German Akafliegs. They also design and build aircraft in much the same way. Some are built in-house; some have been sub-contracted. Their universities produce graduates who have practical and much valued experience in the aircraft industry. Other countries whose light aircraft industry has disappeared could learn valuable lessons from the Akafliegs and PIK, so the fact the article is about a small country should not make us act parochially. If you start deleting the smallest aircraft builders and then move up to the the next smallest, where do you stop? Hence the reference to Boeing. I am unaware of any process for undeleting articles and so a new article seemed to be the only option. I can't see why you posted the text on my talk page otherwise. I do not see a problem in creating a new article; I was unaware of any permission was needed. By re-instating PIK, I hoped to demonstrate that an old article can be brought up to standard, if proper notice is given. I can improve some of the references within a few weeks when I can get at my reference books such as Jane's. I am also a former owner of three PIK aircraft. JMcC (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the article text on your talk page, giving you notice of so doing, in order to make it easier for you to improve the article. You have no need to demonstrate your ability to resurrect inadequate articles; similarly, you have no need to explain to me how to perform my function as an admin. I am aware of the Janes series, and my library contains issues for several years. They do not contain articles on student aero clubs. As you point out you have decided unilaterally to revive the article, and I have already stated my reason for taking no further action. This conversation is now closed.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this discussion should be closed. But to give you a reminder about human fallibility:
Page 27 of Jane's World Sailplanes and Motor Gliders "The PIK series takes its name from the Polyteknikkojen Ilmailukerho, which was founded at Helsinki Technical University in 1931. The series began in 1945 but the PIK-3 was the first type to be produced in series. It was designed by Lars Norrmen and Ilkka Lounama as a small cheap sailplane suitable for construction by flying clubs. The prototype first flew in the summer of 1950." This edition published in 1980 by Jane's Publishing Company Macdonald and Jane's Publishing Group Limited ISBN 0710600178 JMcC (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting user talk
I'm not fussed by bureaucracy so if you are aware of a reason to delete User talk:Et4y that's fine by me. However, I'm wondering if you might have missed that it was a user talk page where others had contributed. No need to reply, just ignore or restore as wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user has stated the intention to withdraw from Wikipedia: deletion of their talk page as at their own request, on this basis. This seemed to me to be a valid reason, indeed pretty much the only valid reason, to delete a talk page (I did recognize it as a talk page). But given that the user has declared the intention to withdraw from the project I guess it will not affect him/her either way, so I will restore the page if it seems important to you.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but don't worry about it. I was sure the WP:Deletion policy specifically excluded user-requests for deletion of user talk pages (that is the community standard) but it's not mentioned there. I see that WP:G8 excludes user talk pages but that's not what I was thinking about either. Even WP:U1 is not quite what I was thinking. At any rate, I was only concerned you might have overlooked the nature of the page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a much stronger reason to delete user talk pages. Users wanting to vanish is not a good enough reason. The page can be blanked instead. I will count this kind of deletion nomination as bad faith. However I am only commenting in general. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zonic was at WP:AFD and a long standing article and I believe your CSD A7 was inappropriate. I may care to work on that presently. Please Refund. Thankyou.
22:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what article has been written about this in the past,But the article I created was based on WP:ARTIST,I read the discussion of deleting the article,This article appears to have been deleted for personal reasons, not Wikipedia!
Even now, the article I created has been deleted based on WP:ARTIST, and you insist on not creating it!
Anyway, thank you very much. Mina.FAMI (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pradeep Khadka
I saw that previously you deleted Pradeep Khadka cause of copyright violations. He is famous actor from Nepal and eligible enough to be on wikipedia. can i create the wiki page of him? Owlf
You are perfectly free to create a wikipedia page on this person, but you must do it using your own words. Using text from another source, as you did in the deleted article, is a breach both of Wikipedia policy and of common law, and it is absolutely not allowed here.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know about that and for your kind information previously I did not create his article. I saw that it has been deleted for the multiple times and being Wikipedia Nepal editor I wanted to create his article. so thought to take an approval before I create it. Owlf06:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zonic. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the page has been deleted?
The user who nominated the article to speedy deletion did not respond to my replies. I firmly believe that the page is free from bias and neutral in nature. It does not promote also specific things or person. The subject, Larry Gadon, is a known personality or said to be a public figure already here in the country of Philippines. It has been cited by 20 citations come from different independent sources and multimedia platforms. Please review again. I am hoping for the recovery of the page.
