User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2017

Norbert Stachel

Dear Anarchist, I am not Gnulander, and user:gnulander is not my account. Norbert Stachel 04:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LehCatsTrebron (talk • contribs)

User:Sanbuyi

Please change this account's block to indefinite, as they are a very obvious sockpuppet of User:Borcker, pleasae see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Borcker. Also please note that they were also reverting themselves being reported to the SPI, similarly to other sockpuppets. Thanks. 172.58.40.150 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't have to protect anymore

Just letting you know that you don't have to worry about the Christine Chubbuck page needing protection anymore; I can see that everyone agrees with O'Near, so I won't try to add the song any more. I can also assure you that I wasn't trying to promote the song at all, I know Wikipedia isn't a means of promotion, and I don't care if no-one at all listens to or downloads the song. Everyone seems to think that I added it for mere self-interest and promotion, but this is simply not the case. I simply thought that Chubbuck was a very special woman, her situation was a particularly tragic one, and thus wished to share with readers that there is a tribute out there that acknowledges her and her situation. (Other individuals with untimely deaths have had songs written for them and mentioned on their WP pages, but no-one disputes them). I tried reporting objectively and without giving undue weight, as well as sourcing it as best I could, but there are only so many kinds of sources I could provide. Btw O'Near's editing was disruptive as well, as he would remove my additions immediately after adding them, sometimes with condescending and sarcastic comments. I thought it was WP policy not to bite the newcomers, but I have certainly felt bitten by this male. 1.144.96.250 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The protection will expire on its own in a few days.

Keep in mind that each article exists independently of others. The fact that other articles may contain inappropriate material isn't a valid reason for one more article to do the same.

You might want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you find yourself with a conflict of interest, you should propose the change you want to make on the article talk page rather than make the change yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that is fair enough.

1.144.96.142 (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

McClure

Dear admin need your help, someone edit my page and posted bunch of crap and it was up until one of my friend's told me that someone did it. Please can you help me and remove all the editing since September 8, 2016? Thank you in advance. This is the account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_McClure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pp186gr (talk • contribs)

(by talk page stalker) @Pp186gr: Just to be clear, no one owns content on Wikipedia. Vandalism is unfortunate and we revert it all the time. The article is proposed for deletion, and that's not vandalism but a community practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected because it's been vandalized since it was created, and Pp186gr is indef-blocked for making legal threats. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist can you please check this ticket. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 10:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: I think he would expect a reply from someone other than the person who blocked his account. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=759623158 This as a purely scientific theory.[1] It makes no claims as to what deity or why things were created. One goal is to provide a theistic "plug-in" if you will, to science. The topic of deity only comes up in explaining the various histories of beliefs relating to science and the goals that each denomination has had throughout history. Also, many times evolutionist naturalists will smear this as not scientifically testable, but that is also flatly incorrect. The overarching theory is similar to one of evolution, but many of the smaller theories are in fact completely verifiable (ie. irreducible complexity is an example--my college biology textbook even has reference to irreducible complexity--the original theory was formulated by an ID advocate). There are so many flatly incorrect and/or inaccurate statements on this page it's infuriating...

Also, it has not been repeatedly debunked. Many of the underlying theories are those that even naturalist evolutionist use as "proof."

Jump up ^ William Dembski, the Design Revolution (2004) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read the article, or the numerous reliable sources referenced? It was resoundingly debunked in federal court, and it is the broad consensus of the scientific community that ID is pseudoscience, nothing more than repackaged creationism. And I'm familiar with Dembski's book.

Please take your arguments to Talk:Intelligent design. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your "Amatulic" UTRS account

Hi! I've noticed that the UTRS account associated with user "Amatulic" showed up as lacking admin rights, which led me to find out your Wikipedia account had been renamed. Unfortunately there is no way for us to change with Wikipedia account a UTRS account is associated with. I've renamed the UTRS account from "Amatulic" to "Anachronist" (and so if you need to login to UTRS, use the new name). Let me know if you encounter any issues if you do use the tool. (No pressure if you don't though :p). Eventually when we migrate to OAuth the need for "a UTRS account" will be obseleted altogether. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: Thanks, now if I can just remember the password... ~Anachronist (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

High-performance sailing: Directly down wind faster than the wind (DDWFTTW) vehicle

Hi, Anachronist. There is a proposal for new text at Talk:High-performance sailing#Proposed new text that you may wish to comment on. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Popcorn Time

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Popcorn Time. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Anachronist :) Hope you're doing well. I noticed you recently deleted a recognized Indian university affiliated college on A7. Could you please undelete the same and let the existing prod take its own course? Thanks and cheers. Lourdes 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but I am skeptical that this article is a keeper. It clearly qualifies for A7 speedy deletion at the moment. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think given that it's a recognized center of a university[1] teaching a university college course in the performing arts,[2], we perhaps shouldn't delete it on A7 and let the prod do the course. Thanks for the restore. Lourdes 06:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Those references don't constitute coverage, and notability is not inherited. But we'll let the prod run. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't disagree with you on the coverage issue. I'm not sure you should be deleting educational institutions on A7, irrespective of whether you believe the coverage is less. In the future, I would suggest allowing prods to run their full course, or taking this to afd. Thanks. Lourdes 06:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, A7 is not applicable to educational organizations. Thank you for making me realize the error. I had forgotten about that at the time. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR

I invite you to comment on my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page. The proposal's reliance on administrator intervention for every article seems unrealistic to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

After some discussion I too understand that my proposal is perhaps unrealistic. I was trying to propose a way to retain and use the ignorant users and to convert them into knowledgeable Wikipedians whose contributions can help in enriching Wikipedia. Not that I have a concrete plan. But could you people think again about what could be done to educate these guys who do disruptive work on Wikipedia? Anasuya.D (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have draft space. If an unacceptable article appears in main space, but looks like it could be made acceptable, then any confirmed user can simply move it to draft space and inform the creator to continue working on it there, and submit it via WP:AFC. That might be a better alternative than simply deleting the article, and would keep users engaged. The only involvement needed by admins would be in the event when a draft article cannot be moved to main space due to the main space title being create-protected. Unfortunately, most users who create COI articles have a single purpose, and don't come to Wikipedia with the objective of improving the project. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Eric D. Goodman

Hi Anachronist. I noticed you declined the unblock request for User:Eric D. Goodman at User talk:Eric D. Goodman#February 2017. As part of your decline, you specified certain conditions that the editor needs to agree to in order to have his account unblocked. I am wondering if the editor should also be required to email OTRS to have his identify verified per WP:REALNAME. The editor was previously soft-blocked per WP:ORGNAME, and now that he is using his real name (or at least he claims its his real name), then he might run the risk of being soft blocked again per WP:IMPERSONATE since Eric D. Goodman exists. Also, it's not clear what he means when he posts "my page" in his unblock requests. He could be referring to his user page, the Wikipedia article written about him, or even the deleted Smyser-Bair House. Regardless, the account is only about a week old and the editor might not be familiar with WP:OWN and WP:UP#OWN or that WP:COI applies to all articles whose subjects he is connected to and not just the BLP. FWIW, I was going to post this on his user talk page, but did not want to confuse things and get this mixed up with his unblock requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Given the account's obvious COI, I don't believe it's necessary for him to prove his identity with OTRS. The account clearly belongs to Eric Goodman, based on his edits, including his deleted contributions.

His latest unblock request is rather incoherent for a published author. He needs to promise that he will propose changes to the Eric D. Goodman article only on the talk page. And he needs to promise to create any new articles in his sandbox or draft space and submit them to AFC for review. He hasn't quite done that in his latest request. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Understand. I just thought it might be worth mentioning to him since accounts are sometimes soft blocked as a precaution when the username is the same as an article name, especially BLP articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to mention it. I'm not entirely convinced that the other contributors to the Eric D. Goodman article aren't also the same person, given the promotional nature of some of those contributions (linking to Amazon "buy here" pages and what not), but those accounts in the edit history have been inactive for quite a while. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

responding to your response to my appeal

The appeal form still tells me I'm not blocked and I can edit pages now (before it told me I was blocked) but you're saying I'm still blocked? Also side question: who would I speak to if I end up having unresolvable problems with the Admin who initially blocked me? He currently disputes the edits I've made to the Low Fantasy page but sources support my edits and it's a matter that should be clear to anyone (else perhaps) looking at the issue, i.e. he disputes something that is both factual and I would say, logically intuitive (as opposed to something which is logical but perhaps not immediately intuitive, like many concepts in physics).

