User talk:SVTCobra/Archive 2

Proposed deletion of Kristeligt Dagblad

The article Kristeligt Dagblad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't know if an article-that-is-just-an-infobox counts as WP:SPEEDY A3, so also proposing deletion as containing no substantive content as well.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get much of a chance. It is already gone. Meanwhile, fact remains that this is a real print publication. But thanks for the heads-up.--SVTCobra (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, I was also speedying it. WP:ITEXISTS is not sufficient to have an article -- you need actual reliable sources and an actual articulation of notability (which in this case also means an actual articulation of something -- the deleted article was just an infobox). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: Well, it seems your time would have been better spent on improving the article than trying to speedy-delete it. I told you it was a real newspaper. Cheers and happy editing, SVTCobra (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

G7/G8

Sorry to bring up something from 2008, but people still tend to get confused, telling me the G7 doesn't exist anymore or that the G8 went back to being the G7. In 2007 I tried to change both article (adding about 1/2 a sentence to each of them) to relfect their combined history. To the G8 I mentioned that in fact the G7 does still exist, but it's only meetings of finance ministers and central banks now. To the G7 I pointed out that formerly it had had heads of state meet, but that these meetings had now been supplanted by the G8. Both edits were deleted, the G7 one by you, a number of months later. You commented that people should stop confusing G7 and the G8. Do you still feel the G7 shouldn't mention the old heads of state meetings? If you feel differently I think I'll add something to that effect again. If you feel the same, could you say a little more as to why? Jethro 82 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reach for consensus

Since you are a listed member at Wikipedia:WikiProject Badminton I am inviting you to reach a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton regarding the format of brackets for tournaments, particularly the Super Series competitions.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Myers

Per WP:DABLINKS, "There is not always a need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. However, for some topics this is a good idea. For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote point to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation), since many users might not know that there is more than one treaty with this name, and we can't predict what external search engines will link to. In other cases, such a hatnote is not necessary. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris", and most users will know to type Solaris in the search box to find other topics." --- In this case, there isn't any other variation of Michael Myers for Halloween that would be confused here. If you go to Michael Myers, you get the disambig page. As a matter of fact, Michael Myers (disambiguation) redirects to Michael Myers. So, there isn't the likelihood that someone would come to Michael Myers (Halloween) by accident, and need to be redirected to the disambig page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pan American Badminton Confederation Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pan American Badminton Confederation Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SVTCobra. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

CIreland (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Tyson Fury

Good spot. WBO Inter-Continental title indeed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alochidi

A tag has been placed on User:Alochidi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Drm310 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: I don't care. I moved it into user space as it basically is that guy's CV/profile. Trying to give the Nigerian a break. SVTCobra (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Middle Eastern Countries by Population

Some comedian keeps removing Israel from the list. Please revert the article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C008:1F50:D10C:2261:2326:3E5D (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Same article. some comedian removed the Christian population from Lebanon. The number listed is 4 million, but the total population, including Christians is 6 million.

March 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Brianna Wu, you may be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Having a discussion on a talk page about legitimate concerns is now considered disruptive editing? Are you out of your mind? Methinks you are the troll in this matter! I AM NOT ADDING DEFAMATORY CONTENT!!! --SVTCobra (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The assertion you made on the article talk page most certainly is defamatory. If you repeat it or anything like it, I will open an Arbitration Enforcement request and ask that you be topic-banned from editing Brianna Wu's biography, as you will have shown yourself to be incapable of behaving in a neutral, responsible and respectable manner with respect to that topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to attack those you perceive as your enemies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was not an assertion. It wasn't even a proposition. You don't seem to know how language works. Furthermore, it was not even written on the article page, so the quoted policy does not apply for that reason alone. Brianna Wu is not my enemy and for you to think so shows an undue affinity for her on your part. My only "enemies" are those who circle the wagons to whitewash articles because they are ideologically aligned with them. You are protecting a political candidate from having controversial statements, that they themselves made, appear on their biography. No attempt was made to reword or edit what I added to the actual article. It was simply reverted with a barrage of inapplicable policy mentions on the talk page. That is not acting in good faith. That is scrubbing actual facts from Wikipedia. My only mistake was that I let my frustrations get the better of me, and I used hyperbole and 'naughty' words on the talk page. Have a nice day. SVTCobra (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

PS ... do I need to remind you that it is also against policy to intimidate other editors?

