User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TonyBallioni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Edits by IP

Hi, you declined an AVI and told me to open a sock investigation. It has been open and finished before, the page now just says to report any ongoing edits by this user, who keeps using IPs to avoid the ban, to either AIV or ANI. What do you recommend here to get this IP address blocked? NZFC^(talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

NZ Footballs Conscience, it wasn't apparent to either SQL or I when we looked at it. In cases like this, go ahead and file the SPI so that admins who are more familiar with the subject can assess. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks TonyBallioni, I will do that in the future. NZFC^(talk) 00:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. An obvious sock to you might not be an obvious sock to uninvolved people. The way I work AIV, if it takes more than a couple clicks, or 90 seconds - it probably isn't obvious, at least to me. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OpenFrame (Deleted Article)

Hi TonyBallioni. Earlier you formerly deleted the article on OpenFrame, closing the discussion on it. It had been marked for deletion with "WP:REFUND applies." I would like to update the deleted article with additional information to address the concerns about the original version. Should I make a request in the WP:REFUND page as well, or do I need your blessing to re-create the OpenFrame page? Please let me know and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyEdits (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheLongTone and AndyEdits: the page has been restored. See: OpenFrame. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I still see a spam-flavoured article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi.
I recently came across JahlilMA (noping). His creations are technically good, but some of the article subjects are borderline notable. Would you kindly take a look at his history regarding granting a-pat? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kiran, thanks for the note. Just looking over their talk page makes me think autopatrolled would be inappropriate. Thank you for keeping your eyes open for autopatrolled candidates. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeakson Singh Thounaojam

You closed AfD on Jeakson Singh Thounaojam, but now he plays for Indian Arrows, who participate in I-League, top division of India and thus he qualifies for WP:NFOOTY. Can you please WP:REFUND the page? Coderzombie (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: can I get a second opinion on this before I restore? The football standards aren’t my thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: please can you provide evidence of this? Giant Snowman 14:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Here's the line up of today's game from official handle. Coderzombie (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: - thanks - Tony, I think that is sufficient to show he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL and you can restore the article. Giant Snowman 14:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks to you both. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, I find NFOOTY etc. to be the most laughable policy over the entire wiki.Yesterday, you were non-notable but today, you feature in the starting lineup and lo! you are of encyclopedic notability.The rise in overnight notability is just phenomenal! And a case where, scoring the first goal for a country in the entire history of U-17 world cups, is less valued than just featuring in the line up of a club which had been promoted to the senior level, this very year.Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I'm a strong supporter of SNGs (its why to my shock some people at my RfA effectively called me too inclusionist, which is something I would have never guessed). You get people bitching about how they let too much in, but like my friend DGG, I'll go ahead and point out that the GNG is worthless at determining questions of importance and that a robust system of standards is much better in the long run than the GNG, which is a standard that any of my talk page stalkers could meet within a month if they tried hard enough.

The reason that people more towards the deletionist end of the spectrum hate SNGs is because they don't like the borderline cases they keep in. My argument here is that most SNGs keep out much more than they let in: i.e. even though they are worded as inclusionary standards, we effectively treat them as exclusionary standards. This is certainly the case with FOOTY: if someone doesn't meet it, they don't get an article, and we also use PROF that way (and I know the AfC crowd hates that, but as I argued in the recent RfC, if it weren't for PROF literally every 29 year old recent PhD would have an article per meeting the GNG).

Long-term what we need to move for is removing the GNG from WP:N and putting it in WP:V, which is where it belongs. It is not a test of importance, it is a test of verification. Changing it to be the general verifiability guideline as a minimum acceptance standard not be be deleted under WP:DEL7, and then assessing importance based on SNGs and OUTCOMES is the way to move Wikipedia forward in the era that we are currently in. We're a long way from this proposal happening now, but it is the only way IO see Wikipedia being sustainable on the issue of notability in the long run. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the same echo chamber discussion that's happened a hundred times on IRC, but for the sake of argument, I completely disagree, and think that GNG should be the ultimate standard for judging the acceptability of SNGs. GNG is ideally the test of whether an neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article can in principle be written, not whether it should be written, because there is ideally an underlying assumption that if it can be written it should be. What many SNGs give us IMO is stubs that can't ever be actual articles (of the type that wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb in Britannica or World Book), because there is little to no information out there to write with. Instead the article is kept simply because the subject meets some fairly arbitrary standard (e.g., there's been literally two sentences ever written about this person, but those two sentences happen to be about how they won a bad mitten medal at the Olympics. So they'll forever have a two sentence, un-expandable stub).