Here is my current conversation with this person (bottom of page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MelbourneStar#Low_Fantasy_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:68B4:A9B9:9F66:5276 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If the dispute is primarily between you and one other editor, Wikipedia:Third opinion is usually a good first step, to get an outside view. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

SNIPE HUNT!

Hello, I did not add a spam link. It was a link to my Web site Swamp Daddy Productions LLC. Snipe Hunt The Movie is a movie I made, horror comedy. I thought it would be appropriate with the article. My site is from wix. Maybe you should have checked it out before pulling it. Any questions you might have contact [redacted]. Pooh742 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pooh742: If it was your site, then yes, it was spam. One does not link to one's own websites on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before adding it. You have a conflict of interest regarding your own work (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance). At the most you can use the talk page to propose adding your link, so the rest of the community can consider it.

And, by the way, it wasn't I who removed your link. I just left the note on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the info on the Apprise Software article! :) Superasperatus (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Izmir Foundation for Culture Arts and Education ( IKSEV )

Hello, I have created the entry about IKSEV and I would like to know why it was deleted, and if possible get a copy of what I wrote. I am to submit what I have written as an assignment for my class. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albigator (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Albigator: It was deleted for two reasons: (1) it failed to make any assertion of significance, qualifying it for deletion in accordance with WP:A7; and (2) it failed to demonstrate any notability criterion for inclusion for companies or organizations as defined by WP:CORP. This article did not qualify for inclusion in main article space.

Wikipedia isn't intended for your personal free web host to work on class assignments. You can use Google Docs or any number of other tools for that. If you intend to write an article for publication on Wikipedia, then please don't work on drafts in main article space. Work on drafts in your sandbox, or in draft space. That is, you could create the article Draft:Izmir Foundation for Culture Arts and Education and work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being speedily deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas redfern

Thanks for deleting. I just realized that it was problematic when the redirect I changed it to didn't redirect the page to anyone nearly close to what it described ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the username of the creator, it looked like a possible vanity autobiography also. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What the hell?

Mate, you must be some dropped child if you go around ruining people's work. I had spent around 1hour editing a page and you just undid all my work for the reason: "you can't have more then 1 imdb link." You must be absolutely disabled if you link that undoing it would help. You could of removed the links rather then deleting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Sohal (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Tan Sohal: Rather than insulting our volunteers and blaming them for reverting your edits, why not blame yourself for wasting your time making incorrect edits? Ravinder Maan probably does not pass our notability guideline for actors so that article ought to be deleted. Had you read our requirements first you might be feeling less heartburn now. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I took care of their heartburn.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Um, you may want to unblock User:Ravinder Maan. That was actually a legitimate account, and the second account was apparently created in ignorance of our rules after I blocked the original for impersonation. The impersonation issue was resolved via OTRS and unblocked. I don't really see a reason to block it now. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to unblock anyone. First, both accounts were created at almost the same time. Indeed, Tan Sohal was created first, although the account didn't start editing until after the block. Second, I don't have access to OTRS, so I can't see the evidence presented that supposedly confirmed that Ravinder Maan is in fact the actress, but I have real trouble believing it. It's almost impossible to reconcile the location the two accounts were editing from with an Indian actress. Third, have you looked at the style of Tan Sohal's edit above? Does that sound like it was written by an Indian actress to you? Finally, in a similar vein, what about this edit summary by the Tan Sohal account ("Has been verified with the actress and wiki's staff")? This sounds to me like a person promoting the article and affiliated with the subject, not a person creating a vanity article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK. I have access to OTRS. The identity was verified by an OTRS volunteer sending a private message to Ravinder Maan's Facebook account, and the content of that private message was confirmed in subsequent OTRS communication. That proves only that the Wikipedia username "Ravinder Maan" is operated by the same person who operates under the same name on Facebook, which may or may not be the actress herself but possibly a representative, although the email address implies it's her and her husband. Tan Sohal is obviously a PR representative (or husband?), and I don't see any on-Wiki evidence that the two are the same person; I have to rely on what you found as a Checkuser. We may be dealing with a case of meatpuppetry, two people in one home editing the same article. I understand if you don't want to unblock anyone, but I would have no objection to unblocking the OTRS-confirmed account. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. The technical evidence is compelling. They are using the same IP, the same computer, the same operating system, and the same browser. In other words, they are  Technically indistinguishable. Based on what you've said and what I know, I believe it's a rep as I stated above, not the actress or her husband, unless her husband represents her and does so from a different continent. I see the whole thing as abusive from the get-go. I'm signing off shortly, so if you respond, I won't get to it until tomorrow my time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Interested

Greetings You told me, my material in Islamic attitudes towards science did not fit. Would you recommand, there the material would prefer fit in? Maybe a special secition in "islam towards science" about "relation between islam and science"? I am interested in your recommantion. Sincerely yours --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I said it didn't fit in the lead section.

Mostly I had a problem with stating the views of an author in Wikipedia's voice. We can't make blanket statements about Islam without properly attributing them. I know several Muslims who would disagree with the assertions you wrote.

You also had some grammar problems in there, subject-verb disagreement and improper use of "it's".

In addition, the quote from the Quran you added in another section was unnecessary; it would be sufficient just to quote the author's views.

The material you added to the lead might fit better in the Overview section. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Creator attribution

Hello mentor, Anachronist!

I created two pages (Thomas Jack and Nora En Pure) via my former sock account ReZawler few months ago and I was wondering if those pages can/should be hist-merged (or moved) to change the creator attribution from the sock to my current account. Is it possible? - TheMagnificentist 10:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is: you'd have to ask a bureaucrat if it's possible to merge contribution histories, but a bureaucrat is unlikely to touch a blocked account. I believe it's possible to move contributions if one username has had no contributions yet (this is done when renaming accounts I think; but I don't know exactly what bureaucrats do, they have some additional user rights beyond a Wikipedia administrator).

There may also be a licensing restriction against such a merge if the two accounts have separate contributions already; it has something to do with a legal requirement for properly attributing authorship in accordance with the Creative Commons content license that governs all user-supplied content on Wikipedia. The username who created the article is distinct from the username you're using now, even though in real life they're the same person.

The same thing happens with real-life copyrights, in the case of authors who write under a pseudonym, the copyright belongs to that pseudonym, and the pseudonym belongs to the author. So we would consider the sockpuppet username as a psuedonym as far as content licensing goes.

Come to think of it, we're all pseudonyms here. Few people use their real name as a username here. But the articles I create are authored by 'Anachronist', not by my real name.

The Creative Commons license permits re-use of content with attribution. Anyone reusing the overall article would give attribution to the Wikimedia Foundation, but if anyone re-published a specific edit to that article, it would be attributed to the username.

Anyway, that's my explanation. A bureaucrat can offer a better explanation if anything I wrote is incorrect. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Surfing in India

Hello Anachonist,

Indeed it is annoying to have perfectly acceptable content deleted because of a perceived conflict of interest -

If I don't insert this content - no one else will.

Nothing wrong with it - it is certainly true and written from a neutral perspective, etc etc

Having read numerous article on Surfing in India that were blatantly copied from the existing content on Wkikpedia, if these lazy journalists are going to copy their content from Wikipedia instead of doing any actual work, they should copy the facts - not a misinformed and incomplete version of events.

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".

Here's the Burden of Proof - well satisfied with references. Good enough?

Am I a fraud or a fake?

I don't think so - there is not a single word on any of these published projects in the Wikipedia on "Surfing in India" - there should be.

