User talk:Finngall/Archive09

New message from TheLongTone

Hello, Finngall. You have new messages at TheLongTone's talk page.
Message added 14:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it occurs to me that as the subject of a previous AfD it is probably a candidate for a speedy delete.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the message on my talk page is obsoleteTheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and response to Arthur C. Martinez article Jan 7

Hi Finngall, I'm being paid by Arthur C. Martinez to update the Wikipedia page covering him as much information is left-out or inaccurate. I plan on drafting a sandbox article for him with sources, per your recommendation. When I complete this, will I be able to send it to you for verification? Also, do you know how I can recover all of the article work I completed that was deleted? I spent the past few hours on it and would like to recover it. New to Wikipedia so unsure of these intricacies. Thank you for your help! MatthewSForner (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Finngall. You have new messages at SS Bendure Hartwig's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SS Bendure Hartwig (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

Yes I think I got confused. There is no article about John Welles, Member of the Parliament of England for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who is clearly a different person. Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons

I've added a note on this article explaining clearly why it should be deleted but hasn't. The problem with {{db-xfd}} is you don't get to clarify the reason for it, so I look at it and thought "somebody's trying to CSD something during an AfD - that can't be right!" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Yeah, I troll WP:BADAFD regularly so I've actually done quite a few db-xfd's that show up there under "Articles with links to closed AfD's"--articles under that heading are frequently malformed renominations but often they're either articles that XFDcloser failed to actually delete, or "also nominated" articles in a multi-article AfD that didn't get deleted along with the "main" article. In this case, I didn't feel comfortable trying to flag down a steward myself so I tagged it so that an admin would notice and do the job. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Craggs

Hello, you took down my AfD on this article, the user Capewearer keeps deleting my deletion suggestions via PROD. I don't feel the article is notable, please you could you help me push it into the correct channels for evaluation. GavinMansfield (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GavinMansfield: As I alluded to in the edit summary of my removal of the tag, nominating an article via Articles for Deletion is a multi-step process for which tagging the article itself is merely the first. Please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO if you wish to proceed. After this, I'm willing to follow up if any cleanup is necessary, but you'll need to provide a clear and reasonable justification for deletion as part of the creation of the discussion page. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 21:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have tried to read through everything but it is very jargon filled and not at all aimed at a casual editor like me, although I understand why. GavinMansfield (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, so the warning was deleted, how do I post an AfD warning on there GavinMansfield (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GavinMansfield: That’s step one. Step two is to create the discussion page and step three is to add it to the daily AfD log so that others can see it. --Finngall ^talk 15:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! GavinMansfield (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness and commenting on contributors in edit summaries

Please don't be rude in edit summaries they are permanent. Wikipedia rules are clear and users would not comment on contributors but should instead comment on contributions. If you wish to make comments which are of a rude nature that focus on a contributor and not the contributions please do so on the appropriate talk page. Rude comments towards other users is not collegiate and goes against the good faith working of Wikipedia. I do though thank you for being bold and making the improvements you saw necessary yourself. You could very easily have looked at is as you being helpful as opposed to calling it a chore and chewing up another user. Wikipedia is voluntary and things happen outside of Wikipedia which may not necessarily mean that all of the things one is "supposed" to do get done. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle1: Another user had asked you to do the cleanup. You did not do so, and had made other edits in the meantime, so I assumed you were not interested and proceeded on my own. I am a volunteer, and generally the tasks I take on involve various forms of cleanup. Most often I'm cleaning up after vandals, which is inevitable and can't be helped. Sometimes what needs to be cleaned up is due to bugs in the system--again, can't be helped. Sometimes the problem is a well-meaning user who doesn't know what to do. If said problem only affects a single article, eh, it happens. Seventeen articles and leaving the cleanup to others even after a reminder (on what are undoubtedly low-traffic articles), well, I consider that to be rude. --Finngall ^talk 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with you making the statements that you have made, the issue I have is where you have made them. An edit summary is not the place to make them as Edit Summaries are permanent. If you wish to pass commentary on an individual do so on their talk page. Anywhere else is disruptive and not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Not how I am talking to you on your talk age and not disrupting anyone else on this encyclopaedia. All I am saying is if you want to talk about an individual do so, on their own talk page. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omo Ranch

I removed your CSD tag from the Omo Ranch, California article, for two reasons:

Even though you placed the AfD tag on the page, it was never listed in the actual AfD, so none of the voters would have had a chance to look at it.
Unlike the pages in that AfD, which seem to have been mostly or entirely places that were never anything more than a single ranch, Omo Ranch was once a genuine community with a population of 200 or so. It's covered in a number of reliable sources; although this page isn't an RS itself, there's a bibliography at the bottom: [1].

I found this while sorting through the GNIS sub-stubs for El Dorado County. I'm doing a bit of research on each one to see which locations are notable and have sufficient discussion in reliable sources to make them into proper articles. Once I finish sorting through all ~200 of them I'm going to PROD the ones that don't meet those criteria. If any of those PRODs get removed I'll make a batch AfD. Feel free to take a look at User:CJK09/California locations cleanup/El Dorado County and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Cleaning up all those GNIS location articles if you want more info on what I'm doing or want to contribute. CJK09 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: No problem. I've seen other cases where the article wasn't actually on the AfD discussion page and the admin handling the G6 tag said "close enough to the others, delete anyway per the same criteria". Regardless of the particulars of the outcome, I just wanted it off of WP:BADAFD one way or the other. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal N. Patel

Greetings!

