User talk:78.26/archive2022

Draft:Andrew B Greytak

Please see my comment at this draft DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for the ping, and for looking at that draft. I of course defer to your wisdom and expertise in this area, and if you want to move it to article space I would fully support it. All the best, and happy new year! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Protecting a Page - Public Official

I stumbled upon vandalism of a public official and would like to see the page protected. I edited it back to remove the vandalism.

Here is the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Milgram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckoian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ckoian: I don't see a reason yet to protect the page. There was one (serious) vandalism episode, but it was caught by our watchful volunteer editors, in this case: you! There hasn't been a persistent pattern of vandalism, which is where page protection is more useful. I hope that helps! By the way, most administrators aren't on 24/7, so if you have a page you'd like protected I'd recommend WP:RPP. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You have got mail

Hello, 78.26. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Q28.
Message added 06:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Q28 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Q28: replied by mail. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for my deleted article to be sent to my e-mail or userpage

Hello, i request for my deleted article to be restored. Dr BA Thango (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly won't restore your resume to article space. As you immediately placed an exact copy to your user page (but since deleted) it seems you do have a copy stored elsewhere already. I hope you enjoy editing wikipedia, we need subject matter experts such as yourself, but promoting yourself on Wikipedia is never allowed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, 78.26. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dylan620:  Done Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you — could you please do this one too? --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dylan620: also done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Oliveira

I'm struggling to understand your closing statement here. You appear to cite the policy on proposed deletions of BLPs, but as this is not a proposed deletion, but an AfD, where does policy state that this should be deleted? --c (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Michig: thanks for writing. I'm sorry to have disappointed you, and failed to clearly explain my thought process. I closed it that way because:

• The "delete" arguments made it clear this was a BLP violation, in particular I found Otr500's argument to be strong.
• It was clear the topic was notable.

Therefore the only way I could figure out how to reconcile these was to delete is if it were a BLP prod (it had been open for three weeks, anyone could have added a reference during that time) and mention that the topic was clearly notable, so if re-created (with a source, any source) it won't be G4'd. Perhaps I should have added that I would gladly restore the article to anyone's sandbox or to draftspace upon request. Doing the latter without a request seems out of process, which may seem odd given this is probably an un-bureaucratic close. You of course can restore the article yourself. If no one did it, I was seriously considering restoring the article and adding sources myself, but this is not my preference as I know nothing about boxing and in fact dislike the sport. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petzone (2nd nomination)

Hello Sir, I have checked Arabic sources as you mentioned and I founded this source so plz check click to veiw.Humble84 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Humble84: I'm afraid it's not me you need to convince, but the participants at the AfD discussion. I can't read Arabic, although I might use Google Translate to get a rudimentary idea regarding what the article is saying. What would be better for your position is if you could demonstrate that the article is independent of the topic and shows significant coverage of the topic. Because this is an ongoing commercial concern, you'll need to show the notability requirements of WP:NCORP are satisfied. (in other words, you'll need at least three independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage of the topic]]. Do that at the deletion discussion, not here. If I were to !vote my argument carries no more or less weight than any other editor, I don't get a Wikipedia:Supervote. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for looking into the Wikipedia editathon for March! Keep in touch Hamaxides (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hamaxides: Wonderful. A pleasure to meet you! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting my deleted article back, needs to be proof read

Hi,

I want my article copied to my user-page, for further editing and proofreading my wikipedia.

Rosen Method (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Rosen Method / new username to be changed to: Alsephina Rohini

@Rosen Method:, I don't see any article you've created that has been deleted. Which article are you referring to? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 01:03:11, 21 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2601:484:C201:32E0:D4A8:3F7B:FD97:AD72

• 2601:484:C201:32E0:D4A8:3F7B:FD97:AD72 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mullet Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2601:484:C201:32E0:D4A8:3F7B:FD97:AD72 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2601, you'll need to let me know what questions you have regarding to topic. I outlined in general why the submission is not ready for article space (doesn't meet music notability guidelines, and also listed some very specific problems (the sources aren't independent of the topic, and many sources given, when linked to, don't support the claims in the submission.) If you have a specific question please let me know and I'll do what I can to help or better explain our policies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Slientbot unblock

He has proposed a new username. Are you OK with it? Edits seem OK. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I’d be delighted to see them unblocked with a change of user name. Thank you for looking into it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rev dev.

