User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 20

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Ramola

Hey PMC, I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Ramola a while ago. I just wanted to note that this closure should probably be considered a WP:NOQUORUM close. From the 3 delete voters, one was the nominator themselves (Tbt1849) and the other a sock puppet of Tbt1849, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbt1849 (it hasn't been closed yet but it's obvious). It may be useful to note this in the closing statement for future reference. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noted that in the remarks, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquette University Special Collections and University Archives

Greetings. I noticed that you closed this discussion as a redirect to...itself? In any case, no redirect has yet been performed on the article. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm Would it surprise you if I said I'd done the close before my coffee set in? Thanks for catching that, I've fixed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doyin Okupe

Hi PMC. You appropriately closed Doyin Okupe as delete, but please I want you to take a second look at the decision as the subject is actually notable, not only as a former presidential aide or spokesperson (which in itself is a notable political position in Nigeria), but also as a medical doctor. At Nigeria's return to democracy in 1999, he became the first presidential spokesperson; other presidential spokespersons after him are Olusegun Adeniyi, Reuben Abati and Femi Adesina. He and his wife recently recovered from coronavirus. Please review the following sources:

NYTimes Archive on the Subject

Guardian Archive on the Subject

Google News on the Subject

Google Books on the Subject

Google Scholar on the Subject

An NYTimes Archived Article Covering the Subject

Another NYTimes Archived Article Mentioning the Subject

The Subject's Brief Biography by Biography Legacy and Research Foundation (BLERF)

Rotidiap (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from this article, the articles from the search results above are all either trivial mentions or a recent blast of news about supposedly treating his COVID with hydroxychloroquine, which is...well, if I were a subject, I wouldn't want that to be the main thrust of my BLP article. The BLERF entry isn't even prose, it's just a CV. I don't think it's sufficient for an undelete overriding community consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am glad that you agree that this NYTimes article is good; did you notice that it is from 15 October 1985? There are certainly many articles like it out there — here is one from Daily Trust. If undelete is impossible, please put a copy of the deleted content in my Sandbox, so I can work on it. Thank you.
Rotidiap (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've placed it at User:Rotidiap/Doyin Okupe. As you are not an experienced contributor, I am asking you to please use the articles for creation process for review rather than moving it back into mainspace yourself. In fact, I really have to ask - is this your first account? You know your way around very well for someone whose first edit was today. If it isn't, you should declare your previous accounts on your user page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I am not a new contributor, I have been contributing without an account, and after creating this account a few days ago, I have been broadening my knowledge and finding the way around before making this first edit.
Rotidiap (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, happy editing :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Sumall page

Just received the email that they are shutting down on May 27. Was that why the page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.22.99 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it was deleted because there was a discussion with support for deletion and no opposition to deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SumAll. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Khergiani

On 25 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mikhail Khergiani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Svan mountain climber Mikhail Khergiani was nicknamed the "Tiger of the Rocks" for his ability in attacking difficult routes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mikhail Khergiani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mikhail Khergiani), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMJS

Hello PMC. Can you please restore the deleted article so I can add reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XA45Y3$ (talk • contribs)

Show me the sources first, please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am new to the Encyclopedia, therefore I didn't know if profile-pages on artist blogs are reliable sources or not. If not, can the page be moved to draft or my user page until there is reliable sources?

They aren't. Please read WP:RS for an indication of the kinds of things that constitute reliable sources - national newspapers, broad-audience magazines, books, and similar. If you're interested in editing (and not just promoting the artist) I would suggest working elsewhere on existing articles to get a feel for editing before trying to resurrect a page that was deleted by strong consensus at AfD. (Side note, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. So with that being said, it is not possible to set the old article as non-public or into my user directory? XA45Y3$ (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible in the technical sense, but I'm not going to do it, because there are no reliable sources right now. When you find some, come and see me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Karen McGrane

Hi, can you please clarify why you have deleted Karen McGrane? There was not much discussion to delete, no one engaged with my comments about her meeting WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:ACADEMIC, and the Forbes article you reference is only one of many sources referencing her that I mistakenly included not realizing the authorship issue. After the initial AfD, I added several additional sources (with the intent to go back and add more), and as I mentioned in both of my notes, she is considered a leader in the field by others in the field and is cited often in academic and popular press books on mobile content strategy. Please restore so at minimum I can add more sourcing or more voices can weigh in on this article. Thanks. Sweet kate (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Interviews or appearances on podcasts aren't indicators of notability. Neither is simply being cited by others. If she was truly that important as a figure, there would be sources about her, not just mentions of her. Feel free to take my close to WP:DRV if you feel I was in error. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up

Sorry, I just wasn't able to give Kamilya_Mohammedi_Tuweni the attention I wanted, following your {{prod}}.

I left a note on Talk:Kamilya Mohammedi Tuweni#Update.

If I can't find enough new RS by June 3rd, I'll call for its deletion under WP:G7.

If I think the article might be improved enough I'll ping you, on the talk page, see if you agree, or if you have further concerns.

I hope this is acceptable to you.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine, thanks for letting me know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

National Vanguard (publication)

Should I take your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Vanguard (publication) as an indication that you're going to expand the National Alliance (United States) article as I suggested? Given that the only support voiced for a redirect was conditional on that, the close feels like a supervote (albeit a fairly harmless one) unless you plan to do so. I'm still sceptical that it would be a beneficial addition to that article, but my scepticism isn't very strongly felt. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing as redirect when there's a valid target and the original article name is a reasonably plausible search term is a commonly accepted alternative to deletion. It isn't a supervote. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea if it's "commonly accepted" but in this case it's clearly wrong, in terms of both process and content. What's the point of !voting at AfD if a passing admin is free to ignore the consensus in favour of their preferred outcome? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How is it wrong? The result is that the article is not retained as a standalone (the same result as a deletion), and the search term is preserved for readers who may attempt to use it. If I closed it as delete and somebody else came along the next day and redirected the redlink in the same way, it would produce the same result. Closing as redirect simply skips the "someone else came along" step. If you still think my close is unacceptable, by all means take it to WP:DRV for more eyes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not "unacceptable" – I've no personal stake and it's obviously pretty low down on anyone's list of priorities – but certainly misguided. It's always been my understanding that when one closes a discussion one weighs up the arguments made and decides between them on the basis of their prevalence and how grounded they are in policy. As such, barring WP:SNOW situations it's more or less never appropriate for a close to take a course of action that no one involved in the discussion supported. My suspicion is that a DRV discussion would result in the redirect being kept and a more substantial mention of the periodical being added to the group's article, which wouldn't be the worst outcome; so (in the spirit of skipping unnecessary steps) I'll try to do that tomorrow. After all, aside from the procedural point, there's a content issue here, which is that someone searching for the publication will at present be directed to an article that tells us nothing about it except for who its editor was in 2005. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have a personal stake here, why are you leaving enormous messages on my talk page telling me I'm wrong? ATD closes like that one are done all the time. You yourself state it would probably be endorsed at DRV (ie, other experienced admins would not overturn my close). You're not happy about it, copy that, but you've declined to get other eyes on it, so I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do for you here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked "How is it wrong?"; I did my best to answer. The hope, perhaps wrong-headed, was that my answer might give you pause before making similar closes in future. After all, "it happens all the time" is seldom a good reason to do something. My intended tone was one of of collegial inquiry, not outrage – I find that longer messages are better for that purpose, and shorter messages can come across as brusque, but I suppose others might see it as rambling or hectoring. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's hectoring in the sense that you refuse to accept that procedurally, such a close is not out of line. For example, it's done all the time for non-notable albums, which are generally redirected to the artist's article. Again, I invite you to take this close to DRV since you seem so convinced I am mangling procedure. If you dislike such closes being done in the broader sense, feel free to start a discussion about ATD closes in general at some community forum. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh cheers thanks Gerda Arendt! Hope you're doing well in these trying times. :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the navbox about theatre companies in Germany but can you please make auto-collapsed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is set to autocollapsed...hmm, but that seems to make inconsistent results. I've swapped it to perma-collapsed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent Black

Hi - nominator for this AfD which you closed was permanently blocked for sockpuppetry specifically related to deletions. Would you consider reopening this? Last delete !voter indicated willingness to reconsider if another RS was found, am willing to spend some time to look for that. Pinging all participants/relisters to the AfD. @Fitindia, BahrdozsBulafka, Lil-unique1, Sulfurboy, Northamerica1000, GSS, and HighKing:. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the page and relisted the AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PMC for re-opening! Hello Goldsztajn, as creator, I want to thank you for this as I did feel the deletion was hasty and undeserved. Thank you also for your time and effort to find more sources, which I never could. My faith is restored, no matter the final decision this time round.. Regards, BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Abhijat Mishra was recreated

Almost immediately after you closed the discussion and deleted it. I have an SPI out on the editor(s) involved as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've G4'd and salted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete Obada Adnan page? If you deleted it Because it was deleted before,that’s not a good reason...before,it was deleted because Obada Adnan wasn’t notable ,but now ,he became really notable,please get back the article Obada Adnan

Alex1981march (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it because there was consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obada Adnan. Cryptic deleted it again today because it was reposted after deletion, which makes it eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Please don't recreate it - work on the draft version instead and submit it to AfC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I submit a draft to AfC?

