User talk:Starblind

Non-believer

C'mon, I swear I'm God, why did you delete the page?! Now none of my broods will know of me. Rain-ash (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban?

I'm not sure what I did to upset you that much on the Transformers: Timelines deletion review. When I asked around as to how to get them looked at I was told to go to a deleiton review. Is there a better page to get opinions as a pre-deletion review perhaps? Some place where I can get an opinion as to whether sources justify an article? Mathewignash (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Spot on

[1] Exactly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computing subject at AFD

Is functions (AfD discussion)

You might want to go back to this one. Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Hello, Starblind. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanpop.com.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Vega

If a comic book artist had works published by a notable publishing company, that makes him automatically notable. Duh. --Stormwatch (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all. See WP:ARTIST. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Sedra Bistodeau - review?

Thanks for your support for deleting Khrystenn Asariah. That one went down messy (your vote actually got deleted by the creator of the article, at one point.[2]) But it went down.

On Sedra Bistodeau, however, I fear there's a rush to judgment. The initial AfD listing significantly understates her accomplishments. ("15 year old fiddler and student that won a local state fair contest." [3]) I've improved the citations, added some material. This has moved me from neutral to Weak Keep, but it's possible I'm starting to get too close to the subject. Briefly: she's won several national-level U.S. fiddling competitions, has been the sole subject of one RS newspaper article, and also of 5-1/2 minutes of public television documentary (albeit metropolitan/state TV, not national.) Your added input on the discussion (per WP:MUSICBIO guidelines) would be welcome; it's possible she still falls short. Yakushima (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to fix a questionable article have my respect, but I don't see anything so fundamentally different to reverse a vote. It seems to come down to whether the "National Old-Time Fiddlers Contest" is enough to pass WP:MUSIC on its own, like, say, winning a Grammy would be. I don't really think it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it would clarify matters, feel free to nominate National Old-Time Fiddlers Contest for deletion. WP:MUSICBIO says the won/placed contests have to be "major" -- maybe oldtime fiddling is irretrievably small-niche country music. And we might agree that WP:N is necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) for a contest to be considered "major". I'd even support a change to WP:MUSICBIO, to make that clear. I looked into the other national competition mentioned (which claims certification by National Oldtime Fiddlers' Contest (R)), and I suspect it hasn't quite gotten enough coverage for general notability. Maybe no oldtime fiddling contest could meet the requirement of "major". But with a 25,000 people showing up for the Weiser contest and its associated festival, how could anyone call it "small"? Yakushima (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, it has nothing to do with genre. Fiddling might be niche, but that in and of itself does not have any impact on notability or verifiability. Indeed, I'd even say the opposite is true, that unusal performers if anything have an advantage because they make a potentially more interesting news story. Teenager who wants to be like Britney Spears? Who cares? Teenager who's a virtuoso Siberian throat singer or accomplished at playing the serpent? Send a reporter over there! No, we have to look at the notability of the award and whether it can reasonably be said to confer notability on anyone who recieves it. Grammy, sure. Tony award, sure. BRIT award, sure. Fiddling contest held in the local high-school gym? Heck no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Require noting one's deletions of AfD votes and comments?

Your name and a comment you wrote arose in discussion of my proposed change[4] to AfD Wikiettiquette guidelines. I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter, particularly since it was one of your votes that got silently deleted in the Khrystenn Asariah Afd, leading to my proposal. Yakushima (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jory Rabinovitz

You deleted an entry on an artist that meets notability guideline: (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Socrates Sculpture Park is a very reputable art center and the award he received is notable to anyone in the field of contemporary art. Also, he has won 5 silver medal world championships in Pinball. The article might have used some work, but I don't think permanent deletion was called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinballfantasy808 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond, I have a question: do you have anything that might be considered a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Specifically, are you Jory Rabinovitz or a member of his immediate family or friends? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Sports League (2nd nomination)

As you commented in the previous AFD (closed as no consensus), you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Sports League (2nd nomination). NW (Talk) 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just punched it delete. (like the first, it was simply "next on the list") However, I stand by my first close. When article creators or other interested parties come to my talk page saying "why did you delete my article?", I need to be able to tell them "because there was a consensus to do so here and I didn't feel that I could do that with a straight face with the first AFD. (that's why I don't like to close "1 voters" as "delete"). Since it was a low risk article without any WP:V or WP:BLP issues, I felt that "no consensus" was the proper close in this case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

If you might take a look at the work performed on Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) and revist the AFD discussion, I believe a redirect and partial (and now sourcable) merge be done to the Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations... the one place where film adaptations of this children's tale have a reason to be mentioned in context. I also suggest a redirect of the film title to A) prevent a premature recreation and B) save the history so the redirect might be reverted and the article sourced if RS DVD reviews are found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray William Johnson

Hello, I see that you are the administrator responsible for salting Equals Three, the popular show name of Ray William Johnson. This article has now been created, and has stood for over a week without a deletion attempt. Could you please create Equals Three as a redirect to Ray William Johnson, as well as any other related pages which were repeated created, that I am unaware of? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article I want a hand in creating, though I have unprotected it per reasonable request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to weigh in?

Care to weigh in on The Hot Club of Detroit? (I for one am disinclined to partake of the holy deletion debate sacrament any time soon). James470 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Specials (internet TV series)

Hi there Starblind!

I have a question about a Wikipedia page I created for our web series about young adults with special needs called The Specials The page had been called The Specials (internet TV show) and was then moved on 1st August 2010 to The Specials (internet TV series). This new page was then deleted by yourself on 29th September 2010 on the grounds of A7 - "no explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content".