Hi 78.26,
Could I request a revision deletion for the last 4 edits of Evolutionary origin of religions. I think there's probably a honey pot of copyrighted contributions from User:PzychoPat if you're in the market. This isn't a particularly time sensitive request so if there's a more appropriate place to request a revdev I'll happily park the message there. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince:  Done Although I only revdeleted 3 versions. The first edit needed to be undone as it replaced a source used to support material. Thank you! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing copyrighted in my addition. Thanks for keeping an eye out, but I only cited the abstract. PzychoPat (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@PzychoPat: You didn't cite the abstract, you copied it word-for-word, which is where the violation occurred. I hope that helps. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I wish to receive the contents of my deleated page

Hi, I made created a page about John Tuner (recorder) and received a message from Jimfbleak saying I had created an autobiography, which I haven't. Would I be able to get the contents of the article back please. Thanks Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonhall70 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gordonhall70:, thanks for writing. There's a couple of main points I need to make before I get into the details. First, I've worked alongside Jimfbleak for many years now, and know him as a superior editor and excellent administrator, so I wouldn't undo one of his actions lightly. Second, this may not be an autobiography but because there are biographical details that are not in the sources provided indicate that at the very least you have a conflict of interest. Please understand that I use the term in the Wikipedia sense, I would recommend you read WP:COI and take any appropriate required action. So that said it appears the topic may be notable. Jim, this is an area of a bit of expertise for me. The body of work checks out. However, we need more reliable sources. Gordonhall70, we need more WP:Independent, reliable sources that contain in-depth coverage of the topic. Also, the promotional, over-enthusiastic tone of the language would need to be reigned in. So, with that said and Jimfbleak's permission I'm willing to restore the article to draftspace (where it appropriately was) so it can be further worked on. However, you'll need to review what I said and reflect as to whether or not it is worth you time, because if you don't have the necessary sources it will never be moved to mainspace. Does that help? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

78.26, thanks for the ping. I'm happy to leave this matter in your capable hands, and I hope that @Gordonhall70: heeds your excellent advice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I will work on everything you have said to try and make the article ready for main space if you can restore it to draftspace.

Thanks

Gordonhall70 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Boyd Senter

Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Boyd Senter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Help To Restore

Hello, Sir. Please help to restore my deleted articles, Salif Gueye, Ahlamalik Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rma17 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rma17: I'm going to decline. First, I don't trust that you won't move them from draftspace to article space, which you have done twice after failing AfD. Second, your arguments at AfD demonstrate you have no understanding of notability or reliable sources. Third, the articles show no sign of notability at all. The only way I would restore them to draft space is if you were able to demonstrate you have a solid understanding of sourcing, by showing me multiple very good independent, reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm sorry I can't accommodate your request right now. I hope you can spend the time to learn our notability policy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page deletation

Why didn't they give me full information or fix my mistakes than to delete my page??? Is it fair enough? KhethiweM (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@KhethiweM: This is a volunteer project, no one gets paid to provide encyclopedic information to the world. How is it fair that volunteer time be expended on a page that is entirely against Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means you, and we hope you stay and become a productive editor. However, all editors must comply with Wikipedia's goals and policies. In your case, please take a look at WP:NPOV, WP:N and possibly WP:COI. I also don't understand what harm is done to you, if you feel the topic truly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, you can edit it at Draft:Loster Maboyya. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT REVIEW