How can I submit a draft to AfC? Alex1981march (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, before it was deleted because Obada Adnan WAS not notable, but after he became notable, I re-created the article Alex1981march (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

He suddenly became notable in the last three days? I don't think so. You can find AfC here: WP:AFC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes , he became notable , you can go and search “Obada Adnan” on google, PLEASE GET BACK THE ARTICLE IF YOU found he became notable. Alex1981march (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Will you Get the article back if you found out he became notable? Alex1981march (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you calm yourself down please and maybe write out all your messages in one go? I don't need to wake up to a heart attack of 8 notifications. One will do. Use the "show preview" button.

Obada Adnan was determined to not be notable less than a week ago. There is no way there are suddenly enough sources to satisfy our notability guideline now. There simply hasn't been enough time for a change. Go work on the draft at Draft:Obada Adnan - I'm not restoring the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I sent only 2 messages ,NOT 8... Second, can you please search his name “Obada Adnan” on google? , by the way, YES , in last 2 weeks , he BECAME notable, again, please search “Obada Adnan” on google, that will not take more than 2-3 minutes. Results will talk instead of me.

I got 8 notifications. Just now I got 3. Seriously dude, one message please. Second, no, I'm not doing the work you should be doing at the draft article. Find the sources yourself, add them to the draft, submit the draft for approval by reviewers. I won't say it again, and further messages will be ignored. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not how you should treat others , you are representing Wikipedia , so please be kind, I will ask you again to search his name “Obada Adnan” on google, if you don’t care, then please get back the page and let someone who is more professional than you at what he do to review it. With all respect

Alex1981march (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 26. —Cryptic 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Two Articles on Bagzamilleon

Hello, today you deleted the article debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAGZAMILLEON. You may have missed in the discussion that the same musician has a completely identical article at Bagzamilleon (note the different caps). The original nominator apparently did not know about the duplicate and it was never nominated for deletion. But since the musician has been deemed non-notable in the debate for the ALL-CAPS version of the article, the no-caps version should be deleted too. What's the proper procedure? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I G4'd it as a duplicate and made a note in the AfD closure. Good catch. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Samdzimari

There are references to Tserediani, Mühlfried & Tuite 2018 in there, but the full citation is missing. Would you mind adding it?

Also if you add Svick's script per these instructions, you'll be automatically notified of these errors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Accidentally copied the editors list instead of the authors list. Thanks for the heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings PMC! Thank you for creating Samdzimari. Also just added the meaning of the word in modern Georgian. Gratefully. An emperor /// Ave 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to sound ungrateful but I am going to remove that. I haven't found any sources that indicate that the modern word has any connection to the name of the goddess, so putting that in there is kind of ascribing meaning where there isn't any. (It would be like making a note at Pan (god) that the word "pan" means a type of cookware - it does, but it doesn't have anything to do with the name of the god.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Thanks for your contribution to the Georgian mythology. An emperor /// Ave 01:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It's super fascinating. Doing all this research is really making me want to visit Georgia one day - I hope I'll get the chance eventually. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the extraordinary contribution of yours on Dali, I think region of Svaneti in Georgia should be your very first destination :-) An emperor /// Ave 20:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Zebronics

Hello PMC. You have protected the page Zebronics from being created. It is understood that the page was deleted for repeated creation. Please take a second look at review the following source:

Crunchbase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.37.198.71 (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not a source, it's a directory listing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are few sources about the topic - Zebronics plans to expand wearbles product range in India, Zebronics - Business World, Global Consumer Electronics Market, Asian Age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.37.198.71 (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We would not consider any of those to be reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As per Reliable Sources, the sources shared fall under News Organisation with factual data, covered by well-established news outlets. Blocking the page to be created is incorrect. Please review the protected word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.37.198.71 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No they don't, and no, I'm not going to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A similar topic is covered on Wikipedia - Logitech. And here are few more reliable sources for the topic in discussion

Hrithik Roshan on the topic.

PC Quest

Silicon India

Google Play Store

iOS App Store

The above sources are very much credible for the topic protection to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.251.35.252 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to the topic being removed from the protected/deleted list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.37.198.71 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello PMC, the last shared sources are credible and can be taken into consideration for releasing the keyword protection.

No. Don't ask me again, it's very clear you don't understand the first thing about our sourcing requirements and don't care to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tolix bar stool

Probably makes no difference to the prod, but Jean Prouvé is not non-notable. SpinningSpark 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt Carriker / Demolition Ranch / Off The Ranch / Vet Ranch

I am confused why the page for prominent YouTube creator Matt Carriker would be deleted. I was trying to look up details about him and found that his page was gone. With three significant YouTube Channels (8.43M, 3.59M, and 2.92M subscribers) he certainly should have a dedicated page on Wikipedia. A search for him brings up a reference to Hickok45 who is a YouTube creator he has collaborated with who has fewer subscribers at 5.1M. This makes no sense to me.

I tried to log on, but my saved password isn't working, and I am waiting for a password reset. I am not posting anonymously intentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.238.94.66 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have an account, you know that there need to be reliable sources about him. If you can show me some, I will consider undeleting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference about his YouTube Channels and subscriber numbers simply search Matt Carriker on YouTube itself and look. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=matt+carriker The numbers I stated were directly from YouTube. That alone covers a significant part of a summary of the former page from DuckDuckGo that says: Matt Carriker is an American veterinarian and YouTuber. He is the founder of three YouTube channels: DemolitionRanch, Vet Ranch, and OffTheRanch. He occasionally refers to himself as the King of the "Demolitia", the name he has given to his DemolitionRanch fan base. He practices veterinary medicine at Fair Oaks Ranch Veterinary Clinic.Wikipedia Born: October 23, 1986, Boerne, Texas, U.S. Education: Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (DVM) Years active: 2011-2020

The web page of Fair Oaks Vet where he is co-owner has a bio that covers his education and a summary of his veterinary career. https://www.fairoaksvet.com/our-veterinarians/

I do not have the time or skill to properly vet all these sources, or the thousands I did not list, but there is are ample sources for at least a basic page. It was not difficult at all to find the information I was looking for, I was just surprised not to find it on my primary source of reliable information.

Bill Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.238.94.66 (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That first load of sources is basically a bunch of clickbait blogs. Their credibility is zero. The second batch is a little bit better, but not much. The only really good source among them for notability is the High Plains Journal (the KENS5 news source isn't factually unreliable but it's local coverage so carries little weight for indicating notability. The rest are unreliable blogs, trivial mentions, or human-interest fluff about disabled dogs getting cared for. The Popular Mechanics articles are barely articles, they're just reiterations of the videos. It's not sufficient for me to override community consensus and undelete. If you feel strongly about it, feel free to create a draft at Draft:Matt Carriker and submit it to articles for creation for review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it at all, I just think it is really odd to not have anything about a very prominent YouTube creator. That is why I didn't spend much time looking at sources. I would have expected YouTube itself to be an obvious source of his YouTube popularity at least. I agree most of those sources are far from credible, they were just easy.