Having said that, the more established SNGs are a fait accompli, and it's generally not worth complaining about. Oh well. Back to work. GMG ^talk 16:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not mind a system where we realized that the GNG was the bare minimum standard for verifiability and moved it to WP:V as a first step before checking importance through SNGs (some of which, such as NMUSIC, I will agree are currently written quite poorly.) The problem we have now is that our notability guideline treats the SNGs and the GNG as if they are testing the same thing, so in dealing with them, we do have to treat them as equals. If we moved the GNG to WP:V, we would have much stricter standards along the lines of what people who hate SNGs are arguing. The problem is that we are mixing terms: SNGs are about importance, while the GNG is about verifiability. You need both. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the big differences between GNG and V is that notability is an existential criteria, i.e., a subject as it exists in the universe along with all the sources in existence in every medium and every language, can either have a neutral and verifiable article written about it by a hypothetical perfect god-like editor, or it can't. It also contains a temporal component with regard to comprehensiveness, which is to say that sufficient SUSTAINED coverage is required in order to have a balanced article, which doesn't mix very well with V at all, but expands on the spirit of NPOV, in the sense that the DUEWEIGHT can be actually so one-sided, that it prevents the writing of a actual article (e.g., BLP1E). With regard to V, that one event may be immensely verifiable, but the subject overall may not be covered in a way that allows a balanced and neutral article to be written. GMG ^talk 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dallas

Hi TonyBallioni:

I looking for an admin's opinion about a series of edits from an IP address. They may be helpful, or maybe not. The editor does not use edit descriptions, so it is hard to understand their intentions. Also, the editor is changing Template:Dallas_politics. I have posted a warning at Dallas:Talk. Here is a link to edits from the IP account [1]. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: this seems to be a template thing to me. Mind having a look? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The edits don't seem particularly disruptive - edits to Oak Cliff were to remove redlinks, and the template edits just removed the colour from the table background. The latter is enough of a grey area (no pun intended), as some claim its an accessibility issue but since it's entirely decorative in that particular table I'm not going to fight over the change. You are of course welcome to revert their change if you wish and/or discuss it on the talk page. Personally I find the colours useful but I'm not really into American Politics. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac:

Thanks for looking over the edits. I was not sure what to make of the wholesale removal of red links and changes to templates, and I needed to hear from editors with more experience. They might be constructive edits. Red links seem valid if there is a reasonable chance to create a new article. If the subject has no chance to satisfy notability, should red links be used? Probably not. If I find blue links that were deleted, I will revert those. thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Case accepted

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

deeply sad

... so you said about not sending a mass message. I am deeply sad about the time wasted on sending that message. How many articles could have written with the amount of writing skills that went into it? When the RfC was conducted, we didn't know yet that we would have 12 decent candidates whom we could appoint by throwing a dice. Much ado about little - so typical for what we don't like about arbcom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh Gerda, I hope you know I hold you in the highest regard here and still do (as I do for Dweller and anyone else who is on a different "side" of this than me). My sadness probably comes because every night at AIV I see block requests come in for IPs and good faith users who are doing things like adding information to an infobox, or tweaking the tone in a sentence. Some of the vandal fighters don't even bother to template, much less talk, before they ask for a block of these good faith users.

I get that Wikipedia has an insider culture in some places (and I'm certainly a part of it), but I take our mission of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit very seriously, and while ArbCom isn't editing, it does have an impact on ever editor, even the IPs I mention above. That's why I want as many people as possible to vote. If they look over the candidates and see someone they think they can personally identify with, they should be able to express that view. Anyway, thank you for stopping by, your thoughts are always welcome on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, your post reminded me that I need to finish writing Draft:Richard Gibbons (jurist). My secondary content project now (after the conclaves, which will always be my favourite), is working to turn the links in the Canadian Dictionary of Biography blue. Hopefully there will be a good DYK out of Gibbons. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! - Cassandra has spoken - too often probably - about more voters not necessarily making a result better. I said now something different: the candicates are all acceptable. I supported half of them, that's a record high! - Every day I feel I have to remove at least one ugly message saying that 2016 voting is now open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Today, it was even two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Idle Curiosity