GOOD DAY! I AM CHUKLEPEDIA, YOU HELPED ME BEFORE ON ACCEPTING THE 'MY BOY (ALBUM)' DRAFT TO ARTICLE, SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT! ALSO, I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU CAN HELP ME REVIEWING MY NEW DRAFT Draft:Moog: The Electric Eclectics of Dick Hyman, IF YOU PLEASE BE SO KIND REVIEWING IT. HAVE A NICE DAY AND GREETINGS! :) --Chuklepedia (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Chuklepedia Thanks for writing! I’m on vacation right now, but would be honored to take a look when I get back. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

OH SURE, NO WORRIES! THANK YOU SO MUCH AND HAVE A NICE TIME! GREETINGS! Chuklepedia (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Help in References

THIS article is relate to news site which support new investors and stake holder in NFT World. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFTStudio24 these are all sources links but I need your help , is these are not enough ,

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/430802

https://topemergingtech.com/5-ways-cloud-computing-is-used-in-machine-learning/

https://techbullion.com/how-do-you-verify-the-authenticity-of-an-nft-with-nftstudio24/

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/273869/20220404/nftstudio24-ranked-azuki-4666nft-as-1-among-all-10-000-collections.htm

https://topemergingtech.com/5-best-applications-of-ai-in-the-fashion-retail-industry/

https://news.biglobe.ne.jp/

https://www.ibtimes.sg/nftstudio24-encourages-authentic-education-training-young-entrepreneurs-metapreneur-63945

https://www.latestly.com/technology/how-to-verify-a-solana-nft-3675132.html

https://eng.jeeveypakistan.com/?p=14271

https://techmag.com.pk/blockchain-facilitation-is-ready-for-supply-chain-business/

https://pakobserver.net/countering-disinformation-key-to-nft-blockchain-business-asif-hameed/

https://nation.com.pk/2022/04/29/how-common-pakistanis-are-to-miss-out-on-opportunities-due-to-blockchain-misconceptions/

https://nation.com.pk/2022/05/14/how-does-blockchain-work/

https://nation.com.pk/2022/07/07/nft-news-the-rising-need-for-nft-regulatory-framework/

https://nation.com.pk/2022/07/07/nft-news-the-rising-need-for-nft-regulatory-framework/

Kyle154 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kyle154: Please note that it's not a matter of inserting sources, what is important is that the sources are WP:independent, reliable, and contain in-depth information about the topic. Far better to have three really good reliable, independent sources than to have 25 poor quality sources. The latter is frankly annoying to most editors here, as it leads to violations of our neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability policies. Please take a careful look at the links I've just provided, and also WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I hope that helps. I'm happy to answer further specific questions you may have. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for precious time. The above source are reliable for me but it is not enough for Wikipedia editors, They only asked for The Guardian , Bloomberg and Forbes.

Please have a look on above links and guide me.

I am really appreciate you. Kyle154 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

kindly review the article, and let me know your valuable remarks , I really thank full to you.

Draft:NFTStudio24 Kyle154 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kyle154: I'm not going to reinstate what has been speedily deleted by another administrator for advertising, but I'll go over the first three references you list above and tell you what's wrong with them. The first one (entrepreneur.com) has a disclaimer "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors" on the page. This has not received editorial oversight by the website, assuming it is an otherwise reliable source. Many "articles" in Forbes suffer the same problem. It's essentially a WP:BLOG, and is not a relialbe source. The second source has had it's account suspended. I'm not going to bother trying to track down a copy on archive.org, as I would not count it as a reliable source. I don't trust the www.techtimes.com source, it is so breathlessly positive about the topic that I doubt it is independent of the topic. Either the article was paid for, or the author has a stake in its success. I invite you to take a look and tell me what's wrong with the fourth source (https://news.biglobe.ne.jp/) It's quite obvious. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Akron Baptist Temple

Hello! Your submission of Akron Baptist Temple at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

