User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive17

Notability and medic biographies

Hi, do you know if there are any topic-specific notability guidelines relating to biographies of medical people? I am a bit concerned about Vykunta Raju. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know of any topic-specific medical biog guidelines The standard guideliners biog of living person and notability guidelines of course apply. The article you mention might sensibly be referred to articles for deletion. It does not qualify for speedy deletion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there are no topic-specific get-out-of-jail guidelines, I'll do just that. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyprien Iov

You recently deleted the page Cyprien Iov. Soon after another user recreated the page and keeps removing the speedy deletion tags. I'm not sure how to handle this. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've told Tchaliburton several times, and is plain as day in the edit history, I did not recreate the article. I declined their speedy, but via an edit conflict glitch have ended up showing as the article creator. Software glitches happen, but they do not operate to disadvantage editors caught up in them. They've refused to discuss the matter civilly, choosing instead to boilerplate-template my talk page while deleting without responding to my (non-templated) comments on their own. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this article qualifies for speedy deletion; this hinge on a decision as to whether the stated activity as a blogger is adequate assertion of significance, which I feel it is not. However, as the PROD will expire in a little under two days I have no objection to waiting until this expiration for the fate of the article to be reconsidered. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Subversive IP

Hi, this IP is a Subversive IP. Please block It!--Abiii13wp (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please request this at AIV.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-creation of page by blocked editor

Did you see this one Syd Wilder, which you had deleted? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Free Donbass

I notice that you speedily deleted Free Donbass after another admin, DGG, declined the speedy. Would you consider undeleting it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I concede that the organization, which self-declares not to be a political party, won a significant percentage of the vote described, as noted by DGG. However, as the vote was discounted by the US and EU and by Ukraine, within whose territory is the Donbass oblast, in my view the deletion rationale is valid. Feel free to appeal at deletion review. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

History of sewing patterns article

Nate Wessel created History of sewing patterns by removing that information from Pattern (sewing) and making it its own article. You recently deleted that newly-created article as a copyvio of http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/blog/sewing-patterns.html . However, if you check the bottom of that page, it says "From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_(sewing)" so it's clear that this blog copied part of that article, not that History of sewing patterns was copied from that page. Can we recreate the article and have it not deleted this time, or can it be undeleted? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

why would he try and hide this edit= something to hide.

this guy has deleted stuff from the talk page and has further blocked the other editor. After arguing with him there all day . thought you should have a look .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.193.195.69&diff=639273640&oldid=639272892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

heres what the blocking editor removed from the talk page.

"Not True. Ill be ditching you PERMANENTLY IF YOU FOLLOW AROUND ANY OF MY EDITS AGAIN. In all Kindness. BUZZ OFF ALREADY. Ive noticed you have oner editors writing about you , how you try and 'bait" them in to arguing with you so you can block them Really sounds classy ." 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

−

"I asked you for help on a page, You disagreed and were all "cocky" about it. NOT HELPFUL AT ALL. Then after Coming down on me like I was WRONG. The other editor Realized I WAS CORRECT AND CHANGED THE PAGE ANYWAY . Now you've turned in to what appeared to be a simple mediation request in to a few WEEK thing "watching" my page . might want to get more sleep ." 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have already stated on your talk page, the actions of the blocking admin are correct. Incidentally your excessive use of upper-case letters, while not technically wrong, is not helpful and some editors would find it irritating. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Salewa page

You recently deleted the Salewa page I created. I am in no way connected to the company (but have purchased something by them and was surprised there wasn't a page for them already) so it is not advertising/self-promotion. There is a lengthy German language article on Salewa and it is linked to from the Wild Country page (which is a subsidiary of Salewa). I realise I did not have a lot of information and should perhaps have marked it as a stub but I do feel it is worthy of a page. I would like to put it back and try to add more detail when I am able to. If you still feel it shouldn't be there, please could you explain why? Thanks. Devilsevilhair (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted on the two bases that the article promoted a non-notable company. The German article is not relevant. You have two options: you can either apply at deletion review page and ask the community to overturn my decision; or you can write an extended article and submit it. What is not an option is for me to restore the deleted article in the expectation of its being upgraded at some future date. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Cassandra Saturn Page