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Billions (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SEC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DPL bot. I assumed it was going to a redirect page instead of a disambiguation page. I will fix immediately. (I know I am replying to a bot, but just in case anyone peruses my talk page.) --SVTCobra (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Source - Please Read.

"And even after Margarito, a U.S. citizen with an American passport, changes his address, that's likely to remain the same." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/23/sports/sp-margarito-mosley23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danggoshdarn (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Go to page two of the article for the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danggoshdarn (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFD

The instructions on how to do RFD are at WP:RFD#HOWTO. Please follow them. ~ GB fan 23:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Idyllwild-town-crier.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Idyllwild-town-crier.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, MifterBot. You are too efficient. Fair-use rationale has been added. Thanks for the edit-conflict, too. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema

The article Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No WP:SIGCOV. No indication this meets WP:EVENT or WP:GROUP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Morten-frost 400x401.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Morten-frost 400x401.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

B-bot ... Truly a sad state of affairs. After more than 10 years, Wikipedia will no longer have an image of Morten Frost. Why has Wikipedia chosen to not recognize that educational, non-profit purposes such images are fully qualified under "fair-use". It's absolutely ludicrous. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Observer Media Group

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Observer Media Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: Do you think you could give me a few minutes to develop the article? I just started it 30 minutes ago! Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: I have completed my edits for this day. I have voluntarily tagged it as a stub, but I feel this company merits an article. I sincerely hope you remove the speedy tag. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Observer Media Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Observer Media Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observer Media Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SVTCobra. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Denmark" in English Wikipedia

Hello, SVTCobra. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Denmark" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot!
123.150.182.180
17:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @123.150.182.180 and 123.150.182.177:. 2019 in Denmark already exists. Happy New Year! --SVTCobra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Holly Conrad draft

Hello, I've recently started a draft article for Holly Conrad at Draft:Holly Conrad. I was wondering if you could take a look and see if it deserves to be an article on Wikipedia? ExuberantRaptor (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied on the draft talk page. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ProJared, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DPL bot.--SVTCobra (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin

Friendly reminder that you are now at the limit of 3RR on that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But at least now the IPs can't gang up on me. --SVTCobra (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to self-revert, though -- you've now exceeded 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take my chances. Restoring to the last stable version after an Administrator took action is not likely to count towards WP:3RR. I had hoped the Admin would have done it, but they chose not to. --SVTCobra (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, BLP issues are an exemption, which this clearly is. --SVTCobra (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin (2)

I agree with you that the statements are clearly jokes (though disgusting insofar as they singled out a particular woman and predictably led to harassment of her). But we have to go off of RS, and many RS take the statement seriously to an extent. ALso there is a police investigation of the statements. GergisBaki (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What is RS? I have asked three times now, you have yet to answer! Do you mean reliable sources? Name them, then! And they better be in the RefList or you are adding unsourced information. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please make further replies at Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Lead_-_AGAIN and not here or your own talk page. Thanks. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Check the talk page again. I'm trying to AGF and develop a version of the lede that addresses all of our concerns. Are you willing to work together? I'm interested in hearing your criticism but no personal attacks or moralism please. GergisBaki (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SVTCobra reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: ). Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting, especially since I have been trying to stop a BLP edit war. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wumbalo, I want to let you know that I have filed my defense on the noticeboard. I see they have given you a second chance to re-file your charges, but I feel obligated to let you know we are using the same evidence. Did you not see where I acknowledged WP:3RR and already explained the exemptions when it comes to administrative action and preventing BLP violations? Do you have a beef with me or was it "just because"? It took me a lot of time to string together all those diffs and it was not welcome. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, following instructions, were you? You knew what was happening at Carl Benjamin and you thought this would help things? Well, I can only hope you explain yourself. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are you still reverting the page? I note that my question on AN3 remains unanswered. El_C 03:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying 24 hours had passed is effectively gaming 3RR. I chose not to block in this case and instead protect the page for a week, but for future reference, less lenient admins would block you for that. Now you have a week to try to reach consensus on the talk page (if you do so before then, let me know and I'll unprotect it early). El_C 03:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern that