@78.26: I got a suggestion for you, how about you and me work on a article for Florida Hospital. This used to be an article the creator of the article was confused when they created it, instead of talking about the subnetwork it was talking about Florida Hospital Orlando. Last year I tried to find information, but Google wasn't much help for me since it was showing me websites that had no connection. Today I found some for Florida Hospital. If you are interested you can move the page to draft and give me a ping. And since you have better digging powers then me you can collect the websites. What do you think? Catfurball (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Catfurball:, thanks for writing. I know a lot of these hospitals were merged into the parent article for apparent lack of notability. Regarding Florida Hospital Orlando, I'll admit that while I'm fairly conversant on a lot of Adventist-related topics, the Heath Care Network area isn't one of them. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "move the page to draft". You can create a new draft page anytime you want, I don't see anything to move, so I believe I'm misunderstanding your request. Sorry. Let's get that taken care of first and then I'll look for additional sources. Please be patient with me, things are crazy in real life right now and will remain so until at least October. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Abu Dhabi Petroleum Company

Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Abu Dhabi Petroleum Company, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banjo (chocolate bar)

Sincere thanks for your vote and research efforts. Any chance you could sign off your admirable work with something somehow? Unsigned contribs - no matter how well-founded - get ignored by the kids in charge. Alas. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Plutonium27: Done. By the way, would you please re-consider your remarks to Otr500? Making the argument personal weakens your argument (I say this as someone who regularly closes AfD discussions), does not particularly add to the conversation, and while I disagree with their position in this instance I know Otr500 to be a long time, highly productive editor who is most definitely HERE to build the encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Akron Baptist Temple

On 10 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Akron Baptist Temple, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Akron Baptist Temple (pictured) once featured 6-foot-tall (1.8 m) red lettering that flashed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Akron Baptist Temple. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Akron Baptist Temple), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,421 views (850.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Child Brain Injury Trust

Hello, I have been trying to set up a draft page to be reviewed for the 'Child Brain Injury Trust', however, I think it's been deleted as i cant see it anywhere? Would you be able to let me know if this page has been deleted? If it has, can you send it back so i can submit it as a draft? Thanks (Laura Crofts (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Laura Crofts: yes the page (Draft:Child Brain Injury Trust) has been deleted, because of unambiguous advertising. While I wouldn't have deleted this for that reason myself because it was in draftspace, I certainly would have taken the same action as @Jimfbleak: had this been in mainspace. Although not blatant advertising in the sense of "If you have x you need to give us a call to solve all your problems", the prose did nothing but extol the services and virtues of the organization. For instance, the phrase "the leading voluntary sector organisation" very much violates our WP:NPOV policy. Who calls it "leading"? Certainly not the source that was provided to support the claim. I frankly think you'd be better off starting from scratch, providing you have multiple WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources that cover the topic in-depth. I'm also concerned you have not declared your WP:COI, as required if you are going to edit this topic and explained when your unblock request was granted. I'm not saying I won't undelete it, but I'd like a better explanation of why you want it restored, given the significant problems with the prose, and what you intend to do with it. Then I'd further like Jimfbleak's blessing because he may have a different viewpoint, and I highly value his perspective. I hope that helps. Thank you for writing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 78.26. @Laura Crofts:, make sure that the fully understand the advice above. You must declare your COI as mandated in the COI link, and your text must give real facts, such as number of employees, income, expenditure etc. I agree with 78.26 that you are better off starting from scratch, although if he decides to restore, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply. All I was trying to do was get a childhood acquired brain injury charity (the Child Brain Injury Trust) recognised. I followed (not copied) other, very similar, organisation wiki pages in what I attempted to put together but it appears despite that, it is still no good. Please can you just delete me permanently or at least point me in the right direction as I can't seem to do that either. Thank you (Laura Crofts (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Laura Crofts: I'm sorry you're confused, and I will do the best to help. Writing an article is about the hardest thing you can do, I really would recommend some general editing before trying to start an article. I'm not sure what you want deleted. You can't delete user accounts. There are a lot of articles that should be removed from Wikipedia because they don't meet notability standards, so pointing to other articles probably isn't helpful, although there are probably independent sources for those articles. Wikipedia isn't saying your charity isn't important, but in order to write an article from a neutral point of view, and such that the reader can verify the accuracy of the statements made in the article, we need multiple, independent sources that talk about the topic in an in-depth manner. We call this encyclopedic notability, or WP:N. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for your help. Yes I just wanted to delete my user account completely. I appreciate you taking the time and explaining things but I think I will just leave it for now and maybe come back to it in the future. Thanks again and all the best (Laura Crofts (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not cute, you shouldn't had let YouTube delete Kitty cat's YouTube channel and videos Misskatrina (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Wikipedia certainly doesn’t have any say in YouTube’s actions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, 78.26. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rob3512 (Talk) 05:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Think I took care of it. On my mobile device, and I hate editing on my mobile device, but that was egregious. Let me know if I missed something. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 07:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that's all of it. Rob3512 (Talk) 07:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

