User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2016

Daniel Boyd

In 2014, you fully-protected this page.

Please consider reducing the protection to pending-changes or semi-protection (or both) and putting an expiration date on it (I suggest 1 year - if there is no attempted abuse during that time then let it expire). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Davidwr: It was create-protected due to a user repeatedly creating an article about a non-notable subject by the same name. It appears that create-protection changes to edit-protection after a sysop creates an article under a create-protected title. That seems to be what happened. There's no point in the protection anymore now that a disambiguation page has been created in place of the original deleted article, therefore, I will remove the protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of CAA Marketing

Hello, you restored this article in this edit. Shouldn't the talk page be automatically restored as well? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. My apologies. I got distracted by creating a merge proposal for it, and forgot about the talk page. Someone else restored it... not that there was much there to begin with. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

About my request for undeletion

I made the Project Shrine Maiden hoax under a different username. Please note that. Anyway, I want the source, but not for it to be undeleted. E-mail it to me. Now I've gotta play them all. (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

About the deletion on Hoverboard page

Hey there,

I just contributed to wikipedia yesterday and I saw you undo the changes I made. It's okay if you think the content is irrelevant but I don't know what's the reason.

First of all, the link on the reference 11 is clearly broken so I linked back to a site which tells the story about Nils Guadagnin and his first hoverboard design. Secondly, I also added a link about top speed of hoverboard which is a question that lots of people asked on internet due to my research. Hoverboardtopspeed.com is my site focused on hoverboard so if you think my content is not relevant or have any other questions, please give me some feedback. Simply delete all my changes can not make the page better.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soari ambition (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the liok correction is a valid edit, but the external link to the wheeled hoverboards site is not appropriate. I have removed it again. Meters (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.137.133 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD close tags

Hey, looking at your closes on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_February_14, I think you'll want to put the archive tag above the header. (Also there are tools you can use to automate the close procedure—much easier.)  czar 02:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion Sought

Would you please be so kind as to render your opinion on Draft:Sorcha Faal after reading article and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal?

Please start a new section on Draft talk:Sorcha Faal to leave your comments at if possible.

Thank youPicomtn (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a worthy attempt at recreation and would be nice to see in main space, but my initial review suggests it isn't ready yet. I have commented accordingly on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Depictions of Muhammad

Hello, I'm Ttt74. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Depictions of Muhammad without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ttt74 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You're coming very close to being blocked with your disruptive behavior that is grounded in unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You need to familiarize yourself with prior discussions on the talk pages, WP:COMMONNAME (because you are violating this in a number of articles), WP:VANDALISM (because you clearly have no idea what that means), and WP:BRD (which is a best practice that will go a long way to avoid being blocked). You might also want to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrongly describing your edit on the edit history: But in any case, you've removed some content that shouldn't be: and that's not good to do by an old Wikipedian like you. Ttt74 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Depictions of Muhammad

Hello, I'm Ttt74. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Depictions of Muhammad that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Depictions of Muhammad. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ttt74 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh. You really have no clue, do you? And now you've been banned from the topic.

ANI report (about Ttt74)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA: What are you for?

Are you with or against GAB for adminship? Just curious. Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) Vote for GAB for admin! 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how he answers the questions. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Actor Rohan Soni

If you have a moment, would you mind blocking User:Actor Rohan Soni? You had issued the user a final warning but he keeps spamming his own user page. User:Actor Rohan Soni has now been deleted 4 times under G11. Otherwise, I can take it to AIV. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

...and now he's spamming his own Talk page. Sorry to keep bothering you about this, by the way! Woodroar (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, but I wouldn't call it spam, exactly. It's a harmless 2 lines buried in the middle of the page, not sufficiently actionable to block talk page access unless it becomes a pattern. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Optimove Page Restoration

I have been working on cleaning up the Optimove page to make it more informative and I noticed it was deleted several days ago.

Is there a way we can work together to make it more informative and less promotional and restore the page?

This company has made some major impacts in marketing and I think it deserves to have it's page restored.