I'm contesting this and brought it to Deletion Review Board today to contest the deletion by you. I wroted the reason before it was deletion. the Article was representation of what I do in real life and various places. CassandraSaturn (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in User:CassandraSaturn/sandbox and my accompanying talk page note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the situation; we are not discussing, nor did I delete, the Cassandra Saturn page. I deleted the User:Cassandra Saturn page. The article "Cassandra Saturn", had it existed, would almost certainly have qualified for speedy deletion under at least two categories; as a user page being used inappropriately the same reasons apply, but with incorrect use of a userpage in addition.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I note the discussion at deletion review, which endorsed my deletion. There is a little discussion as to whether it should have been G11 or A7, but hey......--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey Anthony! Viewing the edit filter log, I stumbled upon Anthony Bradbury2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The question is, is this account by any chance yours? I also looked vandalism at Anthony Bradbury abroad, which by your userpage, you state is yours. So if possible take a look at that too. Best, ///EuroCarGT 05:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Anthony Bradbury2 is not me; Anthony Bradbury abroad is, although I have in fact not used the account. I shall investigate the impersonator account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Reg. Deletion "Soft Robotics"

Hey Anthony! Thanks for checking on the "Soft Robotics" article. You initiated the deletion based on a copyright infringement G12 for the following link: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fbioe.2014.00003/full However, I am not sure why. The cited article is available for free (the link works) and the journal is open access. Can you please clarify what should be changed here? Thank you and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is free access, agreed, but there are specific conditions to reproduction stipulated in the © statement (specifically in regard to correct attribution to authors and journal) which, as far as I can see, you have not complied with. If the journal, authors and the specific article are contained in the article then accept my apologies; point them out and I will restore the article. Alternatively, if you are happy to insert the apparently missing data I will send the text to your talkpage where you can attend to this and then re-post the article.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to look at the draft of the article again to see which information is there and which part is missing so that I can update it accordingly. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a way to access it. Where can I find the draft? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anthony! As far as I was able to understand you are referring not to the paper, but a figure in the paper that is used on Wikipedia as well, right? Can you please let me know which figure of http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fbioe.2014.00003/full is the issue? Since I don't have access to the draft I don't know which one it was. I can then contact the person who uploaded it to add the missing information. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anthony, I am one of the contributors and author of the draft on Soft Robotics. We would change the reference and picture that caused the misunderstanding. Could you please let us know how we can have again the page on the web? Thank you very much, LauraLauMarghe (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anthony, We have not heard back from you in over a month. We are still not sure what the exact problem is. Please let us know what you need exactly in order to solve the copyright issues. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of Pedophilia/FAQ

Hello. I noticed you deleted Pedophilia/FAQ for the reason "G6: No subpages in mainspace." This page is actually for the talk page since it is a permanently semi-protected article and is intended to address repeated questions asked on that talk page, just like at Talk:Homophobia. Could you please restore it or advise on how to properly include this information on the talk page. Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that these questions belong on the talk page of the article then you should post them there. The article as created is not a valid encyclopedia article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok I think see the problem now. Is there anyway I could retrieve the text so I can implement it correctly?Legitimus (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I will post the text onto your talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it appears this is not the content that was contained in the FAQ. I think it was probably in the Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ

Legitimus (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

While I understand why you deleted Pedophilia/FAQ. Like Legitimus, I'm not seeing the problem with having Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ; as noted, Talk:Homophobia/FAQ also exists, but has yet to be deleted. With Pedophilia/FAQ, a new editor recently created that, which is why it was tagged for deletion. That doesn't mean that Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ should have been deleted as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You will note that I have posted his text on Legitimus' talk page for him to work on. The essential point is that the article, as presented, made no sense, and the FAQs in a talk page cannot stand alone, without being linked to an article page. If the FAQs can stand alone, with appropriate sources, then they should be presented as an article; if they cannot, they should appear, if anywhere, in the Pedophilia talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what your point is, but Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ can validly exist just like Talk:Homophobia/FAQ validly exists. If it were truly a problem, you would have deleted Talk:Homophobia/FAQ by now. I will either simply restore Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ, or wait and see if Legitimus does, or take the matter to WP:Deletion review for wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought: I might reconsider/am reconsidering. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Anthony, I don't think your interpretation of "talk page with no article page to refer to" is correct. See, for example, Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 1 (or pretty much any other article talk page archive page name). Article namespace does not have subpages, but article talk namespace can, and does, and a FAQ is a reasonable use of a subpage. Whether it's the best way to do it, I leave to others to decide, but it's not a speedy candidate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, giving someone the text of the FAQ for them to repost elsewhere, but deleting the page, loses attribution for the FAQ. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I missed an important point; it was Pedophilia/FAQ not Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. The first is not allowed, the second is OK. I'm tempted to undelete and move it, but I'll wait a bit to see if you've thought of something I haven't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a pig's ear out of this, due to my own confusion and lack of coffee. I think I've got it right now. Pedophilia/FAQ was not a legitimate page, and correctly speedy depeted. Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ is a legit page (for reasons mentioned above), and should not have been deleted. I'm proposing to leave the illegal article subpage deleted, and undelete the talk subpage (unless/until anyone decides they want to handle the FAQ differently). Sorry if my confusion confused you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the valid talk subpage; if you look at the use of {{FAQ}} here, it's long established that this use of a FAQ subpage is OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, nolo contendere. My error happened because I found Pedophilia/FAQ first; it was clearly mangled and meaningless and speedy-deletable, as we agree. the talk page appeared to be linked to that page, but I did not see a link to Pedophilia, hence my action which I concede was incorrect. Apologies to all concerned.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, I got confused too. No harm no foul. I'm just pleasantly surprised to be right about something for a change... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bbcc.web.master