I deleted the page, as stated in the deletion notice, on the basis that the subject lacked appropriate claimed wikipedic notability; please note that blogging is regarded here as being intrinsically non-notable, and coming 28th in a legislative assembly election is similarly not of sufficient importance to qualify here. Neither is being the originator of an impeachment procedure of a legislator not of international significance worthy of inclusion. The second reason, being a promotional article, is self-explanatory. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"13:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zonic draftification
Hi. I'm back. And you are probably entitled to roll your eyes. Following the endorsed A7 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 21 can I please request draftication of Zonic including talk page. Alternatively can you give permission for me to make the request at WP:REFUND (I need to be able to point back here if making such a request). The DRV was ambiguous as to whether draftification of Zonic was permitted and I will totally respect a veto by you or DRV closer Sandstein. Emailing the latest version would be effectively pointless as I can copy a recent enough version from [7]; my preference remains for draftification however. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I imagine you are aware, the deletion review agreed overwhelmingly with the deletion, with two editors only, while agreeing with deletion, suggested that letting the AfD go to completion might have been better. But having said that, I have no objection to the making of a request at WP:REFUND.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of my user page
Why did you do so, may I know the reason buddy. And I did nothing even then. Vishal 16:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalttplayer (talk • contribs)
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
15 June 2020: 13:36 (UTC): Anthony Bradbury deleted page User:NITYAM KUMAR (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace)
15 June 2020 14:23 (UTC): Ohnoitsjamie blocked NITYAM KUMAR with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Promotion / advertising-only account: also WP:CIR). No further action needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Бо́же, Царя́ храни́! - blocked
I just wanted to appraise you that, having had my attention drawn at AIV to this revdeled edit by User:Бо́же, Царя́ храни́! to George Floyd protests, I felt that an indefinite block was far more appropriate for such deeply offensive remarks. My block rationale was a bit lengthy, and got truncated, but if the editor wished to appeal the block I would leave it to other admins, including yourself, to weigh in and unblock, if they felt it was a better course of action than the one I have taken. This was most certainly not a gut reaction on my part, and I took some twenty minutes or so deciding whether or not to take action, and wavering between a shorter 1 week to 6 months block and how that might or might not be sufficient for such an awful post to a page which, a week ago, was gathering a quarter of a million page views a day (now down to 40,000 per day), and how you had already warned them about any recurrence. The truncated element of my block rationale mentioned an earlier edit to a recently deceased persons page (Troy Sneed) which is suggestive of a desire by this editor to cause offence by posting on Wikipedia. I recognise that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, but in this type of outrageous edit, I personally feel it was justified. I'd like to think others admins would, on reflection, also agree. But I'll respect the outcome of any unblock appeal they might try to make. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English only please (Response to Anthony Bradbury)
This is the English Wikipedia, and only articles written in English are allowed here. Unless this article is translated into English it will be removed.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Bradbury, as a matter of fact, the article was written in English first. However since the individual is Bulgarian and many of the references and links are in Bulgarian, it made sense to be written in Bulgarian as well. Both pages (In English and in Bulgarian) are similar and cover the same information. This is just to cover all bases. In English, the name of the person "Златко Живков" is written "Zlatko Zhivkov". Thank you
(talk page stalker) I assume you guys are talking about Златко Живков? Yup, this really is a fundamental rule. On the English language wikipedia, we write articles in English. For one, that's what our readers expect. But also, because that's what (for the most part) our editors can read; for articles not written in English, we have no practical way to maintain the article, verify that it meets WP:V and WP:N, doesn't violate WP:BLP, WP:CV, and so on. -- RoySmith(talk)16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Yes, that is the article in question. I have told the author, both here and on the article talk page, that it must be translated or it will be removed (I have been an admin for 12 years+, and will do it if I need to}. I hope he will translate it; I cannot speak Bulgarian and make no comment about the content of the article.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppet for Wwikix?
Hi Anthony! user:Wwikix caused havoc for very long time in the categorization and content systems, especially for cats and for the Netherlands (where he is from), while disregarding our conventions. There is new user user:Blueyeah who is behaving by a similar pattern. I cannot tell for sure if he is Wwikix but he must have previous WP experience, hitting the road running wild. As an expert to Wwikix, could you look into possible sockpuppetry or other remedies? I have not reported possible sock puppetry in ages. Probably since Haham Hanukah 13 years ago. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AS far as I can determine I have never heard of or interacted with user:Wwikix. I can look, but there are admins better experienced at sockpuppet work than I, as you will know having been here for so long.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony! You were the one to reject his unblocking request, i.e. had most recently dealt with him. At your suggestion I'll turn to another admin. Thanks for the response! gidonb (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, I refused his unblock request in October 2016. I failed to see that when looking after your recent post. I would still, however, claim only limited expertise in sockpuppet identification, as I said earlier.----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I consulted with another admin who engaged with the user, then reported 3 sockpuppets and an old account. I do have lots of experience at WP, just not in this domain. I concentrate mostly on content creation and improvement. I'm sure we'll have other opportunities to collaborate! gidonb (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
@Cahk: I do not understand your message. This editor has made only one post, his userpage, which I deleted and for which I awarded him a block. It is usual not to delete user talkpages, and I considered it but chose not to do so. Obviously no-one has labeled his post as a TPA, and I am certain that they would not. What are you asking me to revoke? ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When investigating originally, I found a previous block applied by Fastily, but cannot now locate it. What point are you making? He is blocked under another name, and is editing. How do you interpret G5?----Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's how interpret it, but I didn't see an associated blocked account, nor any mention of one. The fact you can't locate one now reassures me I wasn't that far off track. In my ideal world TheImaCow would have named the master in the G5 nomination.