Thanks Thejavis86 (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thejavis86: My view is that the article would need a complete rewrite from scratch. It reads like a company brochure, starting out with the company's mission statement in the lead and going on to describe itself and products in glowing terms. I can restore it to draft space for submission via WP:AFC if you want. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I would appreciate if you could restore it to the draft space and I will work on cleaning it up. Thanks! Thejavis86 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thejavis86: I restored it to Draft:Optimove. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Message you left on User talk:Nimrainayat6290

Dear, you left a message for me regarding the removal of pictures from page Muhammad. It is stated that a humble "REQUEST" was made for their removal as the creation of postures of religious personnels is not allowed and is considered a major sin in Islam. Muhammad is the central figure of the religion Islam. You must not be a Muslim if you did not get me or remove these man-made pictures of a central figure of a religion. Once again I request you to kindly remove those pictures. --NimXaif6290 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nimrainayat6290: Please remember that Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Islam, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. Furthermore, not all Muslims agree with your position. You have not made any argument that is not already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you want to discuss removal of images, please do so at Talk:Muhammad/images, rather than on user talk pages. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Are you a Muslim or not??? NimXaif6290 01:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether he is or not. He's enforcing a long-standing Wikipedia policy. If he's doing it as a Muslim, then I commend him for his commitment to neutrality, if he's not, then it's none of your business.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

NimXaif6290: Have you read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ or not? Do you have any policy-based arguments to present or not? Do you understand that regardless of our religious beliefs, that Wikipedia is a secular project? Do you understand that Wikipedia is not censored? Do you know, or not know, that a prohibition against images of the Prophet is not universal among Muslims? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

UAA

oops... I didn't realize that username was already reported. Just out of curiosity though, is it standard to delete duplicate reports? Or do they ever get added in to the initial one?
Thanks for the response(s) - ^theWOLFchild 06:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no standard practice on that page, and doesn't really matter. The list is lengthy enough, and either deleting a duplicate or merging it alleviates confusion. At the time, it seemed quicker just to hit the undo button, but then the time I saved got consumed by the edit summary explanation, so it was probably a wash. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 06:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I provided a link at AN/I it was reported in a response to Thewolfchild. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The checkusers working at WP:SPI would decline a report that looks like a fishing expedition, but if you have a solid suspicion of who the sockmaster may be, you should report it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar

Amatulic, I sincerely wish to thank you for "rescuing" the draft of Bobby Watson (producer/bassist) from the "inactive" status...have been so busy with my own ventures, i have not had time to visit Wiki and work on the article. I have read your "info" page, very impressive...I am humbled by your accomplishments and wish you well. It is because of inquiring minds as yourself, that the world is as informed and advanced that it is... I am fascinated by science, molecular construction, and the total balance of "space", the celestial, the world and humanity and all of the intricate balance of it all...staggering...mind boggling...I noticed you studied religion, I have also looked at world religions...but found Christianity to be VERY DIFFERENT... all others try to appease or please the unknown God...where God made Himself known to man in Christ...His attributes clearly seen...Christ death and resurrection nailed it for me...and the actions and reactions of those that followed Him for three years and what THEY did and did not believe. even after spending time with Him...I thought it remarkable, that they were scaredy cats and denied even knowing Him before His bodily resurrection...but fearless to the point of death after... I also saw that they did not follow any religious rules to appease or please God...it was more of a respect for what He said...as a child would a father that is responsible for Him. I found the work that religious people do to accomplish what they FEEL is the goal...never achieves what the means is...because they NEVER know, "how much is really enough"... Where God nailed it, on the Cross, by nailing Christ TO the Cross.. one act...just BELIEVING in your heart... does it...Salvation a FREE gift, NOT by works...and I like that... Dig deeper...and use science as your tool and friend...you will see Jesus is the ONLY WAY... Bless you..you are a very gifted person...an asset to this SITE!! Poekneegurl (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reconsider declined U5

User:TYRA-Lugano/Tony Resta is more like "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities", WP:OR and fails WP:UP#GOALS specifically "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" Also it is WP:UP#PROMO and it's quite WP:STALE from a non-contributor [1] If you want to reconsider, great, otherwise I've got to run it through MfD. Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks more to me like a work in progress about a musician who doesn't yet meet WP:MUSICBIO. I hadn't noticed it was stale. That would qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G13, as an abandoned draft article. I deleted it just now for that reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Borgata move to Borgata per COMMONNAME

Hey,

I have an uncontroversial move request The Borgata is formally known as Borgata per COMMONNAME. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA

I see that you keep returning my Username for Administrator attention reports. Isn't it not allowed to have a username that clearly implies intent to self promote, especially when the user creates an article alike to their username. Music1201 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: Where exactly does Wikipedia:Username policy say this? Please review it before you report more of these, particularly the section WP:SPAMNAME.