Thanks for reviewing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.238.94.66 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Tariq Shafi

Hello,

Could you please undelete Tariq Shafi so that I do not have to create it all over from scratch. I am attempting to add additional information including Vaccum Insulated Evaporated (VIE) Oxygen Tanks being installed at Darent Valley Hospital which are dedicated to Dr. Shafi; a letter from Prime Minister Boris Johnson regarding Dr. Shafi; and, a civilian award from the Government of Pakistan being bestowed upon him posthumously.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atharkhan (talk • contribs)

Per the notice at the top of the page, can you please provide the sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here is a link to the announcement and video of the commercial oxygen tanks: https://www.facebook.com/DarentValleyHsp/posts/3257661810924096

Here is a link to the letter penned by Prime Minister Boris Johnson: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x02etnecfelwapa/BorisJohnsonLetter.pdf?dl=0 I am not 100% sure how to cite to it.

The details of the civilian award from the Government of Pakistan will not be announced until August 14, 2020 (which is the date when these awards are bestowed. I can get some additional details if you need them.)

I have not received all the details yet about the water well that is being dug in Tharparkar Desert in Dr. Shafi's name. That is why I did not include it in the references yet.

What else may I provide you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atharkhan (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Posts on Facebook or Dropbox are not useful for gauging notability since they are user-generated. What we're looking for is secondary coverage of those things happening. For example, a reliable source indicating notability would be if a newspaper wrote an article about him getting a commendation from the PM or whatever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, some of the content is not going to be released in newspapers but I did not realize that that is considered untrustworthy. I did cite a number of newspapers from multiple countries. However, I did not realize that this was also not sufficiently notable. I don't really want to keep bugging you over this. So, if you are absolutely determined to not restore the page, would you please restore it to my user space or just email me a copy so that I do not have to collect all the sources from scratch? I honestly thought it was okay to set up a page and continue working on it. But, this time around, I will just work on it on my own computer or in draft mode somewhere (I think it is called user space?) before publishing it to the main website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atharkhan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've userfied it to User:Atharkhan/Tariq Shafi. Since it's been deleted at AfD, I'd ask that you put it through WP:AFC for review when you're done with it rather than directly mainspacing it yourself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello, I'm Zoglophie. I mainly edit in Badminton related articles. My month old creations Han Qianxi , Liu Liang , Tan Ning and 3 more were deleted as per successful nominations by a user. I think they forgot to nominate one more article (created by me only) and it is Su Li-yang. As per WP:NBAD, even this page fails the criteria which says there must be a medal at senior level for any player to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think nomination would be a waste of time, even if I do, it will face deletion for sure. Su Li-yang shouldn't exist as per rules; something I learnt from the six different discussions took place. Please delete this one too. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zoglophie! If you want, I can move the article into your userspace instead, so you can update it and put it back into mainspace if he passes WP:NBAD in the future. Or I can speedy delete it for you under G7, if you don't think he's likely to pass NBAD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving an option, but I think it should be deleted so any other interested editor can create it much better than the current version. Thankyou. Zoglophie (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll G7 it. If you ever find any indication that any of those guys meet NBAD in the future, please let me know and I can undelete them for you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Islanders (video game)

Hey there. Was wondering if you were still planning on nominating Islanders for Featured Article. GamerPro64 02:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been at the back of my mind, but I wasn't sure whether to go ahead considering the source thing you pointed out at the PR. Why, what's up? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if you or I can close the Peer Review. And if so was wondering if you were going to take it to FAC afterwards. Just wanted to clean up some backlog for video game peer reviews. GamerPro64 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, ok. You'd mentioned something at the PR about checking for opinions on those sources, is that something you were waiting for FAC to do, or did it fall off the radar? (No shade intended - it fell off mine too, I forgot the PR was still open). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I should try to get some of the sources checked so I can do that. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks for checking in about it, I appreciate the little nudge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the Islanders PR closed anyway. GamerPro64 17:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that someone else from PR closed it, which is fair. But I guess if you get any response about the sources you can put it here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me edit correctly

Hello and greetings, my dear service, were my edits wrong if you could give me some guidance?thank you. Tilagran (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're removing wikilinks, which are relevant and useful. Why are you doing this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

On the discussion page, I answered your question, sir.Tilagran (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If I made a mistake, I apologize. I saw in several articles that these links were removed. I said we must remove the links.Deleting links is not intentional at all and I intend to help the system, I apologize again.Tilagran (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

sir, I am a newcomer. I thought that those links should be deleted. If I made a mistake, forgive me.Tilagran (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah man it's fine chill. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and I apologize again.Tilagran (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark Ronchetti AFD

I am curious why you closed as a "merge" rather than a "redirect?" As a supporter of a redirect, I don't have a problem with merging data into the Senate article, but I do believe there is value in retaining the title and history while redirecting the page to the Senate article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A merge, once completed, results in a redirect to the merge target. The title and history are not lost. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Usually I see these closed as "redirect." --Enos733 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You'd close an AfD as a redirect if there was nothing worth merging - nothing sourced, for example, or if the content would be WP:UNDUE if merged wholesale. But in this case several people suggested merging, and there are reliable sources, therefore I closed as merge so the article would be flagged for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for returning my mistakes Tilagran (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ProQuest access

I access Proquest from home, with my Toronto library card - looks like there's something similar in Vancouver. In fact might even have more databases than we do! Meanwhile, I've been waiting a year now for them to renew my Wikipedia newspapers.com access :( Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mm, I'm not really a Vancouver resident - I live in the burbs, so I can't actually get any of VPL's services, and unfortunately my local library is...not as connected, lol. As for Newspapers.com, you should try poking them again, I renewed my access a few months ago and it only took a couple days. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunate. Ah - I just checked, and it looks like my Newspaper.com got reactivated last week, but no notice! Not sure what went wrong in 2019 ... I tried poking people for months ... finally after a full passed, about 3-4 weeks ago, I simply reapplied. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1526 in Ireland

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1526 in Ireland. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deleted Page Inquiry for Teresa Tapia

Greetings. I would like to know exactly which references used were against the guidelines so that I can be better informed for future articles. I had submitted an article for a living person, Teresa Tapia. Would you recommend re-submitting and only submit the most basic information? Thart1986 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thart1986, really sorry, I meant to respond to this and forgot. Basically, the problem is that the bulk of the prose sources (aside from this one) are pieces about her husband. Teresa herself is mostly mentioned in terms of her influence on Johnny, or gives a little sound bite about him. The rest of the sources are from sports stats sites, which don't contribute to notability. This is a press release (not independent), and this is an online-only specific-audience blogazine (doesn't contribute much to a notability claim). The consensus was that it wasn't sufficient to establish her notability. I can restore the content to your userspace if you want to work on it more, if you think you can find better sources. The best kinds of sources are in-depth pieces in magazines or newspapers that have a wide target audience, both in reach and in subject matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Vancouver-related DYK nomination

I saw this nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Great Vancouver Fire) and immediately thought it would be interesting to you for a review. Do you have time to help? Flibirigit (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can have a look tomorrow, although to be honest I'm not that much of a Vancouver history buff :) I just happened to be reading a book about it recently and I always add refs to things when I'm reading non-fiction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you can help, that would be great! Happy editing :-) Flibirigit (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Mm, I just noticed the nominator is a student who hasn't contributed since the end of May. I assume he's not coming back to fix the page citation issue, and it's unlikely anyone else has both access to all the cited books and articles and the willingness to speed-read them all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of EN131

Hi there! I believe you proposed EN131 for deletion on account of notability with no obvious redirect, and at the time I didn't object as it seemed fine to me, but I've since thought of an appropriate redirect. Would you object to me getting the page restored as a redirect to Ladder#Ladder classes? Thank you for your time. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sasuke Sarutobi, I've restored and redirected it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 10:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphanage Category

Hey Premeditated Chaos,

It's awesome that the February 2009 orphans are finally completed! I noticed that you deleted the category - I'm just curious what will happen if a page with an orphan tag from Feb 2009 comes back. Say an expired PROD that was tagged is reinstated. Will the February 2009 category be automatically recreated, or will the page be listed in a different category/uncategorized? Mbdfar (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It'll be automatically re-created by bot; it's happened before with other dead orphan categories. Usually they get emptied quickly and re-deleted, there's at least one I've deleted three times now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling

An editor has asked for a deletion review of All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for St. Lawrence (restaurant)

On 27 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St. Lawrence (restaurant), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Vancouver restaurant St. Lawrence playfully references Quebecois cultural icons by serving tourtière with a miniature Montreal Canadiens flag (pictured), and oreilles de crisse in a maple syrup can? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Lawrence (restaurant). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St. Lawrence (restaurant)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Just to note that ranks are given as lower-case Latin in taxonomy templates, e.g. "infraordo" at Template:Taxonomy/Physocephalata rather than "Infraorder". Always good to see more taxonomy templates being created! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh heck, I usually remember that for taxoboxen in articles. Not sure why it slipped my mind there. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ghazi Abunahl

Hello Premeditated Chaos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ghazi Abunahl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've taken out all the unsourced stuff which definitely makes it less spammy. No comment on his notability, other than there's enough here for A7. . Thank you. GedUK  10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get around to AfDing it at some point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The horror

[1]!!! Mccapra (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Like a slasher movie villain... it's never dead the first time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can the deleted Qua (board game) Article be recreated as a board game stub?

