User talk:Finngall/Archive07

your deletion of Dada Nada Page

looks like you prob did this via "quick deletion" - i truly wish you'd not done that and would've given others an opportunity to respond to the possible deletion.

It was not a new page as it's been there for many, many years.

the reason you gave was that it was redundant as it was in a page about recording artist/screenwriter/film producer/actor Robert Ozn

While DaDa Nada is one of Robert Ozn's acts, it is entirely separate and also an act that is by far the most recent, particularly as it relates to a a very important pro-peace, anti-terrorism music release he's about to make in 2016, which was also the subject of an indiegogo campaign.

i'm a huge supporter/fan and want to see that it as easy as possible for journalists to get information about DaDa NaDa. Once that release occurs there will be searches for DaDa NaDa and it's now going to be confusing because they very likely will not know that that name has a relationship to Mr. Ozn.

There have been times in his career that he only uses that moniker without any reference to any other identity.

I truly appreciate how you care about Wikipedia, but this deletion from my point of view was a bit overzealous in the fact that you didn't give anyone time to respond.

I passionately disagree with it and would really appreciate it if you or whoever followed you would restore it.

Thank you, MusicalTheatreBuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicalTheatreBuff (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MusicalTheatreBuff:

• Procedure: As noted above, I am not an administrator and do not have the power to delete articles. I had proposed it for deletion for reasons I listed on your talk page--once tagged as such, anyone can object to the deletion by simply removing the tag. The article was deleted by an administrator after one week with no objections. This process is distinct from the speedy deletion process whereby an article meeting certain criteria can be deleted immediately.
• Content: Nothing in the article was backed up by any sources whatsoever, and I found nothing about Dada Nada to indicate that it merited a separate article. As it is really just a solo vehicle for Ozn, anything about it can and should be covered under his article. Perhaps Dada Nada could be turned into a redirect to the Ozn article, but nothing more.

To be fair, I will request its undeletion in the appropriate forum, but then I plan to put it forth for discussion via the more formal articles for deletion process, where the community at large will have an opportunity to comment. You will also have time to improve it if you can, but I stand by my assessment of the article in the state it was in at the time I tagged it. --Finngall ^talk 23:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(PS: I had just purchased "Feeling Cavalier" on iTunes shortly before tagging the article, so it's not like I'm not a fan, but I'm trying to be objective here...)

@MusicalTheatreBuff: Article is now up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dada Nada. --Finngall ^talk 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Bandar bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Hello Finngall. Would you please use the discussion page of the article and explain what makes you sure that it was Bandar bin Saud who died. Regards --Dangermouse600 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dangermouse600: Ummmm, because every cited source named Bandar bin Saud as the prince who died? It looks like some of the sources themselves got confused about the relationships, but the name was consistent. --Finngall ^talk 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Praxisphere

Sorry about that, I had the page open while I was doing a google search looking for copyvios or evidence of the term's existence, and I'd opened it before you did the Prod so I didn't see it when I placed the speedy. I speedied it as a hoax because it appears to be entirely his creation, the person he said created it doesn't appear to have done so. Apologies for the confusion. JamesG5 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesG5: Yeah, it's totally non-notable self-promotional (insert your favorite perjorative noun here), but now that Dr. Trevino has removed the prod tag, it'll be a matter for AfD momentarily. --Finngall ^talk 02:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging of Drogo of Nesle

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Drogo of Nesle. I do not think that Drogo of Nesle fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The mention of the first crusade, and of Emicho give ample context. I request that you consider not re-tagging Drogo of Nesle for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Before tagging for "no context" a Wikipedia search and a web search on terms mentioned in the article is strongly advised. DES ^(talk) 03:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Page has been Deleted

Hi Finngall,

I have created a page for Our Startup company and no way it is related for Promotion. Please suggest what changes are required if i want my page to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishore.Gurram (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kishore.Gurram:

• Startup companies are not generally considered notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia.
• "Telling the world about our company and its services" is the very definition of advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
• It's not your article--even if an article were allowed to be created, you would not be allowed to have control over it.
• Regardless of any of the above, we STRONGLY discourage editors from creating articles on subjects with which they have a close connection.

If you want there to be a Wikipedia article about your company, then stop worrying about Wikipedia and build the company to the point where someone else might consider writing about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which covers subjects that are already notable. It is not a free web host for companies which seek to become notable. Please read the pages on Wikipedia's policies which I have linked to above. You are more than welcome to edit articles on other subjects, but PLEASE do not attempt to recreate an article on Instasafe again. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 14:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 'Radіo Lem.fm

Hi Finngall!