Exactly what criterion leads to the logging of moves executed by a non-sysop PageMover in the Deletion Log?Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 17:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, depends on the circumstances. Deletion by overwriting a redirect will be recorded as G6 in the deletion logs. Any autoconfirmed user can do this without the extendedmover flag. If you're asking to my describing the flag as giving the ability to G6 pages, I was referring to redirect suppression, which is not recorded in the deletion logs, but is a form of deletion (see WP:PM/C, which makes this clear). If you are talking about my ArbCom filing that has moves that are deleted: that is just because one of the pages was AfD'd so the only way to show the committee the diff is to link to the deleted revision. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything related to your action:) Whilst, I was idly scrolling through the deletion log, I found a non-admin featured in the deletion log which made me curious!As to G6 deletions, I'm aware about their absence in the del. log.Have cleared the CSD#G6 log sometimes:) But, I am yet to come across deleting by overwriting a redirect.Winged Blades^Godric 17:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Next time you are at an RM click the "direct move". If the title that is being moved to is a redirect that you will have the option to just move the page. The deletion log will record a G6. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

WT:ORG

IMO your jumping on the POINT RfC before I could get it hatted was a partisan edit. You could have made a reasonable community RfC yourself weeks ago, when I first reverted at WP:ORG and called for a full scale RfC. Instead you've decided to pound on about the stability of WP:ORG. So basicly I'm doing the RfC you didn't want to do, and doing it on my terms, with a discussion which has deeper ramifications than independence when a press release is a source. Jytdog is disrupting WT:ORG. Are you going to just stand by hoping he succeeds? And I don't mean that in your role as an administrator. At this point, WT:ORG is proving to be too much of a backwater to return the RfC there. WP:VPP or WT:N would work...do you have suggestions? WT:N is especially affected in that the guideline for WP:GNG is now at odds with WP:ORG. And yes, I've seen your edits that state otherwise, so I'm not trying to argue with you, but I say that this is a huge split from WP:N and years of how editors understand independence as not entitling them to look inside the mind of the authors of reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. To me it looks like Jytdog was formatting the RfC that you tried to launch the other day that didn't have a question, so I simply tried to add the opinion that I had previously expressed. If I had known you would have been offended by it, I would not have made the edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tony, did you mean to say "I would not have"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, PMC, thank you. Its been a long day. Thankfully the home internet is working again. Hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, no problem. It seemed out of character for you to say you were deliberately trying to cause offence ;) Night shift's going well although the night is young so far. Glad to hear your internet woes are sorted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, RfC stands for "request for comment", and does not require a question. It doesn't even make sense, why should a question be required? Nor does asking a question mean that you will get a response to the question. Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)See WP:WRFC#Specificity for some ideas.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That is an essay, and it doesn't argue that a question should be required, rather, it starts with the premise to "communicate the desired question". Unscintillating (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You recently blocked User:Abdulsidahmed2016...

... for creating nonsense pages. He returned from his block and created Couldn't sign in Email. It's tagged for speedy deletion but I wonder if this person shouldn't be blocked permanently as they're really WP:NOTHERE. Have a great day. Ifnord (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There’sNoTime seems to have handled it. Blessings for having friendly talk page stalkers. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion

I noticed you are an admin who has been active on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I came across the edits of this editor and much of it seems to be promotional and perhaps paid editing. I'm reluctant to delete the edits or tag the user's talk page without a second opinion. Would you mind? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Magnolia677, I've cleaned up what is hopefully the lion's share of the mess and left them a warning. GMG ^talk 14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to GMG. Magnolia thanks for bringing this here. From a quick glance this appears to be more linkspam than new page stuff, and that is more MER-C’s thing than mine. Pinging him so he’s aware of this user. If I’ve missed any page creations let me know. It’s early and I’ve had no coffee yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I support the reverts and the warning. MER-C 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone is free to follow up here if they feel strongly about it. GMG ^talk 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Newsletter 8