I am writing this message to seek clarity on the contents of Bimal N Patel. I had deleted a couple of paragraphs which were tarnishing his image and placed allegations on him. Please let me know how I can solve this.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPSportz (talk • contribs) 08:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KPSportz: I don't believe there is anything to "solve". While Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons mandates that editors step carefully in editing such articles, and editors should both refrain from adding unfounded allegations and be quick to remove unfounded allegations added by others. However, this is not applicable in the case of this article. The information in the paragraphs which you tried to delete was well-cited, drawn from multiple sources which are considered to be reliable, and presented in a neutral fashion, as all information in an encyclopedia should be. Indeed, I dare say it was better-sourced than many articles of its type. "Tarnishing his image" is a subjective evaluation, and is not a valid basis for removing well-sourced information provided that it is not given undue weight within the article, and it certainly isn't in this case.

You are not the first to try to remove these paragraphs, and I am not the first to reinstate them. Each time it was claimed that the information was "false" or "defaming", but these claims have never been backed up by any proof that the information is false or that the sources upon which the information is based are biased or otherwise unreliable. None have presented any reasons based on Wikipedia's policies for the removal, and each time an experienced editor has evaluated the removal based on these policies and reverted it back to its original state.

(And in case you are wondering, I have no personal stake in this at all--I have no involvement (or even any particular interest) whatsoever with the subject, and the article only came to my attention after an anonymous editor made a misguided and poorly-executed attempt to have the article deleted in its entirety.)

I hope this helps. Feel free to come back if you have further questions. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for this clarification. I had been tasked with creating a new page for the subject. However, I understand that this will not be possible. I apologise for the inconvenience. Really appreciate your response. Thank you. KPSportz (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Workshop Company

At the end, everything about the Renaissance Workshop Company has been removed in favour of the Early Music Shop in Saltaire. As usual.

Fortunately, the truth will keep being the truth independently what is stated in the wikipedia.

Kind regards 81.34.79.85 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate GIMP version history for deletion

Hi Finngall.

Please nominate GIMP version history for deletion. Please credit it to me if you feel it is incorrect.

Sadly, I have no idea what you are talking about in your comments. I can't figure out these god damn processes. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for such shitty documentation and processes.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noloader: The article GIMP version history had been a full article and was nominated for deletion in September 2019. The result of this discussion, as chronicled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIMP version history, was that the content of the article should be merged into the main GIMP article, which it was. GIMP version history is now a redirect to the main GIMP article, specifically pointing to the "Versions" section of that article, which seems to me to make absolutely perfect sense.

Your tagging of GIMP version history with an Articles for Deletion tag was improper on more than one level. Firstly, since that title is a redirect and not a proper article, it is not subject to the AfD process at all. Redirects undergo a related but slightly different process at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Secondly, AfD (and RfD) nominations are a multi-step process and tagging the article is but the first step. See WP:AFDHOWTO (or WP:RFD#HOWTO) for the full process. Thirdly, the tag you applied pointed to the old discussion from last year. If it were proper to renominate this for AfD, then you would have needed to create a new discussion page for a new discussion (as per the instructions referenced above).

Finally, I see absolutely no reason for the redirect to be deleted. Someone searching for GIMP version history would click to the title, which redirects to the relevant section on the main article. This is precisely the sort of thing redirects are for, and it seems nonsensical to me for the redirect to be removed unless the version history to which it references were to be removed in its entirety from the main article. If you disagree, you are free to nominate it and state your case so that it can be discussed among other experienced editors.

If I am misinterpreting your intent or if you have other questions, please let me know. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no second AfD delete. The one that was proposed (and deleted by you) was the first. Here is the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GIMP_version_history.

A single page detailing GIMP releases is useless. It was not notable by any measure. The page never should have been created in the first place.

The empty page labeled as GNU software is polluting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GNU_Project_software.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is about the category being "polluted", then the category is easily removed from the redirect page, and I have done so here.

As for your insistence that there "is no second AfD delete", I do not know what you are talking about. There was a previous AfD discussion, to which I have linked above, the result of which was the the content was merged elsewhere as per a clear consensus. Whether the "page never should have been created in the first place" is neither here nor there. You appear to be arguing for the removal of material from a place where it was already removed months ago, on a talk page which is not the proper forum to discuss its deletion. Please clarify. --Finngall ^talk 04:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna look at Chris Troutman’s talk page...

...and see if that is something you wanted to do, or is some kind of Twinkle brain cramp. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Nah, the brain cramp was mine—Twinkle was merely the tool to make the mistake quickly and efficiently. :-) --Finngall ^talk 16:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can identify with that. Qwirkle (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Prabhakar Singh

Hi, since my article has been deleted titled on 'Prabhakar Singh', I would like to retrieve the links of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanvihar (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanvihar: As I am not an administrator, I do not have the power to fulfill your request. You will have to contact the deleting admin, Creffett. However, given that your article submissions have been repeatedly rejected and speedily deleted as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and that you do not appear to have learned the lessons of why it has been rejected, if I were an admin I would deny the request. --Finngall ^talk 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finngall, Stefanvihar indeed, blatantly promotional, and I am not going to return the article just so that you can submit the same promotion again. creffett (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize to the editors. It is tough to pick out as to what counts as self promotional and what counts as a neutered down article. this was my first attempt at writing. the UI of Wikipedia is definitely not that friendly the first time and I waited ever so patiently and humble for all the responses without showing disrespect to any of the editors or users.