More reference links are available, this is not a complete listing. JohnSeatonCallahan (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)johnseatoncallahan

Posting the exact same message on multiple pages isn't helping you here. Take it to the article talk page and leave it there. Remember there are no deadlines on Wikipedia.

It wasn't "perfectly acceptable" content. It was WP:UNDUE weight for the topic and contained way too much unnecessary detail. If no one agrees that the material should be inserted, then it shouldn't be inserted. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Revoke the SPAM Status of METALWANI.com

Hi Anachronist,

My name is Owais 'Vitek' Nabi and I am the owner of Metal Wani. I observed my website is blocked on Wikipedia due to some issues in the past. We are considered as one of the reliable sources in Heavy metal. Is there anyway you can help me get in touch with a person who can unblock it? I will be happy to provide any information needed :)

Looking forward to your reply :)

- Vitek (Metal Wani) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitekAtMetalWani (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Due to this record of spamming by multiple sockpuppets it is unlikely that the site will be unblocked. It doesn't matter how reliable the site may be. Blacklisting is a consequence of spamming. If a high-volume, trusted contributor who is independent of metalwani feels that the site is worth unblocking, and posts a de-listing request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist then the request would be considered. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion/Reopening of T Y (Electronic Music Artist)

Hi there!

The page for T Y (Electronic Music Artist) has been deleted (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) even though on the page it referenced different discography and record label websites his single and album releases- including Resident Advisor.

T Y Artist Page on Resident Advisor

T Y release page on record label Plasmapool in March 2017

T Y release page on record label Plasmapool in February 2017

Music portal "Beatport" with all available music

T Y reached Top 10 for Spring Releases of Pro-Tunes Distribution

According to WP:MUS, one of the criteria of a musician is to have had multiple releases with a major record label, as well as consistently have releases published by sources other than themselves. What exactly of his career was not verified and about this article? We (the management team of T Y) would like to request it to be reopened to post more gathered sources and discography links to his earlier tracks. Thank you!

T Y (Electronic Music Artist) (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@T Y (Electronic Music Artist): None of the sources given in the article provided any evidence of significant coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability. A profile description isn't significant, it's routine. None of the links you provided above demonstrate any significant coverage either. WP:MUSICBIO requires multiple albums released under a notable label; releasing a couple of tracks under a label as indicated above doesn't qualify. WP:MUSICBIO also requires appearance on a national chart; Pro-Tunes doesn't qualify.

Therefore, I decline to restore this. You may take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review to get a consensus on whether my deletion decision was proper, or you can start over in draft space (as in Draft:T Y (Electronic Music Artist)) and submit the article for review and approval before it can be published in main space. Or I could restore it there if you prefer. Keep in mind that, as an editor with a WP:Conflict of interest, you really shouldn't be posting articles in main space yourself. Once the article is accepted, you should refrain from making any substantial edits to it thereafter.

If you are not actually T Y himself, go to WP:CHU/Simple to request a change in username to represent only you as yourself, not TY, and not a group of people. A management team or any other group is prohibited from operating a Wikipedia account. And impersonating T Y, as you are now doing, will result in that account being blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Is there anyway to have it privately restored so we can at least have the biography part- if that part was neutral enough we would like to use it in the future for when his EPs and label are valid for Wikipedia. We will also change/separate our users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Y (Electronic Music Artist) (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I could restore it to the user space of a user account, after you separate your current account into individual accounts. Your current account will have to be blocked as compromised, unfortunately, because apparently multiple people can log into it. But there's nothing preventing one individual account from editing in the user space of another account.

The advantage to restoring to draft space instead of private space is that other editors who might be interested in the subject can find the draft article easily and improve it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Siddhant Vats page restoration

Hello, Thanks for your comment/message regarding the restoration of the page of "Siddhant Vats" which was on this conversation thread Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Siddhant Vats

Since I am new to Wikipedia and haven't ever restored a page, I couldn't fully understand your comment there. Can you please help me with the steps required to restore the page?

I did partly understand that you wanted to restore the page, but I couldn't understand the full context if I need to perform any steps for that.

Thanks again for your help.

Thanks Ronks123 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)ronks123

You don't need to do anything. I was waiting for the person who originally nominated it for deletion to comment, because he wanted to discuss it with anyone who wanted the article kept. You may want to comment on his talk page User talk:Piotrus. I'll go ahead and restore the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reddit

Hey Anachronist, do you think it's safe to lower the protection on Reddit to PC? It's been protected since 2014, but no protection might be a little risky. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the frequency of disruptive anonymous edits that the article attracts, and the fact that nearly 100% of anonymous edits were garbage, I'd say no. PCP would simply add the burden of reverting pending changes onto the regular editing community, for no benefit. Since semi-protecting in 2014, editors have been quite active in it, and the activity has switched from reverting junk edits to making actual constructive improvements, free from the distraction of continuously having to revert unconstructive edits. Changing the protection to PCP would simply bring back that distraction, only in a different way. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands at Muhammad

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you out in my ping at Talk:Muhammad#Show_of_hands. Eperoton (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I would have noticed it eventually anyway. I responded there. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

...sourcing

The source cited literally states that the allegations are untrue. I'm not sure how we can use a source which states that there are false allegations to say that there are allegations, and not state that they are false. Particularly when the allegations are about a named living person. That seems entirely unsupportable by policy — it's a blatant misreading and misapplication of the source material. It would be like citing a source that says autism isn't caused by vaccines to say that "there is a controversy that autism is caused by vaccines." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review. All of those are troubling claims that we take seriously. All would be violations of the standards we maintain. Having spoken to Nathan several times, having looked closely at the numerous messages sent our way by concerned readers and, having compared published timelines, our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true. - That's what the source says. It is highly inappropriate to use this source to say that there are "allegations of wrongdoing" without explicitly stating that the source investigated those allegations and found them to be untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the details, I haven't followed Gamergate, all I'm doing is looking at it through the lens of Wikipedia policy. An allegation is simply a claim, not a statement of fact, and when describing Gamergate, it is appropriate to summarize what it was about, which includes an allegation, whether true or not. I don't see anyone named in the prose of the article, so there is no BLP violation. A reader would have to examine the source to learn the details about what the allegation actually is, who it was levied against, and the outcome. Citing the source for the purpose of demonstrating that the allegation was made is not a policy violation. Stating the opinion of a "leadership team" in Wikipedia's voice without attribution is a WP:NPOV violation. As to your analogy, describing a vaccine controversy as "allegation of a causal link between vaccines and autism" and citing a source saying there is no such link, still is sufficient to demonstrate coverage of the allegation itself. In a list article, there is no need to delve into details. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The allegation was not true, though. Presenting an allegation which has been determined to be false as if it may be true violates the false balance policy, particularly when the root of that allegation is a claim that a named living person committed ethical wrongdoing. Presenting an anonymous claim of wrongdoing as if it has validity, when in fact it does not, violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You make a valid point. My edit doesn't matter anymore, someone reverted it, and I'm not inclined to engage in an edit war. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And I have no desire to either, which is why I filed the RFPP, didn't revert you, and instead opened this discussion. :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted for copyright infringement

Hello. My article for Young Thunder was deleted for copyright infringement, but I don't understand what copyright infringement I violated. I was given the permission to upload the image by the copyright holder, and everything written in the article was given permission by Young Thunder. He owns everything posted on the article. Can you please advice me as to what I should do so the article isn't deleted again in the future? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngthunder (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Youngthunder: There are some problems:

1. The Wikimedia Foundation was never given permission by the copyright holder to reproduce the text already published elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you were given permission. The Wikimedia Foundation is the entity that publishes the content, and the WMF doesn't have permission. The copyright holder must provide permission, from a verifiable address proving his identity, in a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:CONSENT for more details. Otherwise, you must use your own words and not copy-paste the words published elsewhere.
2. You must not impersonate someone else. Before you do anything else, immediately go to WP:CHU/Simple to request a change of your username that represents only you as a person, not Young Thunder. Do this before your account is blocked for impersonation.
3. Even if you create an article that isn't a copyright infringement, it is still likely to be deleted because the subject doesn't appear to be notable. Please see WP:MUSICBIO, which lists a number of criteria a musician can meet to merit an article here. The article you created did not demonstrate meeting any of those criteria.
4. Because you have a WP:Conflict of interest due to your association with Young Thunder, you should not attempt to create the article yourself in main article space. Use draft space instead (create Draft:Young Thunder instead), and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