You deleted the Qua Article on June 28. I understand and agree it wasn't sufficiently notable. I have since created a Board Games Geek entry for it.

Here are two notable references for Qua (board game):

Abstract Games Magazine Issue 19: Qua

Board Games Geek: Qua

Note: There are other connection games in wikipedia with less notability, e.g., Selfo, Star and *Star QuaGamer (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the existence of other bad articles is not an argument for inclusion of another, it's an argument for the deletion of those as well. Two sources that you wrote are not reliable references for notability (and don't tell me you didn't write that Abstract Games article, the byline matches the name you disclosed on your user page). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the Article in Abstract Games Magazine. I am not trying to claim to be neutral. I disclosed my Conflict of Interest and after reading the notability requirement for Wikipedia Articles, I agree with your decision to delete my submission. However, I did not write the Editorial Comment: "Qua is a most unusual three-dimensional game. As I mentioned in the description of 3D XYZ Chess, genuinely three-dimensional games are a rarity, perhaps with two exceptions, three-dimensional alignment games and three-dimensional chess games. Qua is the first three-dimensional connection game, at least in my experience. But somehow, it makes complete logical sense—there are three pairs of opposite faces on a cube, each pair to be connected by one of the three players." This is my first Article submission to Wikipedia. I appreciate your and other Wikipedians' efforts to insure the quality and reliability of Wikipedia Articles by following rigorous, enforced protocols for content. I would like to continue work on the deleted Qua Article as a draft in my sandbox. Is it possible do get a copy of what I submitted? Also, is there a way to get help from someone with Wikipedia publication experience to review my draft prior to publication? My next attempt to get Qua mentioned in Wikipedia will be to submit an Article containing descriptions of it and other games as a list of three player abstract strategy connection games.QuaGamer (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No article written and/or submitted by you or anyone else involved with the game will ever be a reliable source indicating notability. You would need to show that there are reliable sources from independent authors, which there have not been. Without sourcing, restoring to draft for you to work on is an exercise in futility, because the article will never be accepted in mainspace without it. I'm sorry, but in my opinion assisting you further would be a waste of my time. Your purpose here is not to contribute to Wikipedia, it's to promote your game. I am not being paid for my time, and I do not wish to spend it in assisting you with promoting your game. If you create your proposed list without appropriate sourcing, I will take it as a further attempt at promotion and nominate it for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and clear explanation. I didn't realize any Article I submit for publication, which gets approved by a Magazine or Journal Editor, will not be considered as a reliable source indicating notability. Same for the Board Games Geek entry. I will use other websites, e.g., Board Games Geek and Reddit, to tell people about Qua instead of trying something different at Wikipedia. If I am successful, eventually there will be reliable 3rd party sources that mention Qua.QuaGamer (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bengalia problem

Hi. The problem is this: the last formal review of Lehrer's work (Rognes, 2005) did not include the publication in which Lehrer described B. fernandiella. That being said, given the incredibly high proportion of his named species which turned out to already have names, it seems very unlikely that fernandiella will hold up to scrutiny. However, that scrutiny has not yet been applied, and goodness only knows if anyone will ever bother, given the complete mess that Lehrer left behind. He actively destroyed the type specimens of many previously-described species, and I'm not sure that any of his own types were recovered after his death. It may be decades before anyone gets this chaos resolved. Realistically, Wikipedia and Wikispecies should act as neutral observers, but that would not really involve change to the status quo. The Bengalia article can still justify listing only those species confirmed to be valid (as it does now), and pages for Lehrer species can still be left in place if they have been created, but they don't NEED to appear in the main article. It might be possible to justify a "disclaimer" inserted in the B. fernandiella article, to the effect of pointing out that taxonomic experts have not yet confirmed the validity of Lehrer's self-published description of fernandiella, but this could also be seen as crossing the line into "original research", and therefore violating WP policy. Lehrer's damage to science is profound, and that carries over into Wikipedia. He is, to this day, the only taxonomist ever to be summarily banned from Wikipedia (for sockpuppetry, incessantly posting under third-party aliases). The edit history of the Bengalia article reveals a nightmare of his ravings. Dyanega (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My god, and I thought Ferdinand Rudow was insane. I just flipped through the history of the article - ravings indeed. I think I will redirect the B. fernandiella article to the Bengalia article's dispute section; otherwise I think it runs the risk of someone else like me trying to jam it into the list and wasting time in the future. Thanks for your patient explanation - the whole thing blows me away. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is something ANI worthy?

Hey! I'm so sorry if you're not the right person for this, but I haven't posted anything to ANI before so I'm rather anxious considering all the apparent drama and I just want to double-check that I'm doing the right thing. I've found this one certain editor, who has made many many edits (they're in the top 1000, apparently), but is also consistently not assuming good faith, being uncivil, and is routinely always condescending and rude in their edit messages. They've been blocked 25 times over the years for disruptive editing, violating consensus, aggressive behaviour in edits, talk pages, and edit messages, racism... the list goes on. They were warned (and blocked several times as a result) in 2013 that an ANI consensus that "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block". The editor has used abrasive and inconsiderate edit messages like "counter-Semite", my ass, Restore - Assume good faith? That's the shield you're going with?. They also routinely allege COIs and NPOV violations against opposing editors: And you have a problem with anything that gets in the way of whatever POV you're trying to push at the time. For this one vandalising editor, they even posted this message on their talk page (no warnings ever given, nothing constructive either): Go away, troll. no one likes you.. Is this pattern worth an ANI to try and calm down/correct/prevent some of these behaviours? ItsPugle (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

They also have on their user page that all their edits are to mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical, and they keep a publicly advertised list of people they believe are spammers or have COIs in their user space. ItsPugle (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you picked me in particular to ask about this. I don't know offhand who you're talking about (and I'm intentionally not going to look), so please keep in mind that this is general advice based on experience. If someone has been behaving a certain way for a long time and not been indeffed or sanctioned in an ongoing, the chances of them being blocked or given some kind of restriction at ANI, especially if they are an established and generally effective editor, are fairly low. The chances that they will change their behavior voluntarily after an ANI if they haven't already are also pretty low. Given that, it's up to you to decide if you want to deal with the stress and potential blowback of an ANI thread.

If you do decide to post at ANI, my advice is to keep things short and recent - pick the most egregious recent diffs and write up a clear (and, I cannot stress this enough, concise) description of what you see as the problem. If there's significant history, it's fine to mention it as background, but a report that relies on diffs from years ago will not be taken seriously. From your wording, I'm assuming that thing about "mopping up" is a talk page header-type thing rather than a comment directed at any particular person. That's not sanctionable and I wouldn't bring it up at ANI; being crabby in your own userspace is a time-honored Wikipedia tradition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think I'll hold off ANI-ing then! And sorry if this isn't your jazz, I just saw that you were an active admin and wanted to run it by someone I thought I could trust :) ItsPugle (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I just wasn't sure if there was any other reason that I was missing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyapith

Can you please explain why you deleted the article Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyapith? There are many articles with similar references on Kolkata schools. Anindya2018 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyapith had a clear consensus to delete. If other articles are similarly badly referenced, that is an argument to delete those as well, not to undelete Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyapith. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Vassilis Mazomenos

Greetings. It appears that Vassilis Mazomenos, under various aliases, is busy uploading text about himself in other Wikipedia languages, e.g. here. -The Gnome (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe contact the stewards on Meta and see if they can do a global lock of his accounts, if he's cross-wiki spamming? Not much else I can do about it unfortunately, since he's already indeffed here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:

• Keegan (talk · contribs)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)

The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL (talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.