I would ask you to consider the apology as I have worked upon a neutered down version of the same article in neutral tone without any promotion of any kind for the man. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanvihar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to clarify, there was never any rejection that was offered for the same. All I offered was an article in a basic format, to which I offered further updates. To be fair, it was my first Wikipedia article and the it can be quite daunting to understand the challenging interface. Hence, I would request you to kindly return the article and reconsider the submission in a better format.

Stefanvihar (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we had made our first submission on 26th February 2020 under the title 'Prabhakar Singh". However, certain changes had to be made, however due to wikipedia's complex UI we made a mistake of resubmitting the article again. While,the back and forth was happening we did not realize that we had submitted a duplicate article under the same title.

However, after realizing that we made an error, we tried to correct by waiting for wikipedia to give us technical inputs. However,numerous times we only got the message about duplication and never about the contents or the tone of the article.

After realizing the error in our ways, we intend to submit another article with the same title by respecting Wikipedia editorial guidelines.

But in all of this fiasco, never were we told about the blatant promotion but only about duplication.

Moving on, can we resubmit the article in a tone that respects wikipedia guidelines and I would sincerely urge you to consider this request and accept the submission which will be made in a better format.

Stefanvihar (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello finngall,

since, I haven't heard a reply from you then I am concluding that the matter is closed and I can input an edited version respecting wikipedia's editorial policies.

Stefanvihar (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanvihar: Who is "we"? --Finngall ^talk 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD tag on ACE Cider

Hi there. There was an AfD for Ace Cider back in March that ended in no consensus and it looks like when you removed the AfD template from the main page you never added a mention of it to the talk page. If you could add it now I'd appreciate it. Since it's worth a mention and I don't know how to do it myself. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Done. If you go back to a version with the AfD tag and hit "Edit" on it, you'll see in the commented-out portion the code for the tag to be applied post-discussion that you can copy and paste to the talk page. Note that it was the closing admin who should have removed the tag, but the script that they use to automate the closing tasks is a bit unreliable. I only stepped in because it showed up on a bot-created page which tracks possibly anomalous AfD-related pages. Any way, let me know if you have further questions. --Finngall ^talk 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perslias

Hi ,he is real iranian singer you can do it on google search, then you will find the artist musician account. i can help you: https://g.co/kgs/so7Gmt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamebazeiran (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamebazeiran: Nobody is questioning whether he exists, and to my knowledge nobody is questioning any of the facts presented in the article as written. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such the information therein should be verifiable from multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. This standard is the foundation for whether a subject is considered notable enough to merit an article in this encyclopedia. Nobody deserves an article here merely for existing--there are established standards for musicians and bands and for biographies in general, and so far there has been no evidence provided that Persilias/Elias comes even close to meeting these standards, and any argument that does not address this is missing the point.

Also, I'll note that you, Perslias Singer and Eliasguitarist appear to have nearly identical editing styles, so much so that one could easily conclude that you are the same person. If so, please note that while there are legitimate reasons to have multiple accounts, tag-teaming on a single article or subject (especially to the exclusion of everything else) is not one of them. If these are all you, please restrict your editing to one account in the future. Let me know if you have questions. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Finngall - I am an independent manager of Iranian concerts in Europe and I have to support Iranian singers due to my work. He is an Iranian singer and in Iran, due to the filtering of web pages, fans can not write their comments, they can only watch. Perslias has a lot of fans on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/perslias/ . Because Instagram is not a filter in Iran.

@Gamebazeiran: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion and was never intended to be. We are not interested in what a subject or his representatives have to say about themselves, only in what independent third parties have verifiably written about them. The artist's own websites and social media doesn't count. Press releases and other public relations fluff doesn't count. Without other sources, there is literally nothing upon which a proper encyclopedia article can be based. As the artist's representative, you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles on your clients due to your conflict of interest.

You are more than welcome to edit articles on other subjects in which you do not have a direct interest, but if your sole purpose is to promote your clients, there are other sites which are far better suited for the task. --Finngall ^talk 15:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Finngall - you are fascism, democrat, f..uk Wiki And You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasguitarist (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of Siadatan AFD

Hi Finngall

What did I do wrong on the AFD you reverted? You said I linked to original discussion but the tag said '3rd nomination' as follows:

Yasmina Siadatan (3rd nomination)|year=2020|month=August|day=11

Thanks. Tomintoul (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomintoul: You are correct--you linked to a new discussion page, and for that I apologize. But the edit summary for the edit in which you added the tag did link to the old discussion, which is where I got tripped up. Also, you didn't actually create the new discussion page. I have no argument with the nomination per se, but the process is a multi-step process in which tagging the article is merely the first step. Let me know if you require help with the rest. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 18:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomintoul: I saw that you proceeded to create the discussion page. I took the liberty of fixing the following:

The instructions say to create the page using the {{afd2}} template. Including this template is important, because it adds a number of important links which are useful to other editors who wish to evaluate the article and provide their input (including a link back to the article itself). It also make the page visible to certain bots which run various maintenance tasks on these pages.
The article was not transcluded to a daily log page (in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 14) wherein all of the day's nominations are collected for easy viewing by the editors who regularly evaluate these things. (Also note that one of the bot maintenance tasks I mentioned above is to do this step automatically if it had been forgotten).