I don’t know what entertains you about stalking my contributions on this website and "tattletaling" as if this is a kindergarten, but I’m well within my editorial rights to move a draft I created and someone else who largely contributed to it submitted. If you have a problem with that, oh well. Mind your own business or get some. Trillfendi (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Get some what? Do you suffer from some sort of persecution complex? I am well within my editorial rights to look at, and question, any edit on this entire website. When something is beyond my personal expertise, I am also free to ask other editors for advise. Anything and everything is 'my business' if I choose it to be. Have a good day. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Get some business to mind, a life, and stop worrying about MY page creations and moves. Oh but you’re worried about my "patterns". Trillfendi (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen, if you aren't going to abide by the draft review process, just prepare your articles in a sandbox and make them live when you are done. It is unfair to waste the reviewers time if you are just going to ignore their evaluation. Also, as a self-professed "deletionist" you seem to be working on a lot of articles on obscure models. It's a strange dichotomy methinks, but whatever. You do you. Is this confrontational style you are displaying here another one of your patterns? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read that I wasn’t the one who even submitted it? Oops, would you look at that other editors on this website know what they’re talking about too. Anyway, I advocate deletion of articles of abysmal sourcing or no expressed notability. Just because you don’t know an hot damn thing about fashion doesn’t mean a model isn’t worth an article; if Vogue (I’m sure you’ve heard of it) takes note of them to write articles about their season or go as far as to call them a top model or supermodel; clearly they’re doing something right. I wrote Slick Woods’s article before even Rihanna knew who she was. It’s not a dichotomy, it’s not mutually exclusive, and it’s really just common sense. Get some culture. Gigi Hadid isn’t the only model in the world. Someone doing Calvin Klein and Giorgio Armani ad campaigns can’t be that obscure.... 🍻 Trillfendi (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you weren't so rude and confrontational in your interactions with me, I would have never even clicked your name. Have you ever thought about whether your conduct is getting you unwanted attention? But yes, just being in a Calvin Klein ad doesn't automatically make you notable if no one ever learns your name. By contrast, do you think actors in car commercials are notable? What if the commercial was for a prominant and prestigious automaker and played during the Superbowl and hundreds of millions of people saw that actor? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You and others like you have a disarming misunderstanding about what makes a model notable based on pure, blithe ignorance on the subject. But thankfully that’s why we trust reporters at Vogue, the New York Times, Elle, etc. for the facts of notability; not opinions of Wikipedia users. Modeling and acting are two completely different things and have different notability thresholds on this website. Trillfendi (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I never said Birgit Kos was not notable. In fact, I specifically mentioned I was not an expert in this field. This discussion has given me cause to look at her a bit more and she may actually be notable. But don't flatter yourself on your sources in the article. You are usually quick to bash sources as not being reliable, but Birgit Kos cites Fashionista which is a blog. Models.com is cited five times and it allows user contributions which disallows it as a reliable source just like IMDB. I'm not sure if Models.com is an IMDB for modeling or a site for agencies, models and photographers to make contact with each other, but it doesn't seem like a great source. The article also cites Net-a-Porter and H&M both are retailers, so you might as well cite Walmart if they had a "meet our models" section. At least one of the Vogue references doesn't even seem to contain Birgit Kos. The New York Times isn't cited, but you probably meant The Times and it's a very good source, an actual interview. I do not see Elle used as a source. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I was giving examples of other articles that have used New York Times (which has a very reliable fashion department) and Elle as a source that have been shot down; but of course when it’s "other" models’ articles all of a sudden it’s good enough for the goal post moving editors. Their hypocrisy makes me laugh at this point. Fashionista is a blog but they have an editorial department and reliable fashion reporting, it’s not a random teenager in her basement writing these things. Given that source was only intended for verifying her birth place in the infobox it’s irrelevant. Despite the fact they still pointed out over 10 jobs. Models.com is not in any way comparable to IMDb which almost solely relies on user contributions to be approved by data editors. Models.com have never allowed user contributions besides occasional comments or annual Readers’ Choice voting sections.... The Artist database that no casual observer would even know what it is is completely different than the website. That’s not where information about models is. For 20 years Models.com has been the premiere online publication for reporting models’ careers but certain people "on this website" don’t realize that due to either personal incredulity or cognitive dissonance. They have a masthead for a reason. Net-a-Porter and H&M have actual magazines (Porter Magazine is like a Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, etc sold where people buy any other magazines. The Edit is their online version; and H&M Magazine which used to be in their stores but went online years ago) they aren’t exclusively used to advertise clothes, they actually have articles. People who know fashion know that. Comparing them to Walmart is like comparing an Apple Watch to a Casio. A Montecristo to a Black & Mild. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I was in the store just now, and did indeed see "Porter" magazine for sale. As I have stated, I am in inclusionist and believe Birgit Kos is plenty notable, but the article wasn't ready. I will happily fight against the deletion and work to improve the article just as I did for Tati Westbrook. I hope you won't fight me at every turn. BTW, Fasionista does not mention her birthday, just her age. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Do you by chance have a Flickr or Yahoo account? I'll explain later. SVTCobra (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I said birth place not birthday. Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry, but does that leave the birthday unsourced? --SVTCobra (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeffree Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Charles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --SVTCobra (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox embedding