@78.26: Can you please protect AMITA Health. There is a vandal that keeps attacking it, this year and last year it has been attacked 17 times. And I just undid some of the vandalism. By this vandal User talk:165.75.7.250, is registered to Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. Catfurball (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a couple of days. Let me know if it continues, and I'll use the block. Maybe I should have done that instead, its only one individual. That said, no one has issued any warnings in the last six months, so blocking really isn't appropriate. So since the vandalism seems to be (inexplicably) targeted to this page, I semi'd. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism - revision-deletion request

Several edits of Rory Phillips (DJ) made by User_talk:95.147.222.131 commit the double crime of being both defamatory and poorly spelled. These have been undone or edited away but but would be best removed if you could. Letsnotstart (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits in question were all made on 27 April 2022 for clarity Letsnotstart (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Letsnotstart:  Done While the poor spelling isn't actionable, the BLP violations are. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And at Warp speed! Appreciated, Thanks Letsnotstart (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Happened to be on. Plus the email notifications pushed to my mobile device help. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

deleted article about European Triode Festival

hello. it seems that in 2020 you deleted the entry on the European Triode Festival (ETF). as the initial author and organizer, i only today noticed the deletion when i wanted to forward somebody the link. not being familiar with the workings of wikipedia, i was surprised about the reasons given for the deletion (and also why i was never informed about the deletion process). the ETF still exists. except for 2020, it was held every year since 2003. a simple google search will yield plenty of links. there are reports in well known publications like "Stereophile" and others. the reason that led to the deletion of the entry also describes the nature of the ETF. i started it as a non-profit, grass roots event modeled after my swiss understanding of direct democracy. nobody "owns" the ETF. there is no ETF leadership or steering committee. there are no written rules, just the understanding and mutual agreement that somebody (mostly a group of two or three persons) volunteers to organize the next three festivals in his country. he then carries the ETF torch for the next three years until – usually in the 2nd year – a new volunteer offers to carry on. since this is all unpaid work and there is considerable financial risk (often the organizer has to pay upfront for the venue), no volunteer has ever been rejected. organizers are free on how they interpret the idea of the ETF. often they set up their own ETF website instead of taking over existing ones. nobody can force them not to. many organizers weren't even aware that there is a wikipedia entry. and none so far (up to the deletion) had the idea of adding something to the entry… calling it a niche event is correct and incorrect at the same time. it is a niche event in the sense that the number of participants is –again by mutual understanding- limited to 100. this number has proven to be a good compromise. participants usually bring a lot of DIY and commercial stuff to the festival, doors are never locked, everybody trusts each other. that is a central, not negotiable part of the ETF's unique character. any organizer so far usually had 500 applications and had to reject 400. who is being rejected is completely up to him. there is an unwritten law that previous organizers will always be admitted. in that sense, it *is* a niche. but the participants are anything but niche – among them are engineers and designers that develop new tube circuits that are granted international patents, there are entrepreneurs in the fields of tube manufacturing, transformer design / manufacturing, tonearm / cartridge / turntable manufacturing, circuit design, publishing, authors of reference books and many more – all in the field of audio / sound recording and reproduction. they all return to the festival (and pay the full entry fee!) because they value the unique character of the event. (the downside of limiting the number of participants is that being admitted has become sort of badge of honor. the ETF has the reputation of being an elite gathering since many of the participants are well known in DIY / tube audio / vinyl reproduction circles. i never intended this elite, exclusive reputation but it seems to be the inevitable trade-off of trying to preserve the (often quoted, never really defined) "spirit of the ETF". i would higly appreciate it if you could in some way make your deletion undone. please feel free to get in touch with me if you need any information which i will readily supply (if i can). i don't want to publish my e-mail address here, but you can reach me via the contact form on my website Chrint (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chrint: The article was deleted because of a community deletion discussion in which no one found independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic in-depth. Having lots of google hits, or the mere fact that something exists does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:N|notability standards. Notability has nothing to do with being niche, or how large or small it is. I'm not going to undo the deletion, because there weren't enough sources to support notability. However, if you feel you have good in-depth sources that are independent of the topic, I will restore it to draft space so you can work on in. Also, please note that if you are the page creator, you were notified at your previous account. (User talk:Emilesprenger) I'm not sure how else you'd expect to be notified. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lovable Curves