I was hoping you could advise me on whether you could Userfy this page so I could work on it (ideally with your guidance) and see if I could make it worthy of reinstatement? In terms of notability I was hoping The Specials would meet the criteria, though admittedly a lot of the following I had yet to add to the page:

We won the Webby Award and People's Choice Award for Reality category at the 14th Annual Webby Awards, we were also nominated in the Documentary Series category. We were finalists in the Original Series category in the Vimeo Awards 2010. We are currently nominees in the Banff International Pilots Competition. 'The Specials' has also been included in the TV Shows section of YouTube. Our series has been covered in the national UK press: The Guardian, BBC Radio 4, Ouch! BBC's disability website, .net magazine, The Brains Behind The Specials, September 2010. 'The Specials' is also an important web series for the learning disability community around the world and the housemates are listed in the Down Syndrome Wikipedia page.

Finally we are planning to bring out a new series later this year so our Wikipedia page would be destined to evolve. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this and I would be grateful for any help you can give me.

All the best

Katykada (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to move this article to the incubator so that it can be worked on (I agree it wouldn't be an A7 today), though if it's to be made into a real article it needs to be done with someone with no conflict of interest regarding the subject, as creating articles for things you own is highly discouraged. If I undelete it to the incubator would you agree to let it go and leave it up to other users without a conflict of interest? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew that's great. Appreciate your point about the conflict of interest, so I'm happy enough to hear that it will be moved to the incubator. Hopefully some of the show's fans may want to work on it instead. Excuse my ignorance but will it be easy for them to find it in the incubator? Cheers, Katykada (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, a blogger on disability issues based in the US is keen to write 'The Specials' wikipedia page. Could you confirm for me where the old page is? I have clicked on the above links and neither holds the previous content and I am not clear if either has been undeleted and moved to the incubator? Thanks again for your advice on all of this. Cheers, Katykada —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Specials - follow-up question

Hi Andrew, sorry to post a new section but you hadn't responded to either of my questions (above) so I thought maybe you hadn't realised they were there. I was hoping you could tell me where 'The Specials' wikipedia page now is - has it been undeleted and put in the incubator? Also which page is it? The Specials (Internet TV Series) or The Specials (Internet TV Show)? A blogger on disability issues from the US is willing to write the page and I wanted to let her know where it is and maybe access the old material including the photo we had uploaded. Thanks again for your advice on this. Cheers (Katykada (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi Andrew, ignore my posts on this page. I have sorted out the move to the incubator with another editor. All the best, (Katykada (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

No problem, had a short wiki-hiatus whilst traveling this summer but I'm back now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why ?

I can not believe you live in a country called the land of the free yet you hate me so much I can not even post about my traditional native spirtuality.I will pray for you my brother.No matter what you do I will always have love in my heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy shagalott (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Starblind! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

deleted ROACE

Hi,

I have noticed that you deleted the article ROACE. I cannot see what the deleted text was about, but I was, nevertheless, warned to contact an administrator who erased it. The admin is you. I plan to create an article on "Return on Average Capital Employed", which abbreviates to ROACE. It is a metric used in stock analysis. I have written many articles about such metrics and ratios, and this one is still missed. One of the last ones.

May I re-create the article?

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. I don't know what the deleted article was either, the only text in it was "ROACE", which was why it was deleted. It isn't protected or anything so you should be able to create a new one just fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your recent bizarre actions

Okay, so before you launch into personal attacks, perhaps you could engage with the current thread on WP:AN? And yes, I am aware that it is possible to cherrypick poor examples from my unprotections, and I am sorry for those mistakes, but I feel that they by no means undermine the value of unprotecting the rest. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert if you may

Hello, Starblind. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--George Ho (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Starblind,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of films considered the best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films considered the best 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/List of films considered the best 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you commented in before, has a sequel

The same articles in a previous AFD you commented in are at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley

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

Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False allegation

You have made an allegation in AfD that I have been "using the article as a means to bother [the subject] rather than improve the encyclopedia". This is both untrue and entirely without foundation. Unless you believe you can offer evidence of my motives to the contrary, I invite you to strike, or preferably remove, it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. And your failure to acknowledge your obvious misconduct has eroded any presumption of good faith (thugh admittedly, the fact that you've been at it literally for years meant there wasn't much of that left anyway). STOP PESTERING HAWKINS while you still have the opportunity to do so voluntarily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note your refusal to remove, and you repetition and exaggeration of, your false and baseless accusation, despite there being no shred of evidence to support it. Shame on you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

afd closure

I was asked a question about one of your closures, and commented, at [5] DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies...

I am the real person here, and I finally got my obsessive behavior under control. I have finally managed to control myself. Apparently the account Starkiller88 has been compromised early on in September 2007. I'd better avoid using this account. 115.133.222.178 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this IP for 24 hours for block evasion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just for info, he's been straight back to Fobos-Grunt again. I've blocked that IP for 24 hours too, and I guess we can semi-protect if he keeps coming back to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

I saw a comment or two you made in the past about the subject of this article being mistreated on this site. Is there something that can be done about a user on here who keeps posting controversial edits about her still? Can it be undone? Go to the page and you will see that he made the last edit, which doesn't seem right to add, and he just won't quit until something is done about him. In the real world, I work for an LGBT organization and I hear about people like her being harassed in indirect ways, just because of their orientation, and I hear it all the time. 74.115.212.21 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Huron

hi i saw you commented on the deleting of the article on this artist. i wrote a comment on the talk page [6] saying why i think it should exist with some sources. can i make the article?Happy monsoon day 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note this is thoroughly resolvedHappy monsoon day 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1, it appears you misunderstand what is being discussed. The current RFC is only about pending changes level 2, which would restrict all editors without the reviewer permission from editing, not just new editors. As I understand it there will be another RFC covering the scope of pending changes level 1, which is the one the effects only new editors. I don't know if it will effect your !vote, but I thought you may want to know. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, clarified slightly. Still thoroughly less than thrilled about yet another Pending Changes vote, and it seems we're being overly cautious to the point of absurdity. Wars have been started with much less debate and consideration than Wikipedia wringing its collective hands over pending changes. After awhile it all becomes a bit of a farce. See you at the inevitable next one, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by to say I've added a question (below), but to respond to this: absolutely, there's a cost to having even one RfC (it can easily frame things as a battle and limit useful debate), much less as many RfCs as we've had on Pending Changes. On the RfC on PC/2, though, if you look back through the supports from the last RfC, you'll see there was almost no mention of PC/2 or anything related to PC/2 (I count 3 mentions that are even tangentially relevant in the first 106 votes). So ... this is something that actually does need some discussion, and both supporters and opposers are saying some things that I'd really like to follow up on in committee work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question added after your vote