Hi there I had a small doubt, why was the YouTube infobox removed and merged with the Twitch infobox on the page Pokimane?. Thank you. Delta fiver (talk) , 09:32 ,17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Technically, nothing was removed. Per MOS:INFOBOX it generally considered that articles should have only one infobox, but when two or more are applicable they can be combined into one. There are a couple of ways of doing it. I think embedding is the cleaner way of combining infoboxes, but it can also be done with the subbox feature. Subbox would retain the red colors from the Youtube infobox. It is just a personal preference of mine to use embedding. If you are unfamiliar with the syntax, I can switch it to the subbox layout for you to take a look at. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, I would like to see and educate myself on the difference, If you don't mind could you show it to me, please. Thank you. Delta fiver (talk) , 10:23 ,17 June 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the edit, it does look a bit better with the colors :). Delta fiver (talk) , 10:23 ,17 June 2019 (UTC)

A little help

Hi, since you had replied to me, I was wondering if you could help out at my draft Fedmyster. I have done a lot for the draft these past few months and other Wikipedians had not replied when I asked for help. Could you please take a look and maybe improve it, or tell me what needs to be done to make it better, or even if its good enough to end up in the article space. Thank you :). Delta fiver (talk) , 10:37 ,17 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked at it and the sources. To be honest, I don't know what I could do to help the article besides formatting and fixing the section on the Fed7 emote (you missed the very important fact the numbers were artificially inflated per the source). The truth is neither his Twitch channel nor his YouTube channel are big enough to make him notable. The only notable thing is him being a part of Offline TV. (Getting banned on Twitch is not notable, every day many small channels are banned.)

Members of some of the largest rock bands don't have their own articles on Wikipedia. If you want, I could create a redirect from his name to Offline TV. That way, anybody who types his name into Wikipedia will get that article. Other than that, I don't see what I can do. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, does creating a redirect to his name, still display all the information I had added in?. Delta fiver (talk) , 18:58 ,17 June 2019 (UTC)

No, a redirect will just display (or take the user to) Offline TV and not information in your draft. Or maybe I misunderstand your question. It will display what you have added to Offline TV, of course. A redirect can point to Offline TV or Offline TV#Fedmyster (clicking these two links will show what they see first). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to redirect it then, I'll wait for him to do something notable in the near future, thank you for your time!. Delta fiver (talk) , 07:11 ,18 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to have redirects for all the members of Offline who don't have their own articles. It won't hurt your Draft. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright go ahead :D. Delta fiver (talk) , 09:10 ,18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keven McDonald

Hello,

I'm Keven McDonald (yes, it's actually me). I want to thank you for the positive feedback you gave me on my talk page. A few days ago I set about correcting and updating a wiki page about me that was created by someone else. My goal was to tighten up some of the slightly inaccurate historical information, make some updates to the information box and most importantly fix some of the poor grammar, syntax and sentence structure. Finally, I wanted to add my photo to breathe some life into the page. What an adventure!