I hope that helps. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A question about a reversal of an administrative action

You didn't agree with my reason for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division by zero, so you restored it. Even if you thought I was so blatantly wrong that you could waive the normal practice of consulting another administrator whose actions you intend to revert, don't you think it would have been a courtesy to at least inform me of your decision? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for that, it wasn't my intention to not inform you. I was being distracted by several real-world things stressful things at the time, and by the time I got back to it, it had slipped my mind. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Help about Balkrishna Page

Dear @Anachronist, Please look after the article. User @J2G is not giving any justifiable reason for it. What can be done to restore it. Its about a highly reputed person in India. Please suggest.Didgeri (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You did the logical next step in taking it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I have commented there. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for blocking the vandal who tried to control my talk page. I didn't appreciate its attitude. It will try to come back under a different IP address. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Help about Creating New Page of Sudhir Kumar Mishra

Dear @Anachronist, I really dont understand why my draft page is being deleted repeatedly, I know my previous page was deleted due to my negligence, but that does not mean all of my drafted page will be deleted without any review. And you have mentioned that latest draft is even WORST. Please let me know what you find bad. Obviously I would like to improve it. I will be helpful you guide me instead of deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhirmishraji (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the reply I left to your request at WP:REFUND. It would be best if you got the draft restored, and refrained from editing in main space, especially if you have a conflict of interest concerning the subject (which you should disclose). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Liza del Sierra

Hello,

We had this conversation about ten days ago, and it seems that The Bushranger is currently unavailable. Granted, there is no particular urgency about restoring the page, but I'd like to know what I should do... Thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges: I have restored the article to Draft:Liza del Sierra for further improvement, and I also notified The Bushranger that I would be doing that. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do my best, in the following days (maybe next week) to add French sources that prove her notability. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello : I just completed Draft:Liza del Sierra's content. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to correct any grammatical mistakes. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges: Good work. I made a few minor improvements and moved it back to Liza del Sierra. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I did not go through the proper restoration process for Tiffany Hopkins, but I went too fast on that one and did not actually notice that it had been deleted. I did my best to add sources proving notability, though. There are some other pages about European porn stars which were deleted here because they had been judged on American criteria and not on European sources which would have proved their notability in their respective countries. I'm thinking about Melissa Lauren, Nomi and Anita Blonde. I might ask for their restoration someday, although there's no urgency... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges: No, you did fine. How an article was deleted matters. Tiffany Hopkins was deleted via WP:PROD, so restoration or recreation of the article is considered non-controversial. I just restored the deleted history, so you can look at it. Liza del Sierra, on the other hand, was deleted as a result of a community discussion, and we don't override community consensus lightly, so I first asked the deleting admin if he objected to restoring it to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

More eyes on Little Koala

If you could be so kind to watch Adventures of the Little Koala. The same user from North Carolina who tried to control my talk page was at it again. If this keeps up, we'll have to request page protection on it and a block range on the user. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Watched. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Choclawrence/sandbox

Dear Anachronist,

I am new to article creation in wikipedia.

I have been working on a new & fresh version for the title 'Kobi Arad' in the recent several days - I believe it has encyclopedic value.

I noticed you restored it, so I figure you also see encyclopedic value in it. The draft I made is concise and not commercial.

I humbly request your expertise in helping me edit this draft, and in uploading it successfully to wikipedia.

With thanks,

Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Choclawrence: Please use the button at the top of the draft to submit it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist, I have followed your instructions and clicked the submit for review button.Waiting now for your review.

Kind Regards, Lawrence.

It has already been reviewed; see Draft:Kobi Arad. Three different people including myself have left comments. The main problem for the other reviewers is that the inclusion criteria in WP:MUSICBIO haven't been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article Review For Kobi Arad

Dear Anachronist,

Please view recent notability additions in career section

["Article Draft"]

Thank you,

Lawrence

Please look carefully at WP:MUSICBIO. Collaborations with other artists who may be notable don't give notability to Kobi Arad in Wikipedia's terms. If you are convinced that one or more WP:MUSICBIO criteria are met, explain which ones, and why, in the comments that have been left at the beginning of the article, and re-submit for review. By the way, I going to be away from Wikipedia for several weeks, checking in now and then, but rarely. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Review For Kobi Arad

Dear Anachronist,

Since notability and subjectivity (incl. Discogs) issues have been fully addressed, I am now hitting submission button again for approval. I believe the stability and authority of the review shall benefit greatly from your expertise,

With thanks,

Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choclawrence (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Choclawrence: It doesn't look ready yet to me.

WP:MUSICBIO defines how a musician is notable, not our personal beliefs. Exactly which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO are met?

Collaborations don't qualify, because notability is not inherited. The awards need to be notable, and being merely nominated for an award doesn't count on Wikipedia. Innovative impact (that is, influence on other music) needs to be described in the reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Niece work removing the silliness with the Dutch "financial geniusness". Sposer (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Surfing in India, revisited

Hi Anachronist. Sorry to disrupt your Wikibreak, but you seem to be back doing some editing, so I figured it would be OK to ask. I noticed the discussion you had at Talk:Surfing in India#Proposed addition, but it seems that some socks may have been used to re-add the contentious content as well as some newer BLP related stuff. I tried to clean it up a bit, but to be honest, the article in general needs quite a bit of clean up. Anyway, feel free to revert if I took out too much. I would also be interested in whether you feel that an SPI might be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You did fine. I also wondered if this was an SPI case. Feel free to file one. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Stealth ships

Hello Anachronist. You claim that my edit to stealth ships was false, but it is not. The Horizon-class destroyers are classified as destroyers by both the French & Italian navies, hence the "D" hull marking on all four ships of the class. The name is kinda an oddball because France does not use the term destroyer anymore, but rather first-rate frigate, but does still use the destroyer classification.

As for the Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class, despite their official classification as frigates by the Royal Netherlands Navy, internationally, they are considered destroyers due to their size and capability, and even referred to as such by their crews. This information is reinforced on numerous pages including, Destroyers, Royal Netherlands Navy, List of active Royal Netherlands Navy ships, and the De Zeven Provincien-class destroyer pages.

I'm going to undo you're edit, I hope this cleared things up.

I'm on vacation now, but I will have to undo your reversion. Wikipedia should be internally consistent. I originally reverted you because the parent articles refer to the ships as frigates. ~Anachronist (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems someone else reverted you, for the same reason. If you want to change the designation of those ships on the English Wikipedia, you will have to provide evidence in the way of reliable sources to change not only the ship class in the stealth ship article, but also the articles about the individual ships. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucianne Walkowicz

You deleted the page for Lucianne Walkowicz back in 2011 because of A7. I'm rewriting it because she's now a TED Senior Fellow and National Academy of Sciences Kavli Fellow. --Blueclaw (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Blueclaw: That's fine. It seems I selected the wrong thing in the drop-down list of reasons when I deleting the article as A7, because it was actually nominated as G12 (copyright infringement). In any case, thanks for rewriting it. The deleted version is clearly a copyvio, so I won't restore that history. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion with Atlantic306

Please see message sent on my userpage Ee212 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Kim Tibbs

Anachronist, I read your remarks and do appreciate your concern, however, I am a fan of Kim Tibbs. Her music fell into my ears last year in 2016 when her song, I need you for your love, wen Number #1 on the Official UK Soul Charts. She is indeed a singer, songwriter, and musician and her songs that have been released do reflect Expansion Records. I Need you for your love is on the Luxury Soul 2017 CD. You can look under all credits and see this. I am not trying to start any internet based arguments, but it is not personal opinion but fact that she is a singer, songwriter, and that her album is soon to be available. So, I would appreciate if you undo your edits as I googled her the moment I heard her sound. She might not have a lot of information to place on her page, but i am no conflict at all but only a fan and just would like people to respect her. I don't know you and am not trying to be anything but cooperative with the guidelines of Wikipedia. So for peace, just allow the edits? Thank you for having a heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howellguy (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Light (fantasy)