The SPI reports & G5 tags which say little more than "I've seen some socking, guess what I saw" - they're getting under my skin. Cabayi (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your article is only just over one line long, and gives no indication or claim of notability. I see your claim that a full article exists on WP:de. This is not relevant here. For an article to be retained here it must, by itself, fulfill the criteria required by the English Wikipedia. Your article does not. You are welcome to create a full article and submit it for inclusion; note that the rules for article inclusion are not identical to those on WP:de. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of different rules (en/de), but the stub was not completely useless. I will write it again, with all the sources from German newspapers.-Arorae (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, I received notice of the speedy deletion of the in-progress article on Jagrit Pratap Singh. I understand in some ways how it could look promotional, but please keep in mind that the draft was being worked on to ensure it was in compliance with standing policies. As the draft is now gone, I request a copy for future reference, which can be left on my talk page. Thank you, Kaszper (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, you recently deleted my user page ENTIRELY without discussion User:Dougiamas ... I'd really appreciate for the last version to be copied to my Talk page so I can work on it to remove whatever was deemed to be wrong about a page about myself on my own user profile. —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry; you have misunderstood the purpose and function of a userpage. It is to write about your personal skills, abilities, achievements, expectations, interests, etc insofar as these areas relate to your Wikipedia editing. Your deleted userpage goes way beyond this, covers a very significant range wholly outside this definition and description, and is unacceptable in its entirety. Essentially, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social medium. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion of User:Johnbplett
Hi Anthony, you recently deleted my user page ENTIRELY without discussion User:Johnbplett It is disapointing that I muyst go thryogh great pains to contribute to Wikipedia. I proposed one articel [1] to contribute. Immediately I was banned, for every reason immainable. User:Dodger67 took my subnition and used it almost as is excluding me as its origional souce. Is wikikpedia an imfomation monopoly or a free encyclopedia? I can contorbutre extendivly to Wikipedia as much of what I see is outdated, and there is volumes of nessesary real world knowlege missing. For example, do you know how many regulatory bodys there are in South Africa? Did you know that unless you have exhasted the use of the relivant regualtory bodies the courts can turn you away? All of this is missing from Wikipedia, but if I propose it, then it is all rupbish? I'd really appreciate the last version to be copied to my Talk page so I can work on it to remove whatever was deemed to be wrong about a page about myself on my own user profile. 11:04, 25 August 2020 (SAST)
The page you have created is titled as a userpage. The function of a userpage is to indicate an editor's abilities, interests, skills, intentions, history, etc., in relation to the editor's writing within wikipedia. Your page does not come close to this. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, you recently deleted a page I am yet to edit with further citations for Dhanraj Nathwani. I request you to re-look in this action of deletion and suggest me that what can I do to restore the page. First, I want to ask that you kindly restore the draft for me. I am going to give the necessary changes to make it as per wikipedia policy and guidelines. Kindly help in this and suggest further action to restore the page.
હમઝા ઘાંચી (Talk) 05:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy of User:Pmatthews21: Per my contestation the page appeared to contain a Template:UserboxCOI (possibly misformed). And I think a mere one line description. So I really question was CSD:U5 appropriate ? (User (talk) page was on my watchlist and hasn't come off of it whihc probably meant I wasn't too happy about something). However was the U5 appropriate. I notice you don't seem to have responded to my contestation on the talk page, simply deleting the page. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opnion this page qualified for deletion not only on the basis of being an inappropriate user page, but also on the basis of being an advertisement (which I did not trouble to include). So yes, U5 was wholly appropriate. If you wish to seek community consensus you can do so at deletion review. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like they were declaring what topics they intend to work on and included a COI tag accordingly (though they weren't entirely successful). I don't see any content subject to U5 or G11 on that page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, I agree. We ask people to declare that they have COI. That's what this user did. Then slapping them down because they also included some marketing-speak seems disingenuous. -- RoySmith(talk)23:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While they were all created by a banned user, WP:G5 states that "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging." There's nothing wrong with the categories; they were all appropriately populated with book articles prior to deletion. Cheers, gnu5705:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are not, I think, suitable for merging, and their usefulness is arguable. I had intended to protest the validity of the deletion, but on reflexion will restore them. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anthony Bradbury. Sorry for disturbing you. Can you check Avani Soni and its talk page ? The article was nominated for "speedy deletion" week ago, but not yet deleted. I am creator of the article, and want to make sure whether the article really meets speedy deletion criteria. I believe that there is enough media coverage on the subject. I am not opposing deletion. If it is not suitable for Encyclopedia, it should be deleted. Please see If the page can be survived. Thanks. --Imfarhad7 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the [[Special:SecurePoll/v