As it stood, if someone hadn't been around watching this article closely, it's possible that the nomination may have languished without attracting any attention at all for days or weeks. Another of the pages I monitor is a bot-generated page which tracks those articles which have been tagged the longest without resolution--I probably would have found the page there eventually if I hadn't fixed it here and now.

In any case, I've cleaned it all up so that the discussion can proceed normally. Thank you for your contributions, and happy editing. --Finngall ^talk 16:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you for your help Finngall Tomintoul (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Centerstone

Hello!

I noticed you had made edits on a page I am trying to get created through AfC, draft:Centerstone. It has been rejected but I am really eager to see if I can correct the problems and have it approved--is that even possible? It had started as a really nice looking page with the organization logo and links to numerous external sources (published by news sources and other entities outside of the org). Now I am afraid the purpose has gotten lost with all of the edits I and others have made in trying to appease reviewers. I just need some guidance on what to do! Any insight is much appreciated. Rlambert327 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlambert327: The draft has been rejected, not merely declined, meaning that the experienced editors who have reviewed it have determined that there is little to no chance that the article will be able to be improved to where it can be approved. I have not done this evaluation myself--my only involvement was to remove a tag you had placed because it was not an appropriate one to place on a draft--but I trust the judgement of DGG and Theroadislong on this matter. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Think you deserve this for your comment in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Fredrik_Svensk. Comments like that, besides contributing to the AfD discussion, can rescue potentially valuable editors. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I nominate a category for deletion?

I tried checking to see if there was a separate project to nominate categories, but couldn't find anything. Any idea? Meetertound (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meetertound: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --Finngall ^talk 20:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. Thanks! Meetertound (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the undo

Thanks for undo, Twinkle must not have loaded properly. Will try renominating. SITH (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Sikh Music

Finngall, you intervened on the Sikh Music page before (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_music&action=history) but the user srsseehra or whatever keeps on reverting changes that are correct and are cited. This user does not have any valid or authentic sources to cite and is just causing issues. Please intervene before I get banned for edit wars! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amo247 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the same user is calling you an enemy of Sikhs! The guy can't even reference any plausible sources because he himself has his own agendas. Please intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amo247 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amo247: Well, after being informed that I am fascism (see "Perslias" section above), I suppose that being an "enemy of Sikhs" just fits with the pattern (in the opinion of COI editors who can't provide reliable sourcing for their edits). In any case, they've gotten a two-week vacation from here, so we'll see what happens when their block is over. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete the page about me.

Hello Finngall,

I read your bio and you seem like a dutiful person. I would like to have the page about me removed. I am not notable, the film I produced is not about me and I dont feel like I should have a page. Not to mention its.. harsh and inaccurate. Can you help me with this? I saw you block my first attempt to tag it for deletion. My name is Korey Rowe. I did a 2nd nomination for deletion.

Thanks for your help. If you need to verify its me I will post "Please Finngall" on my FB feed. 2600:1017:B006:E349:E010:2A13:3CDA:886B (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and welcome. I have done you the courtesy of starting up a new deletion discussion, as this is the proper action rather than appending to the previous AfD discussion from a decade and a half ago. This discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korey Rowe (2nd nomination). Here's what I can offer regarding policies and procedures:

Wikipedia articles are all about verifiability. The bulk of the material in the article is supported by reliable news sources. If you have other references from reliable sources (which don't have any connection to you) to counter the information therein, they should be brought to the article's talk page.
In cases where notability is borderline, the community is reasonably responsive to requests from an article subject to delete the article about them. But we're also wary when the purpose appears to be to whitewash negative coverage.
The flip side of the verifiability coin is: While we don't have any reason to doubt who you say you are, we don't currently have any way to verify it. Furthermore, if you say something is inaccurate but the news sources say otherwise, we're going to have to go with the news sources absent anything more than just your say-so.
Now that the discussion has been opened, it will likely run for at least a week, maybe more if a consensus isn't reached, and you are welcome to engage further there if you like. Please do not edit the article itself though--even in the best of times, we strongly discourage people from editing articles about themselves for conflict of interest reasons. Again, suggest changes on the talk page instead.

I hope this helps, and please feel free to ask more questions. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 06:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OUHaC

Hi. It's been over two weeks since the OUHaC deletion proposal was started. I don't think there is a consensus because the anonymous user who kicked this started says that the sources we've been providing d not cut the mustard. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks!--Xave rius 10:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to The Jewish Quarterly!

Hi Finngall! As you will see, I have reinstated my changes to The Jewish Quarterly site. They were not made for promotional purposes, bur rather, factual purposes as the publication has recently changed hands!

Best, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwenig2 (talk • contribs) 01:41, April 28, 2021 (UTC)

@Mwenig: Your changes made the article look like a press release from JQ, and that is not what an encyclopedia article is for. We do not care what the subject of an article has to say about itself--we want the article to reflect what independent, reliable sources have said about it. The article at thejc.com seems valid with regard to reporting the change in editorial staff, but no more. Furthermore, if you are connected with the company and are being paid to edit Wikipedia on their behalf, you are required to disclose this fact as per the Terms of Use you agreed to when you created your account, and at the very least if you have any kind of conflict of interest it should be disclosed on your user page and/or the talk page of the article. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 05:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting ping of Mwenig2. --Finngall ^talk 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finngall, I have now gone through and re-edited, removing any content that could be seen as promotional material. I have purely edited the factual information about the editorial changeover.