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Sooooo, Any chance you might be interested in running this year? : ) - jc37 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question but I'm not nearly active enough--I only have 10 edits in the past two months. I've mostly dedicated myself to travel this year and most of next year too. I don't think I'd be able to put the time in to be a good Arb anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for considering it : ) - jc37 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: we were apparently talking about apples and oranges

In Australia school newsletters and other publications are always written by staff members (usually either a teacher or one of the school's admin. officers), and then given to the Principal for approval. If there's student content included, then that is vetted first by their Teacher, or the Faculty Head Teacher, and then still goes to the Principal for approval. This is because there have been complaints about things written in school newsletters that were unverifiable, overly promotional or non-neutral and so on and so forth, and, hence, the need for executive approval (and they have departmental and statutory guidelines that they need to follow in what they approve or disapprove).

So, for example, there's likely to be a whole slew of announcements around now about the end-of-school results for students, much of which (for example top in school) will only be mentioned in the school newsletters. They're also invaluable for finding notable alumni from certain schools.

On the other hand, you seem to be talking about student newspapers. Yeah, I'd agree that they're not notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Rahul Easwar wikipedia page

Sir,

This is regarding the page I want to contribute to Wikipedia on Rahul Easwar which was subjected to speedy deletion. In response to the objections i had provided with many resourceful links clearly showing the notability of Mr. Easwar in our nation and its media. Kindly let me know what i should do more to project my case and please let me know how I can reinstate this page. The link to the page i had created is given Rahul Easwar Also the page containing the discussions with the administrator who deleted the page is given. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rahul_Easwar Carolchriskevin (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

Caryacarya

Hi Andrew,
I was following through my watchlist, the conversations going on in the deletion discussion of the book series Caryacarya. I wasn't involved until now, but I saw that the period was extended another week. So, I was planning on voting and pointing out some points and even editing the article for its betterment. As a WP editor, my prime aim is the betterment of WP and I have no CoI. I'm myself an admin in the Ladino WP and I translate the interface.
The User:Abhidevananda, is actually a newbie of a few months. I think he means to contribute well to the WP, however without being well-acquainted to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, he used primary sources extensively to create or to edit neutral-looking articles. He is bold by behaviour but means no harm. Some other editors, instead of explaining him and/or trying to cooperate with him, used a bureaucratic language and challenged what he was doing. He felt personally attacked, especially due to the not-very-gentle language they were using, even though the intentions of the other party was probably not so. And as a result first he reacted back and then got cold-feet to WP.
I don't know whether it is considered canvassing or no, both parties (no need for names), went to ask others for help. As the other party, knew better the rules and the functioning of WP, got the upper hand in creating a bad image for almost all articles in which Abhidevananda was involved. The tones of "passion" in other editors siding with him, made the show case seem worse. This is my observation of what has been the unvoiced events in this conflict until now.
Quoting from WP:Trifecta, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by the community through collaboration." The two words out of three (namely, community and collaboration) is what I'm referring to. The responsibility always lies with the older and more-experienced party, the have to be wise and welcoming, especially to the new editors of WP. What they had to do, instead of edit-warring, constant content-removal and propaganda, was (and still is) what those two words - community and collaboration - requires. My message is not to you personally but to all involved parties.
While this is the case, I believe that the points that Keep parties were making were under-represented. The point, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." was never properly contested.
I believe that a temporary undeletion, would be for the best interest of Wikipedia, so it would give some more proper time to both parties to sort out things "in civility". And on the while, I can have more time to gather some RS and edit the article, so it has a neutral tone and doesn't look like an advertisement. If, at the end of a week, ther aren't any RS, I believe it is best to redirect the article to Ananda Marga, as it's the holy scriptures of it.
Most sincerely,
And friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deletion review revolving around Wildebeest

Hi there. When it came to the deletion review of Wildebeest, I was wondering if you have any further comments to contribute to that deletion review to have it officially restored. Especially since they might plan an appearance of a Wildebeest in the upcoming comics of The New 52. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:56, January 26 2013 (UTC)

Mention at AN/I

I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Starblind - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire clans

Eons ago, in a time called October 2008, you commented that a big merge discussion of all the Vampire: The Masquerade clans may be better, in the AfD for Assamite. Since you appear to be an admin (congratulations on that), you probably comment on a whole bunch of AfDs; but, I wondered if you might be interested in my mass merge discussion.

If you don't want to comment: best of luck to you. No doubt you have a whole bunch of administrating to get through, hope that all goes okay. – Bellum (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. In the event that you had not seen sysop TParis's question to you from a few days ago here ("Can you clarify, do you support the other direction?"), I thought I might bring it to your attention. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had a second look and support the amended proposal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering

Saw your comment on " Users sometimes disagree on notability/verifiability ". Reality is that users often don't bother to look to assess notability or verifiability and many articles simply should never reach AFD because there is an abundance of sources immediately available on simply doing a google search. Confusing lack of content/sources with notability is the biggest mistake most AFD nominators make, they simply don't bother to put in 5 seconds of research to make their case convincing.I "badgered him" because he not only didn't bother to look for sources or put two and two together than the article in German was to be translated but he implied that he had used AFD as an expand and demand service.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Starblind. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Taser incident

Hello, I am recommending keeping this article, and have brought to the deletion debate quite a few references in newspapers, magazines and books discussing the event in detail over a period of five years. I respectfully request that you take a look at what I've found, and reconsider your decision. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why...?