The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.

Katie^talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#changes to functionary team

User:Martinoyo

Hi, I saw you are on the recently active admin list, this user is here to spread medical misinformation on Coronavirus and plague. See diffs Special:Diff/970219882, Special:Diff/970216910, Special:Diff/970708624, Special:Diff/970706086. User:Martinoyo. i.e. inserting claims that plague can be caused by other pathogens including Sars-Cov2, I believe this user is only here to spread conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and plague. PainProf (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For future issues of this kind, please try communicating with the user instead of simply leaving templates at their talk page. I've left a general sanctions notice on their talk page for now. If that doesn't stop the behavior, please let me know, or if I'm not around, go to WP:ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. PainProf (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Article on Hussain Manawer

Hi, an article related to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hussain_Manawer&action=edit&redlink=1 has been deleted. Is it possible to regain access to the page? It sounds like the issue was around the references not being up to scratch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adzie (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adzie, yes, it was because of a lack of references. If you can find any in-depth, reliable references, I may consider undeleting. Please, please, read and understand WP:RS and really internalize what is meant by in-depth and reliable before you post any sources. You may also want to scroll up this talk page and read other discussions about sourcing so you don't fall into the same pitfalls as others have before you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for your quick response! Is it possible to review which sources failed the RS test from the page? I'm unable to view any content from within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adzie (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Reader's digest verion, in order:

1. His own website - not independent
2. Metro - free UK daily, sister of unreliable Daily Mail, fluff piece about an interview he did in their podcast
3. University of Westminster - press release from the university about Manawer, an alumni, dubiously independent
4. Ilford Recorder - small local source, article of the "local boy does something" variety
5. Glastonbury site - not independent coverage of his performance at the festival, merely a line-up listing from the festival's own site
6. Soccer Aid - Not independent coverage about the performance
7. Lynx - Not independent coverage about the ad
8. Asian Sunday - blocked at my work for probably stupid reasons so I can't assess
9. Metro #2 - op-ed written by subject, not independent
10. Guiness Records are not proof of notability in and of themselves, there needs to be independent coverage of the record (ie, some magazine writes a feature about the subject because he got a Guinness
11. Kruger Cowne - see above - there needs to be coverage of the win
12. One Young World - subject is a One Young World ambassador, so thiss isn't independent
13. Points of Light - again, needs to be coverage about him being awarded
14. King's College - non-independent announcement by the college about college business

That is to say, none of them contributed significantly to a claim of notability (except maybe the Asian Sunday which I can't see right now, but even if it's fantastic, one qualifying source doesn't get you over WP:GNG). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Chaos, why did you wrongfully deleted Victor Carlstrom page?

Chaos, Please answer why you wrongfully deleted Victor Carlstrom? Wikipedia site, see the link.

https://en.everybodywiki.com/Victor_Carlstrom_(businessman)

Victor Carlstrom is named all over the internet today, as the biggest whistleblower of all time. Only last 2 days I find 3 independent articles about his case see links.

https://www.wfmj.com/story/42435033/victor-carlstrom-expands-dollar150-billion-money-laundering-case

https://spacecoastdaily.com/2020/08/massive-150-billion-dollar-worldwide-money-laundering-case-expanded-by-whistleblower-victor-carlstrom/

https://nykdaily.com/2020/08/turkish-government-officials-now-named-in-victor-carlstroms-expanded-lawsuit/

Since the people request deletion just claim random words about him and they are from Sweden. This Victor Carlstrom has asylum in the United States because he is a whistleblower against Sweden, their credibility is low also they have no sources for the claims. Also, I can't find any reason for you to delete his page.

Chaos so please explain why you deleted the whistleblower Victor Carlstrom site? This is very shady behavior from you and strikes against your credibility. Because I get the feeling you deleted his page on behalf of someone from Sweden and not after rule and guidelines.

Please explain, very interesting so see your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.62.193 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ms. Chaos prefers if you call her PMC, Premeditated Chaos, or Ms. Chaos. Chaos alone is a bit rude, don’t you think? Anyway; moving past the pleasantries, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Carlstrom (businessman) you will see that she just implemented the result the community wanted. It wasn’t her call, it’s what other people in the Wikipedia community decided. She just pushed the button. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ms. Chaos sounds like the name of a character Angelina Jolie would play in some kind of spy vs. spy thriller. Maybe the sequel to Atomic Blonde - Theron vs. Jolie. I'd totally watch that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, ok Ms. ChaosPMC. They usesrname ask for deletion claim random words with no proof of sources, it cant be so easy to delete someone's site. Then Wikipedia has no credibility if random people can claim random things and you delete without double-checking and see if they have sources? Please note Victor Carlstrom sue Sweden and 3 of North Europes biggest financial companies in federal court in the Southern District of New York. The people he sues have maybe 700 000 employees, so these Swedish persons ask for deletion just claim random things without sources most likely work at some of the companies or authorities he sues. So when you delete a Whistleblower page you need to be aware of these people have many against them who tries to take away the voice from the whistleblower.

Can you please re-create Victor Carlstrom site? I follow his case from Switzerland and work in a bank and his case is very important for the financial industry so please don't minimize him he has gone through worse than hell and deserves dignity. And definitely no more corruption against him. This deletion smells corrupt dealings since it went to easy and was wrongfully delted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.62.193 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Those sources are all low-impact sites, and they're all pretty much the same text which lends credence to Bonadea's statement at the deletion discussion that the available sources are all based on press releases. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ms.ChaosPMC Now it start to smell even more shady and more corrupt deling from you. Because you just lied. I will prove you lied you just write: "that the available sources are all based on press releases." Here is the press release Wednesday https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vinacossa-enterprises-announces-swedish-whistleblower-161300751.html

This last 3 articles last 2 days are here

https://spacecoastdaily.com/2020/08/massive-150-billion-dollar-worldwide-money-laundering-case-expanded-by-whistleblower-victor-carlstrom/

https://nykdaily.com/2020/08/turkish-government-officials-now-named-in-victor-carlstroms-expanded-lawsuit/

https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/42435033/victor-carlstrom-expands-dollar150-billion-money-laundering-case

And this one is from FOX which is U.S largest media

https://www.fox34.com/story/42435033/victor-carlstrom-expands-dollar150-billion-money-laundering-case

My point, most of the information in the article is NOT from the press release, please read the press release and then the articles and you see.

Why do you wrongfully claim the info is from the press release? And why can't you admit you wrongfully deleted his site? This starts to smell very shady and corrupt. Maybe the people he sue have paid you to work against him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.62.193 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's it, ya got me. I've been paid one million dollars one hundred billion dollars to delete articles on Wikipedia. I'm actually writing this from a jet-powered cabana in the Maldives. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ms ChoasPMC Here are even more shady or corrupt things. You write: "Those sources are all low-impact sites" the proof you lie again.

These 7 articles last 2 months about Victor Carlstrom is from high respected new outlets in Europe, U.S, and UK. And all are independent.

https://www.talk-business.co.uk/2020/06/29/european-commissions-proposal-shines-light-on-european-money-laundering/https://

https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/recent-developments-cast-doubt-on-swedbank-ceo-jens-henriksson/

https://lapostexaminer.com/whistleblowers-a-suffering-achetype/2020/06/22

https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/the-plight-of-recent-whistleblowers/

https://www.rocklandtimes.com/2020/06/24/whistleblowers-some-we-know-others-we-should/

https://dailyiowan.com/2020/04/28/famous-whistleblowers-who-paid-the-painful-price-for-truth/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/advising-clients-using-backdoor-roth-213137533.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLnNlLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHVlGkeUdL_9rkJtDTjc9Wukgl_ZQBl9KjJL1qjjIMzPohHpwN6NZpItNaaHPueDpAEtZze-j0OjIEKpQFwG0zFafmrQR-Sk4SvF-zi0ccQ39lhByA93eOScX2zewDTopugxWNf033KiKf4eJc7FvTih-TYePW8qsCAadYmqPcRH

There are a lot more articles on his website under press and media https://www.victorcarlstrom.com/pressandmedia

I don't say they have paid you, I say it is something very shady and corrupt why you deleted his page because I don't see any other Swedish person with so much international press last months.

