User talk:JustBerry/Archive 6

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi JustBerry! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:56, Saturday, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Done... was just testing it out.

Request on 07:56:42, 29 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kcubek

Kcubek (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Lee Minhyuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i'm really sorry for bothering you:( I'm not sure how to change the tone of my article, it's my first try at writing a wiki page too, hope you can advise, thanks:) kcubek (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcubek: Overall, the tone appears to be improved. However, terms like "idol" and "widely known" seem unwarranted, though. --JustBerry (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes, does it look better? Thanks for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcubek (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I see you changed Lee Minhyuk to a redirect here per the AfD discussion cited in the diff. However, Draft:Lee_Minhyuk has been created. If the warrants from the cited AfD discussion remain, should the draft also be discarded? --JustBerry (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft is better than the first version, no. Judgment call. Sounds like K-pop, where editors make up articles for every single thing, from the choreographer for the video to the sound engineer. I have a suspicion that there's some website somewhere with a template for how to create a K-pop article so typically they look very clean, very professional--with infoboxes, character boxes, tables for every single thing, etc. But have a look at the version before it was redirected and compare to the draft, and see if WP:G4 applies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was not written with that template, but it has similar content. Look at the list of Variety show appearances--it looks like something but it's not; it's just individual TV appearances on shows that frequently are owned by the same production company that owns the artist. Soompi.com and Mworld or whatever are not reliable sources--they're fan sites/portals, not actual news sites. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Kcubek: Proposed Plan: I have made some edits to the draft to make the language more neutral. Let's wait for another reviewer to review the article and go from there. Thanks for the input, Drmies. --JustBerry (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I don't have high hopes for independent notability. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but might as well let it play out. --JustBerry (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Copyright again...

JustBerry, I understand that you are probably using some kind of software that automatically tries to note copyright violations on Wikipedia, but could you please try to be a bit more careful? It was only a week ago when my work was deleted for a few hours because you did not notice that the site you claimed the live article was copied from was in fact a mirror site. I understand that it was a mistake and as it was corrected soon after, no harm was done. But now you've left me a notice saying I'm possibly copying material from "Chickipedia" and some random discussion forums? I'd understand if it was just an automatic bot message, but you seem to have reviewed it and added your own comments – this is why I'm puzzled. Both because we've been here, and also because none of the text on any of the three websites seems to resemble either my sandbox or the current article. What exactly is it that makes you think I'm copying from those websites?

Yes, I am currently still working on the article, having overhauled the entire section about her career in the previous week. I've understood that the purpose of a sandbox is that you work on an article there before editing the actual article. That's exactly what I'm doing; I want to be thorough in my work here, so I often don't want to straightaway edit the live article. All of the material I have added to the actual article is sourced and is my own writing, except for the few bits and pieces I've saved from the previous version. I've copypasted the current "personal life" section (NOT written by me) to my sandbox to work on it. There's also a "general notes" section, and I'm also working on a new lead, and a section more broadly on her acting and directing style and reception. My style of working is to read a lot –> make a lot of notes (both hand-written and in the sandbox – if they're in my sandbox, I always acknowledge where it comes from, not necessarily by using the WP formula but brackets etc. as it's easier to make notes this way; if you take a look you will be able to see this, though a bot might not of course register it) –> draft –> polish –> move from sandbox to actual article. If this is against WP guidelines, please let me know.

If you believe that the "personal life" section which I moved just a couple of hours ago from the article to my sandbox is copyvio, then that shouldn't be my issue as I've not written it. I would be surprised if it had been copy+pasted from somewhere else though, given the pretty extensive discussions and wrangling about it in the talk page archives. I've also tried to pay attention to not saving a ton of small edits as discussed, but I do have to hit 'save' every now and then as my internet connection is a bit spotty; I have however tried to do this only once I've made significant changes, and have added edit summaries. Again, I hope this is just some kind of an misunderstanding. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: Yes, I understand we've had a discussion in the past. You can take a look at the results here; they do not appear to be mirror sites. Also, I did not mark your page with a CSD tag, or anything of the like, so there is no need to be defensive. I just wanted to make you aware of the copyvio issues, i.e. you may want to consider those as you're re-writing the article sections. Don't get me wrong - I greatly appreciate your efforts, but I just want to make sure that there aren't issues lingering around, not that you may have caused the issue in the first place. In another words, it would be great if you could resolve those issues while you're re-writing the sections. As far as the initial reviewing goes, your page showed up on my Watchlist, I manually ran a copyvio test, and found some issues. That's really all - there's nothing to be worried about. This isn't an attack of some sort, but rather, a discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TrueHeartSusie3: I included the standard warning with my comment on your talk page to include any aspects of the Wikipedia copyright guidelines which my note may not have covered. However, the note I wrote is more personalized to the issue I addressed. You can see your talk page's history showing that I modified the original warning template with my custom message to a more custom format, which is more relevant to the situation at hand. Hence, I did not use any sort of bot, as you referred to it, to auto-tag this issue, or something of the like. --JustBerry (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TrueHeartSusie3: Also, to clarify, you are allowed to draft/re-write article sections, etc. in your sandbox. However, copyright violations are a bit more tricky, as Wikipedia really doesn't allow any sort of copyright content on any space, really. If you copied the copyright section of the article from the live version of the article, then, of course, you're not responsible for causing a possible violation. If you copied a section from the article and are intending to re-write it, that's fine - just be aware that there may still be issues lingering when you edit the live version. --JustBerry (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Resolved I've looked back at the copyright issues via the same tool, and it appears that have now resolved them with the additional changes you made to the page. It may have been a result of the section move you had referred to in your original message. Thanks for addressing the issue; in the future, you can use this tool to check for copyright violations while re-writing article sections, etc. --JustBerry (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Uh thanks...