Best, Michelle

"Season 8, 2016" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Season 8, 2016. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Season 8, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dharsha Gupta AFD

Hello Finngall! I noticed that G5 will apply for this AfD. I have changed my vote from Keep to Speedy Delete per the creator blocked as part of the sock. However, I found that the article, outside of its creation by a sock, is notable enough. I have no experience in undeletion, so how do I re-create the article after its speedily deleted? Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: If you think that the article can be rescued, I’d suggest requesting a move to draftspace where it can be worked on at your leisure. If it gets deleted outright, methinks an undeletion request at WP:REFUND wouldn’t be out of order. --Finngall ^talk 04:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question related to a related page Kaavya Arivumani. I was initiating an afd discussion Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requesting to create AFD for Kaavya Arivumani. A discussion page does not seem to be created. Was the page speedily deleted? I see that a new page for the subject has been created. I would appreciate if one of you (SunDawn/Finngall) could explain the process behind it. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new page has been created by User talk:Special fans Editz. who created 12 new pages (all of them mostly empty) just today. Is that normal? How to start a afd discussion or speedy deletion discussion for all these 12 pages? 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous incarnation was obviously connected to the same sockfarm, I dispensed with formally completing the nomination and merely tagged it for G5 speedy deletion straightaway, whereupon it was duly deleted, but as you've seen it was then recreated again within an hour. I've refrained from immediately tagging it this time, but I've updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary with what I've seen.

Tempted to just let them do their thing for a bit before letting them know the jig is up in case their activities connect them with even more sockfarms... --Finngall ^talk 05:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As of now, User talk:Special fans Editz created almost empty pages for 15 subjects, most of them belongs to Pandian Stores cast. The page Pandian Stores also seems to have unconstructive edits from this user today. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant UPE and sockpuppeting

Hi, I just tagged a host of articles for BLPROD, AfD and CSDs and reported its creator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sivagopalakrishnan. I then realized you had done the same but with a different sockpuppeter indicated. I'm not sure if we are supposed to merge our cases as not to duplicate the clerk's efforts, so just letting you know. nearlyevil 665 05:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: I also noted connections with a third SPI thread at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinesh.saravanan. Not sure if they should be merged--report 'em all and let the Checkuser corps sort them out. :) --Finngall ^talk 05:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the worst UPE editor I've ever seen. Just keeps on creating non-notable pages even after receiving multiple warnings on his talk page. They also had a typo in the article title, blanked it and recreated it under a proper title. I'm sitting here hitting refresh on their contributions page and silly stuff just keeps popping up. Do you think we should request a block based on this behavior alone? nearlyevil 665 05:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: Without a banhammer from SPI, warning them with the series of uw-create(1-4) warnings and hauling them off to AIV if they ignore them seems straightforward. --Finngall ^talk 06:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: User ended up being blocked via a fourth, entirely different SPI: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giriprasad Damodar 02. Curiouser and curiouser. --Finngall ^talk 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in List of most-viewed Indian music videos on YouTube

Hi Finngall, I am involved in a edit war in the page List of most-viewed Indian music videos on YouTube with the user User talk:Akandkur, who continually reverts to a version from 2018. This user also claims that the page is their own and asks others to stop editing the page. I am just manually reverting their edits. I am not sure how to deal with this disruptive vandalism without violating WP policies. I would appreciate any of your suggestions. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:A04D:FCD4:337C:DB5F (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request by IP user for AFD of ASAS & Partners Law firm

Hi, regarding this request, I was in the very process of completing the AFD nomination on behalf of the IP user when you put the delete through as a CSD. Thank you for getting it removed so quickly! I was unaware that a CSD could be used once the article had been proposed for deletion under PROD and the PROD had been contested. But it all worked out for the best -- and I'm still learning this game! Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnnie Bob: Yeah, if it qualifies for a speedy (and this one was patently obvious as such) there's really no need for a discussion, and speedy-tagging it should have been the first step all along. I'd suggest either self-closing the discussion page you created or requesting its deletion per WP:G7 (since it got transcluded to the daily log, make sure it gets cleaned up there as well). Thanks! --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll request deletion of the discussion page now and clean up the daily log as well. Thank you! — Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion - Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd

The information mentioned in the article is written from a neutral point of view. Citation has been added in order to verify the source. There is a lot of information that is not correct on Wikipedia about the brand "Hero Electric". In most cases, it is clubbed with "Hero Motorcomp" which is not correct. They both are two separate entities. In order to give correct information, this page was created. If this page gets deleted then the people will not have correct knowledge about it.

Coming to the citation, they are very few sources available on the internet as of now. The sole purpose is to give users correct information and make them understand between the two brands. Hence, would request you to not delete the page.

Reply Information96 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Information96: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not merely a collection of indiscriminate information.