Are you absolutely joking me? The Oceans Red page took me so long to make, and you just take it down? Why? Why? Why did you take my page down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottIsAnAlligator (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that page was deleted as it did not assert notability whatsoever for its subject. Generally, articles on bands are expected to fulfill our WP:BAND criteria. It is extremely unlikely that an unsigned band would fulfil these criteria, and rarer still for an unsigned band that just released its debut single a month ago. The band may be notable someday, but it clearly isn't right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I guess that's understandable. Scott Cameron - ScottIsAnAlligator 04:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Andrew Lanahan; your pro-deletion comment by starblind on my wikipedia article: Mundo (the hun)

I have read your pro-deletion comment to my articke about Mundo (the hun). It was not meaned as a hoax. Looking myself for further information on Mundo I haved registrated yesterday by night that there exists only the simple word in Wikipedia, but nothing more, so I decided to share the few details I know by reading here and there. I`m relatively new in the internet, so I can make technically mistakes. I`m a foreigner (not U.K.) and English isn`t my mother tongue, so my grammar may be awful. But be it as it be, everyone can correct my mistakes. So I sat there and wrote last night and saved my writings, to make a pause for some necessary refreshements. And when I got in again my unfinished writings had been smashed out by Mister administrator as a hoax. I`m of the opinion that a writer should have the right to finish his work and then the critics could come and like it or destroy his elaborate. Is it always the case, that you were stopped in between when formulating an article at Wikipedia??? I thought to get something done, a disputatio with thesis and antithesis is far more usefull than a wild standby discussion. I have some problems, because a lot of my reference books are not in English or old editions, so giving a page- or line-number may not be helpfull. On the other hand a chapter in Eugippius for example has in most cases only five to twenty lines. So the administrator must have find the words he looked for if he had taken himself some time. I had a lot more informations on the Mundos. Plural!, because there were at minimum three of them in the history books: Grandfather, father and son and they all had together an important role in the fights for Italy between the different powers (Scires, Goths, Gepids, Byzantines, Langobards). So the elder Mundo helped the side of Theoderic, but his son and grand-son got payed by the other party and helped Constantinople to destroy the Gothic kingdom just like those langobardic and gepidic warriors Narses had rented, too. The Mundos: Their men were called indeed Scaramuzes in different bowdlerizes and they owned realy a fortress called Hertha at the Morawa estuary (today Serbia), as you can read also in serious books of reknown academics. Many people have listened to the french Opera-Scaramouche of the baroque aera and never asked from where does this figure come. Others know he derived from the comedia dell`arte from Northern italy, from Lombardia, the Bergamo region. The Scaramuzzo is used also in the puppet-theatre there and he is an old folklore-figure since the early middle-age and then before rented soldiers were called Scaramuzzo, a langobardic term(!!!), not a word from the Italian or vulgary latin. Just there in Middle Lombardia we got the latest news from the youngest mundo and his elite-warriors called Scaramuzes. And if you now have read like me here and there from these mostly not nice fellows adoring the goddess of death or transcendance, Hertha, for example by Radenberg or Wolfram acting in the Danube region during peoples-migration-time, things began to add in your brain. So I let it here as it might be. With best wishes, Volant Federlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volant Federlin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me create my article

Dear administrator, I beg you to let me create my article about the Kingdom of Bogdania, Thanks in advance

Bogdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbogdan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia isn't a place for silly joke articles. If you try to create it again, you'll very likely be blocked if you haven't been already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page I was still in the process of CREATING

My page was not complete yet. I was literally still typing in the main content (while periodically saving my work) before going to find citations to verify my content and you took the liberty of deleting the last 3 hours of my work. I would appreciate you please restore the page so that I can continue working on it. If I was missing citations it was simply because I: A - had not gotten to any citations yet, and B - am new to wikipedia and wanted to make sure I got all the information correct before messing up any citations.

Strife444 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking you at your word that you can and will fix the article, and I've temporarily restored it to User:Strife444/draft for you to work on. I do need to tell you that referencing wasn't the reason it was deleted, but lack of notability, and if the website you're writing about can't be demonstrated to be more notable (and the claims of notability backed by reliable sources) it will almost certainly be deleted again and next time it won't come back, unless you have some real aces up your sleeve regarding notability and some rock-solid sources. Take a look at WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS before deciding whether this is really something you want to dedicate more hours of your life to. Alternatively, you may wish to submit the article someplace where notability and verifiability won't be an issue, such as a general web guide such as aboutus.org Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why is it that the original site (DenOfGeek.Com) and its publishers (our affiliates) rank as noteworthy and non-deletable?

Strife444 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to. DenOfGeek.Com isn't an article and never has been as far as I can tell. There was a small article at Den of Geek deleted in 2009 and later turned into a redirect. If there's another article I haven't seen, please point it out and I'll take a look. But generally speaking, "x has an article so y gets one too!" isn't a very good reason to keep something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered a reliable source for web content?

Hello Just read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS and I'm not sure what is considered a reliable source for a page for a website regards, Mainline421 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any seperate reliable sourcing guidelines for websites: what's considered a reliable source for websites is the same as for any other subject. The general hierarchy is Academic Peer-Reviewed Sources > Books > Magazines/Newspapers. Some examples of sources generally considered reliable that show up a lot on website topics include (but are by no means limited to) Wired Magazine, BusinessWeek, and BBC News Technology. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Youth Parliament articles

I see that you weighed in on the YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament article, that was subsequently deleted. If you have a chance, do you mind weighing in on: Talk:YMCA Youth Parliament#YMCA Youth Parliament articles.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My ban appeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=551050869&oldid=551050508#Please_remove_my_ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Jive

You PRODded this, and I deleted it. Undeletion has now been requested on my talk page by a member of their "management team", so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KumiokoCleanStart's block log

I noticed that you blocked KumiokoCleanStart on April 24, 2013 for personal attacks or harassment. Unfortunately, the block log does not provide the full URL to the edit you provided in the blocking reason. Can you please give the URL now? Thanks.