Thanks for the warm welcome, but I've been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and I'm an admin, so I know what I'm doing. I made a small formatting error, which I was about to fix before noticing you had moved the article Jaap van Dorp to a draft. Please give editors a grace period before you do this next time, thanks. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl Andrew: ... I sincerely apologize for that. Was the page move not appropriate? --JustBerry (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. Please discuss any issues on the article's talk page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl Andrew: It appears that you're currently performing some page deletions, etc. I'll leave a note on the article talk page once you're done. --JustBerry (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl Andrew: Just left a message for you on the article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed.

Europefan

Are you going to do anything about this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I suggested that you make an SPI case for the socks under Europefan (talk), since you seemed to be familiar with the situation. I have not filed an SPI case for the socks yet, no. Just remember to include any diffs/evidence you have, i.e. reason for suspicion. --JustBerry (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Are you going to do anything about this? --JustBerry (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the admin, you sort it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: On Beta, yes. Report made Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Europefan and User:178.3.23.56 just popped up. --JustBerry (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what it meant to be an admin or bureaucrat on the Beta site. It looks like it is just for Wikipedia engineers to test things out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: There's more than that. Are you asking what I do specifically? --JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Encouraging collaboration and contributions

Dear JustBerry,

I am a longtime contributor to Wikipedia who only writes occasionally now. But let me tell you how frustrating -- and fundamentally different from my earlier experience here -- it is to try to do some work to improve WP only to, within an hour or two, find that someone does not even take the time or assume the good faith to think that maybe I just haven't yet added a source and simply threatens to wholesale remove an article, let alone one on a topic that has hundreds of academic sources and is Google-able easily. I understand that it is my responsibility to add sources. But Wikipedia is about collaboration, and I hold this ideal strongly and dearly.

So let's make this more human: I was working on an article, realized that proglacial river has not been included, created it, walked outside to cheer for runners in a marathon, and came back inside thinking about working on the article again, but instead writing you this.

I am sure that you are simply trying to quality-control articles. But please, I would ask that unless you are willing to understand the articles that you tag, you assume that the person creating it is really working for the best. Drive-by improving helps WP, drive-by tagging can at best prevent it from becoming worse, and at worst really discourage editors from helping in the project.

Regards,

Andy Wickert (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Awickert: Thank you for the personalized message and apologize for any misunderstanding.

Agree and will consider moving forward. --JustBerry (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you will consider it. However, I would much prefer that you actually do it. This is IMO the #1 reason why many longtime editors stop working here -- the environment is unfriendly. Andy Wickert (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Awickert: I apologize for the seemingly brief response, but I'm currently dealing with this... new suspected IP vandal socks are popping up with each additional block. --JustBerry (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I find your brief response a statement that you think that your time is more valuable than mine. If you do not have time to engage in a situation such as this properly, a word from the wise would be, do not start to engage in it! And then all would go smoothly. Best of luck in the sockpuppetry case, Andy Wickert (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Awickert: Acknowledged, thank you. Also, please see below if you wish to give your opinion on the recent concern you have expressed. --JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep the discussion here, if you don't mind. As I can see, you have acknowledged this but promised little more, and this includes my reading of the sections below. This is unsatisfactory, as you were the one who initiated the use of my time here by disrupting my efforts to add content to Wikipeida. So, in short:

What are you going to do in the future to ensure that you make more successful judgments about how to interact with other editors and support WP?

@Awickert: First off, I think I've done my best here to interact extensively with other editors about all issues, etc. I think the major issue here was fully understanding the impact of moving an article to the Draft: space... PRODs have to become MfDs, etc. So, in the future, I think it may be beneficial to walk through multiple scenarios with users who are more experienced in the area over IRC, or another medium, to get a more fuller grasp of how the conventional procedures of said task work. That being said, through this process, it becomes easier for more experienced editors to catch common issues and resolve them immediately. Not that I haven't asked for advice from more experienced users in a particular task, e.g. IRC, in the past, but I think more of that will definitely be beneficial in preventing a concern like this from occurring again. --JustBerry (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you are unhappy with articles being created in mainspace, but that is the way WP has worked from the start, and going around moving pages and threatening deletion will not help. You, however, have contradictory statements on this. Could you please illustrate how your actions in this way and in the future will improve the encyclopedia?