Hello, My page and article was wrongfully deleted, in my opinion and I do not have a copy of it can you assist me? AWiseWoman22 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@AWiseWoman22: The page was rightfully deleted because it violates our biographies of living persons policy (regarding her upbringing, presuming her parents are still living) and is incredibly promotional in tone. You have had several of our best administrators patiently give you good advice, which you would be wise to heed. I am not trying to be dismissive or unkind, but I can't explain it any better than what others have already posted on your talk page. I can only gently suggest that it would be wise to pay attention to what they are saying. Otherwise it will end in frustration for all involved. Peace. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like a copy of it to recover my content please. Just because it deleted does not mean I do not deserve a copy of my content. AWiseWoman22 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I won’t restore a BLP violation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Just FTR, I deleted the BLP vios before I restored to user space. :) Valereee (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I am only asking for a copy for my own personal use not to have it restored please help me this is my work and my work is my life AWiseWoman22 (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I am begging you. I need to copy and paste it for my own personal record. It is meant to be published elsewhere. I put a lot of time and effort into it and I am in desperate need of it back. AWiseWoman22 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@AWiseWoman22, I already did this, as I mentioned on your talk page six weeks ago. The copy is at User:AWiseWoman22/Lovable Curves. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Recover deleted page

I am the manager of JayTheKidd, and he is quite notable in Atlantic Canada. It was my only draft created, I’d like to receive the contents as I was not finished putting links and my references or the page itself. Realjaythekidd (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've read that draft, and frankly you'd be MUCH better starting from scratch, because of the promotional language. Since you did't add any references or coding, you'd have to re-do the whole thing anyway, it would save you work not to have delete everything and phrase it in a more neutral manner. I would highly recommend you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Speaking of WP:COI, I don't see that policy has been previously brought to your attention. Please give it a careful read because it is obviously highly applicable. I hope that is helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:352 BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:352 BC births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I have no recollection at all of creating this, to say nothing of why I created it. Delete away. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Isudan Gadhvi

Possibly being over-cautious, but nevertheless, giving you a heads up that I made a small formatting change to this AfD following your closure. The {{reftalk}} templates were placed in a way that caused the archive frame not to render correctly, I fixed it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: - great, thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