P.S.: You may want to exclude the "title=page title&" part from URLs the next time there is insufficient space for providing a blocking reason (or anywhere in general); it does not cause any difference, except for making the URL shorter. smtchahal^(talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have the specific link anymore but the gist of it was they self-requested their block for trolling BMK on his talk page, then continued to insult him on their own talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, alright. Thanks. smtchahal^(talk) 01:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft topic ban Jax

I would like to see you comments and additions to User:The Banner/Workpage28, the draft for a topic ban proposal regarding Jax 0677. Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 12:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

FYI: the proposal is filed here The Banner talk 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my comment at RfA

I was in the process of reviewing multiple different RfAs from the past several months, and I noticed that you had actually replied to my comment at Theopolisme's RfA. First of all, I think you are absolutely right about the Wikipedia of today being completely different from what it was back in 2005 — and in my opinion, that's an overall good thing. We should expect more from our administrators. That being said, I also think today's standards for RfA are a bit too strict. Most of the people who've gone through the process over the years turned out just fine. Yes, you do have your occasional "bad apple" types, and they typically wind up losing the bit. But most administrators have done a pretty good job.

Secondly, I was actually just pointing out the irony of your comment. It was not intended as a criticism of your rationale. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Usmanwardag

Might want to stick a block notice on the talk page to cross the t's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sjakkalle doesn't look too good in being attached to all this"

Hi, I am curious if there is something you think that I ought to have done differently in relation to the ANI thread that you commented on. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. As I pointed out, you were wise to advise the editor to drop it, but they don't appear to have followed your advice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

Please note that Special:Contributions/70.63.207.108 appears to be a troll with a history of blatant BLP violations/vandalism, including one made on the same day as his AfD comment. I doubt he is anyone of the registered editors participating in the tinywords AfD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam claim

You made some comment on the Doug Turnbull AFD that the spam claim was now proven. Not that I don't believe there is spam, but if there is some proof, could you point me toward it, for my own clarity? If it was because that one editor is connected to Virtually Speaking, her edit on the article was trivial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the comment Bides time posted today, they specifically refuse to admit whether they have a COI. If there was even a 1-in-a-million chance in my mind that this could possibly have been a good-faith article attempt, that killed it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see that insertion. Fair 'nuff. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed from Within

In January 2011, you salted this page; however, a sourced article now exists (on the same subject, I presume :-)). An editor has requested a redirect for the alternate capitalization; do you mind if I unprotect the page and create it? All the best, Miniapolis 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine, looks like they charted earlier this year so they pass WP:MUSIC now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Retarded asshole"

Did you even click on that diff? I have to assume you didn't, as if you did, you would see that "'R' is for 'retarded and 'A' is for 'asshole'" was a comment made by User:Camelbinky. That diff, from his talk page, was referencing his comment. I have never called any editor "retarded" or "asshole". I'm not even going to bother asking you to retract your endorsement, as that RfC is largely comedy at this point, but please at least do some basic background research before clicking "support" in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever took that diff and put it in whatever complaint is going on, I hope reads my comment here- I should have been notified first off, and second off it is, yes retarded, to have used that diff against Joe as he was simply talking to ME on MY talk page about a comment that I made. If anyone wants to go after anyone for saying the word retarded, then feel free to make a complaint about me anyplace you want. But make sure better notification is made than the lack of notification that a diff from MY talk page was used someplace. Can you tell I'm pissed? My talk page is mine, and I want to complain about the use of retarded on it, Ill do it myself.Camelbinky (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Drago merge discussion

Talk:Rocky_IV#Merge_for_Ivan_Drago_into_Rocky_IV An AFD you participated in that just got closed today, is now at a merge discussion. Dream Focus 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Starblind. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Guerrier De Bey

Hello! I tagged the Sean Guerrier De Bey article yesterday for mutliple issues. I went back today having worked up the courage to nominate it for deletion, and discovered that my tags had been removed. (In all fairness, the editor DID add a source - a $77. "eBook" from Betascript). Then I found that you'd proposed the article for deletion, but that your tag had been removed as well. The article is nowhere near Wikipedia-worthy: There are two "sources" - one is a press release -- and, among other bizarre assertions, DeBey is described in the infobox as a "Record producer Music executive Media buying Publicist Attorney Inventor." Will you check it out? Thank you! I'm going to change my username to Tattletale. JSFarman (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no way it would pass an AFD. The Betascript "source" is really just a reprint of the Wikipedia article and definitely not a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moraff

Hi Starblind. I've reverted your speedy deletion of Steve Moraff (consider it contesting the speedy deletion) because I believe that the article has a credible assertion of notability (even if it does a poor job of it) and thus, if it is to be deleted, it should be taken to an AfD. Canadian Paul 17:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should know better than that. If you have additional information that makes him notable, please add it to the article or bring it up at DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you should know better than to unilaterally speedily delete something potentially controversial without putting a tag on it. There was no chance for another administrator to review it nor for a non-administrator to contest the deletion. If I were a new user who just made that article in good faith, I would have had no warning that and no idea why it got deleted and would now be at your mercy to restore it. That would be very discouraging. I don't have any additional information, I just think that there information that is there warrants an AfD if it is to be deleted. Since when was discussion/consensus ever a bad thing? Canadian Paul 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section on the Anime and Manga RfC

Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas hoax article

Hi. Would you mind speedily deleting the article at Afd? It has been despeedied by an IP editor w/o explanation. It would save a lot of time. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done. Good catch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That no consensus formed to unblock Jclemens within the last 24 hours shows you did the right thing. Thank you. — Scott • talk 17:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was definitely confident that that was the right thing, but as always it's certainly good to know it also has the backing of the community. I appreciate it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Regretfully, since this situation appears likely to recur, I am filing a request for arbitration regarding the Henry Earl issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like JClemens has given up the tools, which probably makes the case moot. Not sure if I should still post a statement, but everything I would have said looks pretty well covered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