@Awickert: To a certain extent, I guess so. I

Disagree with your statement regarding the "threatening deletion" - the R2 deletions were merely to remove meaningless redirects, as articles were being moved to the draft space. However, the whole moving to the draft space issue seems to be cleared up, and doesn't seem to be the most conventional way with dealing with the issue. I'm not sure what is quite contradictory about my statements; if you could be more specific, that would be helpful. With regards to contributing to the encyclopedia, I've never truly had an issue of this magnitude pop up in my time here at Wikipedia. As always, I do anti-vandalism, pending changes review, copyediting, etc. I think becoming more familiar with the New Page Patrolling process by reaching out to other more experienced editors in the event that I'm unsure about a CSD tag, or something of the like, would be the way to go in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a thoughtful answer, and indeed think that thinking through these questions will help you understand what has happened in the last day or two here. Best, Andy Wickert (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I simply would like you to see you take responsibility for your actions... and then move on. For example, you disagree about threatening deletion after writing on my talk page, "It's been removed and archived in the page history for now". Automated message, yes. But did you leave it? Also, yes. Regarding your offer to correct what you're doing, most editors don't have a ton of time to talk about the policies over IRC, etc.; if you invoke being bold, it is on you to apply the same energy to cleaning up any mess you may have made in doing so. I hope you have good luck in the future on new page patrol, and this is just a small mishap on the way to a good future on WP. Best, Andy Wickert (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.

19:26:39, 4 October 2015 review of submission by Inquasionable

Inquasionable (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Wesleyan Assurance Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Can you help or advise me on how to improve this submission. I have tried to be as factual as possible using citations and information. I am interested in the page as this company has helped raiae £250,000 for Birmingham Children's Hospital - a cause very close to my heart.

Any help will be appreciated. Inquasionable (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please could I request some help in getting my article for Wesleyan Assurance Society approved. I have tried to be as factual as possible and use citations from across the web but clearly it needs tweaking. The mutual has raised 250,000 pounds for Birmingham Children's Hospital which is close to my heart and is one of the most 'cash rich' companies in the UK. Thank you. Inquasionable (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Inquasionable: Terms, such as "wide variety," appear to reflect that you may be affected by a WP:COI. However, the most recent edit you made to the article here is a step in the right direction. --JustBerry (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed question.

Mack Garner

I don't understand why you tagged this article as a G10 attack page when it is merely a stub. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I've left a message on your talk page - let's continue the discussion there. Ping me there when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion on another talk page.

Just driving by to deliver a trout for that one. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

@Montanabw: What? See continued discussion on Liz's page. --JustBerry (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm there. The trout stays here. :-) Montanabw ^(talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Meh, whatever you say. --JustBerry (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

.

Im just wondering why you recommended my what I wrote for speedy deletion. Babanmu (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Babanmu: Which article are you referring to? --JustBerry (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Just move it back already.

This article was no more than minutes old when you moved it. It then screwed up my updates when I added multiple cited additions. Just wait until people are finished creating articles, did you even look at my profile to see what sort of editor I am. Now I have a pointless article hanging with no time left in the day to add to it. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FruitMonkey: When you run into an edit conflict, you can copy the text and paste it in the Draft article. Please be mindful that the sandbox or Draft namespaces are appropriate for building articles, not the article mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not once you have posted it and it states edit conflict. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FruitMonkey: When you run into an edit conflict, it shows you the current version of the article towards the top of the page. If you scroll to the bottom, you can copy your text and paste it appropriately at the destination page. To be honest, if you've been an editor for so long, you should know that the article mainspace is not for article building. --JustBerry (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FruitMonkey: Also, please see Help:Edit_conflict for help on how to resolve edit conflicts. --JustBerry (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what I do. What is annoying is that an article is moved within minutes of being created before editors have a chance of building it. I've never had an article moved to draft before, normally because I move articles up to start level within an hour. What do you achieve by doing this? We are now wasting both our time. Don't bother reply to this as I now need to retire for the night and I will not return to this article. Delete this Paralympic article. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FruitMonkey: I understand your issue, but you should ideally create articles outside the article mainspace prior to publishing them directly to the mainspace and then either move the page to the mainspace yourself or request a page move. --JustBerry (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDragon. You do your thing, I do mine. No one gains anything from this. Just an article that doesn't get made. Night. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Added references

Hi. Im brand new to making articles on Wikipedia, and I did not add any references. Was that the reason why it was moved? I have added the references now, to confirm the information given. It was only minutes old when you moved it. Would it be possible to move it back? Thanks.

- Jonas

@Jonas Dyvik: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! The reason why it was moved to the Draft space is simply because it wasn't ready for the article mainspace. Articles that are in the article mainspace are expected to meet WP:Verfiability standards, i.e. there should be sources to support the claims in your article. Now that you have added sources, I have tagged the original page for deletion, and will move the Draft page back to the mainspace page once the original page is deleted. --JustBerry (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered question.

Just move it back already.