AFD

During the closing note of this AFD you wrote that Most of the keep arguments do not help at all in establishing notability. However, there are three unchallenged sources from the most recent argument demonstrating GNG is met. The three unchallenged sources from the most recent arguments are nothing but routine coverage of the subject, like the announcement of the CM candidate of a political Party. I know I'm kinda late but may I ask what is your opinion on me taking this to the deletion review? TheWikiholic (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TheWikiholic:, thanks for writing! Of course you are always welcome to take this to DRV. I have to base my closing on the discussion consensus. Generally I can't judge if a !voter is "correct", because to do so I would have to do my own investigation of the article, and then I would be "supervoting" when closing a discussion. I do pay attention to SPAs, socks, and disruptive users, judge accordingly. In this case I feel the argument should have been made in the AfD itself, because without it I really couldn't have closed it otherwise. In sympathy to your position, it's considered bad form to open another AfD quickly after a "keep" close, so it puts you in a rather impossible situation if you really feel the presence of this topic is harming Wikipedia. May I make a few opinionated suggestions? Without any further investigation by myself, the topic does seem marginally notable, and it seems very likely non-English sources have not been brought forth, enhancing the likelihood of notability. Would perhaps volunteer effort be better put to use of getting rid of the truly non-notable advertising cruft? (That could mean trimming the current article of promotion, I'll bet). If after consideration you continue to feel that additional volunteer time should be spent on this particular topic rather than other areas, I will re-open the discussion so you may posit your arguments. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dillon Danis

Please restore the Dillon Danis article, the article was deleted due to notability but the notability of the individual has increased greatly since the article was deleted. Thanks Blahwikiblah (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Blahwikiblah: Given that this has already been deleted twice, how about I restore it to your personal draft space, where you can work on it to prove notability, and then you can submit it via that Artices for Creation process. If I restore it and it gets deleted again, the topic would likely be subject to WP:SALT. Does that work for you? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be great. I should have requested it restored to draftspace. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy:, @Blahwikiblah: I have restored it to Draft:Dillon Danis. Move to draftspace instead of personal space because multiple editors have requested it. This doesn't seem like FloridaArmy's usual area of interest, but there's lots and lots and lots I don't know. Happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• I am completely unfamiliar with this subject but came to this page after getting a ping for this thread. I can't see where I was mentioned? I am confused. Cosmic glitch? I still see two pings in my notifications but only one mention after I commented in this thread. Maybe I'm losing it..? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Count me among the confused. You requested that Danis be restored, rather out of the blue as far as I can tell. Not sure how you were pinged if you received such before your 15:02 message to me. Very strange... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  FloridaArmy I had the same issue. Not sure what happened SilverStar54 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added additional information to the article. I feel it meets all notability standards and more information will be added as it’s made public. Please reinstate the article. Thanks Blahwikiblah (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Help w/ Danis article

I have added additional information to the article. I feel it meets all notability standards and more information will be added as it’s made public. Now I’m curious as to the next step? Im inexperienced and trying to learn. Do you have to resubmit it now that it’s a draft or can I? Ect.. please help lol thanks Blahwikiblah (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend, because this has already been deleted twice, that you use the Articles for Creation process I mentioned. I don’t think either one of us should submit, me because I am utterly ignorant of and have no interest in MMA. I’m with family right now and will be on the road all day tomorrow. If you need help with the AFC process I’ll try to help Monday, although I’m likely to have some important personal things to take care of that day. Unless a friendly talk page stalker jumps in first, I’ll help you when I can but it may be a couple days. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, the article was promoted from draft by an experienced editor. All's well that ends well. @Blahwikiblah: congratulations for a job well done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technomancy (2nd nomination)

With a 4-4-1 split (K/D/draft), a delete outcome inappropriately rewards those who expend lots of virtual ink reiterating their position. No consensus or relist would be appropriate outcomes, but deletion is simply not reflected by that discussion. Please reconsider. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You deserve a thorough answer, but I can’t do that until Sunday at the earliest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I've gone over the discussion again, and I come to the same conclusion. Please keep in mind I am just as capable of being wrong as anyone, and cases like these are judgement calls, but here is how I view the discussion.

First, you are aware of WP:NOTVOTE as well as anyone, so the fact that it was a 4-4-1 split does not necessarily indicate a "no consensus" outcome. I'll give you my thoughts on the arguments and the outcomes thereof.

The nomination posited that this topic is not encyclopedic because WP:NOT is violated, in that there is not sufficient material in reliable sources to support an encyclopedic article.

The first !vote argued for moving to draft. The argument was the poor quality of the article, and did not present arguments for notability, pro or con. This position did not gain any traction and was not factored into my judgement decision.

the second !vote was for keep. It is completely void of policy and did not influence my close.