With respect to the picture, that issue is being resolved. Penn is claiming copyright and I've sent the form given to me by JGHowes along to the Athletic Department for their review. One of your colleagues called my reaction to the photo issue as "belligerent". To that I will admit to being annoyed at not being able to put my picture on a page about me. I've since come to better understand Wiki's position relative to copyright and, as mentioned, it's being resolved.

As for the other editions, even though everything I updated about myself is completely factually correct I've received feedback from some of your colleagues saying the editions were "unconstructive", "self interested" and "self promotional". In the information box I updated my education level and included some athletic awards omitted on the original page. In the body of the page I also included an update to my education (law school) and the fact that I currently operate my own business. With respect to my own business, I have seen inumerable wiki pages where the subject's business or current place of work was included so I didn't think this was an issue. I find it ironic that if an anonymous writer includes these things it's fine but if the subject includes accurate occupational information it's "self interested". One thing should be mentioned here, in one of my edits I did link back to my website. That was wrong. I should have taken a deeper dive into Wiki's rules before doing that. The link was removed.

Anyway, I want to thank you again for the positive and constructive feedback. Please pass this along to any of your colleagues who you feel should read what I've said here.

By the way, you mentioned you might be able to help me with the photo I tried to upload. As I mentioned above, JGHowes sent me a form which I sent to Penn's Athletic Department for their consent to release it to Wikipedia. I would welcome any insights or advice you may have. Otherwise, it's now a matter of waiting for Penn to decide if they'll release it or not.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

Hello again "SVT",

I recently received this from one of your colleagues:

I can appreciate that this process has been frustrating. Sadly, we find ourselves in this situation quite often. First, I'd like to point out that although an article might be about you, you are exactly the wrong person to edit it because of your conflict of interest. Because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, many people (and businesses) seek to edit/control the article where they have some equity and we (the volunteer editors) are under what feels like continuous assault from these people. This is probably why Wikipedians tend to be insular and prefer to only deal with other long-term well-accomplished volunteer editors rather than the self-interested drive-by editors. We want the objective best result for the encyclopedia not the specific parochial interests of involved parties tainted by money. Second, over the past decade we've developed a lot of sitewide rules that may seem both obscure and silly to outsiders like you. Again, we deal with tens of thousands of biographies and our solutions might not be to your liking. Finally, my advice to you is to simply forget this article exists. It will only be a sore point for you as you are both powerless to negotiate our bureaucracy and you are dis-empowered from preventing outright vandalism let alone honest disagreements. Honestly, those that have had the most success were journalists able to use their platform to write about Wikipedia's system of business and perhaps attract favorable coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

Frankly, all of this is approaching the realm of absurdity. All I did, as the subject of the page, was to add some accomplishments, tighten up the history, fix some bad writing and attempt to upload a photo. Again, the photo issue is being reviewed by Penn. Any editions I made were completely factual without enhancement or embellishment. Just facts. I have to admit SVT that the logic of some of the comments above completely escapes me. For instance:

1. "First, I'd like to point out that although an article might be about you, you are exactly the wrong person to edit it because of your conflict of interest."

What?? So, the person in the best position to provide accurate edits and updates, the person who's life is subject of the page, has no interest in making sure their life is portrayed correctly? By this logic someone could create a page about someone else that is completely incorrect (perhaps even intentionally false or malicious) and if the subject steps forward to correct it they are deemed to be a "self-interested drive-by editor" and an "outsider" "tainted by money". That is an interesting, if curious, conclusion to jump to.

2. "Finally, my advice to you is to simply forget this article exists."

Again, what?? That comment is absurd on its face.

3. "you are both powerless to negotiate our bureaucracy and you are dis-empowered from preventing outright vandalism let alone honest disagreements."

SVT, I really need your help with this one. Perhaps this sentence sums up the reason why a simple update has led me into this wilderness; the preservation of power in the hands of a bureaucracy and anonymous content monitors. Strange, an original author can put up an incorrect and factually out of date page with apparent impunity but the subject of that page is "dis-empowered" from correcting and updating the page. Hmmm.