I've drafted a #8 NPP newsletter here that we could send out. Feel free to modify/add whatever you like. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'd prefer to send it out in early December at some point if its fine with you: given the upcoming holiday in the States a significant portion of our editors are probably going to be busy and it wouldn't have as much of an impact as it might at a later date (not to be too USA-centric, its just something I've kept in mind from my RL job to not do). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol, well I am originally from the USA, but live in NZ so I completely forgot about that. All good. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have updated the newsletter quite a bit. I added a section meant to steer users that might not review much toward doing outreach by inviting other editors. If we send this out it will mean a lot more work for you and other admins over at PERM (hopefully). It might be a bit too long though... anything you'd suggest culling? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I’d likely cut out the project rating script: I don’t see how that is related to NPP. There are also some tweaks I’d make with the wording to make it sound more positive and motivate people that way. I think it’s peobsbly best to send a newsletter out mid-December and skip the November one. I had been sending them out monthly, but there is no need for that every month, and I think we’re safe waiting a few weeks to spare people a rush of mass messages with arbcom, the women in red challenge, and a few other things going on around now. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that rating articles is pretty important as part of the review process, as it lets others who have an interest in the topic know that the article exists. The new rater is a pretty amazing piece of work, and enables me to rate new articles in a few seconds instead of 30 or so with the old rater tool. I'd love to see it in the hands of more people, but I suppose we can wait until it is developed a bit more. Maybe it will fit in a future newsletter that has a bit more room. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Newsletter update +Backlog drive

I am pretty keen to start up a backlog drive to be run during January, so I have I have modified the newsletter quite a bit, shortened some sections and added a section with some info about a backlog drive to be planned from Jan 1st to the end of that month.

I will organize designing the prizes (which will be unique to the contest), will keep track of the reviewers' counts in a spreadsheet, and will give out the prizes at the end. The plan is to have two simultaneous award tiers, one that awards total number of reviews, and one that awards reviewers for maintaining a high weekly count for all four weeks (a 'streak'). I will also spend some time reviewing the reviewers during the drive, to identify users that are rushing through reviews for a high count and give them feedback on their talk page.

I think it is about the right time to send out the newsletter now, as I would also like to send out a message announcing the start of the backlog drive, and down't want them to be too close together (as it is we are only 20 days from the proposed start). If you have some time to review my draft and send it out, that would be great (you can find it here). Let me know if you have any feedback. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'll review it tomorrow at some point and try to send it out mid-next week. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

Was there not a study done a while back on the reliability of article assessments? I could've sworn I remember reading the thing, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. GMG ^talk 13:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, sorry to keep pinging you on the subject, but as you are the only person who I can think of who might know the answer to this question, I'm going to. Thanks in advance. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. There have been a few "how accurate are Wikipedia articles that have been through a review process?" studies, and initiatives like Wiki-Watch and WikiTrust, but I'm unaware of any systematic study of how the assessment scale relates to accuracy. (With the exception of the FA rating, and A-class for the few projects that still use it, the rating scale is virtually meaningless anyway; I know of at least one occasion where someone has rated an article start-class immediately before the bot arrived to add the FA tag, while GA has become so subjective that what passes is largely a function of who the reviewer happens to be.) If Seth Finkelstein is still around—he no longer edits but his email may still work—he may know someone who's done some research; alternatively if you don't mind crossing over to the Dark Side then Somey or Kohs might know of something. Some of the former FA coordinators and delegates (particularly Raul654 and SandyGeorgia might know if anything was done specifically on the accuracy of Featured Articles. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of anything useful, but with the demise of the Featured Artice Review Process, we cannot even count on the quality of Featured Articles. At least half of the FAs on the books aren’t, and for several years now, FAs have been passed on meager support and little review. As far as I know, there is no reason to believe that article assessment has any relationship to quality at any level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Tony, I’ve participated as a nom and reviewer of both GA and FA articles, probably not to the extent Sandy or Iridescent have, but the articles I was involved with were accuracy checked against the sources. A couple were legal articles, other topics included marine life, insects, livestock, horses, places, books-movies, and the most recent was Underwater diving which was highly technical and rather complex. I have a high level of confidence in the accuracy of all the ones I participated in and have kept on my watchlist. I have not reviewed others for accuracy. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but I created Project Accuracy (in 2016, I think) which would have taken the review process a level higher than FA by incorporating an editorial review board comprising project team reps, outside academics and experts. Sadly, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, the project was not readily accepted some in the community who flat-out rejected the project. Without the much needed support and encouragement, the application did not advance beyond initial discussions with WMF staff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