The third !vote (yours) was for keep. It made the argument that the topic is notable because the term is widely used in academic literature. Sources were claimed, but not presented. The argument that the term is used multiple times doesn't counter the argument, there are lots and lots of words used multiple times for which we do not have an article, but for which we have Wiktionary. As clearly argued under this !vote, that makes it a neologism and therefore in violation of WP:NOT.

The fourth !vote was for keep. It posited that it easily met GNG, but no sources were provided. WP:THREE was used in counterargument, which I completely discounted as an irrelevant use of the essay (not policy). I'm venting a little here, but THREE is an excellent essay about Anti-refspam, not about notability. The argument is not supported, and poor counterarguments are likewise discarded. I also don't see what super-niche has to do with notability. I tend to write about super-niche musical topics, for instance.

The fifth !vote was also to keep, and sources were presented. More than one source was presented, and if left unchallenged I would have closed the discussion as "keep" no matter how many delete !votes were made. However, in the ensuing discussion consensus developed that the sources presented were discussing a concept distinct from that presented in the article, or did not meet SIGCOV. That said, this was clearly the strongest argument and considerable weight was given to it.

The sixth !vote was officially stating the counter position posited under the fifth !vote. It reinforces the idea of the nominator, and factored strongly into my closing decision.

The seventh !vote was the strongest, clearly explaining why the topic is not covered by GNG, and again reinforcing that the topic violates NOT. It factored the strongest into my closing decision.

The eighth !vote reinforced the position supporting NOT, although it did not present any new arguments.

Therefore I judged that consensus, by strength of argument, was that the topic was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even by pure vote counting I see one backed policy-based argument for support (which was also refuted) and four policy-backed arguments for delete, making the vote tally 4-1 in favor of deletion. I believe relisting would have been inappropriate because there was a sufficient number of participants, there were arguments presented based on policy per WP:RELIST.

I don't see BLUDGEONING at this discussion (certainly the bane of way-too-many AfD discussions), as you allude to in your message. I do see arguments, counter-arguments, and counter-counter arguments, etc. This is to be expected and encouraged in a healthy debate. Some of the arguments were weak, some were strong, some were irrelevant. That will all take place in a discussion where editors in good faith have varying viewpoints and therefore disagree.

I'm sorry the outcome does not match your expectation, and that I have not come to the same conclusion as you. I want to reiterate my strong support for your editing, and I am very glad there are editors such as yourself who work so very hard to retain content they consider worthy of encyclopedic attention. If after reading this you continue to feel I have erred, please feel free to take this to deletion review. I will not be offended. I truly wish you all the best and happy editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The central problem with this analysis is that it ignores the limited and specific nomination statement: this is a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. Looking at your summary of my input, you misunderstand it entirely--I am not arguing that the term is notable, because I don't need to argue that the term is notable in order to defeat the assertion that WP:NEO is violated. You know that funny pyramid where 'refuting the central point' is at the top? That's what I'm doing here--or at least trying to. If I was arguing notability, then those critiquing my initial posting as not citing specific sources would have a point: they don't, because pointing to Google Scholar is plenty to refute the assertion that this is a neologism, and if it isn't a neologism, it cannot, by definition, be a non-notable neologism, even if it might have been otherwise non-notable.

The fact is, the three trailing delete votes are no more policy based than the initial "makes a cool article" keep, because none of them address the nomination complaint that this term is a neologism. If you'll go through and look at which statement actually addressed the complaints raised, you'll find that "keep" has a far stronger hand. If you view an AfD as a free-for-all, where the nomination statement neither shapes nor constrains the debate, and all arguments for or against a deletion are fair game once a discussion is posted, then your analysis makes more sense, but I don't think that's a fair way to run a debate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventh Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing 78.26 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donner60: Thank you! A wonderful, joyous Christmas to you and yours as well! Thank you for the blessings you bring to this project. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)