This article was no more than minutes old when you moved it. It then screwed up my Wikidata links. Just wait until people are finished creating articles, did you even look at my profile to see what sort of editor I am. Now I have a pointless article hanging with no time left in the day to add to it. Cheers. 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) (Please not much of this posting was copied verbatim from FruitMonkey (talk) above)

@Leutha: Please see Help:Edit_conflict and my response above to FruitMonkey. --JustBerry (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Thanks...

...for the barnstar and the kind words. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: More than my pleasure!

--JustBerry (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Deletion

can you please take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Crooked_Man_(video_game) thanks for your interest.PrinceGhiath (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceGhiath: Replied. --JustBerry (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Stay away from my articles

Listen, bub, you suck at New Page Patrol. You shouldn't be messing with established editors; wasting their time as they try to create content, deleting Categories because they are empty, and otherwise making a nuisance of yourself. Leave my article alone. If you continue to harass me, I shall make a report at ANI. Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: I am not "messing with established editors." If you're experienced, I think you should also be aware that the article mainspace isn't for creating article drafts. --JustBerry (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? There are other routes for creation, but when did we prevent it in mainspace?

I would also note (having never seen you before) that the number of annoyed editors on your userpage is remarkable. Now either they're all wrong, or maybe there's some common theme here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Just because users may create drafts in the mainspace, doesn't make it appropriate. Articles in the Draft space are generally not picked up by search engines, etc., rather they remain in the database in the Draft: space until they're ready to be published. Creating incomplete drafts, which is different from a stub, in the mainspace puts forth a trend that leads to unreferenced articles that are abandoned over time. The more proactive approach would be to ensure that mainspace articles aren't simply "ditched" before they are ready to be published. That isn't to say, however, that experienced edits tend to do that, necessarily. --JustBerry (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other routes for creation, but when did we prevent it in mainspace?

You are interfering in the work of others. You are moving new articles (very new articles) from mainspace to draft:. This is having knock-on effects like cut-and-paste moves happening as others try to clean up after you.

There is no policy-based reason why editors cannot create articles in mainspace. You have no reason to take against this.

You are doing this to new editors, against WP:BITE, and you are also doing it to editors with considerably more experience than you have. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I'm not sure how you consider this a WP:BITE situation, when I've left a clear, friendly note on each creator's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I've pissed all over your work, now have a cookie?"

In particular, you're moving article from main to draft, then speedy deleting the original mainspace article. So the editor (often a new editor) just sees a huge speedy deletion notice and no longer even a working redirect!

If you think this is so "friendly", then explain why there are so many annoyed editors on your page here? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather doesn't seem to be all that annoyed with deleting my CSD tags. Honestly, I'm not arguing with you. If you have another issue, please let me know. --JustBerry (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that your moves to draft: are somehow useful or appropriate, how do you explain Draft:Abubakar Usman? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: The issue being addressed was WP:Manual of Style, as noted on the creator's talk page. I see you've just created an MfD. --JustBerry (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS has nothing to do with either namespace nor deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - the user needs to resolve those issues in their draft prior to releasing it onto the mainspace. An MfD is a different story all together. --JustBerry (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the editor does not need to fix MOS issues. It would be nice if they do, but even if they haven't it is no reason for you to either speedy delete them, or to move them to draft: namespace. You should not expedite such a deletion unless it would be a clear deletion at AfD. AfD will not (we still hope!) deleted articles simply over MOS issues. An article will pass AfD if it can demonstrate notability, no more than that. You should not be interfering like this unless they fail that test too. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Are you accusing me of deleting an article for which you put an MfD for? --JustBerry (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Andy Dingley: Also, see Wikipedia:Be_bold. Just because something is a trend doesn't make it right. There's nothing disruptive or against Wikipedia's goals that I'm doing. Also, regarding your comment on the users discussing moves on my talk page - I've left messages on the creators' talk pages to leave a note on my talk page if they have any questions. --JustBerry (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles is now "a trend"? Well you're working hard to stamp it out, so maybe you'll stop it before long? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've also marked a handful of pages as patrolled, articles that have been created in the mainspace, without any drafts, that are suitable for the mainspace. So, don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. --JustBerry (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Andy Dingley: Trying to argue that information that cannot be verified or unreferenced content is suitable for the article mainspace is a low blow. --JustBerry (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing that no-one has suggested that. Please keep to the truth. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: The issue appears to be resolved then. --JustBerry (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: The top of WP:Verifiability states: "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." How can you justify that articles that have just been created should not be moved to a draft space? Also, my method is not unconventional at all. --JustBerry (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: You can think about it this way as well. What happens to an article that is created with no sources? Well, for one, the creator may end up adding additional sources as he or she deems appropriate when either (a) they find time in their own life or (b) they find sources. Or, it can just end up getting tagged with a maintenance tag by a fellow editor and stay in the category for a while. By moving it to the draft space, unsourced content stays out of the mainspace and users are directly notified on their talk page soon after making the page. This way, they can resolve the respective issues with the page and later request that the article be published to the mainspace appropriately. --JustBerry (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as done, keep discussion to next section on talk page.