You can also work at some of the companies he sues, they have offices in Vancouver.

So can you please admit you wrongfully deleted his page and recreate it? Or do you want me to dig deeper in the case, why you deleted his page wrongfully? Or can someone else recreate his page since Ms ChaosPMC obviously is not independent in this case and hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.62.129 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude I'm not going to engage with you when you're slinging around accusations of corruption left right and centre. I'm not being paid, I've never been paid to do anything on Wikipedia, the article was deleted after an appropriate consensus was formed at a community-based deletion discussion, and the sources you're bringing me are, in a word, crap. Your attitude makes it clear you're not here in good faith to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to promote this dude and his lawsuit. And since I'm not being paid and my time here is a hobby, I'm not engaging with you any further on this. You can ask at the teahouse and see if you can get someone there to engage with you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: Further commentary has been removed.

Why is the Robert G. Abboud page Deleted on 6/28/2020?

Here is the log information:

• 20:51, 28 June 2020 Premeditated Chaos talk contribs deleted page Robert Abboud (Delete redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Abboud closed as delete (XFDcloser))
• 20:51, 28 June 2020 Premeditated Chaos talk contribs deleted page Bob Abboud (Delete redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Abboud closed as delete (XFDcloser))
• 20:51, 28 June 2020 Premeditated Chaos talk contribs deleted page Robert G. Abboud (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Abboud (XFDcloser))
• 20:51, 28 June 2020 Premeditated Chaos talk contribs deleted page Talk:Robert G. Abboud (G8: Talk page of deleted page. (XFDcloser))

Sourcing I am the subject of those pages.

Best Regards. Bob A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.123.230 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Side note before we start: I removed your personal contact information; it's not something you probably want floating around publicly for all time on Wikipedia and its thousands of mirrors). The article was deleted because there was a consensus to delete at the community discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Abboud, specifically that there was no indication you met our notability standards. Please have a look at WP:GNG and WP:RS, and any of the other numerous discussions above about other deleted pages, for an understanding of what that means. The consensus there was pretty well-argued, so it would take some extremely good sourcing for me to override the community consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article - List of Sony A-mount lenses

AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses

The reasons given for deletion of this page, which is still a page referred to and linked to on other related wiki pages - now a dead link - was given mainly as 'FANCRUFT'. This seems to be a clear bias of brand loyalty as the definition of FANCRUFT "implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil."

The motivation for the page deletion seems malicious. The original page, while it does only provide 1 source, the totality of the article is easily validated through several non-Sony sources. See an archive of the article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170311080238/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses

It does not contain content that is biased or promoting the subjective qualities of the lenses or the Sony brand. It is concise, factual information about one of the largest photographic systems. The reasoning given by the deleters: "Non-notable subject seems like a promotional article for Sony lenses." is totally bogus. The page has no promotional material and is more relevant, if not the most consistent of other brand-related pages and lists, therefore it clearly fails to have relevance to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCATALOGUE The article did not act as a sales catalogue and it did serve as a primary contribution to its related pages. Without the list, the other pages lose relevance and are less encyclopedic, and incomplete. It was written by the user Tyw7 promoting deletion that "So miserable fails WP:GNG" when clearly this is a notable and significant photographic system.

If the user takes such offence with the fact there is only 1 source provided in the article, then they should start a page discussion or flag it so that other editors may contribute. Third-party sources and references are very easy to find as there is a significant user-base and collector-base. They have provided no evidence to support their claims and have misused Wikipedia guidelines. Why was none of this verified in the slightest before deletion? Why have these users not first addressed the article's perceived shortcomings? If they had so much understanding around it, then it should have been an easy task for them to edit the page in order to resolve its perceived failures. It is clear that this is Wiki vandalism and inconsistent with all other photographic equipment articles.

Achrom (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay so, do you have any sources to show me, or are you just going to complain about everyone else? Per the big blue box at the top of the page, I respond well to actual reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, there is the extensive database compiled by Michael Hohner and individual contributors: https://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?ov=1 and the database maintained by contributors at Dyxum: https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/

Sony is largest in market share (42.5%) globally in mirrorless camera systems - Techno System Research JP 2018 Report.

They are 3rd in worldwide interchangeable lens camera sales with 13.3%, larger than all remaining camera companies combined. - Nikkei Asian Review Vdata 2018 Market Share Report.

Then there is substantial support for additional sources from first-hand materials and independent news websites going back to 2006.

Achrom (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Self-published and user-generated sources are not generally considered reliable indicators of notability. Notability is not inherited; having a large market share in general does not guarantee that every product is independently notable. If there are substantial independent news sources, those would be the best indicators of notability for the product class. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Let's go back and address the original arguments - from those who have no knowledge or effort in the subject area - for deletion.

1. The list was obviously not a Sony promotional piece; not FANCRUFT.

2. "Only 1 source"; "Stop and think for a second. Does the article really have no reliable sources, or couldn't you just be bothered to find any?" Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. "So miserable fails WP:GNG" is not clear enough to be an argument. It's not even a functional sentence.

3. The list did not fail WP:NOTCATALOGUE in even a single point.

4. " Non-notable subject seems like a promotional article for Sony lenses." - Non-notable according to what criteria and to whom? If it was not notable, people would not waste their time documenting and cataloguing the company's products, and publishing books on the subject.

5. "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." - by that definition, and the evidence I have just shown you, the list passes this argument. Yes it is correct that the website Dyxum and Mhohner are both a combination of self-published and user-contributed, but that is the general nature of this kind of subject matter that is niche. It is frankly odd and outdated point of view that Wikipedia would consider a self-published book as a reliable, expert source, but not holding the internet to the same standard.

That does not address the notability criteria but it is certain that despite these being user-contributed and self-authored set of facts, that the sources are reliable. The article/list is consistent with the majority of technology and product-related lists published on Wikipedia, which would all just as easily fail the same criteria of apparently not being notable and not coming from self-published sources.

Please take note: The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists

Not every item of the list needs to be notable in order for it to be included - the products do not need their own pages. The list topic is notable because it has been discussed by independent (not Sony), reliable sources. The list topic has been notable since its inception as it was in conjunction with the world's first integrated autofocus SLR system.

There are already quite a few articles on individual products on the Wiki, as exists for many other areas. The list was not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I fail to find another List for Deletion proposal where the same reasons can be given for deletion. There cannot be a completely encyclopedic relevance to any of the lenses on their own or not containing the whole, there it is not an indiscriminate list or topic. There are hundreds of photographic equipment companies that are largely not notable, and therefore do not exist on the Wikipedia but in, essentially, other subject-focused reference Wikis. It would be unsuitable for those places to be the only source of information on this photographic system (and by logical extension, all others). If the self-published sources is the only issue, one not even raised in the original arguments by those proposing deletion, then there is pletny of information that can be sourced from news media such as DPReview, ePhotoZine, Asahi Shimbun, DxoMark, Lenstip for points of factual information. We are not discussing if each product is independently notable, which is to mean that they require or deserve their own pages. The list itself, as part of the whole system, is notable. Does being third-largest by market-share not make the 'product class' notable alone? If something was third-largest in the world, you would expect there are 'substantial' news sources, yes? It is clear that those asking for deletion did not investigate this. Achrom (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay so, do you have any sources to show me, or are you just going to complain about everyone else? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please check the above sources, and address the arguments if concerns remain. You can do this by clicking onto the sites, and using the buttons and search bars for navigation to related articles. Achrom (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on the person requesting reversal of an AfD close to show that there are sufficient sources to justify retaining an article. The sources you posted above are not sufficient, per my earlier comment about user-generated databases. It's not my responsibility to do your research for you, so you can go ahead and use those search bars yourself. Or you can take the close to deletion review for additional review. Either's fine with me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability of lists is based on the group, not the individual items. The database references are useful for resourcing the factual information in the list. The list should stand on its own because it correspond closely to the related Sony encyclopedia articles, and is consistent with all major camera brands on the Wiki. I provided you with the names of commercial entities that have reported on Sony lenses - you chose not to look at them. You are not doing any due diligence, as you did not when you deleted it in the first place. I don't expect you to do my research and provide me with resources - I already know where they are, because I am knowledgeable of the topic - as you should not expect anyone else to do for you. The only onus is on you to follow Wikipedia's content and deletion policies correctly, and exercise a sound judgement based on the deletion discussion which was not possible because the arguments were not properly presented, referenced, or supported by Wikipedia's policies. The information for the article is there, whether you or the editors proposing deletion wrongly choose to look at them or not. I do not possess a higher ability to Google search than anyone else.