Yhis is not my original article but trabslation from the original text rue:Радіо_Лем.фм

It article aboout about ONLY Radio in Lemkos language around all world. Today it seems impossible find more medii for such very small people,with it's original culture , folclore etc...

Golodg (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

@Golodg: Please read the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't matter how unique it is. --Finngall ^talk 00:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Congratulations! Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigurður Guðmundsson

I took the speedy off of Sigurður Guðmundsson, you might want to have checked what links here first as well as the fact the guy does have some foreign wikis. Though I might of done the same as you! But it does look like he is notable and apparently was on a Icelandic stamp! Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: When all the article says is "he exists and someone thinks he's a great guy" with that referenced "someone" being his publisher, I don't think "decorated author", I think "borderline spam" (shrug). --Finngall ^talk 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here-and I've gotten the same message to me before where they will say to check. (I have put speedies on people that turned out to be notable as well) Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Answer

This point. In fact, I've just removed the section you dab'd. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That Spanish-speaking company is actually remarkable, it's just promotional

I did a quick Google and several reliable sources showed up (I don't read Spanish-language media but at least I know Univision, which reported the company). If the ad tone could be edited out, and article translated into English, the article could stay. Ueutyi (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ueutyi: It's not just promotional, it's a flat-out copyright violation and needs to be speedied as such regardless of notability. --Finngall ^talk 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't see that. My original plan was to remove all Spanish texts and replace them with a one-line description. You were faster than me. Ueutyi (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Would it be ok and accurate to cite things from social media? Ie; twitter or instagram. --Treeman2000 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Treeman2000: Social media sites are generally not considered reliable sources for any purpose and should not be used. --Finngall ^talk 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Attemptist

Conversation with User:MassiveLizard

This is *not* creation of my own fiction. It is something from Nietzsche philosophy, perhaps you should read him! Don't be a dolt and think before you act!!I ask with sanity of your own mind research then you may do so. I expect now, this instant, for you to redacted it MassiveLizard (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) @MassiveLizard: If the term were not in fact your own invention, then I would assume that I could find references to it in Nietzsche's writings online despite my lack of formal philosophical studies. Instead, a Google search reveals that the only place on the Web where the search terms "Nietzsche" and "attemptist" exist on the same page is...your article. --Finngall talk 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Reply! Yes I am, that is notable! Research and you will find that it is fact, again you have made an erroneous mistake and now I expect an apology once you realize your error. This should not be democracy as it is on wikipedia! It dulls the information and leads to error; any learned man with taste and as now I suspect you are not would concur. I plan to uproot the foundations of wikipedia! I suggest you at least read the website before you answer again. You are probably normal, and enjoy destroying! Good for you, no, I am serious, but have conscience to moderate your alter ego, thence you pursue the art of something MassiveLizard (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Think, why can't you think! A simple search will reveal nothing; I will tell you why! It a long treatise and Google has its limitations; you are out of you depth-- retreat before you drown! and why if have not studied philosophy are reporting on such matters! Dammit I will in fact grab a direct quote from the book citing the term, again once you realize your error, I expect you to support me and apologize MassiveLizard (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The quote these philosophers of the future may have a right, it might also be a wrong, to be called experimenters [Versucher, i.e. attempters] MassiveLizard (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC) You seem fairly intelligent-- I was wrong I would like to exchange correspondence my email: [email redacted] MassiveLizard (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Now that anger-- a clouding agent has left my head What do you think of Nietzsche from your little experience of philosophy? MassiveLizard (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MSRI-Berkeley username issue

Hi Finngall - thanks for the comment on my username. I will add a comment to it that the account is not actually to edit Wikipedia pages, but to be a demo account for the dashboard I'm using to assist in hosting Wikipedia Edit-a-thon events. The individual mathematicians who are doing the editing will all be creating their own personal accounts, mine is just to be able to show them how things work on the WMF page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSRI-Berkeley (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@MSRI-Berkeley: So noted--I don't think that noting this would prevent a prevent a block, but I'll call it to the admins' attention with regard to alternative options--they may have better advice. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ada Zanditon article update

Hi Finngall I seen you replied to my request for a deletion tag on the Ada Zanditon article --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Zanditon I am currently employed by Ada Zanditon myself and she asked me to either delete the page or put the correct and up to date information on the page instead. I was hoping you could help me as I would now like to amend the information which is incorrect and also add more information about what the brand and Ada Zanditon has been doing since 2013. If you can help me in anyway I would really appreciate it, as I can't get in contact with the person who created the article or the administrator of the article. Thank you, Eden Curtis Edencurtis (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edencurtis: Several points here:

• First off, be aware that neither Ada, you, nor anyone else owns the page or any of the contents therein. This is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of her own web site. If she is notable enough to have an article here, then that article cannot and should not be deleted purely on the subject's say-so.
• As per Wikipedia's terms of service, if you are working for Ms. Zanditon and editing the article on her behalf, you must declare this connection publicly, preferably on your user page.
• Editors who are closely connected to a subject are discouraged from editing the article on that subject for reasons of conflict of interest, and because of the difficulty such editors would have in maintaining the neutral point of view which is to be expected from an encyclopedia article.
• In light of this, I recommend that whatever changes you propose be posted to the article's talk page as suggestions. Keep in mind that the article should be primarily sourced from third-party sources rather than from her own web page.

Feel free to ask further questions. Thanks! --Finngall ^talk 14:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Light (web browser)

Hi! I got a notification that my article had been reviewed after requesting help from a bunch of relevant WikiProjects (this was before I realised I'm actually allowed to add those tags to the article talk page myself, without being a member of said projects), and then I got a notification saying my article had been reviewed, with your username attached. But nothing was changed in the talk page or anything. I'm a bit confused as I've never interacted with WikiProjects before, so, which one of those are you from, and should your review/assessment of my little baby article be up somewhere? Should the project templates in the article talk page be updated with your assessment? Thanks :D [Amazing spaghetti generator]-(~~~~Xmoogle (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)(SQUIRTY NOISES)

@Xmoogle: I'm not affiliated with any of the relevant WikiProjects--I was just doing a more general new page patrol. I did check it over, but more with an eye towards whether it was spam, on an obviously non-notable subject or otherwise eligible for speedy deletion, and/or whether it had issues that merited copyediting or the application of maintenance tags. Unreviewed articles show up as yellow in the list of newly-created pages--my marking it as "reviewed" simply turns off the yellow background for the benefit of others who patrol this list. My assessment was that it is a reasonably sourced article on a subject that appears to be notable by Wikipedia's standards, with nothing that required immediate correction, and my review shouldn't be construed as anything more than that. Further, this "review" is completely separate from whatever subject-specific review processes the various projects may undertake, and does not affect the "unassessed" status on any particular WikiProject. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you for your contribution, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 20:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Finngall: Thank you, this clears things up. And thanks for your assessment that it's not an inherently terrible article! Plus I've learnt something new with that {{reply|user}} template. :) Xmoogle (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Finngall,

Apologies I am a very new Wikipedia editor, as I'm sure you've realized! I don't represent the subject in an official capacity, I'm just a good friend and I know the page makes them uncomfortable and unhappy as a lot of it was added passive aggressively by an ex-partner so I said I'd see what I could do as a favour. If nothing else please just remove the last sentence (about flora and fauna).

Thank you!

James

Jambadger99 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

db-context

This speedy reason should be used only when you can not tell what the article is about, not just where it is very short, or contains only an infobox. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Finngall,

I am enjoying Wikipedia and didn't mean to make anyone crazy when I posted the Ole Entertainment page. It is meant to be a page about a company and, living here in Atlanta, I used the Coca-Cola Company page as a sample. Was that not a wise idea?

Anyway, Ole is a great company offering small movie makers with an opportunity for a real break in the film industry.

I have read more about Wikipedia, changed the page considerably based on your comments and have re-posted the page. However, when I was typing the name of the new page . . . I typed it as Ole Entertainmen . . . leaving off the "t'. I didn't notice my error until after I hit "Save" . . . can you take that page down for me. However, first, please look at it and tell me if it will make Wiki editors dance and sing. I truly want to be a respected member of the Wiki world.

My direct real world email address is: trjc@mindspring.com. I am still learning to use the very interesting vehicle.

Thanks very much for your help and guidance.

Warm regards from Atlanta, Tom Ross

ThomasARoss (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on the Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control is no longer a draft.