You deleted User:Bbcc.web.master via G11. That page to me looks pretty close to the disclosure of a conflict of interest required by the Terms of Use. Now the user hasn't addressed the username issue that saw them blocked, but I'm not quite sure what I should tell them about the userpage; to me it looks closer to "required" than "prohibited". Could you help them at User talk:Bbcc.web.master? Thanks, Huon (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Linben9

Thank you for your intervention in identifying and stopping a vandal whose edit history was extensive and for the most part, undetected, although numerous other editors corrected the edits that were made. The ironic aspect of the history is that many editors treated the vandal's submissions as AGF. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that s/he was not reported until you did so. Clearly a block, after a warning, would have been appropriate some time ago. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

After a few hours, I have revised all the articles in which User:Linben9 made discrete edits, sometimes as minor as simply changing a date by one year, just enough to create misinformation. What gets into the heads of these people?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do some people enjoy breaking windows, or scratching grooves on parked cars? I can't answer the question, but the mentality (?) is the same.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

From my talk page: I would be grateful if you would explain the reason for [1] this edit?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that edit might be a mistake. Generally, I just went back one edit before User:Linben9 made a change and just reverted to that last edit. Sometimes, other errors had creeped in, luckily, T*U caught the error and corrected it properly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

An urban legend/hoax campaign that has consumed hours of administrator time is about to happen again as same/another vandal has appeared. See curious history of Doinhoodratstuff. Protection of the article won't stop this campaign as the vandals are smart enough not to come in as anons. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like User:Acroterion ‎ got there already. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Bădoi

Hi! I noticed that you speedily deleted article Alexandra Bădoi as A7 [2]. it was proposed for speedy deletion by User:Biruitorul (not once, but twice, although he did not inform the author of the page about the deletion). I objected to the deletion both at the article talk page and at User_talk:Biruitorul#Alexandra Bădoi. The article was very short, it did not have claim of significance, but as I pointed out, a simple Google search is enough to see that the person is notable. Google News search returns more than 17.000 hits [3] and Romanian Wikipedia has a well sourced article about the same person (ro:Alexandra_Bădoi). I agree that your deletion was not contrary to the policies, but it did not help Wikipedia in any way. An article about clearly notable person was deleted only because the author was inexperienced. This may discourage his to continue to edit Wikipedia. I think you should undelete the article. Thanks! Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

as you point out, the article did not contain a claim of significance. And the creator of the article, who you believe is inexperienced, has been editing Wikipedia, although not in a massive way, since July 2009.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I made a request for a deletion review. It's here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_January_11. You may want to participate. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-creation of page by blocked editor

Hi, you had deleted this one, and it's been re-created, probably the same content. This must be either the same blocked editor or someone working with her. So I think this should be deleted by WP:EVASION. Draft:Cue Inc.. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you missed this message, above? Adding a header, to separate. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Boogzino

why was i blocked for posting this im only fan off boogzino ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogzino (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have answered this question in some detail at the user:Boogzino talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

is there a way for me to start something about a particular someone with out it getting deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogzino (talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Free Donbass

I removed the A7 tag on this, an ed. added it back, and you deleted it. Shouldn't it have rather gone to AfD. FWIW, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Layman listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Layman. Since you had some involvement with the Layman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You deleted the article on Glenn Neville Ford as an A7. It seems my buddy User:Sherurcij started it. Some of the articles he started, years ago, may have met the standards current when he started them, while others could be made to measure up. I request userification of this one, so I can see whether it falls into the second class. If I can't figure out a way to make it measure up I'll place a {{u1}} on it.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the delay. I have been away and only returned today to the PC. Looking again at the article, it is difficult to see how it could be made acceptable, as the entire event sequence appears to me to be lacking in encyclopedic notability, given that Mr Ford was shown in court not to be connected to the events described. But I have no problem in userfying it, and will do so when I finish this notification. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the snapshot.