Instead of writing a new article, I am explaining Wikipedia's own content policies and guidelines to you in order to illustrate why the deletion was incorrect in the first place. You are refusing to acknowledge or explain why Wikipedia is incorrect, or why the guidelines do not apply in your opinion. You are not using the policies and guidelines to support your rejection of firstly, the page as a whole, and secondly, the possible sources and references that should have been used to improve the article - based on whatever flaw you perceive there was besides a lack of supportive referencing. The list article was properly structured, it was consistent with other stand-alone lists more broadly and especially within the same category. It had an appropriate text lead that was non-promotional. Per the length and detail of the list, it was clearly decided long ago that it would not be appropriate for inclusion in the other, related Sony articles.

The deletion was a violation of Wikipedia's own Articles for Deletion policy.

For example:

"You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

- A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.

- You agree with the consensus that has already been formed."

Are you unfamiliar with the topic? Yes. Do you have a bias for deletion? According to your own page, yes.

If editing can improve the page, this should be done before deletion proposal, where content disputes are only deleted in the most severe of cases. The page should have been tagged for improvement - I don't believe it was. According to Wiki deletion guidelines: "If, in a deletion discussion, you refer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are responsible for making a good faith effort to represent those policies or guidelines accurately." This was not done by those proposing deletion, and not properly adjudicated by you.

So, I cannot force you to look for sources that you insist are not there, just as I cannot force you to read Wikipedia's content guidelines and respond to the arguments made in a proper format, rather than being uncivil (according to Wikipedia) and copy-pasting a prior snide remark. At this point, with the evidence of notability (have more: https://www.dpreview.com/news/8983805391/ap-partners-with-sony-to-exclusively-provide-its-visual-journalists-with-sony-camera-gear & https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1348083745/sony-interview-600mm-f4-200-600mm-launch & https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/4410376132/sony-engineer-interview-g-master-lens-design & https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-launches-new-g-master-brand-of-interchangeable-lenses-28811) that has been provided (and for heaven's sake, I am not referring to the databases), then I am really not sure what your problem is with the page or its content - or even its significance to the rest of the encyclopedic Sony articles - at this point... because you are not using words.

You are not even being consistent. First it is the reliability of the sources. Then it is the notability of the whole topic. Then you want news sources - as proof of what? It's an informational list. Here, an announcement by Sony on the camera lens mount was endorsed 4-leading consumer optics manufacturers: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/basic-specifications-of-sony-s--e-mount--to-be-released-15587 Their Alpha camera and lens products have won numerous EISA retailer-association awards. Their product announcements receive independent, non-advertiser coverage at one of the world's largest photographic retailer which go beyond the basic press-release: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-high-resolution-sony-g-master-full-frame-e-mount-lens-line

They have a partnership and licensing agreement with Zeiss for lenses using the Sony lens mount: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/autofocus-zeiss-t--lenses-to-be-released-for-sony-alpha-3138

Their announcements in the worlds largest Photographic industry fair receives enthusiastic press coverage: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-lens-roadmap-2015-plus-new-fe-full-frame-lenses-26187

The number-one largest photographic equipment and lens rental company in the USA independently tears the lenses down and optically tests them to report on both innovations and methods in technical and mechanical development of the new products, but also the performance: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gmaster-emergency-tear-down/ & https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-g-master-lens-mtf-and-variance/

A whole edition of アサヒカメラ Asahi Kamera, Japan's largest and longest-running photographic journal, was dedicated to the Minolta Alpha system as it was before Sony purchased it wholesale, keeping the majority of products unchanged and continuing to develop new lenses.

With all of that out of the way: the list provides useful information complimentary to existing related encyclopedic articles, but is too large and too detailed to be included as a matter of formatting and therefore should stand alone. When there were issues with sourcing, referencing, citations - whatever - that was not to be addressed by deletion, per Wikipedia's own policies. Achrom (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You're wall-of-texting me, which I hate, accusing myself and others of vandalism and malice and all kinds of bad faith, which I hate, and you're accusing me of inconsistency, which, no. The references you provided were not reliable, which means they cannot be used to support keeping the article on notability grounds. I use the word "news" sources to distinguish from the kind of database listing you were presenting. That's perfectly internally consistent.

At this stage, we're obviously not going to come to an agreement here. I recommend you take this to deletion review, where other experienced editors will review my close and see whether it was a) in accordance with policy, as you claim it wasn't and I am fairly confident that it was, and b) whether the sourcing you assert exists is sufficient to overrule consensus and resurrect the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

>You're wall-of-texting me, which I hate - Oh diddums, tell me more about how you're just too lazy to read any of the replies or sources in full. If you don't want to put the effort into being an Admin, then maybe stop wasting your own time? Every text is a wall if you want it to be.

>Accusing myself and others of vandalism and malice and all kinds of bad faith - Not an accusation when it's merely a statement of fact. They are Wikipedia's own words. I get it, you're in tenure and were never going to admit to a simple mistake, because of a proudly confessed bias. When people who have no interest or knowledge of the topic, use half-sentence fragment arguments and tag unexplained references to misrepresent Wikipedia policy catch-alls (which is, according to Wikipedia's deletion policy: in bad faith) in order to delete a page that they do not care about and cannot be bothered to source or improve or at the very least tag it for such, then yes, according to the "widely accepted community standards" of Wikipedia's policy pages, that is bad-faith vandalism.

>The references you provided were not reliable, which means they cannot be used to support keeping the article on notability grounds. - You are so fixated on the "databases". I didn't ultimately expect you to move on from that, and you really fail to grasp the application of the notability criteria as it pertains to these kinds of lists. If your opinion on notability was the litmus test of all lists and their related topics on Wikipedia, the website would be vastly more sparse of them, and demonstrably a less useful encyclopedia.

>you're accusing me of inconsistency, which, no - This is so far, the 2nd most consistent thing you've done: not offer any argument in support of your view. A brick wall offers a wider range of reasoned views; it feels much the same to argue with one, yet.

I recommend you read this with regards to all non-database/UGC sources, and then take your decade refresher on lists and deletion procedure. They're numbered and very easy to follow, unlike my wall of text here. Achrom (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh

Since you noticed my attempts at Special:Diff/971999008, I'd appreciate your thoughts re the ensuing series of words ("discussion" doesn't quite fit, but it's progress?) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template editor privilege abuse. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ehhh I thanked without commenting for a reason. I don't know enough about template coding or the template editor permission to think my input will be game-changingly useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

{{Source assess table}} and {{Source assess}}

I use these when I suspect "something' abiut the article I'm reviewing or sending to AfD where the whole thing makes my antennae twitch. It removes wriggle room by possible UPE editors. It's a bit of a pain in the fundament to do, but helps stop them from taking over. There is a script, if needed. I prefer doing it the hard way! Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh aye, I've seen the templates before; Praxidicae and HighKing tend to bring them out as artillery on refbombed articles. I like to point them out in my closes as they're quite compelling and source analysis is a fuck of a lot of work that deserves recognition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to find the editor has to get my goat first! It's a great way of expressing that while being perfectly polite 😂👀🤪 Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One of life's great pleasures is finding a way to say "screw you" politely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't have sensibility and manners. You were rude.

May God forgive you for your huge blunder against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:118D:7D20:51DC:35D2:E004:64EB (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, what happened? – bradv🍁 11:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Aren't there forums or blogs for whiners like you to go grief? Praxidicae (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to the nature of my misconduct? I'd hate to waste my time praying about the wrong offense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Request

Since you were active, I am requesting if you could close the discussion at WP:RFP/NPR. I think the concerns there have been answered. Thank you for your time. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need; it's been less than a day. Barkeep is NPR coordinator, I don't even do NPR (in fact I actively avoid it), so I'm not going to step on his toes before he's even had a chance to respond. Be patient - this is a volunteer project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chocheng deletion

Hi,

I am the E-commerce and Social Media manager for the brand Chocheng. The company is expanding and they finaly decided to hire someone to take care of this.