Conversation with User:Polythesis

It may be a stub for the moment, but the first paragraph of the introduction is complete and references have been provided. How do I stop the talk page from redirecting to the draft talk page now that the redirect from the actual article to the draft has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC) @The wiki authority: Generally it is better to work on an article of this length in draft space and move it to main article space when it is done (which it obviously wasn't then or isn't now). Also, I would have recommended that the completed draft be evaluated by one or more of the fine volunteers at Articles for Creation before moving to mainspace. As it is, to me this looks like an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia article, and I have weighed in appropriately at the article's AfD discussion. --Finngall talk 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) @Finngall The article is currently one paragraph. That's not very long, but it is long enough to create the article and add additional material at a later date. I am not required to contribute more the one paragraph in order to create the article. Let's just focus on the first paragraph for now, since you and a dozen or so other Deletionists will not even allow that one paragraph, even though it was completely neutrally written and it clearly cited 9 sources that each directly discuss the well established concept that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny. It is not my opinion that there is a relationship between arms control and tyranny; it is a fact, and a very notable fact. Did you read the references? It seems that you either have not read them or you have simply chosen to ignore them. Are you familiar with the criteria for determining if an idea is original research or if it is was pre-existing research? You do not appear to be, or perhaps you are willfully ignoring Wikipedia's policies on this issue to further a Deletionist agenda. The determining factor is whether or not there are reliable, published sources that mention the relationship between tyranny and arms control, which there are many of, almost a dozen of which have been cited so far either in the article itself or during the debate on whether or not the article should be delete. If there are sources that discuss the relationship between tyranny and arms control, then the work is not original research and it is not an opinion essay. This is so obvious that I can't help but conclude that you are aware of this and yet you have decided to disregard Wikipedia's policies and the sources I provided and to delete the article anyway in violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polythesis (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC) @Polythesis: Several points: Main article space is not the place for incomplete articles. Incomplete articles should be worked on in draft space or user space and moved when complete. Regardless of what anyone else may think of the article, it is obviously far from complete. Please reread WP:OR. As defined by Wikipedia in the context of creating an encyclopedia, original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. " At best, given the highly incomplete state of the article, it is not clear that this does not meet this definition, but it seems clear to me that it will when it is completed. Further, any article needs to maintain a neutral point of view, and while I'd need to see more to make a judgement, I can see this essay straying far from neutral territory. I will freely cop to being deletionist in my outlook, in that I feel that in general a bad article on a given subject is worse than no article at all. I can and do improve articles rather than call for their deletion, but there's at least gotta be some potential for a good article there. I have tried to give advice, and other experienced editors have tried to do the same. Wikipedia is a collaboration towards a common goal of building the best possible encyclopedia. It doesn't mean everybody has to get along with everybody else, and heated arguments happen everywhere. But the editors I have seen trying to interact with you are trying to be helpful, and I feel like all we're getting in return is "Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you." If you continue to reject sound advice from people who have read and edited many, many articles, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. --Finngall talk 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Diannaa. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dr. Artika Tyner, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Hills Jr. page

Hi Finngall, my page is tagged with possible speedy deletion but all the content is correct and true. On IMDb you will be able to see I am attached to the film I mention and that I'm working with the people I mention so if if you could let me know if there's something you need me to change to make sure it doesn't get deleted I would be extremely grateful. Many thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rising Stars (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rising Stars: Good luck on your career, but the standard for articles here is that somebody else (from a major media source) should be writing about you. Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting yourself, regardless of how much you have achieved. --Finngall ^talk 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Temitope Isaac Ajijola

Hi Finngall, I saw that you have reviewed my page. Thank you. However, I feel it was quite harsh to nominate it for deletion. Back here, Temitope is a known figure and i believe he deserves to be on wikipedia Ibifolayemi (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ibifolayemi: Claiming to be "known" means relatively little unless you can provide verifiable references to reliable sources to back it up. There were no such references in the article as written, and not even a claim that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. An administrator agreed with my assessment and deleted the article. This does not preclude you from trying to create it again, but if you wish to do so then I recommend creating it as Draft:Temitope Isaac Ajijola and submitting it through the Articles for Creation process where the draft can be evaluated by an experienced editor as to whether it is ready to be moved to main article space. Please read the pages I have linked before you begin, and feel free to ask questions. Thank you for listening. --Finngall ^talk 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're so stupid

hey, just want you to know that the page young xero is incomplete and i accidentally hit submit but im still working on it, so you can shove the speedy deletion up your ass. i also want you to know i am the one who started a lot of good pages, for example Burberry Perry and a lot more, so you need to stop requesting speedy deletions for pages that are obviously not even done yet and are still being worked on. the young xero page was saved for 3 minutes before you requested it for deletion, and it doesnt matter anyway because im just going to bypass your requests anyway whether you like it or not, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King savage492 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ডাক্তার সুমী রায়হান Speedy

FYI I removed the speedy tag and listed it on articles needing translation to see if someone other than Google Translate can make heads or tails of it. It looks like it could be about a place given the formatting, but the Google Translate doesn't make sense with that. Thought it'd be best to get a human view before speedying. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone pointed out it was likely an ad on my talk page because of the username. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviwer granted

Hello Finngall. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

PS: Please maintain proper archives because you will have many discussions with article creators and the diffs might need to be easily found for quoting in dispute resolution issues. If you have any questions about anything, you are always welcome to ask me directly on my talk page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Hey Finngall. Why did you mark my article for a "speedy deletion"? I am doing resserch on it.