Wikipedia does not care what a company has to say about itself. It is not "the company's page", it is an article about the company, and as such any information therein needs to be based primarily on reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The article you created was obviously and emphatically not neutrally worded, and even if it weren't a copyright violation from the company's own marketing materials, it would still have been speedily deleted as blatantly promotional.
With regard to your point about confusion with similarly-named companies, we have multiple methods that can be employed to resolve any potential ambiguities if a suitable article on Hero Electric were to be created.
If there are "very few sources available" on the company, then it is likely not notable enough to merit an article here. Without independent sourcing, there is literally nothing upon which a proper article can be based.
And finally, if you are working for the company or are being paid to edit on their behalf, you are required to disclose this fact as per the Terms of Use to which you agreed when you created your account, or you risk being blocked.

Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia Bioregional Party - Quick Question

Hi Finngall,

In terms of sources - if there is an article written up on a 3rd party site - such as the California National Party about the Cascadia Bioregional Party, leadership etc. Does that qualify? Or does it need to be scholarly / news based journalism that you're looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonletsinger (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandonletsinger: Scholarly/news based journalism is strongly preferred. We want references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject. A writeup from the CNP would be seen as neither reliable (no independent editorial oversight) nor independent (as a presumably allied separatist movement) and would count for little to nothing to establish the CBP’s notability as Wikipedia defines the term. --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Louise Smith AfD tagging

That AfD process I just read looks quite complicated and I think I don't understand it well enough to do it. The thing is when I put the step one message on it was being deleted before I had enough time to finish it.

@Disturb995: Fair enough. I came upon the article because I follow a bot-created page which tracks AfD-tagged articles which may have possible issues--in your case with Murder of Louise Smith, the fact that it was tagged without a discussion page having been created. I might have waited a little longer to see if an rationale would get posted to the article talk page, but the fact that your IP had racked up nearly two dozen edits on the article to that point indicated that reverting to the initial state and cleaning the slate was a better course to me. AfD nominations aren't that tough once you're familiar with Wikipedia policies and procedures on one hand and Wikipedia markup and templates on the other, and there are also script packages like Twinkle which make it easier (though I generally recommend that editors new to the process do it "the hard way" several times first so that that they know what to do it something in the script goes sideways, as can happen occasionally).

I'll also note that the user who posted warnings to your talk page, "Drill it", was actually a banned user who had been using a sockpuppet account, and that account is now also blocked. Feel free to ignore them.

We were all new here once. Poke around, ask questions, find places where you can make improvements, and allow some time to get comfortable with how things go around here, and take some time to figure out where you can make your best contributions, big or small. Maybe try The Wikipedia Adventure to practice some of your editing skills. There's no deadlines, no pressure, and no limit to the number of questions which can be asked. Thanks for listening, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 19:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I actually did add a talk page to it and I did add a rationale the second time I did it. But even if I do that it still gets deleted so I feel like I just can't do it without being stopped. Disturb995 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just testing when I posted like 20 messages Disturb995 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I feel like if a admin did it to certain pages including that one it wouldn't get deleted. Disturb995 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake, I mean it would get deleted Disturb995 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think any admin is willing to do it so I feel like there's no point. Disturb995 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SAL edit

Thanks for clarifying when the SAL alias can be added.

You indicated that you would not accept the draft as a new page. Can you say why?

Thanks.

Bluewater02 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluewater02: (Courtesy link: User:Bluewater02/sandbox) Looking at the provided references and links, I see a lot of passing mentions and inclusions in long lists of participating organizations, but very little coverage which focuses on the organization itself. The "Aims" and "Approach" sections are little more than promotional fluff, and the long lists of events where SAL has "participated" or "presented" can be excised in their entirety--the fact of their participation is covered in the "History" section and a listing of every workshop or forum is quire frankly excessive and, again, promotional. There's also no need to link to both a foreign language article and a Google Translate re-rendering of the same article. Remember that this isn't to be "SAL's page", but an encyclopedia article about SAL and while their aims are commendable, I do not see enough independent coverage from reliable sources to meet the standard of what Wikipedia considers to be a sufficiently notable organization to merit an article here. My opinion, and I've been wrong before, but at the very least there needs to be a lot less "tell the world about why we're so wonderful" here before I would consider the article to be acceptable. --Finngall ^talk 20:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Thanks for the feedback. You can probably tell I'm relatively new at this. I'll do some cleanup to try to conform to the guidelines. --Bluewater02 (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

contribution reverted in Operation Black Thunder article

Hello! Why did u revert my contribution in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Thunder even though I cited all my sources and they are all true and accurate. You wrote the reason to be my "personal analysis" when all I did was only present the facts in the public domain as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallSpadeaSpade (talk • contribs) 17:11, July 26, 2021 (UTC)

@CallSpadeaSpade:

An encyclopedia article's content should reflect the wording of its sources should ideally maintain a neutral point of view. The references in the article refers to the Sikhs as "militants", so the changing of this wording to "terrorists" violates policy on two levels, as the wording of the article no longer matched the sources, and it introduced a pro-Hindu partisan bias to the article.
The YouTube video which you linked is not a reliable source and therefore should not be included in the article.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project with contributors from around the world with a wide variety of perspectives. We try to put our own biases aside (with varying degrees of success), because the articles here should always reflect what the sources say without being colored by our own personal opinions. Calling other editors what you did over at Talk:Saffron terror is completely unacceptable, and you risk getting blocked if you do it again.

Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Following your reply regarding the operation black thunder article I want to say something. First of all, that youtube video is in hindi and since you aren't from India and u don't know hindi how can u possibly say that youtube video is an unverified source. Also for your kind info Khalistan is an international designated terrorist organization so I am calling them out for what they are in my contribution and if u want I will cite it too in my contribution and moreover in my concrete article source that I added the source clearly designates Khalistanis as "terrorists".