How should a pointy edit like this be handled? Should it just simply be ignored or applied in a case of incompetent behavior? For context, it was in response to my edit at an AFD, among a few others, where the editor was bludgeoning the discussion for the sake of arguing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, my advice on all of this sort of stuff on Wikipedia is to ignore it. I'm sure you could use it as a diff somewhere if you were building a broader case, but I find that I am personally happier and more productive on Wikipedia when I am not dealing with drawn out behavioral cases (and I say this as someone who is the filing party in an ArbCom case, and who has two concurrent appeals against an AE sanction I imposed running right now). Anyway, always glad to see you around, and especially on my talk page! A way to brighten the night, even if its on a dispute issue :). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I can't claim to feel good about this post, but it is not there for the purpose of being ignored. It is there to encourage TheGracefulSlick to apply the force of reason consistently. The antecedent for this inside discussion is at diff. The discussion with you here is a continuation. Unscintillating (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice to anyone who feels offended or is considering making a behavioral complaint because of AfDs is to ignore the dispute and stay above it. XfDs are heated environments and getting worked up over comments of others isn’t worth it. If you see question 3 of my RfA you’ll see this is my philosophy towards XfDs in general and had nothing to do with you in particular. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned, your response turned my bad mood on its head! I interpreted the comment as "you may have a point but I am not going to bother to verify it because you said something that annoys me". I treat AFD as a serious discussion about policy so obviously it irked me the wrong way, which was probably their intention. But you are right, I'll be much happier using my time elsewhere. Thank you for the thoughtful reply.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My Rollback Request

Hey Tony, I apologize for bothering you but I just wanted to let you know that I don't intend to ever "disappear" from Wikipedia again which is why I said, "I am here to stay". I was just wondering if you possibly could look at your decision. I completely understand where you are coming from and thinking that I could just disappear again at any time and the truth is as I said I am here to stay. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mdriscoll03, sorry for the confusion, I misread what you were saying. I'm still declining, however. I've updated my decline with reasoning after this. You really need to gain more experience before we give you the keys to Huggle, which you have stated previously was what you wanted this for. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

How to handle promo in sandbox

Not sure what to do with this autobio and/or promo. User:DecideSuccess/sandbox. Is MfD required or is there an applicable speedy criterion? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Err yeah, WP:G11, the one that deals with spam everrrrywhere :) Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bri, I went ahead and G11'd it. I normally don't do that without someone else placing a tag, but that was basically his speaker bio they read when introducing him, and you'd raised the question here. I also suspect that it was an offline copyright violation. Thanks for raising it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Helpmegrow

On another matter, could you look at the now-deleted edits of Helpmegrow, also to the spamcopyviofest that is Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University and compare them to your recently blocked Moanabanana? I vaguely remember they were of a similar vintage, but it migt help establish how the sovkmaster is. Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just closed that SPI. They're likely the same, but that account is stale so I didn't bother blocking it. That was the one I was going back and forth on, but since you raise it and they have 2017 edits, I'll go ahead and block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

...know my name, Persuasion ;) Right, nice one. The reason I asked is that I was wondering, if that's the sockmaster, and they weren't blocked at the time, would the Moanabanana edits strictly fall under G5? I would argue yes, because the first account's edits were disruptive (copyvios), and although they weren't blocked they set up another account to return to previously-warned against disruptive behaviour (more copyvios). Having said that, the letter of the law rather than the spirit is that they should be a "previously blocked or banned editor." What say you? A somewhat academic curiosity regarding two degrees of reading the same thing, that's all. Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 15:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading the logs right, Moanabanana is the oldest blocked account. There are others if you read the SPI, but none of them were blocked (or are, not many admins are going to block stale accounts from 2010 or 2013). The safest thing to do re: deletion would be to PROD or XfD with rationale and linking to the SPI if it is a factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm like User:HaroldGarcia... in 2010. Unbelievable. Anyway, none of them wrote the article so it's safe; no, I was just considering the irony that looking at it now, it's taken hours of editor and administrator time, copyright violations and advertorials, multiple edit-wars, warnings, and blocks, user pages, talk pages, and noticeboard pages... but we finally seem to have ended up with a half-decent destubification :) The Sytem Works. Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A crazy guy, but funny!