    -JustAGuyOnWikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC) 

@JustAGuyOnWikipedia: Because there is no evidence that this station is any way notable enough to merit an article here. No citations, no references, no news coverage, nothing. Please see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. At best it would merit a line in the 1610 AM, where the listings of stations are woefully incomplete, but for which none of the listed stations have their own articles. --Finngall ^talk 20:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RFA

JustAGuyOnWikipedia has nominated you for adminship; see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Finngall. Thought you should know. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Everymorning: I've requested speedy deletion of that page. I do not aspire to the bit at this time, especially via a nomination from a brand new user. --Finngall ^talk 23:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Finngall. 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)

Redaction

Please refrain from linking accounts to undisclosed off-wiki profiles as you recently did in reference to a COIN case. The links have been redacted. Thank you ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: So noted. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Changes made in Balkrishna page

Hello Finngall, I made the changes in the page based on the fact that reference 2 doesnt exists any more. So I removed the facts pertaining to the reference. Kindly verify and approve the changes. I even left the edit summary too still its being removed again.Didgeri (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

41st British Columbia general election: Revision history: (mostly revert efforts to position YPP as anything other than a minor party)

YPP - Your Political party of BC should be listed similar to the NDP, Green and Liberals, as YPP will have 21 riding candidates and are making a big presence in BC at the moment. You refereed YPP as a "minor government," but that can be associated with the Green Party since they only have one seat.

Appreciate your expertise and helping contributing the the health of the Wiki, but I would like to see YPP in the same way as the other government.

You can call me if you have any questions: 778-867-9179

@BretteMullins: Regardless of YPP's aspirations to be ranked among BC's major parties, the number of votes they have received thus far continues to put them firmly in the category of "others", and I have found no news coverage specifically covering YPP other than in the context of being one of the other also-rans. If reliable sources appear which indicate that status could or does change, then the relevant articles can be updated accordingly, but from what I've seen there's relatively little to indicate that YPP meets Wikipedia's notability standard to even merit its own article at all, much less be considered on a par with the Greens, who only have one seat but who pulled more votes than all the independents and minor parties combined in the last BC election. Furthermore, as an activist and candidate for the party, I would strongly discourage you from editing YPP-related material as per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Feel free to ask further questions. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Finngall: Who has the right to determine what party should be displayed? This is a wiki and should be treated as such. If our party wants to be displayed on the Wiki, then we should be displayed.

What can I do to have our party displayed? Our province is being dominated by two parties, partly due to this type of suppression. Your Political Party of British Columbia is a registered party within the government of BC, so we should have the right to have our info displayed.

@BretteMullins: Wikipedia's standards are generally determined by community consensus. Your candidacy is a verifiable fact (albeit only via YPP's website at present--it would be better if there were a third-party source like a list from BC Elections, but that'll come later), and therefore that was the only part of your edits that I didn't revert. It's long been the standard that major parties get their own columns in election articles and minor parties get collected under "Other". You may consider that to be a major-party bias, but to give all parties their own columns in a table of candidates would make it simply unmanageable and reduce the article's utility. "Rights" have nothing to do with it.

(My preferences have nothing to do with it either--as a USian who's at least as frustrated with the political party duopoly here as I imagine you are with the one in BC, I feel your pain...)

Anyway, they way to get displayed in an election article on a par with the major parties is to get results and news coverage on a par with the major parties. You may not think that's fair, and you're free to seek other opinions. But I doubt you'll get a different answer elsewhere. (Disclaimer: I am not an administrator. I'm a general user with not much more in the way of editing rights and privileges than you have. But I have been around here long enough to have an idea what kind of response I think you'll get from the average admin.) --Finngall ^talk 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Mack B. Pearsall WP

Hi Finngall,

I saw a notice where you mentioned my deleted page on the refund location, but can't find the words. Can you direct me to where I can see it? Thank you ITCORPS (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@ITCORPS: I had merely noticed that the template for your undeletion request was broken, and I fixed it along with some other maintenance to other entries on that page. I made no comment regarding the page itself and I have no opinion--I was merely conducting cleanup for the sake of clarity. --Finngall ^talk 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: Thanks for the heads up, and on the great work you do (I'm a WP stalker :P) ITCORPS (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your accusations of maleficent editing are outrageous! I absolutely stand by the right to upload information concerning my company to Wikipedia, as several other companies, of comparable, or lesser stature have prominent articles.