A real name that represents an individual person, regardless of whether the account proceeds to make promotional edits, is allowed. Repeated attempts to self-promote may result in a block, but the username itself is not actionable. I encourage you to continue reporting other names as you find them, but please cease reporting personal names of individuals. This wastes administrator time, and the WP:UAA list is already lengthy enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OTRS question

Hi, Amatulic. To continue the correspondence from RfU, what should I do in instances where the copyright holder has no website and no other email address than a Yahoo or Gmail one? I've come across a few like these, including a case involving a film director who had no other email address than a Gmail one, and another in which a noteworthy person wanted to upload a picture of herself taken by a family member with no other email address than an @yahoo.com. Not sure what to do in instances like these. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Most people have some other presence on the internet besides email. Linkedin, Facebook, or other social media accounts, if the account is well established and not created yesterday, can be used for verification purposes. The person should be able to add a comment or make a small modification to their Facebook or LinkedIn page (such as posting the ticket ID) temporarily for verification.

Another option, particularly if it involves a notable person (celebrity, public figure), is getting a written statement from that notable person vouching for the identity of the email address of the photographer, provided that the email address of the notable person is verifiable. Of course, this isn't possible if the subject of the photo is deceased.

You can also ask the person what they can offer to verify their identity, explaining that anyone can create yahoo or gmail addresses in anyone's name. In one case I handled (this had nothing to do with permissions), the correspondent's Wikipedia account had been blocked for impersonating a notable person. He sent me a scan of his driver's license to prove that he just happened to have the same name as a notable person. This was sufficient to get the account unblocked.

If all else fails, you just have to exercise judgment, assuming good faith if needed. But I recommend, if all you have is a yahoo or gmail address, don't take the correspondent's word for it, try to explore ways to verify the identity. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Micah Meisner

Hi.

This is rather old, but I only noticed now. You deleted Micah Meisner as A7 and G11 on 7 March 2014, but the article at that point was not eligible for speedy deletion under those criteria as it had gone through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Meisner) and was kept. Could you please restore it? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq: When the subject of a biography is described as "up and coming", the claims of significance are unsourced and unverfiable, it was edited by the subject himself, and the only relevant reference given is the subject's personal blog, well... that struck me as a ripe candidate for deletion under A7 and G11.

At the time, I didn't realize there had already been an AFD on this that closed as "keep". I'd be willing to restore it to draft space for improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can place it draft, I'll clean it up and move it to article space. Thanks --Whpq (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq:  Done, at Draft:Micah Meisner, along with its talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My Confidential Documents

Dear Amatulic,

I want to let you know that I wish to have all the confidential documents I forwarded to the OTRS oversighted. I don't wish to share the documents in any form on Wikipedia. Please do not reveal these documents on Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: OK, what exactly do you want me to do? I published a verification of credentials as you requested in the OTRS ticket — but only in the ARB case page, not in the ANI discussion or on Jimbo's talk page as you asked. No personal information was revealed in that comment. Now that the case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology, my comment (as well as those of others) no longer exists. Do you want someone with WP:Oversight rights to expunge that from the history? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's ok the way it is and I agree with you that no personal information was revealed in that comment. Thanks for the good work. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Amatulic. When you moved New Order to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "New Order" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I need to fix those. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Am. Could you point me to the WP:RM for this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't one, and it didn't appear that one was needed. It's obvious and uncontroversial that a defunct rock band, which adopted a well-known and widely-used term for its name, cannot possibly be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term, which pre-existed the band. The term's usage in reliable sources likely doesn't refer primarily to the band (which would be difficult to prove either way), and the band definitely isn't primary with respect to long-term significance as required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the previous move discussion at Talk:New Order (disambiguation)#Move to primary location? Also, AngusWOOF has tried to revert your move, see WP:RMT. Cmeiqnj (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. I started with the "New Order" article and saw no move discussion related to the band, so I moved it. New Order (band) is the correct name for the article, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I fail to see how that can possibly be controversial. As for the disambiguation page, I have no objection to moving it back to New Order (disambiguation), but that would result in leaving the primary term New Order as a redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Who said they were defunct? They released an album last year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I thought they broke up 10 years ago. The band's active status, however, is irrelevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato Sri Tahir listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Sri Tahir. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Sri Tahir redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Parul Yadav Image copyright

The image deleted by you is officially shot for her website. we are new to editing content on wikipedia not sure how else we can prove the authenticity. however you can refer www.parulyadav.com kindly advise

Navin poonacha (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad/FAQ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Muhammad/FAQ. Since you had some involvement with the Muhammad/FAQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Landmark Media / Dominion Enterprises federal lawsuit