The arbitration case request that you were a party to has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the best, all around. I'm pleased with the outcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Andrew lenahan.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment against me, but I never socked

Starblind, re: your comment against me at WP:AN/ANI. Everybody knows that a sockpuppet is an alternate account used for a deceptive purpose. I never did that. When even my talkpage access was cut off, leaving me no way at all to communicate with my fellow editors, I *block evaded* via raw IPs, clearly signing each post with my username (to the extent I type it funny but basically legibly now, it's to avoid Kww's "abuse filter." He actually wrote an abuse filter to stop me from signing my username). One way to to look at that is he attempts to force me to sock. Anyhow if you fairly read the RFC/U [7] which takes about 15 minutes, you will see that I was wrongly blocked and non-policy handled thereafter by gang-like elements of the administrative culture. I hope you change your mind and your vote at WP:AN/ANI. This is Colt on Co5mic. 14:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And now you say there is 16 to 10 vote "consensus" against me. It looks to me like 16 to 11 (did you miss Writkeeper?) but that is still not any consensus. You have a strange and personal definition of "consensus." Problem half of those people voting against me, including most of those doing so conversationally as in a chat room and arguing against the favorable votes, are my long-time critics, a group of sucker-fish really that attached to me many months ago, and follow me around chattering "block him, block him, block him." Were the vote limited to newcomers and those who actually inform themselves by reading the RFC/U ([8]) I'd be unblocked already. I don't think you've informed yourself, neither do you understand the definition of the word "consensus," so I'd suggest once more you read the RFC/U, and I invite you to comment there. This is Colton Cosmic. 12:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Alfie Deyes

Hi Andrew. Can you please un-salt this page so that I may create it a-proper! There does appear to be significant independent coverage available: Metro, Irish Independent, Hollywood Reporter, Yahoo Canada and some others: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Cheers! Nik thestunned 16:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some of those don't look like what we'd consider reliable sources for a BLP, but I agree there's enough there that it's worth a try. I'm taking you at your word that you'll keep the page to only facts that can be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. Nik thestunned 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Starblind, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess-related deaths

If you're interested I've made the nominator's argument for him so that we may avoid the perils of a default judgment. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why was my topic deleted? (asking for advice)

Hi starblind,i would love to know why was my article deleted and get some advice on how to improve it so that i can post it without being deleted. thank you very much --Newsha7 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article you attempted was deleted because it did not contain any claim of importance. You're welcome to try again if you'd like, but please read our notability guidelines for companies, found at WP:CORP before doing so. It would also be a good idea to read our WP:SPAM and WP:COI pages to get an overview on our policies related to writing about companies. If you do create another article, please make sure it has a credible claim of importance, one that can be backed by significant coverage in a reliable source. Thanks! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Games magazine bankruptcy

Hello Starblind. Some years on Talk:Games (magazine) you posted a link to an article which explained the bankruptcy of Games. I'm interested in reading this article. Unfortunately, your link target is no longer available. Do you happen to know where the article can now be found? Or failing that, do you remember any of its publication details (such as the title, authors, date, or where it was published)? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly request

Hello there! I've been working on a project to bring as much of Wikipedia's code up to HTML5 standards as I can, and I've noticed that your signature is using some code that could be updated! If you're interested in and willing to get rid of the deprecated and obsolete tags in your signature, I suggest replacing:

[[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b>

with:

[[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b style="color:#F00">St</b><b style="color:#F50">ar</b><b style="color:#FF8000">bli</b><b style="color:#FFC000">nd</b>

which will result in a 155 character long signature (13 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Andrew Lenahan - Starblind

compared to your existing 168 character long signature of: Andrew Lenahan - Starblind

— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any suggestions?

A year ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours in detail, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). RfA is not the best place for any discussion, so I thought you may want to ask me some questions in a non-RfA relaxed atmosphere. For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). My FAs/GAs/DYKs are listed on my userpage. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) 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/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) 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. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help Me

Just so you know, I re-created this article. I have no idea what it looked like when you deleted it (or if it was even about the same subject), but now it refers to a charted single that passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks good to me. The deleted one was totally unrelated, and was apparently part of an attempted infobox. The full text of it was "|File Name =Can You Help Me |Artist =Dondria |Release Date =September 10th, 2010" and that was it. Dondria is an actual singer, but the discography in the article shows no single by that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternative solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weigh in?

There's a another deletion opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Starblind. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Starblind.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Starblind. 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)[reply]

Rozen Maiden straw vote

Hi. Thank you for your input at the AFD. If possible, could you drop by for a straw vote to determine if the article should be redirected (linked here)? Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Robo Blast 2

Hi,

Wasn't that article as about a video game mod, a piece of software? Articles about software are not eligible for A7. Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Fair question. Games can be deleted under the "web content" portion of A7 if they're only available via web download and not as physical software (or services like Steam, Playstation Store, etc). Otherwise it would create an illogical situation where an article on BobsWebGame.com could be A7'd but an identical article on Bob's Web Game cannot.

Also, the same article had been deleted twice at AFD before and while the new article was rewritten it did not address the reason for deletion (lack of notability). I'd be okay with undeleting and AFD'ing it if you can come up with some reliable sources, but given the history and fundamental notability problem with the subject I'd say it's likely a lost cause. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned running on Windows. If it runs on the user's system, then it cannot by definition be web content, can it? BTW, the definition of web content, as the result of an RfC, was a while ago changed so that only stuff accessed over the internet and used via a web browser falls under it. Although not many editors participated in it, it was boldly changed based on its result nevertheless. Adam9007 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Starblind

It's been quite a while since we chatted, and you helped me out a number of occasions, so i was curious about a current situation.