Having looked at the revision history, could you please confirm or refute my guess that this article was the work of User:Sherurcij? I need to know this since, even if its current state doesn't measure up to the inclsuion standards here it does meet the inclusion criteria of some non-WMF wikis. Porting the article there would be my next step, except, to do that in a way that complies with the license under which the material was contributed requires confirmation of who contributed it. Although we release most of their IP rights, contributors are entitled to have their intellectual contributions attributed. Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I did some work on User:Geo Swan/review/Glenn Neville Ford. He is, IMO, borderline. You are correct, he was acquitted. On the other hand he is alleged to have founded the Toronto chapter of an organization the FBI characterized as a "terror front". The court case established he traveled to Pakistan to study under this organization's founder. BLP1E is supposed to be protect individuals whose brush with an event make them notable throough no act of their own. But are individuals who found groups, or the local chapters there-of, the kind of non-notable person who might be described as having become notable by accident? Or, does the decision to found a group, or found its local chapter, mean that notability that flows from their association with that group should no longer be considered accidental.

I am going to ask a few other people what else they think it would need before it made sense to consider restoring it to article space.

Of course I would be interested in your opinion -- if your interest extends to offering any more thoughts as to what else was needed to push Glenn Neville Ford unambiguously past our current inclusion criteria.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Block evasion of User:Shivanshsinghrajpoot here (although already blocked as such). Widr (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Passion: Hymns Ancient and Modern

Hi Anthony Bradbury, I was surprised to see Passion: Hymns Ancient and Modern deleted as A9, although from looking at it, the quality left something to be desired. The Passion Conferences music CDs are not a particular band. When the music credits "Passion Worship Band", it's not a particular group of singers, like, say, the Beatles or Metallica. Rather, it's just a compilation of tracks from whoever was singing at the Passion Conference that year. I don't have a strong opinion on whether each one of these CDs ought to have its own article (from looking at Passion_Conferences#Discography, maybe half of them do). But A9 isn't really a reason to delete it as there is an article - Passion Conferences - on the corresponding "band". I can tell you that this music is extremely popular within the evangelical Christian community and is overwhelmingly notable.[4] As for the notability of this album itself, the only thing I could find in a few minutes of looking for third party professional reviews was at [5]. In any event, whether we need to have articles on every single annual CD they put out every year, I don't think A9 is a reason to delete it. --B (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The same goes for Passion: One Day Live, Passion: Better Is One Day, and Passion: The Road to One Day. Thanks. --B (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel that restoring these articles is appropriate except at the request of the community. Feel free to take your query to deletion review.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_17#Four_CDs_from_Passion_Conferences. Though I don't fault you for deleting the articles (as it would appear, upon first glance, that A9 was met since Passion Worship Band was a redlink), you should take it to AFD if you want it to stay deleted - not delete it and then say it needs community consensus to overturn the deletion. --B (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. I have made a decision regarding deletion; both you and the author may feel that this decision was wronh, but I do not. If any editor whose article had been speedy-deleted could request, and expect, that any query would result in a restoration of the page and an AfD discussion then the AfD page would be vastly bigger than it is now. Many editors query the deletion of pages they have created, and deletion review is the correct channel for them to pursue.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should only be used in what are completely non-controversial cases because we, as a community, have come together and agreed that topics meeting those criteria are inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the article deleted actually meets those criteria, then no, you should not restore it and bring it there. The reason I asked you to restore these articles is because they do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. You don't get to delete any article you don't like - you delete articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If, as in this case, you incorrectly believed that the article met the criterion in question (an article about an album where the band had no corresponding article), once you are informed that your belief was incorrect (there is an article - Passion Conferences), you should restore it. Whether you would like to take these articles to AFD after restoration is purely up to you. --B (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We are of closely congruent levels of experience here, so with deep respect I am not sure that instruction regarding policies or procedures is wholly appropriate. And I am not happy about what appears to be an implication that I deleted these articles because I did not like them. If I misinterpret your comment then I apologise for doing so; it was and is my opinion that deletion was valid. Nevertheless I have no emotional or aesthetic reason to insist on these articles remaining deleted, and I will restore them. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not mean to offend. --B (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your much appreciated swift action in deleting pages in my user space and thus, while helping me in preserving a much needed level of privacy, enabling me to contribute more to Wikipedia henceforth. Law Lord (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Pettend (thanks)