Amatulic - you removed cited and sourced details about a federal lawsuit against these two companies. You claim that the suit is "irrelevant" and that including the lawsuit information amounts to editorializing. It is an active case and therefore by definition, relevant. Your sole determination that the details are "irrevelevant" and your act of removing them is based on your purely subjective unsupported reasoning. Your actions defeat the purpose of this site. What is your great concern with this topic? Are you an employee of Landmark Media or Dominion Enterprises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolk Truth (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Norfolk Truth: Take it to the article talk page, please. On Talk:Dominion Enterprises you have offered zero arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy to meet your WP:BURDEN of supporting inclusion of lawsuit information. As to your question, I never heard of these companies until after you started disrupting their articles with irrelevant information that does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I turn your question around: what is your great concern with this topic that you feel it is important to include details that have zero coverage in secondary sources? Are you a disgruntled ex-employee of Landmark Media or Dominion enterprises? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

PROD

In regards to this edit of yours, why did you remove the PROD and not delete the article? The PROD was there for way more than 7 days and there was no disagreement. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: The file had already been deleted in 2014. I restored it based on a request at WP:REFUND. Restoration of articles deleted via prod is considered uncontroversial and the request usually always granted. After restoration, it is necessary to remove the expired prod template. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion June 11 regarding Adjective Used

Hi,

Appreciate your quick response but the reply missed the question asked. It was about the historical fact instead of promotional or not / good or bad adjective used. Please take a look at it again, thanks.

However, if you think that is TOO precise a question for you, I can put that question up again for somebody else.

You do however know these words are used in Wikipedia for very good reasons. Putting them in quotations is not a bad idea. Removal of those words is only Item #1 of dispute since it was the excuse to delete 40% of the article, including references such as the IFPI award page.

The IFPI page was called a Blog. I am seeking opinion as to whether that is good source for reference separately.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RK Sloboda Solana

You deleted page in 2014 Sloboda Solana, as i quote A7 had no significance explained. It is Handball Club. Profesional

HellerTZ (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@HellerTZ: So, start over. The article I deleted had only one sentence in it that failed to explain the club's significance or provide any independent reliable sources. If I restored it, it would be deleted again quickly by someone else for the same reasons. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what we expect to see in an article accepted into main article space.

If you need time to draft an article, don't write it in main space. Use your sandbox or draft space instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

SFr

Hi, Amatulic. Why was SFr deleted with only three votes? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I imagine it's because the admin Sandstein found the arguments persuasive. Basically there were four 'delete' votes (including the nominator) and I was the lone 'keep' — the article's creator didn't even chime in. To any administrator, this looks like a consensus to delete. As such, the deletion decision was proper (even though I disagree with it) and it would pass Wikipedia:Deletion review. The only alternative I see would be to create a new draft with impeccable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion File:OldRockinChairTom4.jpg

I've requested this image to be undeleted. If you're an administrator, could you undelete it, just like File:OldRockinChairTom2.jpg Marole3 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, because as I explained in my comment at WP:REFUND I don't believe a valid rationale exists to include it in the article. The other one would be fine, in my view. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Travesty? Clarified to be you put a lie there.

Please clarify:1. irrelevant2. unsourced3. POV details4. travesty207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English. Just look at what I removed, for starters. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

1.1 "Love Interest" on stage-Significance of 2014 event is Loong at 70 switching "Love Interest", not just one but two. Young actresses (age 2?+3?) were selected for the same role. They took turns to play the same characters. Loong celebrated 50th anniversary in 2011 with one former co-star who was a classmate of Loong from 1960. They went steady in 1977. That is, Loong, known for portraying loyal lovers on stage (romantic literary scholar as written by librettist Tong Dick-san), had only one same actress as "love interest" for close to 40 years. (Yam is known as "opera fan's lover".)

1.2 Practice makes perfect-In Hong Kong, ticket sale does not generally support one play to be on stage 25 days in a row. The norm is one play each day or every two days. The only chance for them to play the same female lead 15 times non-stop is when they shared the stage with Loong in 2014. At least 70% full is necessary to breakeven. Full houses are bonus. Those first 20 shows in 2014 were sold out within hours. First ten shows in fact were sold out within 30 minutes. The 25 shows were sold in three separate offers. Both venues in 2014 have over 1000 seats as the one in West Kowloon Xiqu Center under construction would be.

1.3 Young Talent-Initiatives like Cantonese Opera Young Talent Showcase and Hong Kong Young Talent Cantonese Opera Troupe have provided a platform for amateurs since 2012 and 2008 respectively. Loong however started hiring up-and-coming performers from training school in 1983. I know for sure two, of the 1983 hires, are still on stage while one is working behind the scene. Actually, most Cantonese opera career veterans age 60 or older in HK worked for Loong's troupe at some point. You can almost count those, like Law Kar-ying, a peer never worked in any capacity for Loong's troupe, in main roles now on stage with one hand.