As per subject. You have lack of grounds to both nominate the article I created for deletion, and no grounds to remove mention of my product on a competitors page.

In no way do I hide from the fact that I am posting the article concerning my own company, but I found it outrageous that an important page with information about a limited company that people are searching for can be hidden. If you insist on deleting relevant information from wikipedia, then surely you must delete other articles of lesser companies.

Please desist.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamieallen (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. --Finngall ^talk 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Syed Chand Patel

I agree. I would have tagged it for BLPPROD except that it was already tagged for AFD, and tagging an article that is already tagged in a different way can't be done with Twinkle (which aborts the deletion tag) and so has to be done manually, which is work, and, besides, both get rid of the crud after seven days. The tone is enough so that I even considered G11, but go ahead and let the AFD run. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

For correcting my sloppy edit [1]. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project. Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia. To receive feedback on your chances of successfully requesting administrative privileges, consider starting a poll: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll Thank you! Are you reading this on another user's talk page? If you are experienced and trusted, and would consider becoming an admin, you are very much encouraged to take the take the poll. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Surprises!

Don't look now, my friend, but Surprises! got vandalized again by the same user I don't wish to go beyond the three revert limit. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: Reversion of obvious vandalism, and reversion of socks of blocked/banned users (like our old friend the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal), is explicitly exempt from the restrictions of WP:3RR. No need to worry about running afoul of the rules in this case. Thanks for the help. --Finngall ^talk 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Probable sock at WP:REFUND

While you were making that report I was thinking about making a report myself and was in the midst of looking through the history of the deleted articles, the AfDs, etc. and the two sockpuppet investigations to see if I could find any smoking gun evidence. (In any event, I don't for a second believe this is a "new user".) But my suspicion was that this was a sock of AwardPunjabi or Amitbhb12, or maybe both—with the fact that both were used here making me suspicious that these two sockmasters are actually one and the same, though up to now treated separately. I was not aware of the Joanna Gunadi case. Glad something's been posted on this. Thanks. By the way, note another suspicious "coincidence" in these posts. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:) Details aside, they're obviously somebody's sock--I'll leave the rest to the pros. --Finngall ^talk 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to add noticeboard tickets to talk pages

I happened to see your mention of Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre on WP:NPOVN and added it to Talk:Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre. Please add such discussion to the article's talk page to avoid duplication of effort.

There seems to be quite a number of sources on the matter including a long article on Frontline. Given this, it might be DUE. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: So noted. Thank you for looking into this. --Finngall ^talk 21:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You deleted the wrong one

You are right there was a duplication but the wrong page was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil201 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

For fixing the problem with the page and properly moving it for meBrazil201 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Brazil201: RHaworth deserves the credit, not me. The proper course should have been for you to simply move the existing page rather than create a duplicate. I nominated the newer page for deletion earlier as per policy and because the older page had the more detailed edit history. As part of the cleanup process, RHaworth performed a merger of the histories of both article so all edits for both versions now appear under the history of the new title. I made no further edits in this area after leaving the messages on your talk page, and I merit no further credit or blame for anything that happened afterwards. Thanks, and happy editing. --Finngall ^talk 22:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Something's Fishy

Finngall:

I want to get your feedback/opinion on something I've noticed happening since late last December. It seems that unregistered IP users from the same zip code (as checked by Geolocate) in Manhattan (or one sockpuppet) have made/are making favorable edits to one physician's page (Cameron Rokhsar) and then made/making negative edits to other NYC physician pages, even nominating them for deletion. All of these IP addresses are in the same zip code of Rokhsar's office.

For example, I notice you assisted an IP user recently to process a deletion discussion via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. This IP user is in the same small NYC zip code as numerous different IP editor(s) that have contributed a lot of content to the Cameron Rokhsar page. The page mentioned for nomination was nominated for deletion last December from a similar IP address in the same zip code right after that user made favorable edits to Rokhsar's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:8000:ACDB:6C7A:84D5).