Thanks for deleting that, I ust wanted to say thanks because I doubt you get many for your work at CSD. The content was copy/pasted into the mainspace, which in this case was reasonable as it had very little content, and the draft only had my working notes in its history and nothing useful going forward. (I didn't do the copy/paste myself, User:Dr. Blofeld, who asked me to translate it, did.) I know it's just procedural but still, a thankyou costs nothing. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A request for restore "Dinura Balasooriya"

Hello Anthony Bradbury,
You have deleted a page which I created a few days ago titled Dinura Balasooriya. I accept your reasons given there. But if possible, can you reconsider of restoring the page please? Thank you. Freedombelieverlk (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Anal Gestapo page

All digital content that has been in Anal Gestapo belongs solely to me. All digital rights belong to me, i.e. to the community now. The page you mentioned is a copy/paste of previous Wiki article. The original Wiki page should be restored. All material (both text and images) was first uploaded to Wiki pages. All copyrights belong to Wikipedia already. When you restore the page, you will see that. Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to Wiki page where the image was originally uploaded. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AnalGestapoRP.jpg Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Accepted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fletchers Solicitors

Hello. I created and posted an article on the above subject, making darned sure that the organisation had "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources," which are all footnoted, but you deleted the piece as "unambiguous advertising." I guess there is an honest difference of opinion between us two editors, so I'm asking you to put the article into WP:AFD. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI this is almost certainly the result of (undisclosed) paid editing, see for example Draft:Fletchers Solicitors, Draft:Fletchers Solicitors (2), User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Fletchers Solicitors 3 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nmwalsh. BAW has disclosed he is editing for pay elsewhere. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept your proposition, bearing in mind that a deletion for advertising over0rides the existence of significant coverage. But feel free to take the article to deletion review. Do you accept the suggestion, made above, that you have been paid to edit this page? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Check the talk page of the article which I wrote. I made my disclosure there, and some other editor commented "What is this supposed to mean?" I had no connection with the earlier articles. Would this change your assessment of the WP:Speedy closure? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no it would not. I assess the article, not the author.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops I should have checked the talk page. Sorry about that. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. We can talk about it over there, although I am not sure what "Do you accept the suggestion, made above, that you have been paid to edit this page?" has to do with assessing the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not have anything to do directly with the substance of the article, but it relates directly to your determination, in the face of Wikipedia policy, to defend it. Please note that I now propose to withdraw from this profitless conversation. As I have already said, deletion review is available.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:Guilaine-Standards. The editor had previously been blocked for username reason, and unblocked to request a change of username on 7th May. On 21 May Joseph2302 posted to the user talk page, saying "It's 2 weeks later, and the user hasn't changed their name." You then placed a block, and posted on the user talk page "Until you apply for username change under the block notice. However, the editor has had the username changed, as you can see from the edit summary here. It looks to me as though the second block was a mistake, but rather than just unblocking I am checking with you in case there is some reason why the new username is also unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, at least partially. I was responding to a block imposed by another admin which requested a username change as a prerequisite to unblock, which change had not been made. But I understand that the original block was in fact an error. The original blocking admin has correctly unblocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Manuel Alfredo Rodriguez page

Hello, i created this page to make record of this renowned venezuelan lawyer, he has helped a lot of people in Venezuela and is one of the best Lawyers this country has ever seen, one of the last honest people that respect law and are honest with their work. I think people need to know about him, he's a notable person, i know the article doesn't seem like much, but i'm going to improve it, i request for the restoration of this article, and if there are mistakes that can be corrected, i shall take care of it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agabascal (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there!

I have two quick questions:

1: Why is your talk page semi-protected? Is someone harassing you?

2: What does "Willing to make difficult blocks" mean? Does it have to do with the above?

Thanks!--Quantum Particles (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My friend, I have been an editor here for something over nine years, and an admin for over eight. If someone was harassing me I would be fully competent to deal with the problem. I tend to spend a great deal of time on various Wikipedia protection activities, and a high proportion of vandals are IP editors. Semiprotecting prevents these editors from posting abuse on my page, which was a problem before I changed the protection level, without in any way hindering editing by established editors.