2.1 Disagree DVD instead of Loong the Artist-IFPI List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes lists only Artist Name and Record Company Name. For Classical and Operatic Works Recording , the first award for Best Sales Releases was given out in 2012. From 2012 to 2015, only two names appeared three times. Loong is the one, of these two, on the List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes in 2012 and 2015. As opera performer, Loong is the only one on that list twice.

I had no previous plan to include in Wikipedia the above detail information.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page, please. Also I must ask, what is your association with this actress? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am amazed how little resources Wikipedia has, having found the article lacking compared to what's been available online for ages and what veterans like her peer Law Kar-ying, who has no reason to talk her up beyond courtesy on the record, had to say. I have used none of those quotes from Law so far only because they are too colloquial for me to translate from online resources while Wikipedia obviously has difficulty reading even "properly written" Press report with information listed above. You cannot read them does not make them false. Personally, I do not appreciate accusations and allegations, without substantiation with facts, especially with words like "Travesty" in any civil environment. 207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. You have repeatedly added promotional puffery to that article, sometimes using Wikipedia's narrative voice. This is completely unacceptable, violating some basic rules such as WP:NPOV, and gives you the appearance of having a conflict of interest. That is not an accusation, merely a question based on observation. I must say that your attempts to translate sources are commendable and deserving of admiration; I know how dissimilar the languages are, and how much work it is to translate. The promotional tone of the article, and the improper emphasis on accolades violating WP:LEAD, was indeed a travesty, although the article is slowly improving. In terms of Wikipedia:Civility, we comment on the content, not the contributor, and that is all I did in my edit summary that you're complaining about. I was not criticizing you. Just the content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I am really even more amazed how little resources Wikipedia has as you have illustrated from this response.

1. IFPI information you put there is called a lie in simple English since you know the IFPI site.

2. 2005 charity event tells how "puffery" for everybody else is normal for Loong as far as Cantonese opera is concerned. While translation takes too much effort, a picture can speak volume. Both Law and his wife are with their separate co-stars in those smaller photos surrounding the center piece. Jackie Chan and Law in the second page should not be difficult to notice. No plan to include this in the article although it was major event in Hong Kong. Those can read Chinese will find the detail extent of coverage in this Issue mostly related to one of those eight performers only. Jackie Chan was mentioned in the passing only. Can you tell who the center piece is? Don't tell me the ten year old magazine is promotional material.

3. Before you respond, read the first line and last sentence of your above response for starters, please.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to comprehend my last message: Take it to the article talk page. And you have not answered the question, what is your association with this actress? I will not respond further on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can do nothing but accusations and allegations in addition to putting lie in the article. Read the answer already given. You, if can read and speak Chinese, can find all information I added online but those associated with her should have more. You just have NO ground for own misconduct and pretend to be otherwise. A lie is a lie. What limited resources illustrated by Wikipedia having you as administrator. LIAR.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I could also have spent time on Scully & Mulder, having read so much online for decades. Well, I could not find missing information so far.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf

I've started a discussion to try and resolve the dispute over the use of Gulf over Persian Gulf on Culture of Kuwait. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Culture of Kuwait#Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf. Thank you.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded there after protecting a bunch of those pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:TwoLittleIndians1.jpg, File:TwoLittleIndians.jpg, and File:TwoLittleIndians3.jpg

Could you please restore these 3 images? Thank you. YoshiFan155 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

For no reason? No. The place to ask is at WP:REFUND and you need to explain why they should be restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic Not simply, I don't think they're orphaned non-free files under CSD F5. If I request there, they'll tell me to give a Fair use rationale. I'll add them to the right article Same with File:Timid Tabby 1.JPG and File:Timid Tabby 2.JPG. YoshiFan155 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd ask you to give a fair use rationale also. Being used in an article isn't sufficient, if they're non-free, then a proper fair use rationale must be supplied. So you may as well go to WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Banned (disambiguation)

The article Banned (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only two links.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Graham (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Graham11: I think you have the wrong person. I didn't originally create that, I just moved it from somewhere else. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Sorry to bother you! Graham (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaza Holocaust redirect

Hi, Amatulic! I see you closed RFDs #2 and #3 on the redirect Gaza Holocaust in 2012, so I thought I'd let you know I've put it up for a fourth one, to see what people think lo these four years. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago; I don't even remember it. I left a comment in the new discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha yes, I figured you wouldn't remember. But I like how RFD moves at so gentle a pace, where an overarching discussion can span 5 or even 10 years. It's sort of refreshing, with how fast things can move elsewhere. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion/Reopening of page Shantanu Maheshwari