Hi, can you please move Light (fantasy) that you deleted to draft, so I can continue working on it? I don't understand why you are in such a hurry, I have only just started! Dolberty (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) well; AfD debates are open for 168 hours. That's seven days. This had over nine. I don't think we can accuse anyone of being in a hurry :) which means there was certainlt plenty of time for someone to work on the article, and improve it. I note that that dd not occur. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 17:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, there was no consensus to delete after seven days so it could (and should?) have been closed as keep. Any extension should be another seven days and not an immediate close after some new votes show up in such a quick succession. I agree with you that there were plenty of people around who could have worked on the text rather than only judging the current version. Pris La Cil (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's precisely not how it works, I'm afraid. And what is the reason for the article not having been improved whilst the AfD was occuring? Incidentally, your two votes could easilly have been counted as one, per WP:SHARE, so I wouldn't be over-emphasising the numeric weight of the !votes, tbh! ;) — fortunavelut luna 18:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not find any of the 'keep' arguments convincing, and in fact those comments appeared to misunderstand the concepts of original research and synthesis. Even after 7 days, numerical consensus doesn't matter as much as the quality of the arguments, so it could have been closed as delete then, but extending it for a couple of days was the correct action for a clearer consensus to emerge. Basically when I came across the discussion, it struck me that it had gone on long enough, so I put the article out of its misery. If you can address the concern I raised in my closing remarks, about the existence of sources that cover the topic in the context of how it applies to various fantasy media, I'd be willing to restore it to draft space. If you believe my close of the discussion was improper, there's always WP:DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I had just started adding sources. There are more, like here. This week I had a field trip. Dolberty (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Light (fantasy)

Hi, I have posted a request about Light (fantasy), an article you deleted, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Light (fantasy). Dolberty (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Sock blocked, Draft deleted per WP:CSD#G5. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yeah, I noticed he was blocked after I draftified that article. I was pondering whether to delete it myself (G5 isn't mandatory and I don't agree with it in all cases) in case some other editor wanted to improve it, but you did it while I pondered. No problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I blocked him until after you draftified it. Or at about same time. If it had been a promising article I might have skipped the G5 deletion, but (a) no one else had done anything significant on it, and (b) it had already been thru AFD, and your draftifying was a favor. So odds of building it into something by non-socks was practically nil. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Admin identification

Hey there, I made an embarrassing mistake for a few minutes yesterday calling an action you made a non-admin closure. But I guess you are an admin who doesn't say so on their userpage. Would you consider making that identification, perhaps adding to your userboxes? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can check the status at Wikipedia:List of administrators. I don't mind the occasional mistake like that; in fact I expect it to happen from time to time. I prefer other users to think of me as a regular user. The interaction with the community changes if the other parties are aware you're an admin. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Tari Renner

In 2012 you deleted an article on Tari Renner as at the time he failed to meet notability. I wanted to see if that situation has changed. Renner is now the Mayor of Bloomington, Illinois. The city has an estimated population of 78,000 which is below the 100,000+ threshold I have noticed with articles about Mayors (with some exceptions). He was also a congressional candidate in 2004 (which was likely in the article). He also has an academic career and Google Scholar has a few pages worth of publications he has authored. He was also an executive (Director of Research) with the International City/County Management Association, which is one of the "Big 7." Before I spend time on an article, do you feel the notability has changed?

Thanks, Mpen320 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2017 (CT)

@Mpen320: Feel free to recreate it. The deleted article just had 2 sentences: "Tari Renner is a Professor of Political Science at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois. He announced on June 4th that he is running for mayor of Bloomington, Illinois." If I restored it to main space, it would just get speedily deleted again, so I recommend starting your own version in your sandbox. If you want, I could restore it to draft space, but it hardly seems worthwhile for 2 sentences. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I will start a version in my Sandbox and I will let you know when I finish. Mpen320 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (CT)

@Anachronist: I have taken the liberty of creating the article. Bloomington's status as the central city of the Bloomington–Normal and the notability established by "Category:Illinois Wesleyan University faculty" I am confident it will pass Notability.Mpen320 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Mpen320 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (CT)

Good work, it looks like a keeper to me also. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV proposal

"I do agree that a Wikipedia article shouldn't express such descriptors in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but should always attribute them to the sources."

You just agreed with what I'm proposing. Note my proposal saying

" I suggest that there be a policy that forbids articles from describing a living person's political views differently from how the person himself describes them in a direct statement." and

"I don't think that we should refrain from acknowledging that a person had been called that label, I just think that if they've rejected the label, then we shouldn't call them that in Wikipedia's voice (as a direct statement)."

Hope that clears some things up. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 04:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I was rather hasty in that comment and should have expanded upon it a bit. There are times when it's appropriate the describe a person in a certain way even if the person personally disagrees; in fact we have a policy related to that, WP:FRINGE, when referring to pseudoscience we call it what it is, and by extension the practitioners of it — and not a single one of those practitioners would agree that they practice pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request for the page "Saar Kashyap"

Last year I created a page for an Indian actor Saar Kashyap which was deleted due to lack of citation and references as Mr. Kashyap was a struggling actor. The situation has now changed, and he has acted in multiple Indian Television series, and is now part of a big budget Indian movie Padmavati directed by one of the country's best director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. In the movie, he is acting along with actors who are known internationally. The movie is currently in the production phase, and the link to the IMDb page was also shared in the profile which was deleted. References and citations to all his work was provided in the page.
Request you to kindly undelete the page.

Thanks, Robert Antony 19:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it because the page, in spite of the edits you made, was substantially identical to the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saar Kashyap. The concerns expressed in that discussion was that there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. Merely "acted in" multiple TV series and being "part of" a big budget movie are insufficient for establishing notability. He's getting work, but he's apparently still up-and-coming, and up-and-coming doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. WP:NACTOR requries that he must have had significant roles (not just appeared) in multiple TV shows or movies, or at least garnered significant media attention as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him (interviews are not considered independent, by the way). Your rationale about IMDB was insufficient because IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. And the rationale about "acting along with" notable actors is also insufficient, because notability is not inherited by association.

If you feel my deletion decision was improper, you may take the case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. But based on the comments so far, I don't see a justification for restoring it. You may start the article in draft space if you believe you can establish a case for notability, and submit it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Vanessa O. Edit Warring

Good day. The user that made the blatant BLP violations on multiple occassions once again undid my fully-sourced fact I added, and put back all the unsourced information about the person's sexuality, marriages, addresses, real names, etc., all without a single source proving any of this information, even though the user claimed all the information was true. I was unable to undo those changes because other edits by other users have been made after his. So, I deleted the unsourced information he added again. I see you blocked that user for 48 hours. If he goes to the page and once again undo's my cited fact and adds back his unsourced information, would you like me to keep undoing his edits and adding back by sourced information? Or will you take care of it in some other way? Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. Salvatore42 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Austrian Aviation Museum concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Austrian Aviation Museum, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I created a stub at The Cuban Affair (novel, 2017).

I have no association with either Nelson DeMille or Simon & Shuster.