Thanks for hearing me out SVT and, again, pass this along to whoever you think should read this.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

@Kmacjdwiki:, I agree, Chris Troutman's messge was undiplomatic at best and insulting gatekeeping at worst. I haven't yet had the time to fully see the differences between your version and that by other editors. I've only glanced at it so far. But I have noticed your law degree and real estate business have been incorporated into the current version of the article. At the same time I can see that your version included your current business name in all capital letters in the lead. That is the type of thing which sets off warning bells about using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Now, I have googled that business name and the only exact match I get is one based in Elgin, Oklahoma. Is that the one? If you have indeed relocated, are you still a member of NJSBA? Anyway, we should leave discussion of what goes into the article for Talk:Keven McDonald and not here.

I presume what JGHowes gave you was a form for Penn to send to OTRS. If it doesn't work out with Penn, an alternative could be a nice recent portrait photo which you definitely own all the rights for. We can get that uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, no problem. Well, I am afraid, that's all I have for now. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

SVT,

I received yet another notice since the above conversation. This time from "SportsGuy789" who instructed me to refrain from further editing of the page until I join the Conflicts of Interest "discussion". He suggested the discussion should be done on Colton's talk page. You can go there to see my latest post.

As I mention on the post, I don't know what's left to discuss. What I can say is that in the brief paragraph above you have given me more useful information than all the clack I've gotten so far. You are the only only one who has pointed to concrete items that caused the red flags.

First, let's address the business name. It's in all caps because that's the way it is on the business cards, letterhead and website (https://www.mcdonaldpropertiesllc.com). If you visit the site you'll notice that wherever the name appears it's in all caps. I put it in all caps on WIKI merely to be consistent. That issue could have been resolved very easily with Wikipedia if they would have told me of that specific concern rather than send me a plethora of vague notices and directions to an endless stream of articles. Let me hasten to add that on one edition I did, in the External Links section, link back to my site to try to get some search engine optimazation (SEO) juice. Once I realized it violated policy it was immediately corrected.

Yes, I did update the law school information in both the information box and within the body of the page. I really don't see how updating my educational information to include law school could possibly raise a red flag. Perhaps you could tell me.

Yes, the form sent to me by JGHowes is one that Penn has to send back to "Commons" something or other. Whatever, I sent it to Penn's Athletic Department.

What I need help with now SVT is WHAT PRECISELY HAS TO HAPPEN FOR MY EDITS AND UPDATES TO BE ALLOWED? I don't know what's left to discuss. I need exact information on what needs to be done and when and how we can put this odyssey to an end. I don't need another notice. I don't need to be directed to another article. The picture issue is being handled. The edits in the information box and in the text are harmless. The business name in all caps has been explained. If it will eliminate the concern that I'm nothing more than a money-grubbing "drive by editor" I will happily use lower case letters.

I would REALLY appreciate if you forwarded this message where you think it will do the most good.

Thanks again for you useful and SPECIFIC help. Kmacjdwiki (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

All – I will clarify the exact issues with the edits on the Keven McDonald talk page , but not right now. It's a plethora of things and will take a while to put together, which is why I haven't yet done so. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kmacjdwiki: The other editors are correct. You ought not edit the article. The one exception would be if someone maliciously vandalized the article or added something defamatory. You are allowed to revert such changes. What you can do at this point is start a new section at Talk:Keven McDonald and say change X to Y and give a reason. Any claim that is nontrivial needs to be verifiable.

I understand you may feel changes you have made are harmless, but Wikipedia editors have grown to be leery of self-edited pages. You might be surprised how often it has happened that an article was disingenuously edited by the subject. And perhaps surprised by the people who do it. Rob Ryan (entrepreneur) is one article, I recently cleaned up, which was self-edited. Rob Ryan is a remarkably successful businessman, but he edited his own page to overstate his achievements to a point where he was practically taking credit for inventing the Internet. The other thing he did was to turn his article into marketing for his latest business venture. It went undiscovered for far too long and it was shocking to learn a man who is conservatively worth hundreds of millions of dollars would do such a thing. So something seemingly trivial as adding your JD to the article could be an attempt at puffery.

I know you want this to be over and done with, but please be patient with us. These things can take time. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

SVT,

Once again, I appreciate your specific, reasoned and well thought-out explanations and instructions. Tomorrow I will do exactly as you instruct the same way I did exactly as Mr. Howes instructed me with respect to the photo issue. However, so we both are on the same page (no pun intended!) I need you to define what a "trivial" vs. "non-trivial" edition would be. As you say above, to me they are all trivial. with the exception of the photo which does involve legitimate copyright issues.