Hi there. The aforementioned page has been prevented from editing or creation because of too many past drafts. Could you please give authorisation to recreate it? Or Change the name of this page Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) to Shantanu Maheshwari please? The malplacement and improper naming has been causing a lot of inconvenience since a very long time to a lot of people. The content in the malplaced page is refined and fit to be published. Kindly consider renaming the page Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) to Shantanu Maheshwari or recreating the page to Shantanu Maheshwari itself. Thank you. Sarah297 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC) User: Sarah297

Hello Amatulic. I have declined the technical move of this article until you have a chance to give an opinion on the recreation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to bring something to your attention. Back in July you protected Shantanu Maheshwari from being created. Well now Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) has been created. I'm not sure what the best course of action is to take here. Can you tell if it was the same user who created both pages? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah297: @EdJohnston: @Zackmann08:

I have merged the history of Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) into Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I have also declined the speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4 tag because that shouldn't apply to drafts. So now everything, all the history including the deleted history, is in that draft article.

Given the multiple issues listed, I am skeptical that the topic merits an article in main space, but I have no objection to moving the draft over the protected name. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you have stated that the draft article needs a review before moving to main space. Do you have a suggestion for how such a review can be arranged? I see that Maheshwari's chief claim to fame is his ongoing role in Dil Dosti Dance, an Indian TV show that does not even have its own article. It also says the following: He is a part of the 'Desi Hoppers' dance crew and led them to India's first ever victory in the World of Dance Championship in Los Angeles in 2015. He also gave a special performance on America's Got Talent (season 11) and received praise from Simon Cowell and Nick Cannon. Maheshwari's name is not mentioned in Wikipedia in connection with either of those contests. The tone of the article suggests scrounging around for any possible hint of notability. In my view, the notability problems mentioned in the AfD have not been overcome. There are some hits in Google News, but they cover him mostly as a participant in televised dance contests. It is unclear how we consider those when evaluating the notability of dancers (see WP:ENT). EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: By "review" I meant "someone go through the sources cited (which are way more extensive than the article originally deleted) and determine if they meet WP:SIGCOV." I'm currently at work now, and I'm looking at a really long day (and night) ahead of me, so I don't expect to have the time to do that anytime soon. I too had concern with the article's tone and apparent need to cite any source no matter how small, to bump up the references count. If you have examined the sourced and determined that the original notability concerns haven't been overcome, then we should not move the article into main space, but leave it in draft space for further improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I would like to point out a few misstatements you have stated here. Maheshwari's ongoing shows are a very acclaimed dance reality show and a fiction tv series, not the show that he started out with 5 years ago. He has worked in over 6 different TV shows since the first show you're talking about. There are ample references proving the same. There are also references and official links of the America's Got Talent performance and it's news. Hence, the fact that it has not been mentioned in the show's wikipedia page seems to be an issue of that page's edit and does not nullify the proofs of his performance. There are pages of personalities less acclaimed and much less notable on Wikipedia. Maheshwari is not 'scrounging for any hint of notability' as you stated, he actually has notability and acclaim. And lastly, televised contests are what give dancers notability, and not just in his country I'm sure. Besides, it's not just the televised contest, but also world dance championships that give dancers notability, which Maheshwari already has under his belt. With reality television shows, fiction shows and world dance championships under his belt, his notability is not unfounded and deserves a place on Wikipedia. Kindly review the content and references in the draft with proper scrutiny and help make the article come into main space. Help with the neutrality and citations would be appreciable to make the process quicker. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah297 (talk • contribs)

@Sarah297: This conversation should really be taken to Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari.

Please don't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Each article stands or falls on its own merits, independent of what other articles may exist. If Wikipedia has articles on less notable people, then perhaps they should be deleted too.

Also remember being "acclaimed" isn't a valid reason for inclusion here. Fame isn't the same as notability the way Wikipedia defines it. Just having worked in some shows and having appeared on TV isn't sufficient. The coverage is all that matters on Wikipedia. What we need to see is significant coverage (not brief mentions, not a paragraph in a larger list, not an appearance in a show) in reliable sources (not blogs, forums, or sites with user-contributed content) that are independent of the subject (not interviews or the subject's own web site). And we need multiple sources that meet those criteria, with more than just local coverage. If his appearance on America's Got Talent is "news" as you say, where is the significant national news coverage? Analogous to dance championships, there are notable wine competitions also, but not every winning wine deserves its own Wikipedia article. The coverage matters more.