Second I found this line of yours "it introduced a pro-Hindu partisan bias to the article" really ignorant and hateful towards the hindu commnunity. You mean to say that calling "terrorists" as terrorists shows a pro-hindu bias. Well, then what about all the other terrorist groups like the Al-Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps etc? Doesn't that show a pro-Christian bias by America? I am sure u will say otherwise to this question. Doesn't it show your bias towards hindus that you ignorantly point out calling a international designated terrorist organization like Khalistan which has done flight bombings killing innocent civilians in the past, as "it introduced a pro-Hindu partisan bias to the article".

Third, I just wrote about contribution of Ajit Doval in the operation and I even gave a citation to a concrete source as was requested by one of the users. So how is any of this "as the wording of the article no longer matched the sources"?

I hope u don't mean to say to write word by word to the sources cuz if that is so then the revision that u reverted back to also doesn't follow the wordings of the sources it mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallSpadeaSpade (talk • contribs) 18:48, July 27, 2021 (UTC)

@CallSpadeaSpade: Apologies for the delayed response. As most YouTube videos are user-generated without independent editorial oversight, they are generally not considered to be reliable sources, and the one you linked appears to be no different. As for the "terrorist" vs. "militant" wording, I can only reiterate that we have to go with the terminology used by independent reliable sources. These sources clearly designate Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad as terrorists, and so that is the term which is used. My personal opinion has nothing to do with it--if it did, I'd have no compunction against designating certain right-wing groups (who largely claim to be "Christian") in the USA as "terrorist", but that's not what the sources say. In the meantime, I've recently been called an "enemy of Sikhs" for reverting unsourced additions to a different article (completely unrelated to terrorism or militancy), and a "fascist" for telling a music promoter that he couldn't use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. In all of these cases, I was merely following longstanding Wikipedia policies which have been established over the course of many years of discussions and consensus.

Please feel free to take the discussion to the article's talk page if you wish to advocate for further changes. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flitter Dance

The Mrs. Callow mentioned here is certainly an ~~ancestor~~ cousin. Our great great grandfather was from Cardle Veg (usually his birth place is given as Maughold). And that's likely that's as notable-adjacent as we get. Fastyr mie, Valfontis (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Changes to Tanya Selvaratnam

Fingall-

I am Tanya's personal assistant and the changes I've made are at her request. They are not disrupting and are minor edits. Please do not revert.

How is adding articles from Tanya disruptive editing?? Why would you revert that. As I said, these edits are at Tanya's request.

As her representative, you absolutely should NOT be editing the article directly. Given your obvious conflict of interest, you should be making edit requests on the article talk page an allow time for these requests to be evaluated by experienced editors. Neither you nor she owns the article. Adding a long list of links to artcles she has written is not a "minor edit", and such a list has no place in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles need to maintain a neutral point of view and should properly be sourced from references which are independent of the subject--we are really not terribly interested in you or she has to say about herself. --Finngall ^talk 19:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

sorry to disturb you. I tried to put on AfD Umantewena, but I did not see it was already discussed years ago. There is a very long list of settlements on Nonouti which are NOT settlements but buildings or place names (Uma means Church in Gilbertese language). None of those places should have an article, and they are not in the list of settlements in Nonouti. as I am not very informed about AfD, how can I do to ask this deletion? Thanks again.--Arorae (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arorae - please see WP:AFDHOWTO for a good explanation of how to create an AfD discussion with ease. You may wish to follow the advice there about using WP:TWINKLE, which does almost the entire thing automatically. The discussions that you created have not followed the steps properly, which is why nobody has commented on most of them yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Spiderone:.--Arorae (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Arorae: Greetings, no disturbance at all. I fixed a lot of your other nominations--the biggest mistake on those is that when you created the discussion pages (step 2) you did not use the {{afd2}} template--using this template ensures that all of the links necessary for a proper evaluation of the article are added to the discussion page (including a link back to the article itself). Use of the template also make the page visible to certain bots which perform routine maintenance. Also, you did not do Step 3, transcluding these discussions to a daily log page to put it front of those editors who regularly work in this area (Bonus: If you applied the template properly in Step 2, a bot will eventually do Step 3 for you automatically). Without these steps, these discussions have gone completely unnoticed unless someone happened to stumble on these articles directly, which is not likely given how obscure these places whether they actually exist or not.

I found a couple of your nominations via a bot-generated page that I regularly track, which lists potentially malformed nominations, then found the rest when I took a peek at your editing history. If I hadn't done so, they would likely have remained in limbo until another week or two had passed and they started to show up on another bot-generated page which lists those articles which have been AfD-tagged the longest without resolution.

Full instructions are found at WP:AFDHOWTO. Included there are instructions in Step 1 for when an article has been nominated before--in short, a slightly different template needs to be used on the article itself, and an entirely new discussion page needs to be created. Let me know if you need help with this. I see that you also renominated Kaaitara, and that Spiderone has fixed that one for you. I've seen your conversation over on their talk page--I agree that Twinkle makes the process much easier (I use it regularly myself), but I think it's good practice to do things "the hard way" a few times first before leaning too hard on scripts, as I've seen scripts malfunction and it helps to know how to clean up if this happens.

Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks, and take care. --Finngall ^talk 22:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for this precious help.--Arorae (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vandalism

Thank you for removing vandalism on the article Krasnovodsk. Can you come to the article's talk page to oppose another disruptive edit? Hyperx1000 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Kelej

Hi sir

Good evening

You removed my edits from Rasha Kelj's article Note that all the information that I added is correct and provided with sources and the image is not copyrighted, so I uploaded it All that was added was accompanied by reliable sources and from official newspapers and websites Can I take back my edits please?Yellowjoe (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YellowJoe: I was not the one who removed your edits--another editor reverted the article to the point where I made my one and only (unrelated) edit, which did effectively remove your additions. That said, I agree with the other editor's action. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such needs to maintain a neutral point of view. I did not check out the quality of your sources, but your additions had a promotional tone which does not belong in an encyclopedia article.

You are more than welcome to take your suggested changes to the article's talk page and discuss then with your fellow editors there. It's possible that what you added might be acceptable with some rewording. Thanks, and happy editing. --Finngall ^talk 23:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can I re-edit the article and remove any text that contains promotion or the like?? Can I know the places of the amplification in order to avoid them??

Best & Less Edit

Hi there! Thanks for reaching our re: my edit on the Best&Less page. I will review the changes shortly. In the meantime, do you have any pointers or suggestions about how I should go about writing this up? Looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyraeee (talk • contribs) 01:08, September 14, 2021 (UTC)

@Lillyraeee: First and foremost, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't have "pages", we have articles on notable subjects. An encyclopedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view, and needs to primarily source its material from reliable sources which are independent of the subject.

The text you added appears to have been copied and pasted straight from B&L's own promotional materials. This is unacceptable on multiple levels: 1) As material on Wikipedia is freely shareable, we take copyright violations very seriously, and remove them wherever they are found. 2) We are not here to promote this company or any other subject, and we really don't care what a subject has to say about itself, either directly from their own web site, or less directly via press releases. 3) Article subjects and/or their representatives are strongly discouraged from editing their own articles for reasons of conflict of interest, and cannot claim any kind of ownership of the article or the content therein. They are welcome to suggest edits on the article's talk page (backed up with independent sourcing), where they can be evaluated by the community.

Finally, if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of this or any other company, you are required to disclose this status as per the WP:TOU of the site, or risk being blocked. Even if there isn't a paid relationship, you would do well to declare any possible conflict of interest. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify the article well MissaSinfonia

sorry to disturb you. but I don't see that the article MissaSinfonia complies with the deletion policy. Basically all the articles have the same and are even less encyclopedic than the article MissaSinfonia please check well and verify the article well, and do not delete by deleting please.

This is a stunningly bad argument to make in the face of a deletion debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Display Title on Business Page

Hi Finngall,

Thank you for your additional feedback. I'm not quite sure how to proceed at this point. Because I am the Manager of Corporate Communications for Barnes, would I have to complete something on the "Conflict of Interest" page? It seems like one needs to know coding to do this.

Further, as the following press release explains our recent company rebrand, can I put in a request to change our company name to "Barnes" and "Aerospace Company" to "Industrial Technology"? It's strange because we were able to replace our new logo on Wikipedia . . .

https://ir.barnesgroupinc.com/news/news-details/2021/Barnes-Unveils-Corporate-Rebrand-to-Support-Strategic-Vision-and-Accelerated-Growth-Aspirations/default.aspx

Thank you, Chrissyd0425 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Chrissyd0425[reply]

@Chrissyd0425: See WP:PAID for guidance on disclosing your paid conflict of interest. The company's announcement of the name change might be enough to justify the page move, but it would be better if there were an independent news article (not a reposted press release) about it. Anything in the WSJ, Forbes, CNN, CNBC, etc. about it? In any case, I'd take any suggestions to the article talk page for evaluation by experienced editors. For better or for worse, there are a few more eyes on the article now, and maybe someone will soon cobble together enough sources to build more than the bare-bones article that's there now.

I'll just give another reminder that this is not "your company's page", but an encyclopedia article about the company and as such we are far less concerned about what the company has to say about itself than we are about what third parties are writing independently about it. A large amount of time and energy is devoted to maintaining Wikipedia's standards as an encyclopedia, including daily reverting thousands of incidences of outright vandalism, hundreds of incidences of self-promotion/spam/advertising, and deleting dozens of newly-created articles on new companies which are nothing but advertisements and/or which do not meet our standards for whether they are notable enough to merit an article here in the first place. You got off to a bad start here, but thank you for listening to the counsel which has been provided--you'll have to understand that there's a high level of cynicism when a PR/marketing person shows up because way too many of them Just Don't Get It that Wikipedia is emphatically not and was never intended to be a vehicle for their promotional strategies.

Hope this helps. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 19:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA/TFD

I think that multiple rangeblocks are needed for them now. Thoughts? wizzito | say hello! 06:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most active ones to block are likely 49.181.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 120.155.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). 49.195.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has a lot of collateral. 121.218.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is inactive. wizzito | say hello! 06:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito: Previous looks at their ranges haven’t resulted in any rangeblocks due to collateral damage—I haven’t looked at ranges closely myself, and I stopped adding IPs to the list because it wasn’t resulting in any administrative action. If you think you can get a rangeblock to stick, try AN/I? --Finngall ^talk 07:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]