After your Rob Ryan experience I understand your concerns about the honesty of my editions. First, I did graduate from Rutgers Law School (Newark) in 1996. I actually went to law school at night while holding a full time job. However, on the wiki page I only mentioned where I went to law school and that I earned a JD. There was no Ryan-like embellishment.

Second, a quick trip to the internet will confirm all the athletic accomplishments I added to the information box. The one's from Penn, Big 5 and Ivy League are easy to find online. The Seton Hall Prep Hall of Fame award can be found if you Google "Keven McDonald Seton Hall Prep Hall of Fame" you'll be taken to a page that lists the inductees by the year they were inducted. Scroll down to 1987 and you'll see my name. Make sure you spell my first name correctly before Googling. Once again, I added them to the page without embellishment.

Third, all the grammar, syntax etc. changes I imagine you can find on the history page.

Fourth, any deletions or corrections should also be found on the history page.

Fifth, my business was included without fanfare as well. I didn't mention anything about the business whatsoever other than the name. No puffery, no salesmanship, just the name. I admit, I had no idea that the name in all caps could possibly be a problem. As I mentioned in a previous message it was done for consistency. Again, once I realized linking to my site from the Wiki page violated policy it was corrected.

I will inform you when I've done as you instructed. I would really like for you to be involved with this since you and Howes seem to be the only ones who can give me specific, helpful and straightforward information. Everyone else seems to only want to wallow in their gatekeeper position.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

Good morning, Kmacjdwiki. I will address your comments here with a numbered list corresponding to your first through fifth notation:

1. Adding that you studied law while holding a full-time job would be something which could be done since I have seen it referred to in at least a couple of sources. Ultimately, that's probably up to you to decide if it is important.
2. I am not an expert on sports articles, but per SportsGuy789's post here there are a number of long-established guidelines for what are considered notable for inclusion in the "highlights / awards" section of the infobox. He states that high school hall a fame and All Big5 Team are not notable per these conventions. To verify he is correct, I sampled a substantial number of Villanova player profiles (V for Victory!) and indeed high school and Big5 awards are never mentioned, even though I know they did earn them. Consistency is very important and it appears to have been implemented correctly on the Keven McDonald article.
3. SportsGuy789 goes into this in his post. I think he agreed with some but certainly not most. It is a nightmare to do more analysis in comparing the revision history on an article that has been edited so heavily. I'd rather focus on what is wrong with the grammar or syntax in the current version. But this should not include the use of shortened names for Seton Hall Prep and Penn in the infobox.
4. Again, let's focus on what is wrong with the current version. I have made a number of edits with sources.
5. Well, one doesn't need to be a marketing expert to know that ALL CAPS are used to make a particular name or phrase 'pop' off the page when compared to the other text. I am sure this is why you do it on your business cards and website. We wouldn't use all capital letters for Samsung even if that is how they write it on all their products, for example.

Lastly, I will go back to the trivial and non-trivial issue. If you told us your middle name is John, we would likely add it in the first line of the article (but not change the article name). No need to see a birth certificate. If you told us "I married Jane Doe and we have three kids," I would consider this trivial (I can't speak for all editors) and shouldn't require further documentation. However, if you told us "I am married to Halle Berry" it suddenly becomes non-trivial even though at their heart they are the same statement. I hope that clears it up. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi SVTCobra. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Onision logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Onision logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Outing

I reverted your edit. Posting off-wiki info on other editors is outing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not outing in this edit user self-identifies. I quote directly from policy: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia (emphasis mine). Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