Proglacial river

I'd say you need to slow down and check things a bit better. In your note on Awickert's talk you stated an edit had been "removed and archived in the page history for now" - when it had not been. The user involved is experienced and was starting a new article in a field where he has some expertise. Did you bother to check his edit history? I assume you meant well, but your poorly thought out comment was not helpful. Please be more cautious going forward. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: Well, I'm not sure about that part, since the message was produced by Twinkle. However, there was no reference to ensure WP:Verifiability, hence the move to the draft space. --JustBerry (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to raise this at WP:AN and seek a topic ban? There is clearly a problem here, and no insight into it from JustBerry. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Although I'm not sure what you're implying, I have addressed your issues above. --JustBerry (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you don't know what twinkle is "saying for you", then don't use it. I just now note your discussion with him above and suggest you slow down with the "move to draft space" bit when working with experienced users. Inconsiderate actions tend to annoy and discourage users, and we don't need to do that. Your haste and misuse of twinkle speak poorly of you. Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: It's not a misuse of Twinkle - the message was quite direct in what was implied. Also, I'm not sure how you can characterize my actions as "haste" at all. If the move to draft space appears to be an issue, it can be addressed in more detail prior to continuation. --JustBerry (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of twinkle resulted in an untruth. It seems a "misuse" to use twinkle to state an untruth - does that not bother you? If you don't know what it is saying for you - then you are misusing it. Vsmith (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: I am aware what it is saying. Pointing out one diff is a low blow, to be fair. --JustBerry (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith and Andy Dingley: Also, it should be noted that I have not moved all unreferenced, new articles to draft spaces. See this for example. With outside research, it's quite clear that the subject is verifiable enough. Please be more cautious prior to describing the conduct of other users; it raises a form of hypocrisy that is truly not needed. --JustBerry (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JayFrance production discography (which could well have been WP:CSD#A10] as a simple duplicate of the JayFrance#Discography section. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no understanding of the permitted creation of articles in mainspace. You have said repeatedly that this is not permitted, which is incorrect.

Disagree I have not said that articles cannot be created directly in the mainspace. Please review my comments from above. --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken articles that are a clear unfixable WP:CSD#A7 / {{Db-person}} and moved then to the draft: mainspace. This makes them near impossible to get rid of: they cannot be speedied or prod'ed, they now have to go through MfD and that is rightly most reluctant to ever delete a draft.

Comment: Can you provide diffs for examples? --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already discussed Abubakar Usman. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have moved credible articles with poor sourcing from mainspace to draft: Then speedied the resultant redirect. This leaves their creators mostly confused about just where their article went - although they get a variety of dire red warnings about its deletion.

Comment: Can you provide diffs for examples? --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptian Federation of American football (EFAF) Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I have left a clear note on the creators' talk pages describing the page move and why the page was moved. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are generating considerable complaint on your talk page, from new and old editors alike. Yet you brush off all of this, as you believe your actions to be infallibly right. You have not addressed any of these complaints.

Agree Although I disagree to the fact that I have not addressed any complaints, there do seem to be legitimate concerns about the draft moves. --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, you are not a positive contribution to WP. You think you are, you cling to shreds of policy to back yourself up, but overall you are pissing off a lot of editors very quickly and there are better ways that you can and should be going about this.

Disagree I think you've missed the point, but your previous comment has been noted.

It would be better for WP if you stopped this yourself.

Agree Sure, I think I'll step down for a bit. --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be just as good for WP if you were stopped from this.

Disagree That statement was not needed. --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith and Andy Dingley: Please review my comments from above. --JustBerry (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Additional comments have been made above in reply to your diffs. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Resolution: Drop draft moves, continue monitoring Special:NewPages for blatant CSD issues and reaching out to article creators to explain areas that could be improved. Add: Marking page as patrolled as usual, no previous issues with that. Also, no issues with improving or contributing to new articles - continuing with that as well. @Andy Dingley and Vsmith: Pinging for opinion or !vote. --JustBerry (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any user is invited to voice their opinion, since there have been a number of complaints on the talk page regarding draft moves. It should also be noted that the proposed resolution has not been made from a mandate of any kind; rather, it appears to be the most effective way to address the concern at hand. --JustBerry (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be resolved, remove done tag if you disagree.

Creating Heap, Bury

Hi, I just received a message from you with regards to the newly created Heap,Bury stub. I have left a link as to it's historical existance (http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/bury.html) and plan to weave it in to data about 'Bury Union Workhouse' also known as Jericho Workhouse (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Bury). Finally flesh it out with more data.

Reefermaker (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reefermaker: Sounds great. It was merely a suggestion.

--JustBerry (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Thehiphopreviews SPI

Nice job on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thanks!