In answer to your second question - no, it does not have anything to do with the above. It merely is an expression of my significant length of admin experience here. Some blocks are clearly and obviously appropriate - gross obscenity, attack pagers, etc - and some require in-depth analysis. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering!--Quantum Particles (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is This Legal? deletion

I was actually about to rescue IS THIS LEGAL?. Although the article's a mess, the subject might be notable and if nothing else is a merge target, though the article needs to be renamed. Would you consider undeleting? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As requested I have restored this article. But it is a real mess. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure is. Thanks for the quick response! Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

KKGB

I noticed that you recently deleted the article of KKGB. As a licensed full powered radio station that originates a portion of its content in its studios, KKGB would be considered notable according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media. As such, the article had a credible claim of significance and should not have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A7.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed that you recently deleted many other articles of radio stations in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area, and as licensed full powered stations they would not have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A7 either.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed this as well. Per Common Outcomes and WP:NMEDIA, these are articles that should never have been deleted. I also am asking that these be restored immediately. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have been mentioned in an ANI thread regarding the above issue. You can find the ANI thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I accept that my interpretation of policy was in error. I will restore the articles; as an aside, I would suggest that "many" articles ammounts to half a dozen or so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The articles were restored last night. If there are other radio station articles, please let me know, so I can update them as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I discovered on going to do it that they had been restored. As I have said, there were only a few articles; given that all radio stations in question claim a limited geographical coverage I am in fact uncertain as to whether they fall within the automatically notable category or not, but I will not argue the point. Life's too short.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I guess we will agree to disagree on the automatic notability...but agree on the "life's too short". :) I did, as you may have noticed, update the articles in question with references and such. I also messaged another user to do some work on the stations histories, so that should be done soon. For now, though, they have enough sources to meet GNG. I have a few others to get to as well and will knock them out tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bromovirus

Way back in 2007, you deleted an existing Bromovirus article. Assuming it was just junk, I am creating a new page as a part of my current project. If there was a valid reason for deleting that page and it is still relevant today, please let me know. Thanks! Bervin61 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Should not be a problem. The article I deleted was very short, and I deleted it as a copyright violation. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Maryann Krieglstein

I realize that a deletion request was made on the page several weeks ago, but the warning of impending deletion was place on the primary editor's talk page (me) less than a day before your deletion. Such rapid deletions only create unnecessary bureaucracy for everyone. How can we improve the length of time between the primary editor getting a talk page notice and the final deletion? Some of us get bogged down in life and those warnings are great reminders to come back and edit, but this experience is more annoying than the friendly "hay, come back and have some fun with this article you forgot about" that it should have been. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted this article on the basis that it had, having been initially posted as an article for consideration thereafter lain for more than six months without being edited. It therefore qualified for a speedy deletion under category G13. But if you now which to work on the article let me know and I will post the text to your talk page. As to the length of time, I repeat the article had not been edited for in excess of six months, which may be seen as adequate time to work on an article which one intends to work on.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Achraf Baznani

FYI: an IP has opened a DRV on this page which you deleted. I have also notifid Slakr, because after you salted it, it was re-created and he deleted that one after WP:Articles for deletion/Achraf Baznani (photographer). JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:CaptainHog

After you denied the user's unblock request, he has gone on a full-fledge rant, complete with personal attacks. Since his block is indefinite, I think it might be time for his talk page access to be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

...and this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jpgordon blocked talk page access, so no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Some questionable R3s

Hi. Recently you deleted some redirects R3'd by Compassionate727 (talk · contribs). They all seem fine to me, but I'm not comfortable undeleting them without your word, since I might be missing something.

Google searches confirm these are acceptable names (here is one example source) – in fact, they may be the newer, preferred taxonomy in some cases. Still investigating that. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The pages directed to use the Generic name Ptilinopus. It may well be a synonym, but I neverthreless feel that the redirects, as posted, are incorrect. Ramphiculus is, I believe, the previously used name. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about username and blocking policy