Wikipedia:Golden rule provides a brief overview. Wikipedia:Notability (people) goes into more specifics for different professions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I completely understand your concern. I assure you of the proofs of the significant national coverage regarding the event. All the headlining national newspapers of the country have covered him. You will find it all in the references of the draft. The passivity of that reply was just a bit concerning, seeing that they didn't even get the facts right. Apologies for the argument. I urge you to review the references and then determine whether or not he can qualify for an article in the main space. Would appreciate any recommendations regarding the neutrality and the citation issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah297 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

muhammed

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

ummm, I'm really not trying to sound racist, but the difference is that christians and scientologists are less likely to be radical extremists who are willing to shoot people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.208.129 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? If there's a change that needs to be made to that document, please propose it on Talk:Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Creation of Aarhus Symposium

Hi Amatulic

Can you please explain the reason to deleting this page about Aarhus Symposium? Or please point out a place in the text where the significance of the organisation does not meet the significance in the real world?

Best regards, NikolajGjoede

@NikolajGjoede: Please read the criteria for speedy deletion that applied to this article at WP:CSD#A7. The article must make a credible claim of significance. The nominator didn't find any claim of significance (why is it notable?), and neither did I. The mere fact that the organization exists and serves a useful function is not a claim of significance.

Having a credible claim of significance will prevent the article from speedy deletion, but it won't prevent eventual deletion. For an article to be kept, it must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Your article had zero such references.

Please read Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected for an article to be kept, and for more details read WP:CORP, which explains the criteria for inclusion of articles about organizations. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Penington Institute page in the draft space

Hi Amatulic,

Can you please explain why this page was deleted. Penington Institute is an important voice in drug harm reduction in Australia. The organisation has made significant contributions to drug policy in australia and around the world and currently organises International Overdose Awareness Day. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.92.96 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As you can clearly see from the logs when it was deleted including exactly when it happened, it was for copyvio and advertising and it has been deleted each time as that (I'll note the first G13 was in fact meant to be G12 and thus explaining the subsequent deletion). This is not tolerated at all because it literally copy and pastes contents, and as if it's not enough, it's entirely word-for-word advertising. I have now tagged it once again and it shall not be acceptable when there's such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already replied at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Penington Institute (2nd_request) why it will not be restored. My advice there was not heeded, and now the draft is protected against recreation, as I warned would happen. 103.253.92.96, you created this situation. You can fix it, but not by requesting restoration of that completely unacceptable draft. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Amatulic. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Review and publishing of draft

Hello. Saw that you were the administrator for Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I made the changes that were suggested, in a more formal tone. Could you please review how to improve it and help to get it published as an article? The sources mentioned in the draft are published, reliable, recognized and independent in India. The draft was checked for citation errors and none were found. Looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphenes296 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Beaver Fleming

Hello, you recently deleted a page for pro skateboarder, Beaver Fleming.

I believe you did this because he was deleted in 2012 for non-notability.

Since then, he has become significantly more notable and has a medal / competition history that includes appearances in the Nitro World Games, and he is likely to appear in the X-Games.

He has also invented a couple of new tricks which have gained him notability, and is one of the first skateboarders to attempt a double backflip over a large gap.

I am requesting that the page be reinstated based on the premise that he has gained notability over the last 4 years.

Best 192.249.3.186 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Beaver fan

I didn't delete it just because it was deleted before. I deleted it in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, because the article made no credible claim of significance. It consisted of one line: "Pro Skateboarder from Knoxville, TN. Currently rides for Nitro Circus. Inventor of two skateboarding manuevers, the "Fleming Flip" and the "Swift Roll". Two websites were linked, one was self-published and the other was a press release from Nitro Circus, hardly independent. "Notability" on Wikipedia isn't the same thing as fame or being the first to do something interesting. Notability is determined solely by coverage in independent reliable sources. Not only was such coverage nonexistent in the article but it was not clear at all that the claim of invention was significant in the least. You are welcome to recreate it, but I suggest doing it in draft space instead of main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sayyid Baraka

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sayyid Baraka requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: all those "More....flags" templates

I wasn't sure where to open up the discussions, couldn't quite figure out which Speedy delete might be correct so thought I'd post at least a few at TFD. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I deleted a couple of them based on your TFDs, then just mass-deleted the rest, including the category they were in. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed there were no more "mores"... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection on Mahatma Gandhi

This has PC- and semi-protection simultaneously, both indef. Can you reset the PC protection settings? --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I'll wait until Help:Two-factor authentication actually has working links on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Norbert Satchel

Thanks for getting back to me. There is quite a bit of documentation including my name on many famous Musicians' recordings and information about performance and touring personnel. I know of other people with articles on Wikipedia that haven't been associated with nearly the same amount or level of artists with the same degree of notoriety that my name is clearly documented on recordings, performances, tours, and tv and film appearances with.