It took me a while to catch-on to this guy...when I first started watching him, I thought WTH?!! But have since seen some hilarious episodes...and this one is what so many of us think around this time of year... ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	As a token of praise for the bold edit at WP:CSD:) Winged Blades^Godric 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Pages

While new page patrolling I found this guy: Special:Contributions/Harriesss. Check all his new pages. Essentially the same exact text in each, and all football players on the same New Zealand team. Notability issue? _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Participants in the super rugby league don't seem to classify for subject specific notability under WP:NSPORTS . That means that the Blues players have to be judged against GNG. Not seeing anything more than brief mentions for Mike Tamoaieta or Glenn Preston, though there are a couple of sources that I found for Dalton Papali'i ‎[2] [3] (the second one is a bit marginal, but I'd say an AfD could go either way). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere Huh? I can't find much coverage on 'em but they all seem to comfortably pass WP:NRU#2 as they have played in a fully professional league (Mitre 10 cup) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

AH... Woops, sorry, I read that wrong (for some reason I was reading that only teams were subject-specific notable from the Super Rugby). All these players do in fact meet subject-specific notability. Thanks for pointing out my error Galobtter. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Adotchar, I'm not the best at WP:NSPORTS, but you seem to have been given good advice here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Hey buddy, Thanks for that. But I have been doing it underWikipedia:Non-admin closure policy. Thank you. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Herald, PERM requests are not discussions for closure, they are requests for admins to do a function that can only possibly be done by an administrator. There is no need for a non-admin to ever deny a PERM request, and it can be very confusing to new users if they contact you requesting reconsideration (which is often the case). Please do not decline PERM requests in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Nick (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This may be a good subject for a pro forma RFC for addition to NAC. GMG ^talk 15:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony, it's my turn to say that we don't need an RFC:)PERM is a strict-sysop-only-zone (except for some comments by non-admins etc.) and we don't need to get any concensus to clarify that.Winged Blades^Godric 15:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I've closed them before in extreme situations. Can always boldly add something and really see if it needs discussion. If nobody wants to, I'll look into it next week when I get back. GMG ^talk 15:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...IAR is always an option:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Nazzah

User talk:Nazzah is indicating in their unblock request that they intend to abide by Wikipedia policy. Any objections to unblock per WP:ROPE? --Jayron 32 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32: they were a paid editor/employee tagteaming articles with another editor, so I don't really believe them on that point: they are only here to promote their company. I'm not personally inclined to unblock, but if you decide to do so, I would only be comfortable with it if they agree to comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI and not to directly edit articles, but to make requests on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will leave an explicit follow-up question to see what their response is. --Jayron 32 16:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Maja Polovina

While it's plausible that Lepa Brena may have more than one fan, User:JoDe seems to have picked up where User:Maja Polovina left off. MP's block date and JD's account creation date look suspicious. Since you dealt with Maja's edits you may have a better feel than I whether sockpuppetry is going on. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Cabayi, thanks. Blocked and tagged as a duck. I've gone ahead and filed an SPI for record keeping at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maja Polovina. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Termux

Why are you deleting Termux? --SDRausty (talk)

SDRausty, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Termux was that there was not adequate sourcing to meet our inclusion criteria. As an uninvolved administrator, I implemented that consensus by deleting the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Prolly a dumb question...or two...