1. I request you remove the general edit prohibition you placed on The Cuban Affair (novel) -- I think it should become a redirect to the new article.
2. I'd like to form my own opinion as to whether the deleted article cited any useful references, so I request you userify it for me. Once I check whether there is anything worth recycling, I'll mark the userification for speedy deletion... unless I strongly disagree with you as to whether there had been content that wasn't tainted with COI. In that case I'll return with some questions

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I know you don't have any association, I'm one of your wiki-admirers in fact. However, I neither deleted nor protected that article. Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) is the most recent deleting admin, and he also placed the protection. All I did was decline the restoration request at WP:REFUND made by an obvious COI editor. The deleted article consists of a 2-sentence lead and a 3-sentence blurb about the plot, similar to what you'd find on the book's dust cover.... and zero references. You version is way more substantial and better put together. Yours wouldn't be deleted, in which case there would be no harm in doing a history merge of the two. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, thanks for ping. @Geo Swan:, I've changed the protection to autoconfirmed and created your requested redirect. As Anachronist says, there is nothing of value in the deleted edits. And I won't speedy your version (: cheers! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotecting 2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship

I would like to ask for unprotection of the article 2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. I have created a draft version at Draft:2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I have removed the create-protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Simonetta Lein

Hi, I am not sure this is the place where to write you, so forgive me if it is not. I would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.220.102 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I wanted to thank you for taking the time to reply at my undeletion request. The editor who did the undeletion still hasn't replied to me so I was wondering if you could further assist. The page was up for two years, never showed a page issue, and is backed by multiple big sources. Another editor stated tha "influencer" or "fashion icon" are considered promotional. Maybe he is not familiar with the Millennial culture. Influencer is a legit job and I am backed by facts and sources- Fashion icon is just a title S L was given multiple times and it was explained with sources. If that is the issue could u please help me to make my Wekipedia page a draft again and tell me what it should be fixed so that I can do so? Again, everything is a fact so I am very confused on why it was just deleted without explanation-it is a month I have been waiting and I would like what has to be done in order to have this page back. If I have just to re do it please let me know. I would really appreciate your help. Thank you so much

I have restored the article to Draft:Simonetta Lein. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi I edited the draft, added many sourses and followed all the Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simonetta_Lein

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putela (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone already reviewed and approved it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The Wikipedia guidelines say that any editor can remove the tags other editors put if they think those tags are inappropriate. Please review them as after published some editor put them - they have no proof the page has a conflict of interest and also they still talk about promotion when the page states only facts. I spoke with other editors as we are really confused on what to change since only facts are stated backed by so many sources. Every other similar page is written in this way. Thank you for your help

Hello Sir, why did you wrote that the purpose of the page is still promotional. The page has the same structure as other page, no one was paid for doing it and there is not contrary prove, it was edited by multiple editors and sources like the metro magazine or La Repubblica were considered non credible when they are major magazines. We hope the page is ok now and can have the tag removed as they state something that is just a personal opinion and not the truth. Putela (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If rm prod instead means that you removed it, a big thank you. Though it would be nice to see the tags removed. Many Wikipedia editors too parts out and fixed what they think it should be fixed. Please if possible clean the page from the tags. Would appreciate your reply. Thank you for your time and your help Putela (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to examine the history and ask the editor who tagged the article that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That editor assumes things that are not the reality so his mind cannot be changed. Facts can prove if the page is ok. If you think the page is ok Wikipedia allows editor to remove tags. The page was edited by bounteous editor so please review it as that tag about someone being paid on top is really un true. Putela (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Numerous-sorry the misspelled Putela (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You have a dispute about content, so you need to take it up on the article's talk page, with the editor who disagrees with you. If a talk page discussion between two editors doesn't reach a resolution, then Wikipedia:Third opinion is a good first step to resolving the dispute. A step you should take prior to that is to be open and transparent about your conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, the page states only facts and it is done in the same page as other pages. Putela (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your association with Simonetta Lein? And why do you use the pronoun "we" in your comments on the talk page? How many people have access to the "Putela" account? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Request review

Hi, I've been looking at some of the edits made by Medgirl131 on the Alcohol page. Though I have undone some of them in the past, I would appreciate another editor having a look through the changes she has implemented. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@EvilxFish: In her contribution history, she seems to have a desire to present ethanol as a drug as if that were its primary purpose. That purpose should certainly be acknowledged, but with appropriate weight and neutral POV. Some of her edits are OK and appropriate. Your changes looked OK to me. I made a couple more edits, including removing her implication that people consume beer to get at the trace amounts of other psychoactive alcohols present in it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol/Ethanol

Hello. The editor interaction tool shows a massive overlap in interest (psychiatric medication, drugs, alcohol) between indefinitely blocked user David Hedlund and Medgirl131, and the latter account was created on 23 June 2014, between the former account's first (48h) and second (first indef) block. Hedlund, a very prolific editor who edited at very high speed, just like Medgirl131 does, created the first incarnation of Alcohol (drug) in 2014, as an undiscussed split from Ethanol, and then proceeded to change all links relating to alcoholic beverages and alcohol consumption to point to his new article, just like Medgirl131 has been doing over the last few days. I don't have time to delve deeper into it right now, but based on what I have found so far, including "interesting" timelines on some articles, I would say that there's an 80-90%, or better, probability that David Hedlund and Medgirl131 are one and the same... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: This really needs to be reported at WP:SPI. It may be too late for a checkuser to do anything, but at least we might get a consensus from administrators. I'm not too keen on blocking since the user's edits haven't damaged the project for the most part. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to block them based on what I've found so far, it was intended only to inform you about the similarities, and get more eyes on it. Hedlund hasn't edited since 12 May 2017, way past the magical three months, and I don't think there are any CU-logs, because there has never been any need for CU-checks, since the IP-socks that have been blocked were blocked because of a combination of very loud quacking and geolocation. So to make a case at SPI will take tons of diffs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

However, the IP address confirmed by quacking in the current SPI case can be used to compare with the geographic location of Medgirl131. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

People on the level where Hedlund apparently is (based on subject areas and articles created) often move from one university to another, even on different continents, so knowing what the geolocation was a couple of years ago doesn't really help (Umeå in Sweden is a university town, and the geolocation that Medgirl131 has kindly provided us with, see 17:30-17:31UTC here, doesn't seem to be a proxy, even though I could be wrong, has a handful of colleges/universities within commuting distance...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Medgirl131 is also doing a lot of logged-out editing on the same type of articles, using a whole IPv6 /64-net, i.e. what a single user gets, from a static broadband connection from AT&T Universe (see this check of the IP-contributions from the whole /64 that the IP above belongs to; a check based on the information provided by Medgirl131 themself, so no outing...). . - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be good to get more admins involved in examining behavioral evidence, since geolocation and checkuser wouldn't be conclusive. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you can see deleted pages, but I can't, would you mind comparing the lede and infobox of this to what the first incarnation of the article (deleted in 2014 AFAIK) looked like? I want to know if it is a copy of the old article that has been saved somewhere off-Wiki and then recycled, or a new article, written from scratch... 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There are only 4 deleted edits in the history of alcohol (drug) and they are all redirects to an obsolete title Alcohols (drug) (plural), no prose, no infobox. One of the versions has an RFD nomination, that's all. Any revision with content is available in the article history. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There has to be more, since the deletion log shows "99 edits restored". Is there a "paper trail" to follow if an article has been deleted, restored and moved to user space? Because we also have this deleted draft and this deleted userpage. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Aha. Yes, you're correct. The article had been moved to Draft:Alcohol (drug) in 2014 (in fact, I performed that move myself and don't remember doing it). Then the draft got deleted after it got stale, after which in 2015 a new one got created in main space. I have restored the draft merged the draft into the main space article, so you can now see the entire history. The talk page histories have been merged also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment They are NOT the same person with 99.9% accuracy. One worked mostly on alcohol related articles (David) the other works mostly on hormone related articles (Medgirl). Both worked on some of WP:PHARM most viewed articles. But so do a bunch of the core editing community of WPMED and WPPHARM. David struggled per[3] and other comments on his talk page. Medgirl has not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Have you checked their overlapping interests? Edits on alcohol related articles made up only a relatively minor part of David Hedlund's edits here, the majority of his edits were on articles about other things, including psychoactive drugs, psychiatric medication and illegal drugs, subjects that Medgirl131 also seems to be very interested in. There are well over 300 articles that have been edited by both of the named accounts (David Hedlund and Medgirl131), including articles about just about every psychoactive drug/substance there is, and if you add the IPs that both of them are known to have used they have even more in common, including outliers like Linux gaming and Penis size. Medgirl131 was also created between Hedlund's first (48h) and second (first indefinite) block, when Hedlund knew that his then current account was heading for an indefinite block... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Medgirl and I have more than 1,000 articles overlapping.[4] David and I have more than 200 articles overlapping.[5]

That tool does not hold much weight. Med and David have different editing styles, use different types of refs, one follows WPMEDMOS and WPMEDRS while the other did not.