Hi, Anthony,
I'm trying to understand the nuances of blocking policy and I had a general question for you about one of your admin actions because I find the original warning notices puzzling. On User talk:Focalofficial, at the top of the page, the editor received a notice about a block because of their username and the notice says: You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself and only to post an unblock template if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username.
So, it seems like the advice given to blocked editors is to abandon the blocked account and create one with a better username. But it seems like if an editor does that, they are seen as guilty of block evasion. In this particular case, the editor started using Focalofficial 2013 for one edit, then switched to User:Seb42 (which isn't a blocked account) but today posted this unblock request for Focalofficial. So, this is an unusual situation. But if the instructions advise the editor to go create a new account, I don't see how this is block evasion. I'm sure this is a common situation so it seems like perhaps the username block notice needs to be reworded if this is how this action is viewed by administrators.
Thanks for any insight you can provide here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A fair question. My understanding, and the guideline I work to, is that an editor who creates an account with a promotional username but makes no edits is encouraged to simply create a fresh account with a more acceptable name. If, however, they have made edits and been blocked then if the block is imposed because of the content of the edits then creating a new account is block evasion. If the block is a username block and the editor wishes to retain his edits under a new username then he must seek an unblock to do so. If he wishes to abandon his edits, and as I say is not blocked because of said edits, he can create a new account without penalty.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about the deletion of Trango Tower Denver

It might have been A1, but I think it was possible to identify it as a building that was planned at a time. But how was that article in the scope of A7?--Müdigkeit (talk)

The article, which is very poorly written, is actually quite difficult to categorise in detail. Clearly the subject thereof does not at present exist. Are you suggesting that the article should not have been deleted?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Baltimore City Health Department page

You recently deleted a page about the Baltimore City Health Department for a copyright violation. You stated that some information was too similar to what's found through this link: http://health.baltimorecity.gov/programs/what-we-do. Firstly, after the initial rejection of the article, I went back and changed the language of the article so that it was not a direct copy and paste and properly cited the website I used as a reference. Was this not sufficient? Secondly, this violation only pertains to one section of the article since the rest of the article, containing the history of the health department and the response to the riots, is completely original and properly cited. Even if the "Programs" section of the article has to be deleted, is there any way to restore the rest of the article? The rest of the article meets the copyright criteria and all other standards as far as past reviews have shown. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsadeghi (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I will post the artcle to your talk page for you to modify.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsadeghi (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anthony, I've modified the Baltimore City Health Department page on my talk page to remove copyright violations. Please check it out so that it can be reviewed and approved. Thanks so much.Nsadeghi (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Followup to a deleted page

Hello Anthony. Thank you for deleting this earlier today. The very same item was also created here Alvin cabiluna by the same editor. I am wondering if you can take care of it as well. The editor keeps removing the speedy and/or changing the name. I don't know if that resets it in the queue for an admin to examine it or not. If you want me to wait for things to run there normal course that is okay. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism cut-and-paste article deleted, and editor warned. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting C.J. Pearson

That article had no place in any encyclopedia. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassachusettsWikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up To Modified Page

I made changes to the Baltimore City Health Department page through my talk page (the previous page was deleted). Can you or someone please take a look at it? I would like to resubmit it. I believe I took care of copyright issues. Thank you.Nsadeghi (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Aida Tomescu

Hello, I've noticed you deleted Aida Tomescu article. Judging by the name of the author I assume he or she is either owner or work for the gallery, which text was used. As far as I understand in this case they need provide explicit permission for the usage of it. I am just get into it, since I've edited the article after it was created and I don't want it to be gone :). Thank you in advance. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot post copyrighted material except with permission, which must be granted in a clearly defined way; here it was not.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AirAsia / "most dangerous airline"

Hi, I have started a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this info and the editor in question. Thanks, --Dmol (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye (watch list) on ....

Could you keep an eye on Prince Hall National Grand Lodge; i.e., put it on your watch list? As with National Grand Lodge of 1847, which you deleted as a duplicate two days ago, people keep trying to make duplicates of National Grand Lodge. I have redirected the new duplicate. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the "discussion" on User talk:Aceumus is, um, illuminating. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

deleting redirect

Hi, I noticed you undid my nominating the misspelling "Kussmall Meier disease" for speedy deletion, it seemed to fall under WP:R3. Unsure if you disagree with deletion or if 'speedy' was simply not the correct procedure, I've put it up for discussion.Cyrej (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding delete of my user page

Dear Anthony Bradbury, You have delete my user page for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. "About of an user" what content will be there without himself? I also written about me in the page so why deleted my page. If the page violate any Wikipedia policy, you can edit it like others pages. But without notice an older page is deleted, its is not desirable. So I would request to restore the page by deleting the Unambiguous advertising or promotion that you think inappropriate. Thank you. Emdadul Huq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdadul Huq (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Page was deleted as being inappropriate use of userpage; it will not be restored. Detail on your talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Prem Lata Yadav

• Hello Anthony Bradbury, this page has been deleted six times and has been recreated again. I have tagged this for CSD for now but can you please SALT this for good? Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Anthony Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hurtworld