I was trying to Create a Page for a very cool Yardbirds Collection called, "Train Kept A-Rollin' – The Complete Giorgio Gomelsky Productions." I did my best to adhere to the Wiki guidelines but I seem to be annoying a couple of fellas. I've put together a few pages without much trouble and I've never really had this situation occur before (except when I was trying to "adjust" the Page about me and Frank kept kicking my arse). Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Train_Kept_A-Rollin%27_–_The_Complete_Giorgio_Gomelsky_Productions&redirect=no

Oh, by the way, I copped your HTML color for my signature!

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 17:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, It looks like the first time it was redirected was for lacking any sources but then you later added a book source so I'm not sure about the second time. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume the redirecting user simply didn't see that a sourced had been added. In any case, I undid the redirection and you shouldn't have any more problems, if it does reoccur please let me know! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blind (or may I call ya, "Star?") I was just curious - you've helped me a few times and have been very kind toward my wiki-ignorance, so I was hoping you might help me out here. I started a Page about a Rare Todd Rundgren/Utopia Album that was finally "Officially" released a short while back, and, as usual, I assumed I'd be back to work on it, hopefully with the help of other Interested Todd fans. I think I got far enough for the page to be considered "Legitimate," but I was sent to the Corner of the room and told to wear my Dunce Hat until I figured-out how to to fix my "pretty poorly formatted" page etc.. The page was removed and put in the "Draft" section (I didn't even know there was a "Draft" Section). I was curious what you thought I needed to add to the page to have it removed from it's painful and "drafty" purgatory? Thanx!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Disco_Jets albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 00:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me, actually, and I don't see it as poorly-formatted at all. You even have a solid book reference and a Todd Rundgren album shouldn't be a problem as far as notability goes, even if it wasn't released for 40 years. I do notice the LP version was a Record Store Day limited edition release, so maybe some mention of that should be noted. It should be okay to move it out of draft space and link to it from the Todd Rundgren & Utopia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx a bunch! I appreciate it! I'll search the "Record Store Day limited edition release" info and add that! albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 17:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question about a speedy deletion

Hello, Starblind. In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion an editor has referred to your deletion of the article Sonic Robo Blast 2 under speedy deletion criterion A7, and suggested that the deletion was invalid, as the article was not about a person, animal, organisation, web content, or event. On looking at the deleted article it seems to me that the editor is right: the article was about a computer game. Do you think the deletion was valid? Please note that I am asking specifically about the speedy deletion under criterion A7, not whether the article deserved deletion via PROD of AfD for lack of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I do. Here's how I put it in the section above this one: "Games can be deleted under the "web content" portion of A7 if they're only available via web download and not as physical software (or services like Steam, Playstation Store, etc). Otherwise it would create an illogical situation where an article on BobsWebGame.com could be A7'd but an identical article on Bob's Web Game cannot." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a fairly bright-line here: A7 specifically refers to web content as construed in NWEB, and NWEB explicitly states "Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline". This game is clearly not engaged with through a web browser, and therefore is not web content. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Andrew, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 11#Minori Suzuki

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 11#Minori Suzuki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b>

→ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind

to

[[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b style="color: #FF0000;">St</b><b style="color: #FF5500;">ar</b><b style="color: #FF8000;">bli</b><b style="color: #FFC000;">nd</b>

→ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of this! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Starblind. 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)[reply]

Mr. Starblind

I was very recently told by a Legion of Super-Heroes fan that the Wiki Article on Timber Wolf was kinda messed-up and not even remotely factual as to the Character's actual DC History. I went to the Wiki Timber Wolf page yesterday and read through it and found that the part of the Article that represented my Writing Run on LOSH, LOSH Annual and Timber Wolf was seriously in error. It misinterpreted Story and Plot points that are virtually expositional within the Text, Images and Frame of the Stories. So I spent a few hours yesterday, and fixed it, only to find that my Edits were seemingly arbitrarily removed by some baseball fan named Spanneraol ‎(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spanneraol) without any notes or explanation I could find.

I asked Spanneraol why he did that and I haven't heard back from him yet. I was curious how to deal with this situation. It seems odd to me that whoever wrote the error-filled erroneous History of Timber Wolf, would have more so-called "Pull" over the Representation and Interpretation of a creative work, than the person who actually wrote it. Whether they like it or not, my Writing on the Character is DC Canon.

I'd appreciate any help you can give me. Thanx!!!

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx so much for the help! Spanneraol mentioned on his Profile that it was "Vandalism." It wan't. I just messed-up. All fixed now with your help!

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review 2018 April 17

Can you please explain why you endorsed the original deletion of Gunter Bechly on WP:Deletion Review/log/2018 April 17?Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could, I guess, but other editors explained the reasoning in great length and detail during the DRV, and your responses to them were more or less using 1000 words to say "I disagree!". And of course you're free to disagree if you want, we all have the right to our own opinions. But mere disagreement won't get an article put back on the site. If you seriously think an article on Gunter Bechly should exist, my best advice is that you stay far away from it and let it happen naturally (if Gunter is as notable as you insist, then someone unrelated will make one eventually). Frankly, whether intentionally or not your actions have made the whole thing seem like a desperate spam/self-promotion attempt, and that isn't good at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They explained their reasoning, but it did not comport with Wikipedia's PGs. I provided specific quotes from the policies and guidelines that directly contradicted their claims. They also completely ignored the articles I provided. My actions are those of an outraged citizen of the internet who gets tired of the bias that is so often evident in Wikipedia articles covering controversial topics.

I should also add that if Gunter was notable, you might expect a bunch of people who have never edited Wikipedia before, have no Wikipedia account and know little nothing about its guidelines to come out of the woodwork to advocate that the article not be deleted. Oh, wait, that happened already and all of the terribly honest and upstanding editors chalked it up to sock puppetry and canvassing. You might also expect various sources to publish their own articles about how the Wikipedia article was deleted. Oh, wait, that already happened, too. Snoopydaniels (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snoopydaniels, I checked your contribs to see what you are up to. Please do read what I wrote here. What you are doing, is not good. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol this guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuto Con

Hi, since the last attempt at creating a Shuto Con article in 2013, they have received a decent amount of media coverage. I have an article built out ready to post, but am wondering if it would be possible to unlock the article? Esw01407 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Esw01407 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Starblind. 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)[reply]

Michael Packer

Would you be so good as to unprotect Michael Packer, which you creation-protected in 2011? It would be useful, I think, to have a disambiguation page there listing Mick Packer and Mike Packer. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you can help me out...