I believe that David is from Sweden and male. Med is not. The links you mention are incredibly tentative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: People often move from one university to another, including from one country to another, so what the geolocation was a couple of years ago doesn't matter, and do you know for a fact that Medgirl is female? I'm not sure about the two accounts being a single person, but since multiple editors, independent of each other (I saw similarities btween the two before anyone else mentioned it, but did nothing until others started commenting on it...) see similarities between the two and there's a lot of overlap in interest I intend to do some digging. It doesn't have top priority, though, and I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong we're heading for trouble here, considering Hedlund's repeated POV-pushing on every subject that interested him, using both his account and this and other IPs, if we don't do anything about it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. The community that works on medical content is small and many of us know each other via various means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for HipChat/Stride Page Move

Hi Anachronist,

I saw that you moved the Hipchat page to a new page (Stride). Would you mind moving it back to Hipchat? The reason I'm asking is that Hipchat is still a separate product and is not going away. See here - https://www.atlassian.com/software/hipchat/enterprise/data-center While HipChat cloud will eventually go away, HipChat Data Center will be continuing on as a product. See here: https://confluence.atlassian.com/stride-documentation/faq-stride-and-hipchat-data-center-937165566.html Maybe Stride needs a separate page entirely?

Thanks!

I saw that too while considering the page move, and thought long and hard about it. What finally convinced me is that the hipchat.com domain now redirects to stride.com (so it made sense for our HipChat title to redirect to Stride). Also there is no way to actually start your own hipchat instance anymore as a try-before-buy deal. You basically have to get your IT department to install the HipChat Data Center product. Atlassian clearly intends for Stride to be the replacement. I don't see the need for separate pages because both HipChat and Stride are functionally identical except for some additional features in Stride (focus mode and switching in and out of video conferencing). At most, the article would need a sentence clarifying the end of HipChat Cloud and the continuation of HipChat Data Center.

This move was me following WP:BOLD. I suggest getting a larger community consensus by initiating a WP:RM discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,

It looks like there is still a HipChat website, it just moved here: https://www.atlassian.com/software/hipchat/enterprise/data-center And you can try HipChat Data Center for free, see here: https://www.atlassian.com/software/hipchat/enterprise/data-center?_ga=2.20896188.581830972.1505664494-1671403194.1495485606#download

Here is a quote regarding the difference between HipChat Cloud (which is going away) and HipChat Data Center: "At their core, both HipChat Data Center and Stride are team communication tools with the goal of supporting team collaboration. Although there may be some overlap in features, they are two separate products built for two different deployment use cases. They also leverage different technology and have different feature sets. The primary difference between HipChat Data Center and Stride is the deployment model - HipChat Data Center is self-hosted and Stride is in the Atlassian Cloud. More specific feature differences between HipChat Data Center and Stride today include: Identity management: HipChat Data Center supports SAML and integration with active directory. Stride does not currently support SAML, but will soon. Actions and Decisions: Provide structure for on-topic, productive communication and tie your team's conversations to action-oriented outcomes. Mark any message as an Action or Decision with a single click."

"Does this mean that HipChat Data Center will no longer receive investment? No, HipChat Data Center will continue to be our self-hosted team communication offering while Stride focuses on serving our cloud customers. We are doubling down on HipChat Data Center to provide our self-hosted customers with an experience customized for their needs." Source: https://confluence.atlassian.com/stride-documentation/faq-stride-and-hipchat-data-center-937165566.html

I'm still of the opinion that HipChat Data Center should have one page and Stride should have a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharrison4 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, you have convinced me that the topics should be separate. I have reverted my page move, so the article is now HipChat again. I also reverted some of my changes. I have created a new article Stride (software) and moved the additions I had made to HipChat into Stride. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharrison4 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Jiaogulan

Hi Anachronist,

You removed my remark on alterative names in the Gynostemma pentaphyllum.

HOWEVER, I did 3 year research on Gynostemma Penthaphyllum, AND i wrote a book about it. The most important Historical Name is Missing!

Please let me add the name on page, i will put a reference to my book.

Das Kleine Handbuch des Jiaogulan Tee. ISBN 9781549746864

kind regards, mr peter oldenburger -bioherby, botanical researche institute.

Bioherby appears to be a site intended to sell products, to promote rather than to inform. The book also appears to be self-published and unreviewed. As such, neither one would be considered a reliable source on the English Wikipedia, and I'm not the only person who has been removing links to that site.

Also, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should never cite your own work or link to your own website on the English Wikipedia. At most, you can propose your addition on talk pages.

The place to get a community consensus on whether your book or your website would be considered a reliable source is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can open a section there, or if you prefer, I can do it (although it will have to wait, since I'm at work today). 19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks you for your quick reply :)

Well, I just released my book, so it has not been reviewed yet.

The thing is the most important name of gynostemma in history is now missing from the wikipedia gynostemma_penthaphyllum page..

The link that I posted was not a sales or product page but an informative page, namely my personal blog about healthy herbs.

I made a reference to my Gynostemma : the Origins of the Immortality Herb Blog post. In that blog i quote from my book.

If you can help me I would really appreciate that!

I am a Gynostemma lover, and my company is dedicated to Organic Gynostemma. I can sent you 100grams for free, so you can try and see the superb quality for yourself!

Kind Regards

Peter

I don't believe you understand the situation. Your whole web site exists to promote products. When you say "help me" I must ask, help you with what? Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform, and shouldn't be used that way. The question is whether your book or your website can be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Generally, self-published books and blogs aren't considered reliable here for the purpose of citing sources (see WP:BLOGS), unless you are known as an expert in your field by virtue of previous publications in reliable sources that are independent of you. If your book cites any authoritative sources regarding an alternative name for jiaogulan, then those sources should be cited instead of a tertiary source. Thank you for the offer, but I already own at least a kilogram of Thailand-grown organic Jiaogulan tea leaves, enough to last years. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:David F. Golightly

You removed a WP:CSD#G13 template on Draft:David F. Golightly and hadn't left a reason. Can you please clarify why did you remove this speedy deletion template. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be obvious from looking at the page logs. After restoring a draft article due to a request from WP:REFUND, it is standard to remove the g13 template to reset the clock for the next deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Mubariz Ibrahimov edits

I appreciate your protecting of the page Mubariz Ibrahimov, can you please take the time to consider restoring at least some of the edits that were lost. Most of them where sourced quite well actually.--Syong Lee (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

An admin who protects an article won't get involved in content disputes. Other admins who didn't protect the article will avoid editing protected articles unless it's for an obvious reason to remove vandalism or libel. You really need to work it out on the article talk page. I can help moderate a talk page discussion, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I would appreciate that.--Syong Lee (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not going very well. Discussion--Syong Lee (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please

Block the duck already! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:MEAT actually. I prefer to wait until a CU sorts it out. In the meantime, the article is protected. Both of you were warring, now both of you can discuss. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, same difference! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have time

Please view my post on WT:CRIC if you have time. I have made two comments on the page regarding the deleted article, based on your suggestions. Bobo. 23:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I replied there. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Those two editors...

on the Aimee AFD... I have about had it. I have responded to the IP's last comment but will be walking away for a while. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Actually, I'm open to changing my vote. The two reviews mentioned in my previous comment are published by the websites of two notable reviewers, both of whom have Wikipedia articles. I just can't tell that those reviewers actually wrote them. If the subject is notable, the article should be kept. The AFD discussion is serving the purpose of determining that. But I agree, I wish the 'keep' proponents had focused more on actual policies and guidelines. They're learning, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I only care about WP policies and guidelines and that is it - Notability and verifiability and GNG y'know. These SPA/RightGreatWrongers/COIs that fling insinuations & accusations around on AfDs usually don't seem to understand that.