--JustBerry (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

سحر توکلی

You requested speedy deletion of سحر توکلی under {{db-transwiki}}. Where was the content transwikied to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Corrected tag. --JustBerry (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Transportation in Kristiansand

Hello JustBerry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Transportation in Kristiansand, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Non-notable bus routes. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources" is a reason for *improving* a one day old draft, not deleting it. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my contributions, I quite frankly don't even one-eighth of a flying LNER about Railfanish articles.

Some other people do.

They write good content, about notable and well-verified public transportation articles.

De gustibus non est disputandum

Please keep this in mind.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: Acknowledged. --JustBerry (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Josu4u. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, BANIPUR VILLAGE, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Josu4u (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Josu4u --JustBerry (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

October 2015

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of ministers of the Universal Life Church because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: I reverted your edit. Would you mind explaining how this is constructive? --JustBerry (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. You broke the table. 2. You re-inserted an uncited addition. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: At a glance, your initial edit seemed to be vandalism. It appears to be have fixed the table though. --JustBerry (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking before reverting. As an experienced editor you should already be doing that. My edit also removed the uncited addition. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: Yes, I understand; however, you should be aware that WP:STiki users perform a larger volume of reverts in a shorter amount of time to remove seemingly blatant vandalism. No one's perfect. Anyways, thanks for stopping by. --JustBerry (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And right at the top of that is a HUGE warning... Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using STiki. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing.

@Me-123567-Me: In all fairness, your edit did look like blatant vandalism and has a right to be reverted. The situation was rightly dealt with per Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#One-revert_rule. Now that you have explained yourself, I think the issue is resolved. If you've identified this case as a misuse or hasteful mistake, then you're simply mistaken. --JustBerry (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on What is not vandalism. The edit did not look like vandalism and came from an editor of 8 years. The use of automated tools does not excuse you from taking care when reverting. Please try to take more care, this talk page shows a pattern of you misapplying policy. I appreciate your good intentions but you need to get your accuracy rate up if you are going to be enforcing things here. HighInBC 14:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Quite frankly, this issue is separate from the earlier concerns on this talk page. The concerns above have been addressed regarding the draft moves of new pages. Generalizing issues is certainly not appreciated. --JustBerry (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft space issues, and the incorrect CSDs and this are all part of the same pattern of you acting without taking the time to see what is going on. Despite your good intentions you are being careless. New page and vandalism patrol are helpful, but it becomes a net negative if it is done in such a way that causes collateral damage to good faith contributors. I am happy to let this be now but if this keeps up I am going to review your usage of rollback and automated tools to decide if you should keep them. HighInBC 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Piling on other issues is a definite low blow, considering the new pages issue, as mentioned above, was completely separate - it was a procedural issue, rather than an instance-based issue. You are more than welcome to review the usage of my tools, but please have a valid rationale for revoking any rights prior to do so. --JustBerry (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do anything without a valid reason. If I do review your use of these tools and it is fine then I surely will not act. I do wish you would recognize the common thread in all of these issues which is you not taking the time or effort to confirm things before enforcing your interpretation. I am not coming here because of this one incident, I have been noticing this for a while now. HighInBC 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I appreciate your coming by to address the trend you've noticed, but it should be noted that incidents have been resolved on other talk pages too. Also, patterns of similar issues are not appearing, except for the draft move issue, which has now been resolved. For someone using STiki, out of the close to 2000 reverts I've made, this truly the first issue I've encountered regarding STiki reverts. I think you would agree that that "level of concern" is acceptable or appropriate. --JustBerry (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Also, not to pile on here, but your statements don't appear to acknowledge Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. I understand that the pile of notices appear to suggest a trend to you. However, it should be noted that I've started New Pages patrolling fairly recently, for really only a few days, and am relatively new to this particular process, as I have not done it extensively in the past. Like any other process, responses from users and other editors does take time, so the concerns above cannot be characterized as a product of "concern addressed, concern ignored, concern addressed, etc," i.e. disruptive editing, or something of the like. As mentioned above, I've discussed the issue on other user's talk pages regarding the draft move issue, as well as over IRC, to best address the issue. Also, assuming that you've hopefully acknowledged that the two issues are relatively separate, given my explanation above, a one-diff situation of Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle cannot be possibly characterized as a misuse or excessive use of policy, or even to the point where a trend is being noticed. Therefore, I

Disagree with this filer's implication of this situation as being a misuse or hasteful use of tools. However, understanding where you are coming from (having observed the entirety of the talk page), your reason for concern is legitimate. However, you are more than welcome to perform a full review of my rollbacks over the course of, well, however far back you wish to investigate. --JustBerry (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are fond of describing any comment here as a "low blow", implying that those commenting are being unjustly unfair to you. Yet these are your edits we're commenting on, and there's a queue of independent, unhappy editors here. WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED and that isn't being demonstrated here, across a range of issues. When someone acts as an administrator to reject requests on an admin noticeboard, and has a userpage decorated with administrator userboxen (although, it turns out, for a different Wikipedia) then we expect at least that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: You have not addressed my previous comment, which suggests that you are unwilling to understand the premise of the situation. Also, the reference of your last sentence is unclear. --JustBerry (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing P2PSP, JustBerry.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This should not have been marked as reviewed. The only source is an unpublished paper.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page.