AS far as I can see you did some research based on them identifying, and brought the external links you found back to Wikipedia. I see the user outs his identity, but not those links. When you bring outside information about someone's personal life on-wiki, it is outing. You don't get to fish around the web for info on their personal lives and then post it here. See this diff.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is one thing if a user uses their real name as their username and/or gives their email address. It is quite another to dig through their photo/twitter/etc accounts to make connections in a deletion discussion in order to discredit them. The functionaries have discussed this at length recently, and the outing policy basically boils down to "if they haven't posted it on Wikipedia, it should not be linked to." Please don't do it again. If you have any questions, or want to double-check the appropriateness of what you want to post, please feel free to shoot me or any other oversighter an email. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I guess I spent to much time on WP:COI where this is type of discussion which are held. It is not to discredit, embarrass, or harass. It is merely to establish a connection between editor and article, and writing promotional articles for the subject company would be one such connection. I realize now it was inappropriate for the deletion discussion as it was not the grounds for which the article was nominated. In that vein, you may wish to redact this edit, when I posted a similar link, but in this case to clear User:Msurtees10001 whom other editors were claiming to be Matthew Waldman and I showed he was not. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is indeed a new (or perhaps recently implemented) way of doing business, and I would not have mentioned it had I not read that thread where Doc James, and later Oshwah, pointedly say that the only kind of acceptable personal info that we can post on other editors is material they have posted themselves on wiki. No extrapolations, no incoming new links.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ProJared for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ProJared is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProJared until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yosemiter (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ProJared draft in my sandbox

Good thing that I saved the article's contents before it got deleted in AFD, even though there is a stronger consensus in keeping the article than deleting it. I'm not particularly pleased with the results of the AFD, and I don't think my deletion review here is gonna go anywhere, either. You can continue working on the article in my sandbox without any worry for deadlines. Take as much time as you need. You could move the draft to your own sandbox if you prefer that, instead. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I never really understood the deletionist mindset of some people. Well, you are going to have sit on that draft for at least a year, in my estimation, and hope somebody writes a book about ProJared. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, color me surprised. The deletion review is actually going somewhere, and the article has been temporarily undeleted to in order to review the sources. Here's the link. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I am darn near shocked. Everyone was endorsing the deletion. It's going to take a heck of a lot to overturn an admin's decision, though. They don't like to have egg on their faces. And they are right, it's not a democracy. Each 'vote' is just a recommendation for the closing admin to consider. --SVTCobra 13:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but I disagree with the Delete camp, and I don't think their side has provided any particularly well thought out arguments. This is one of the main reasons why I filed a deletion review - because I am unsatisfied with the result. I just find it kinda funny that the deletionists kept insisting that there weren't any reliable sources, even though there's like, close to 30 of them in the article. I'll see how this review pans out. Regardless, you won't have to worry about your time and effort being wasted on writing the article, because there's always the draft in my sandbox which you are more than welcome to expand until the deletionists no longer think it's delete-worthy. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi SVTCobra. Since Wikipedia deleted your article on ProJared, I've created a page for ProJared on Social Media Wiki, which has been set up specifically to host wiki pages that Wikipedia has deemed not to be "noteworthy" enough for an article. Feel free to create pages for other YouTubers as well if you'd like. Thanks! Smwnet (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Save "Mukesh Officials" Page

No One support artist from small village. If he work in digital agency means he also need to earn and help his family and by your process you never support artist than how he earn fame and earn from music. He work in agency and all no problem than say it his TV interview also fake. You can just ruin his career never help him. He left there because caste discrimination no one want he become big on. If you have heart than proof it and help him. Never you never help him because you can only ruin his life. Visit and watch his village you can understand what the feeling is. He belong from Barmer district and approx 26lac + population in barmer and he want to grow up because he already invest his 7 years in it. Please i request to you save his wikipedia and help him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaciwaa (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Listen. It is not Wikipedia's job to help him. The fact is, he is not a popular, successful, influential artist, yet. And if we "have heart" and help him, why not help all people in Barmer? Mukesh does not look poor. He has nice clothes, computers, smart phones, a job, etc. Wikipedia is not a site for promotion. --SVTCobra 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mukesh Officials

Remove all bad tags you set on Mukesh. You cant insulting an artist like that i just request remove all tags than i self remove this page in 2 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaciwaa (talk • contribs) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not how this works. There are no insults. --SVTCobra 11:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mukesh Officials

Delete it completely with all tags and talks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaciwaa (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't do that. It has to go through the deletion process. It looks like the backlog is about a week. Then an administrator will look at the votes and decide what to do. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Badminton World Federation (logo).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Badminton World Federation (logo).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)