Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band I Hate Sex for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! Qmwne23514:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think BilCat is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. Loafiewa (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, Reading of Beans08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.
I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to WP:CCS. Based on WP:NCOLLATH, it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see WP:BASIC for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not try to delete Wiki pages
Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was reverted by a vandal, which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:DP says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion [...] may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ Jake Wartenberg18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jake! User:JLCSan got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about Tabacalera, specifically the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does.. is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a dictatorship. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! Visokor (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{edit COI}} at the top of the section and format the references correctly. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