@MrX: Noted, thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for being open to feedback. That's how I learned.- Mr X 16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Yup, I've started actively patrolling new pages recently, so I appreciate you stopping by. --JustBerry (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

A11 (made up)

Just a word or two about A11. I declined your speedy at Jonathan Burkart because it wasn't appropriate. A11 is for certain things, and people are not one. It was brought in to deal with the things that there was no evidence for, but which weren't hoaxes (assuming good faith...). Things like 'Tequila Pong', a drinking game invented by George Platt in Dan's Bar, Three Coyote Flats, AZ last week (and which only has the drink as a difference from Beer Pong). Or the word 'Scutfler', which is alleged to have half a dozen meanings and is growing in popularity in Freefall High School, Neverheardofit, MI. Things that may or may not exist, but no-one outside half a dozen mates of the originator gives a toss. People - they're real, or fictional, or hoaxes. They're A7 if real, prod or AfD if fictional, and G3 if blatant hoax (AfD if the hoax is on the cards but not immediately obvious). A11 really stands alone - it can't be coupled with other criteria. It needs using with care. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon: Ah, okay. I thought that was most closely related with articles that have WP:COI issues, i.e. the subject may be writing about themselves. Please look into this and the report on WP:AIV I made. The sock master's userpage also needs a CSD for U5. --JustBerry (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SammiB is probably mother/wife/sister/daughter (but hopefully not all at once). COI doesn't come into CSD at all. That's more the province of AfD and/or the talk page. I agree with MusikAnimal that speedy isn't really appropriate here - check the references and look at notability rather than significance. I've not looked into the article with more than a glance. If there are IMDb refs, that's a good way of checking reality and possible hoax - if the ref goes to someone else's page, start thinking hoax. IMDb doesn't count for notability, but it's a good jumping off point, and like Amazon, lack of presence on IMDb means more than presence does. Think about that... As to the blanking, I wouldn't worry. The case is open, and the tag will be replaced if proved. I rarely bother tagging user page - I can't usually find the template and the clerk or closing admin will see to all that anyway. If I've blocked per WP:DUCK and there's nothing contentious, I just stick one on the talk page with a link to the master or sock. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon: Acknowledged. --JustBerry (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Confused

I cannot clearly understand you, plzzz tell in brief. Pratyush38352 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell you that the content added by me is not confused , i only added my school name , which was not registered. So, you should not remove it. Pratyush38352 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratyush38352: Please see WP:Verifiability. As the other school names have on the list, can you provide a link to the school website or a third-party source talking about the school to prove its validity and existence? --JustBerry (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Behavior

You need to stop bickering about User:Bbb23. He is the best admin and checkuser on the planet. He helped with User:RMS52. And has stopped many problems from becoming bigger ones, I suggest you stop before he blocks you. Stop trying to follow paths' like User:RMS52's and get on with life. I apologize for my attitude but this is a warning, you are a great editor with so much potential. So please, don't get involved with things like SPI. Or you could risk a 2 week block, like User:RMS52.

If you really must know, I vandalized a page once. I saw RMS52's link on my talk page and now I know the whole story, be smart, be stale.

Many thanks, Anonymous.

146.199.5.176 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case sock, reported.

Protection requests

I recommend you remove them. At some point, they're going to be looked upon as frivolous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Do you mind doing them? Few pages got vandalized recently. Also, I'm only doing some of my sub-user pages. --JustBerry (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out the ones which were vandalized, I will look at those. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: User:JustBerry/UserpageOn was. Since User:JustBerry/UserpageCustom is needed to route to User:JustBerry/UserpageOn, you may want to consider protecting that as well. It also seems like a sock of RMS52 to me, quite frankly. Question: Any idea how pages like WP:SPI are semi-protected in all sub-pages? Is that kind of protection applicable for user pages? --JustBerry (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done UserpageOn. All subpages of SPI aren't semi-protected. Most cases and archives aren't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Oh, okay. Perhaps that explains why only some cases were semi-protected for prevention from continued vandalism. --JustBerry (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:

Question: Any idea if there's a tool to search all the contributions of a certain page and its subpages? --JustBerry (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for changes to all your subpages? Then this comes close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, this seems to be a bit better even. --JustBerry (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Speedy tagging of 2015 Chad suicide bombings

Hi there. You tagged it as A1 and I contested it. It does have context. The subject is clearly identified and there is even a reference. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: The article did not provide the premise of the bombing or when they took place, though. --JustBerry (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. I kindly ask you to read ~~the last part~~ all of WP:A1 to find out why that doesn't matter.

Also, you speedy tagged a creation by an experienced editor (Registered 8/21/2010; 9969 edits) 5 minutes after creation.