This is very frustrating to me, and I'm look for someone that is willing to get this done for me correctly.

Could that be you? You're from the Bay Area.

Do you remember Tower Of Power, or Boz Scaggs, or Tony Toni Tone', or En Vogue, or Sheila E, or Pete Escovedo, or Ray Obiedo, the list goes on and on. I recorded and performed with all of them!

Just search my name on Wikipedia & Google and see what pops up.

Some links to verify what I'm talking about:

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/norbert-stachel-mn0001311378/credits

http://norbertstachel.com

http://lehcats.com/home https://twitter.com/nstachel

https://https://www.facebook.com/LehCatsMusic/

https://https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yTUAd7OiWmlqskZmzJO-49GjTcmX_9d

Thanks!!! Norbert Stachel (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Norbert: Please read and understand Wikipedia:Golden rule. Not a single one of those links qualify as significant coverage by an independent reliable source. The first one is independent but not coverage, it's just a directory listing. All the others are associated with you, not independent sources. These are not sufficient to establish notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Anachronist/Archives.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anachronist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist

Please see this report at WP:AN3. As I count, TM has reverted three times in 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I count the same. Sigh. Seems like they're talking now. Thanks for the heads up. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

New Mobility Agenda

Did you restore New Mobility Agenda by someone's request, or your own initiative? I hope someone plans on working on it, as it has multiple issues. wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a request on WP:REFUND. The last version with any content was deleted via WP:PROD, so it is restorable by request, just as if someone had removed the prod tag to prevent deletion. If you want it deleted, then take it to WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for the reply. wbm1058 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary

I'm using an automated software tool to work through a batch of 1,500+ uncategorized articles. It is not my responsibility to manually categorize each and every one of them one by one; my responsibility is to put it in the uncategorized maintenance queue so that somebody can do that, the end. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I never use automated software, so it didn't occur to me that you were. That particular article had a category in the past but it got removed. I put in another one. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Changes made on Mahatma Gandhi page to add Shrimad Rajchandra as a bullet point. A chapter is devoted to Shrimad Rajchandra in Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography. The paragraph is a tiny fraction of data available via magazines, periodicals, speeches, and books by Mahatma Gandhi on Shrimad Rajchandra. Added Shrimad Rajchandra section to add clarity on the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehta81 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Restore page Yago Roche.

Thank you very much for your attention and your availability, I can demonstrate and argue why Iago should use the BIOMUSIC, according to the criteria.

Yago was a member of the Boyband "clover", the band had much repercussion in 2014, they were sponsored by the Backstreet boys in one of the events of the most important radio in Spain called Los40, they were number one in itunes and there are many notes in the Press, now he is with the label Universal Music according to his twitter because the band has separated, I think he should have the restoration of the wikipedia, would be a good Christmas gift since he deserves to have the wikipedia. --ShayminCat (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Replied at WP:REFUND#Yago Roche. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 254#Yago_Roche. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fong She-mei

I just noticed you deleted Fong She-mei as an A10. However, just before that I had redirected Fong She Mei to it. The first had references and the second didn't. I also found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fong She Mei but Fong She-mei is different to the original. I'll leave it up to you to either delete the redirect or restore Fong She-mei. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see it has returned. I'm going back to sleep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The same editor wrote both articles, and evidently started a new article under a different name, not knowing how to rename the original. I just performed a rather messy history merge of both versions, so the entire history is available including all the edits before the 2013 AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

George Soros

Hello:

I'm new at this Wikipedia editing, posting, vandalism, blocking, etc. thing. I did notice that George Soros' page had been updated on December 30, 2016, today. When I went into the "editing" page to make a correction, I found that it was protected (until May 2017) due to some sort of vandalism???

I have something I would like to post about Soros and it is in a letter he wrote to my father.

What are the chances the text could be inserted?

Not sure how all this works, but why are you the gate keeper for the Soros page?

Thank you, Spoopii (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Spoopii: Wikipedia doesn't use self-published sources like documents you have in your possession. You are welcome to post editing requests on Talk:George Soros. Anachronist merely protected the article to prevent vandalism; they are not the "gate-keeper." Chris Troutman (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right. The kind of edit you are proposing to make wouldn't be considered vandalism, but it wouldn't be permitted by our policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)