Also, the IP addresses of December/January edits to Rokhsar's page are similar to this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C8) who had nominated several other NYC physician's pages for deletion back in December. I notice this editor's history in non-existent now that the pages it nominated/negatively edited have been deleted.

What should be done about this? Thoughts? WikiPolice2017 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPolice2017: It looks like Bbb23 got to the article before I did to prune the most egregiously promotional content from Dr. Rokhsar's article and return it to a more neutral point of view. With regard to the IPs, I agree the general pattern is concerning, but I'm not sure it rises to the level where a sockpuppet investigation is warranted, and I don't see any obvious evidence of violations of the terms of service or other policies. Pinning down the activities of anonymous users whose IP addresses change constantly is notoriously difficult and should be done with care. But as Bbb23, conveniently, is an admin who is an experienced investigator of these things, I'll ping him here for a second opinion.

As for the articles nominated for deletion, regardless of the above-noted pattern, each article should stand or fall on its own merits and the AfD process is there precisely so that they can be assessed on an individual basis. I'm pretty lenient (though not infinitely so) about completing AfD nominations on behalf of anonymous users, and even if the patterns noted above are no coincidence, absent more blatant evidence of bad-faith editing I see no problem with setting up the discussion and allowing it to run its course. (And as for Dr. Rokhsar himself, regardless of any other activity going on, he does appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards and I believe the article would survive an AfD discussion with little problem).

I hope this helps, and you are welcome to ask further questions. Have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be pointless to open an SPI as the IP edits are too old.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting on your take of the notability of Rokhasar when the page, references, etc. look almost identical to the nominated page.WikiPolice2017 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I had made no assessment of the other page myself, and I do not always do so when I complete an IP's nomination. --Finngall ^talk 18:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Syron / Tallulah (singer)

Hi there,

wondering if you could help with the process in deleting the Syron Wikipedia page?

Thank you

So the artist name is Syron, she is now using a new artist name but does not want the two link. The page name was changed over to the new name 'Tallulah' 8days ago but we would like it changed back to Syron. I am from the artists team. If you could, or could let me know how we can go about changing it back to Syron that would be great. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymills (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amymills: I have done you the courtesy of completing the process of nominating the page for deletion (see WP:AFDHOWTO), but I see no reason why the article should be deleted.

• Firstly, if you are part of her management or PR team, then you absolutely must publicly disclose this fact as per the Terms of Service you agreed to when you created your account. Please also see Wikipedia's policy pages on paid editing and conflict of interest.
• Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle, and edits to an encyclopedia article should not be solely based on the desires of the subject. Neither she, nor you, nor anyone else owns the page.
• In my view, deletion is not the way to go about this. The title of an article should be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. If the title need to change, then the article should be moved to the new title, thereby preserving the entire history of edits to the article.
• It does not matter that she doesn't want the two names linked. If she was known by a stage name, and received sufficient coverage in reliable sources under that name, then it should be noted in the article.
• As someone with a conflict of interest, you really should not be directly editing the article at all except to remove blatant falsehoods, libel, or similarly disruptive material. It would be far better for you to suggest changes (including a proposed move to a new title) on the article's talk page, where they can be discussed before another editor makes the change (or not, if that is the consensus).

Please peruse the various policy links I have included above, and feel free to ask further questions. Thank you for your patience. --Finngall ^talk 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Pankaj Munjal

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Anomaly with curation tool?

There appears to be a bug in the curation tool we use at NPP - any idea what could've happened? Davey nominated it again for AfD using TW. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I know nothing about the tool--I merely found the page via WP:BADAFD and undid everything with the expectation that someone would soon come along and redo things correctly. I can offer nothing other than to note that perhaps the NPP tools aren't the best ones to use on a page that's about a decade removed from being new. --Finngall ^talk 21:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It was in the NPR que. We're trying to catch-up on a 20,000+ backlog, so while it would be easy to ignore the older articles that are subpar and/or should be deleted, we've started a drive to recruit new reviewers. I've contacted a tech to see if he can figure out what happened. Thanks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm certainly not advocating for ignoring the older articles in the queue. I'm just guessing that those who coded the tools assumed that they didn't need to account for a "new" article having previously been subject to an AfD (not at all unreasonable on the face of it), and I'm sure that the bug is nothing more than the result of that assumption. --Finngall ^talk 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow

Conversation with Puunanny

I'm sorry mate since when did you have the right to delete my message to Kundung earlier. Out of order behaviour. I'm sick of it I personally messaged him and to him only so why on earth did you delete it. swear down man you don't have any respect do you? answer me asap! --Puunanny (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC) @Puunanny: Two things: The content wasn't deleted--it was placed into a collapse box and can be seen by clicking "show" on the right side to the green bar titled "Reasons". I didn't make that edit. Someone else did, as shown here. All that aside, if you intend to be a productive contributor to this encyclopedia, then I suggest reading up on our policies and procedures instead of posting complete bollocks like the Flacker article. Let me know if you have further questions. Have a good day. --Finngall talk 07:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Okay so you are from Oregon which is in America. So that means there is a very slim chance of you liking football or even taking the slightest interest of football (or soccer to Americans) and even if you did you would know fuck all about lower leagues of English football so I don't know how the fuck you can say to me that's complete bollocks when one you probably haven't done your research and if you did, you didn't look very far and two you very probably know absolutely dogwank about football especially in lower leagues. so get of your fucking high horse and do proper research, example Walsall 2004 wiki page and Nelson f.c. wiki page. the reason why you might think its complete bollocks is because the lack of references, well there is nothing online about him so I decided to write an article on him alright, tosser??? Puunanny --Puunanny (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC) @Puunanny: Let's see--he doesn't show up on a historical list of Walsall players or Barnet players. Not listed on the referenced squad list for Walsall 2004, and the only reason he was ever on the Wiki page for that squad was because you put him there, without a reference to support his inclusion, and which therefore was reverted by another editor. England U19/U21? FIFA ought to have some record of that, right? Nope. Google? Nope. BBC? Nope. Nonleaguedaily.com? Nope. Nelson FC? Having a hard time finding any squad info at all, and even it did, that info alone wouldn't be enough to satisfy our notability standards for footballers. This is an encyclopedia. All information should be verifiable from reliable sources. So even if everything you claimed was true and it somehow escaped the notice of every online source available, it still doesn't belong here, because it's not verifiable. The sources don't have to be online, but the burden of proof would be on you. Oh, and while I'm over here on the left coast of the USA and don't get to see lower-level matches, I've followed AFC Wimbledon from their founding all the way up the pyramid, I have far more interest in the doings of F.C. United of Manchester than I do of Man U, and I've been keeping tabs on Gresley Rovers/Gresley FC for years. --Finngall talk 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC) First of mate you probably googled lower league English football teams and found AFC Wimbledon so you researched them and there climb up the pyramid as you say, they were founded in 2002 so its quite easy for anyone to see them climb up tiers as it was only 15 years ago (which is young for a football club if you didn't know) did you know about there past?? there were Wimbledon F.C fans who founded there new club AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon F.C were in the first division in the 90's getting relegated in 2000 and then became MK Dons. Also you take interest in FC United of Manchester whatever that means... So you take interest in AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester which doesn't make sense. A real football fan only likes one and only one football club because if not you are a fake fan. Now I'm just going out on a limb here but I'm saying an American hillbilly doesn't have a fucking clue about football and just did a quick research of lower league football from over here instead of you knowing what you stated (by the way, what you stated is nothing really to show you know football.) --Puunanny (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC) For the record, I started following AFC Wimbledon precisely because of what happened to their fans due to the MK move. But be that as it may, unless you plan to cease the personal attacks and actually address matters which relate to Wikipedia, then I think we're done here. --Finngall talk 22:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but then what is the point in all of it. What if I made a supporting character? Will that be bad as well? Alpha Cat (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What can you add and not add on this page? Alpha Cat (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alpha Cat: I reverted your edit because I did a search and found no evidence that Travis Albert Card was a character in the show. Without a verifiable reference, such information should not be in the article. If, as is implied by your question "What if I made a supporting character?", this character was made up by you, then it absolutely has no place here. --Finngall ^talk 03:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Page updates removed

Hi

You've recently removed my updates to the Pulmonary Circulation page found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_Circulation

I own the copyright to all of the updates submitted. How do we go about bringing the content back?

Thanks Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronshefras (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aaronshefras: While what Diannaa said is true, my opinion is that even if copyright considerations were completely ignored, it would still have been correct to remove the updates (save for the change in publisher). Your change to the description of the journal introduced a promotional tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and the inclusion of full bios for the main editors is completely unnecessary.

Please note that if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, either directly or as a part of your other job duties, you MUST disclose your employer, client or affiliation per WP:PAID--this is a requirement of the terms of service you agreed to when you created your account. I also strongly recommend reading the conflict of interest guidelines if you have not done so already. Let me know if you have other questions. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Finngall. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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