I'm curious how this article is any More or Less "blatantly promotional" than ANY other Album Page? Thanx! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_of_Herman%27s_Hermits:_The_50th_Anniversary_Anthology

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see anything wrong with it. Has sources and looks neutral to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I got bitch-slapped (Can I say that in here?) by the usual frustrated authoritarian with delusions of superior "something" (Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars) who was more interested in picking Nits than to have an Article that Informs people and fans.
- albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL. I'm the one that saved the article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Uh huh... and pissed all over my effort.... and laughed about it too. You're an ass.
    - albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 2 for Olwen Kelly

I thought you might like to know Olwen Kelly is up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly (2nd nomination). You were involved with the article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Richards

Hi, any chance you can lift protection from this page? An article has been created at Randy Richards (Canadian football) but the disambiguation is otherwise unnecessary, I believe this is a different person to the one discussed at AfD over a decade ago. PC78 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done. Yeah, the old version was a vanity article, no connection to the football player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! PC78 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nomination of WildStar (Image Comics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WildStar (Image Comics) 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/WildStar (Image Comics) 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pobble

Hello Starblind! I'm looking to create an article about Manx language advocacy group Pobble. The page with the most appropriate name for this organisation is currently protected so that only you can create it. I was wondering if that could be changed so that I can make it. I've created a small amount of other Manx language/Isle of Man related content that you can see at my user page if that helps at all. Please let me know if this is possible, or if there are any alternatives. CáitChrainn (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

I appreciate your evaluation. Thanks for your trust and support. Please feel invited to contact me if you see something or if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

assist

can you give me the code to make your username colored like that? Allaoii (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's Example!
Which displays as Example!
You can use whatever colors you want if you have the hex code for that color, many can be found here: Web colors
Hope this helps! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and is there like a list of fonts i can use? Allaoii (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SIGFONT it looks like using fonts in signatures isn't really recommended. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial and consider adapting one of the sample signatures there to get the look you want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i saw that but i assumed that span does the same thing Example! Allaoii 22:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and by font i mean how the letters look Example! Allaoii 23:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

could you tell me if there is a list of fonts (not the code) that is accepted on wikipedia? Allaoii ^talk 19:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Formatting/style code isn't a specialty of mine, others might have more info. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting may be useful as a place to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do i get it to apply this to my signiture thats not example? Example! Allaoii 22:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change the letters inside the tags: Allaoii! or whatever you'd prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what tags? Example! Allaoii 23:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The actual signature box is here at this link Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nvm i figured it out ill change the talk soon but, what do you think? [Allaoii] Allaoii 00:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Allaoii ^talk 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how can i get the name to link to userpage? Allaoii ^talk 17:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The color text? I don't think it can, that's why I have my link seperate from the colored part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* ok. also wanna prank the teahouse?

Allaoii ^talk 20:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Eighteenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Starblind. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I am correcting a tracked syntax error on Wikipedia called the Tidy Font bug, and this userpage has three signatures with this error in the barnstar section.

When links are written in the [[link]] format with the color specified outside of the link, browsers don't agree on how to display the colors. Some browsers display it with the specified colors, and others default back to the standard link blue.

Proposed code changes. Collapsing to keep talk page tidier

If you would, would you change:

<font color="Red">[[User:SunStar Net|'''SunStar Net''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:SunStar Net|''talk'']]</font></sup>

to

[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:Red">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<span style="color:Blue">''talk''</span>]]</sup>

[[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF; font-weight:bold"><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Da</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">rk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT>]] <font color="#000088"><sup>[[User_talk:Dark_Shikari|''talk'']] 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)</font></font>

to

[[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF; font-weight:bold"><span style="color:#0000FF">Da</span><span style="color:#0000CC">rk</span> <span style="color:#000099">Sh</span><span style="color:#000066">ik</span><span style="color:#000033">ar</span><span style="color:#000000">i</span></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Dark_Shikari|<span style="color:#000088">''talk''</span>]]</sup> 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

and

<font color="#000066">'''[[User:Infrangible|~ Infrangible]]'''</font>

to

[[User:Infrangible|<b style="color:#000066">~ Infrangible</b>]]

Additionally, the table at the bottom is missing the opening <table> tag which leaves all the tr/td tags stripped. The following fixes that and the obsolete center tag:

<tr><td><center>'''[[Wikipedia:Babel]]'''</center></td></tr>

to

<table>
<tr><td style="text-align:center">'''[[Wikipedia:Babel]]'''</td></tr>

And lastly, that leaves the only remaining issues on this page being these two signatures (obsolete font tags). If you would:

'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User:Coredesat|at]]'''

to

'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">des</span>]][[User:Coredesat|at]]'''

and

[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]

to

[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<span style="color:blue">A</span>]][[User:Aecis|<span style="color:green">ecis</span>]]

Rest of page has no other WP:LINT issues.

I've made similar changes on hundreds of other pages with this tidy font issue, and have made similar successful protected page requests for Timotheus_Canens, SpacemanSpiff, and Materialscientist to name a few. If you have any questions, let me know with a reply below.

Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Starblind a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Heart ^(talk) 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A question. Since before your sun burned hot in space and before your race was born, I have awaited a question."

Hey Big Fella... Is this really a Question, sir?

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Starblind, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 08:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsta

May I know why my edit was reverted? M S Hassan (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you removed the link to Monster (disambiguation) from the "See also" section. Not sure if that was your intention or not, but I reverted it back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]