I must disagree with your judgement in this case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Do you mind providing a diff for the aforementioned case? I can suspend New Page Patrolling if need be again for now. --JustBerry (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I apologize for that; thanks for letting me know. I will take another read at all of the criteria. --JustBerry (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer some free advice. When you are doing new page patrol look at how long the person who wrote it has been here. If they are not a new user then really make sure that a speedy deletion is needed. Try talking to them first. HighInBC 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Thanks for the advice. However, when page patrolling, if a page doesn't seem eligible to be a Wikipedia article at all, the mentality tends to be along the lines of "see if the article matches any CSD criteria; if so, tag it." Checking the page creator prior to checking CSD criteria may be best, it seems. --JustBerry (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: For example, how might you deal with this page? --JustBerry (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this article was having sufficient context, mass murder or suicide bombing incidences are obviously eligible for article. I think you should have wait for more than 5 minutes, I think we should not nominate such articles for even AfD within 1 day. At most we can prod them if we think that it does not deserve the article. But it happens many times while in new page patrolling. Its ok. --Human3015^TALK 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: Thanks for pitching in. How about page patrolling from the back of the patrolling log? --JustBerry (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD does not mean "doesn't seem eligible to be a Wikipedia article at all", it is for a very narrow set of criteria where no community input is needed. Shopper pro is a computer virus and thus software. The only criteria that comes close is WP:CSD#A7 which says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works". CSD does not apply, it is very narrow and very clearly defined. HighInBC 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi, All the sources are official therefore reliable sources. Teemscaws (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Teemscaws:

Agree --JustBerry (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. Teemscaws (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Teemscaws: Thanks for adding reliable references there; article seemed to be lacking it from previous editors. --JustBerry (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meremae Parish edit

Hi JustBerry, You removed my edit from the Meremae Parish page and I'm not sure why. I had adjusted the format of the Sightseeing section to a bulleted list enhanced readability. MrCrazyDude (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrCrazyDude: This originally seemed like an edit test. Reverted here. --JustBerry (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MrCrazyDude (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrCrazyDude: Certainly not a problem. Thanks for letting me know, though. --JustBerry (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radical revision

I tweaked the definition and proof so that the treatment of existence and uniqueness was more logically precise. In the prior version, the term "radical" was defined before the necessary statement about existence and uniqueness was made, thus clouding the logic. Similar microconfusions existed in the proof. Perhaps you prefer a more "holistic" form of expression. 84.226.185.221 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@84.226.185.221: Ah, all right. --JustBerry (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sino-Japanese War Etymology

I came to the conclusion that the second paragraph of the Etymology section of the Second Sino-Japanese War article does not meet Wikipedia's standards of quality. It has several spelling errors, does not use the proper tone for a Wikipedia article, is not coherent in some places, and overall adds very little to the article. After I concluded this, I had deleted the second paragraph, but you had reverted the change, stating that I needed to create citations. However, since I had deleted the second paragraph, there was no way I could create a citation for my deletion. Did I miss something that I should have done? 73.13.123.157 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@73.13.123.157: Ah, I would have meant to delete the unreferenced paragraph, not delete the deletion of it. Done. --JustBerry (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. 73.13.123.157 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Have Denied The People Of MATIAS BEER

Dear Mr Berry

I am writing with regards of Matias Beer, I have just had him on the phone and my word is he angry. Having spent 2 years of his professional career in the shadows, finally a courageous display in the Rugby World Cup has meant the people are talking. As mentioned in my post, (which was so rudely removed) Jonny Wilkinson himself mentioned "Beer isn't just for alcoholics anymore". I just feel his page wasn't even given the chance to blossom. Imagine if Uruguay didn't let Matias blossom, we wouldn't have the world class flanker that we have today.

For someone who is so obviously a huge fan of this wonderful site I feel you need to take a long hard look at yourself and think really about what the people want to see and what they don't. Have you read the page on Guttering? Absolute shambles of a piece of journalism. WHO CARES... people care about Matias.

Regards

Matias Beer Spokesperson

Adding citation

Hello. I just want to inform you that I added a specific citation to the sentence that I wrote as you suggested for specific citation. Sweirlspaewn (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweirlspaewn: Awesome! --JustBerry (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained edit?

I think you were a little confused when you reverted my edit on Hurricane Nora (1997). I already gave an explanation on the edit summary as to why I made that edit on purpose and you rudely reverted without giving any valid reason. CycloneYoris (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: I had not seen the edit summary in Huggle. Thanks for letting me know. --JustBerry (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. CycloneYoris (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on alum

Please be more careful. Your recent revert here and edit summary were problematic. The new user had provided solid references -- they were just not in our accustomed format. Your edit summary "Failure to cite a reliable source" was rather obviously in error -- are you trying to discourage new editors? Take the time to help and welcome new users, rather than working to chase them away. Vsmith (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: Thanks for your message; I have ceased using Huggle already and am resorting to other anti-vandalism methods for now. --JustBerry (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er... there was no vandalism involved in that new user edit. What relevance do anti-vandalism methods have here? How about you recognize your error and offer an apology to the new user. Have you made other similar reverts? I saw that one because the article is on my watchlist. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: Yes, I have addressed some of the others and left a message on the user's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]