Recently you deleted a page I made(''Hurtworld'') and with good reason. I see now what I did wrong. In the far-off future when the game is released and reliable and non-commercial sources start publishing infomation about could I perhaps have another go? Also, was there a way I could of written the article in a better way? Catmando999 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I believe that the game is scheduled for release today, although whether that happened I do not know. When it has existed long enough for reliable third-party sources to mention it, an article would be appropriate; it is important that it should not read like an advertisement, and bear in mind that your own personal experience of the game, if and when, is not relevant here. See original research.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I've got some waiting to do! This whole thing was an important learning curve for me and editing Wikipedia. I've learnt a lot about what to do and what not to do. Thankyou again. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. We all start slow and inexperienced, and work up. Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remi Eriksen

Hi, please see Contesting deletion of Remi Eriksen. You deleted the article, could you provide some input? Thanks in advance :-) Bjornte (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

You know that one I'd commented underneath, and you declined? Si.harandi it was. Just found out that he wasn't blocked - on that account anyway. I've remedied that now. First time, I think, that I've seen an account requesting unblock before it was actually blocked. Peridon (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. He was blocked at his original account, and created this new account to request unblock. I spotted it, though.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Kevin Carr Fastest Man to run solo, unsupported around the World

Hi, Anthony,

I am contacting you as an OTRS volunteer regarding the draft of the page mentioned in the subject heading, which you deleted as a copyright infringement. It appears the creator of the article has agreed to donate his text under OTRS ticket number 2015062310012324, and has requested that the page be undeleted. On the other hand, I have also read the text of the article draft (as it was sent to me by the author), and I am not sure it qualifies as a Wikipedia article on various other grounds— you may wish to address that as you see fit. On copyright infringement, at any rate, it appears to be clear. Let me know if you have questions/ concerns (a ping is the best way to get my attention). Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 09:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

(The post below is moved from Talk:Bjäre runt. ) 11:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(I wanted to post this message at User talk:Anthony Bradbury. But that page is protected, so I'll post here instead, and would appreciate if someone would either direct the user Antony Bradbury to this page or move the discussion to a better place where I can participate. Thanks on advance.)

The article was deleted with reference to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on this: Was it the text that was not credible, or was it the subject that was not significant? As could be read in the article itself (and in the source), this sport event has been held annualy for over 40 years, and tens of thousands have participated. Kind regards Bjäre kring (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarkar

Hi, I would like to contest your speedy deletion of Sucharit Sarkar. Being a professor of Princeton (one of world's best univ) is a claim to notability and he has got a paper with citation count 171 (pretty impressive for a low citation field that is maths). I faintly remember viewing the pre-deleted version of the article and I believe the article creator (not me) wasn't notified. To me this amounts to avoid scrutiny. I request you to undelete it (of course feel free to Afd, if you must). Solomon7968 16:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As you say, I deleted this article (in February 2014) on the basis of there being no assertion of notability. I have just reviewed the article, and there is no such assertion; holding a professorship at Princeton is not of itself an adequate assertion. The article has been amended several times, and negative comments relating to notability have been made by two or three other editors. if you wish to place this before the community, please take it to deletion review. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion

Hi Anthony. Could you provide the URL of where this was copied from? I can't find it anywhere else. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

http://research.omicsgroup.org is the article. It may well be that the author of this owns copyright on the wiki article; he di not say so and the original article is copyrighted.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning?

You have recently gave me a warning for vandalism on the page on Jews , I added Adolf Hitler to the list of memorable people , As he was a large part in the history I do not see this as justifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarongaming100 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Anthony Quintal AKA Lohanthony's Wiki Page

In June of 2015 you deleted a page with the title Lohanthony because you said it was and I quote: "No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): Self promotion / vanity page." but there is other pages of "Internet Personality" ie. Nash Grier and Hayes Grier who have Wiki Pages who even more irrelevant pages then said page and even less experience in the internet personality career platform then 'Lohanthony'. Why would you delete a page if it is not even as relevant or as indicated importance of the said page.

21:44, 24 June 2015 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Lohanthony (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): Self promotion / vanity page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajikc (talk • contribs)

An individual whose only alleged notability is a presence on internet media channels in my opinion is adequately described by my reason for deletion. If you wish to contest the deletion feel free to take your request to deletion review.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Beautardy

Beautardy (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Sir, I am not sure why my user page Beautardy was deleted. Any info would be appreciated. Beautardy (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I tidied up your question, and I have answered on your talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: Fuck CRASH.

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

—Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)