I saw that the Wiki page was deleted after your discussion last May 29. I read your comments here , and I agree with them, the page was abandoned, with promotional tone and without enough reliable sources. But since I am here now I can improve them, many articles are available between: Vogue New York Fashion Week Observer Guild Magazine IRK magazine The Knockturnal

References

I wish to restore the page, and according to Wikipedia since you are the one who deleted it, you also have to power to republish it. Could you do that please? If not, do you know who or how?

I am open to any comments since I want to clean the page.

Thanks a lot

Chocheng (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Tom

Hi Tom, I see you've been soft blocked until you change your username, so that's going to be first on the docket to sort out. Your sources are not sufficient for me to override community consensus and restore the page. Please read our reliable sources policy so you'll understand the following comments: The Vogue one is sponsored content which is not independent, the NYFW page is literally a copy-paste of the content on the brand's own "About" page so it's not independent, the Observer listicle is about the designer not the brand (so interestingly it might support a claim to his notability), Guild Magazine appears to allow submissions from "creative professionals" so I'm going to guess that piece came from your marketing team, the piece from Irk is an interview which are not considered strong indications of notability, and the Knockturnal piece smells of PR and is in a narrow-audience online magazine. Basically, you have no sources that strongly support notability per our policies, so I'm not going to undelete the page. Lovely clothes though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Premeditated Chaos, Thank you so much for your impartiality and the details, I will dig into that and make sure that we will have good enough sources one day and without violating WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thanks for you commitment! Chocho2010 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Tom

Cheers, thanks for being cool about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dali

Greetings PMC! Thanks for your dedication to Dali :) The article is absolutely amazing! Please let me know if I can help you in any way with Georgian texts. Cheers! An emperor /// Ave 19:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aww thank you, that's very sweet! Actually, there is a Georgian paper I've been dying to look at but can't get translated since Google lens doesn't do Georgian yet, and the English summary is not that helpful. If I email it to you, could you have a look and see if there's anything worth including in the Dali article? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure! I'll gladly take a look. An emperor /// Ave 20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi PMC! So I've read it. It's about a man who is known as "White Mangur" that is said to be the "most famous son of Svaneti". He is credtied being a pure, honest and noble man who was leading a life of hunting and agriculture. He had a life that could afford Imeretian wine and Crimean bread. The paper analyzed that White Mangur held a unique position within Svaneti and his connection to Dali. It is said that once when White Mangur was hunting it got dark and he couldnt return back home so he went directly into a cave where Dali was known to live. He started fire in a cave and began preparing food, frying meat. And thats when Dali appears and asks in a threatening way how he in the world he dared to come into her place. But Dali, being a goddess, knew him as a noble hunter said she was graceful and would not hurt him as he was a "great man". White Mangur afraid for his life relaxed after hearing Dali say that. During a night Dali offered (didnt threaten) him to become her lover. White Mangur said "I would love to be yourlover, but I have a wife and kids". Dali said he shouldnt worry about them as long as he does keep it as a secret. After that they made love :) In the morning when White Mangur was supposed to leave Dali told him "if you ever find yourself in trouble just say my name and you will be safe". Indeed, story continues, once during a hunt White Mangur was attacked in the forrest by several people and badly injured, was about to die when he said "where are you my Dali?". Saying this and Dali appeared, safed him and cured his injuries in a second. As the paper puts it Mangur had a unique position in Dali's godly life and her love life, especially comparing to Betkil and others. I hope this helps PMC :) Cheers! An emperor /// Ave 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm, okay. Was there much in the way of analysis of the story? I think I found a version of the same story in the Virsaladze book that's already cited in the article, but it doesn't really analyse it in much detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically it tells a story and gives analysis and goes around circles about the same ideas or assumptions. I would say very trivial analysis and critical feedback into a paper. Also kind of repetitive. It is ending with the notion that Mangur's role in Dali's story is yet to be studied. Unfortunately not that much to extract. An emperor /// Ave 07:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, too bad. I was hoping there was a little more substance to it. I don't think I'll bother citing it, I just used the Virsaladze book instead and added a section to the article. Thanks for checking for me, I appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Unfortunately not much from that paper, but your improvements are absolutely amazing to Dali. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Help publishing a draft page

I'm so sorry to bother you and we actually spoke several months ago, when I had hoped that the actor Daniel Stisen's Wikipedia page be kept active.

The truth is that I'm contacting you now because an actor friend of mine, I believe, deserves to be included on Wikipedia.

His name is Mim Shaikh and he's an actor with some notable credits and with more to come.

I've created a draft page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mim_Shaikh but I just have no idea how to have it moved to the main Wikipedia.

I've tried looking into moving it, but this is not my forte.

I was really hoping to ask for your help.

I'd like to add more to the page that covers his accomplishments, but I'm at the limit of what I can do.

If there's anything that you can or would be willing to do, then I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeajesting (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get involved in reviewing drafts, sorry. You should submit it to WP:AFC for review, which you can do by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft and saving, then pressing the button that appears. However, before you do that, I'd advise adding sources aside from IMDB - IMDB is not considered a reliable indicator of notability, and you are guaranteed to be declined if that's your only source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in at the AfD. I would hate to get blocked. FYI, I participated in building the List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee Also wrote a few articles for buildings, there, so it is my interest. Regarding DV, he recently engaged in edit warring on the ARS page, and since August 8, he has only participated in three AfDs, and two of them were ARS nominated. We get some flak for being in ARS, and we got some non-collegial followers. You can check my contributions and see that I contribute much to this project, and my AfD !voting is like 30-35% delete. I do not fault you nomination on this list, some get deleted some get saved. So far i only contributed a photo to that list. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't thank me for that restoration; I didn't do it to benefit you. That comment reflects poorly on you, and I wanted it publicly visible so I could reply to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It is your opinion that it reflects poorly on me and I appreciate your opinion: I just do not share it ...and I also want the all comments to be visible. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that that comment was an example of civil discourse? Can you really not see that you're unnecessarily personalizing the dispute there by poking at his AfD voting? He has as much a right to use the ARS list (if that's even what he's doing, I don't know) to select which debates to participate in as you do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you are right about civility. Regarding your comments on his talk page... imagine being a contributor on ARS and reading your comments, or reading the comments of the admin who called us Arsholes (apparently not a personal attack). We are all working on this great project for free because we love it. I appreciate your efforts. Lightburst (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to the purpose of ARS and the rhetoric broken out by its members (not only at this AfD, but in general, and at the ANI). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I will respect that if you check my contributions. We are not some monolithic block mindlessly !voting. I probably did not participate in a majority of what is on that rescue list. If an article should not be at AfD we work on it, and we win some, lose some, and get DYKs for some. I am sure when JW started WP he had collegial editing in mind. If a subject is not notable no amount of work will save it. I nominated two articles tonight because I thought they were notable, Todd Krasnow which I am improving now, and the list you nominated. The next 7 nominations on ARS I participated in zero. There are about four of us who are active there and we cannot change the outcome of an AfD unless the topic is notable. I hope to someday change your mind about ARS. Here is a tallest building from the ARS list that we could not save so it languished - no ARS members tackled it. Lightburst (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoring Deleted Article - Funke Adepoju

Hello! Thank you for all your work so far. I was working on a page for Nigerian eponymous designer Funke Adepoju last year, but couldn't give it all my attention at the time. The page was deleted because the subject wasn't notable enough. The designer has done some more work, and has a few more features, and I was wondering if this would be enough to consider restoring and updating the page. (TheCxcx (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

Are there any additional sources? Per the header at the top of the page, I generally want to see sources before I consider a request for restoration. Please review other discussions on this page to see what kind of bad sources to avoid. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. These are the updates from this year and last

   > https://www.bellanaijastyle.com/funke-adepoju-emotions-collection/ -  2020 collection: Emotions
   > https://www.bellanaijastyle.com/funke-adepoju-adunni-collection/ - 2019 collection Adunni 
   > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3t2CM90Wu0 - Guaranteed Trust Banks’ Smart Kids Save Fashion DIY class with Funke Adepoju for Children’s Day 2020

TheCxcx (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, and the other two links are just collections of photos without any in-depth content. Please review our reliable sources guideline and previous discussions on this page before you post here again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kindness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:797:C48A:8976:F06C:327C:DE75 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what I did, but glad to have done it I guess? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)