Re if the article should be kept or not: The film has received some reviews - has it received enough and are they from notable enough critics? Maybe, but so far as I can tell that half of the "film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" parameter is about the only aspect of WP:NFO the film has fulfilled: It hasn't been selected for preservation in a national archive, it isn't taught as a subject in a college-level course, it hasn't received any major awards, there is no evidence of it being historically notable, (and, like I said, there is no evidence of it being widely distributed). Re: GNG - I just don't think that the film has received truly significant coverage. Even the 2 proponents have had to dig up cites from sources like the East Valley Tribune etc and SAG Conversations screenings....what other notable movie has to use a SAG Conversations screening as evidence? I don't remember coming across any film article on Wikipedia using that source as proof of its notability.

Anyway, enough about Aimee. Thanks again for your reply. I need to back off of the discussion at the AfD, I'll dip back in later in the week. Cheers, Shearonink (talk)

Barong Family

Can you please move "Barong Family" to my user space? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Userfied to User:Jax 0677/Barong Family. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Link Removed

Hello there, first of all, sorry that I made a link spam. I am new to Wikipedia. I have recently written and definitive guide on content marketing checklist which covers everything about content marketing and methods used for promotion of any content type.

Can you please tell me where should I place my link in reference link or within content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok88 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alok88: In keeping with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, you must not place links to your own pages in Wikipedia articles. You can suggest it on the article talk page to let the community decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WEMB

is being hacked. It went out of business in 2014, and yet a disgruntled former employee (Marky Billson) is determined to use the name as his calling card to claim he owns it (and that its call letters stand for Wisely Employing Marky Billson). WEMB was sold, it no longer exists. There are several reference links on the Wikipedia page which prove this; Billson continues to delete these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberland001 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is already protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Cyberland001:  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

COI template placed on Bansard International

If you have a spare moment could you take a look at the Bansard International article? I've been working on addressing COI issues with the editor connected to that company, and would like very much if you could offer some feedback on how the article looks after the recent changes I've made, and whether or not I'm going in the right direction with them. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time!  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  10:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: It looks completely rewritten from the last COI version. I'd say the COI and advert tags may be removed.

I also suggest removing the founder's name from the lead. Including it imparts an air of notability to the name that probably shouldn't be there. He founded a notable company but notability isn't inherited.

Also, I suggest chaning the bullet list in the history section to past tense. It looks odd to see history written in the present tense. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! I'll make sure those changes are made. Thnx again  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  08:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Herzegovina

Thanks for your edit on Herzegovina. You might want to look into this on Bosnia (region) as well. Thanks. --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Austrian Aviation Museum

Hello, Anachronist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Austrian Aviation Museum".

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 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: please inform the actual creator of that article, not the admin who restored it from when it was deleted earlier. I have restored additional deleted edits to make it clear who created it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. The post was automated so I'm not sure why it did it here, and as well as the author's page.[6] Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hesselp

Please look at some of this user's previous contributions (e.g., their talk page). The fact that you don't think this one is in dead horse territory yet just means that you need to wait a week and come back. They need to learn when to stop, and people need to stop encouraging them to keep going in the same repetitive way. Best, JBL (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because you want him to stop doesn't mean his suggestion has no merit. In fact his proposal is correct as the interval length approaches zero, but it's way more complicated and harder to understand than the definitions currently in the article — which is the message I've been trying to convey. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Cankle

Is indefinite full protection on this article necessary anymore? I'm going through the list of indefinitely protected articles in the mainspace and I ran into this one... wanted to message you and ask about it before I changed it. Let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten all about that one. Back then, we didn't have extended confirmed protection. Full protection was the only thing that would stop the disruption that was happening (in the deleted history). I've reduced it to extended confirmed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Re:Samuel Robinson

You recently salted Samuel Robinson and set it to require administrator access to be recreated, could you reduce it a little bit, to say EC? Mahveotm (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Um... Samuel Robinson is a disambiguation page, and it isn't protected.

I created-protected Samuel Abiola Robinson and Samuel AbiolaRobinson because a disruptive editor with a conflict of interest kept re-creating them in main space in spite of the deletion decisions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Robinson (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Abiola Robinson. If the user can demonstrate compliance with COI guidelines and get a draft reviewed and accepted, I will gladly reduce the protection level, but not before then. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Author notability

Hi Anachronist. Thanks for taking care of Elaine Corvidae. I just want to be clear on the notability for authors since I haven't done much work on those types of pages. I understand that an author can't gain all of their notability from the mere existence of their books, but if some of those books have won awards, does that make an author notable or only the books? (Clearly none of this applies to Corvidae). Leschnei (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR criterion #4 might apply in the case of an author whose books have won awards. It depends on the award. An "award" by some community's local book-of-the-month club wouldn't be counted, but the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction certainly would matter. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Leschnei (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anachronist. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:California Closets deleted and blocked

Hello, Anachronist you recently deleted i drafted that I had started work on earlier this year. I had received guidance on wikipedia best practices from an editor who re-submitted the page. Please provide full details on why the page was deleted and why you marked it as G5 - blocked or banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickkretz (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nickkretz: Whoops, you are correct. There was a flurry of recent activity in that draft by a banned editor and I mistakenly took that editor to be the creator. I have restored the draft article and reverted the banned editor's changes, which are still in the history in case you wish to use any of them (there may be some additional sources available). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2^11

Thank you. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy

In this edit series, summarizing what he wrote with "terrorist children" was completely unacceptable. I understand that you are at the article via OTRS, but you must be aware that you cannot become an advocate for the OTRS client.

Further, your characterization of this discussion from 2011 in which exactly one person responded, as the source being "deemed untrustworthy" (here) and in this edit note as "was already reviewed at WP:RSN. It is not considered a reliable source. " .... are mischaracterizations at best.

If you cannot edit neutrally then please step away from the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "children of terrorists" would be better.

And we don't cite blogs. I am being neutral. This is a BLP, and we need to be using reliable sources, not blogs. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You are most decidedly not being neutral. Editors working at OTRS can get into COI-like situations. Editors with a COI tend to be unaware of the extent to which they are influenced. Please step away from the article. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, but I disagree that's what has happened, and you apparently haven't been reading what I've written recently on the talk page. I am all in favor of including negative information that is adequately sourced. Also positive information. No one on Wikipedia should cite statements in a BLP to questionable sources, one of which I have removed. The Online Citizen is a one-man show[7], basically one guy's personal blog that happens to be quite popular. But popularity doesn't equate to reliability. Fortunately the article cited it in places where it was redundant because another better citation existed alongside, so there was no loss in removing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying about this in various places (all of which I have read), as well as your edits, are providing diffs that will make it clear to anyone who is neutral, that you are editing as an advocate. In my view it is not good for Wikipedia nor for yourself to continue, as your judgement is not good on this topic. You will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

btw, what you are seeing happen at the Cheng article is the immune system of WP pushing back against advocacy. The article has been under relentless promotional pressure for ten years now. We actually had things pretty stable until October, when another Cheng representative showed up to promote Retech, and decided to try to downplay the "killing children of terrorists" business while they were at it, and they have not stopped trying since then. It has been one steady PR drive since then, through a series of socks/IPs as well as efforts to plead their case through OTRS (you are not the first OTRS rep to show up and all of you have edited badly). Cheng is persistent. He has actually appealed the CSS decision threetwo times already (we only discuss one of them). The same is happening at the WP article.

But the harder advocates push for ridiculous things, the harder the community pushes back. (Look at our acupuncture article as another example).

And please do consider what is going on inside you, such that you could actually write "terrorist children." Please ask yourself, how you got there. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) (yep, third appeal was by another party Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC))

I know exactly how I got there. It was more concise, it's that simple. But I agree the meaning was wrong. I make mistakes and I admit to them, as I have done here, on the talk page, and in edit summaries.

Three times? I saw official records about only two appeals. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)