- when an article is redirected - let’s say a spin-off redirected to the main - is there a shortcut back to the actual article in order to review it? I guess that would mean getting to the actual redirect page and viewing it in article history, but what’s the easiest way to get to the actual redirect page?
- is there an explanation of the Swap process for dummies? ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by #1, but as for #2, if you are talking about page swapping, the actual explanation is here but see: User:Andy_M._Wang/pageswap. Install the tool and practice on a couple of user subpages, it is pretty simple. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, ICPH - I’ll practice the swap. As for the redirect - I’m talking about spin-off articles that get redirected back to the main article. If there is no notice added to the target page about the redirect - example: type Transportion in the search bar and you’re redirected to Transport which notes in the header (Redirected from Transportation) - but if the note wasn’t added, what is the easiest way to find the actual #redirect page if you need to remove it and make it an article again? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When I do that, I get the redirect notice. If the problem arises when you click on a wikilink, then it is likely that -tion is just added to the end of a link in the wikicode, like how you get birds when you type in [[bird]]s. Hope that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You should get a little notice underneath "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" that tells you where you have been redirected from. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

atsme you can copy the php code such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transportation&redirect=no

and replace the bold text with what ever redirect page you want to get to. you could probably invent a little input box that generates that URL to go on your user page as a tool to make it cleaner. Edaham (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC) most browsers will automatically sort out the spaces and symbols into their reference codes for the URL, so in for safari for example, if you type -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=bird watcher&redirect=no

it will take you to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=bird%20watcher&redirect=no

, which is the redirect page for Birdwatching Edaham (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

BIMB_Holdings and Malaysia_Building_Society - NPP check

Can I check that I correctly marked these for speedy under A7 guidelines. Thank you. I've not had much time to review pages, but among the pages I have reviewed, I've made at least two edits which other reviewers have felt it prudent to ammend or alter and feel that I should get some feed back. I'm checking in here to make sure I'm on the same page regarding A7 so I can have a reference for future issues of the same nature. Thanks as always for your time. Edaham (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edaham, when there is a notable parent company, you should just redirect to them. I see SoWhy has declined one of the nominations on those grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks - I've read into it. Understood Edaham (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation?

You sanctioned me under BLP and restricted my edits to living or recently dead politicians. Would you mind explaining what edits I made that warranted a BLP sanction? I would like to see BLP diffs that are relevant to that ArbCom case. They weren't alleged on the AE page. Masem is the only admin that commented on BLP issues but it was to note that my edits were in support of BLP policy. I did not list BLP as a reason for the edits either. Thanks. --DHeyward (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, it was for edit warring on a page that was under BLP discretionary sanctions and a 1RR/consensus required provision. The 1RR violations on this page were disruptive and a clear violation of sanctions that you were aware of. The sanction applies to living American politicians, and the goal is to prevent disruption and potential edit warring on these pages. It is logged under the BLP case because the page was under page restrictions based on that case. Since the original sanction was under the BLP case, I limited the sanction to BLPs and things related to it rather than making it a general post-1932 American politics sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} It’s a double-edged sword, Tony, but I’m of the mind that the BLP side is the sharpest because of the potential for legal liability; therefore, editors who err on the side of caution by removing potentially libelous material should not automatically be the recipients of a block or DS for “edit warring” - the editor(s) restoring such material are the ones who should be as the ONUS is on them for restoring it. The latter is what’s being overlooked. When contentious labels are used to describe a BLP in WikiVoice, or opinion pieces and questionable sources are used to disparage a living person without in-text attribution or in a way that makes it noncompliant with NPOV, or if there is any other reason a GF editor is concerned enough to remove potentially libelous material from a BLP, edit warring should not prevent such removal or pose a threat of a block or sanctioning. If we keep blocking/sanctioning GF editors for adhering to BLP policy, we are creating an environment conducive to tendentious editing and potential liability. It also reduces the effect of our core content policies and encourages gaming the system by COI editors who protect/create attack pages, BLP coatracks, WP:BLPCOI, including political advocacies determined to disparage an opponent. I commend Masem for his defense of BLP policy but I’m concerned such efforts are being overshadowed by “technicalities”. Preventing disruption is certainly a noble cause and much appreciated, but I’m truly concerned that we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to BLPs. I’m working on an essay with hopes of clarifying some of the misinterpretations I’ve seen regarding BLP policy and would appreciate any ideas regarding the best avenues to explore. I’m also hoping to shine more light on the potential repercussions of POV warriors who IAR and restore potentially libelous material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony I'm pinging you here because I have a question regarding this topic. Does "1RR", and "consensus required" apply to all BLPs or to a select few? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, it only applies to ones where an administrator has applied active page level discretionary sanctions and specifically chosen to apply those two restrictions. You will be able to tell because there will be a page notice alerting you when you hit edit (like at Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...likewise, do you still beat your wife, TB?! ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI

Although we have our disagreements about specific content on the Saylor page, and differing views on paid contributions, I very much appreciate you taking the red flags about these single-purpose accounts seriously. I see you've tied in one IP from the Mandell page, but you may not be surprised to learn there is yet more history. I'll keep it brief, but can go into more detail if you like:

First, see the IPs at Talk:Brian Krzanich making similar accusations against myself and Drmies. The IP also created an account to impersonate a PR firm that had hired mine to work on Mr. Krzanich's page, which went to SPI, and resulted in several blocks.
Also note, in your discussion at Israelpeterson's talk page, they linked to a WikiInAction thread and a one-post harassment site on WordPress as evidence of their concern; please see the discussion at AN/I in October, which includes links to several WikiInAction posts likely added by the IP / blocked users (it's hard to tell). The WordPress attack site also concerned Intel and Drmies, so it presumably came from the same source.
And all of this may be related to an account called Inlinetext, which was blocked in April following similar activity (see AN/I discussion).

One last thing, about your wording in the SPI: you use phrases like "paid to edit" and "article edited by" to describe my interaction with client articles, but I believe it is material to others' understanding of the case that I have never made mainspace edits to any of these articles. All of my participation has been on talk pages and in draft space. I hope you'll agree the distinction is worth clarifying. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB Too, thanks for the history here. I didn't check the links last night: it was late and I had already filed an SPI for a CheckUser to look at what was involved. I believe very strongly that users shouldn't feel harassed, so if you are being ganged up on by multiple accounts maliciously, it should be examined. I'd encourage you to add any relevant information to the SPI: I think you certainly have a right to do it with your paid account or your real account.

I don't see the distinction you are making as a particularly meaningful one in terms of verbiage. While I do appreciate that you are one of the few firms that actually attempts to follow our rules, you are drafting articles that are then later pasted or moved into mainspace (through the proper channels). As I pointed out at the COI talk page, your actions create a structural problem with the article in that all future edits are based off of your work, and from what I have seen, your firm's work tends to be advertising (if very well done advertising using modern PR best practices that try to minimize the advertisement sounding like an advertisement.) Your edits are in the articles, even if they were executed by someone else, so I think my description is fair. You'll likely disagree with that, but it is how I see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, despite our different opinions, I'm grateful for your thoughtful approach. I probably will add something to the SPI page, though I may not get to it until later today. As for the distinction between my approach and someone who edits directly, I consider it material in large part because of Jimbo's longstanding advice about sticking to talk pages. Still, I understand where you're coming from, and it's never our intention to be overtly promotional—which is not to say we always get it right. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB Too, not a problem: like I said, you're trying to get it right, which I do appreciate even if I personally have concerns with the structural challenges commercial paid editing presents (which is not to say I am for a complete ban, just that we really need to think them through more systemically than we have.)

As for the SPI, it turned up four accounts on the CU, so hopefully this set of problems will be done for now. I'm off for the day, but I'll weigh in on the talk page later. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony, I haven't followed recent developments--but "that IP" is in fact seriously abusive, as is Inlinetext, who is (I have no doubt) behind a bunch of IPs/accounts. In fact, they "denounced" me to my employer a few weeks ago; they have a record of harassing people off-wiki, in the most repulsively verbose language (a crime against English). It was kind of fun explaining Wikipedia, IP editing, COI, etc. to the folks at HR. OK, so I was paid 78,000 MILLION POUNDS IN BITCOIN BY INTEL, what about it? Srsly, "that IP" is seriously abusive and has been harassing people for months: block on sight, revert, and pay it no mind. (If you followed some links you may know that this is also about magic crystals that apparently Intel used but then didn't use and they swept it under the rug and it's all really important and probably a conspiracy and blah blah blah. People should really stop smoking bath salts.)
As for WWB, well, a paid editor edits to get paid. As you can see, I think, in the few articles that I have been involved with that they wrote, I think they should do more pruning and write less promotionally, but at least they seem to be an honest broker... OK, gotta go and check a million other messages. Take it easy! Drmies (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for the message. Yes: after I saw the complaints, I filed the SPI because it looked fishy. Thanks for the note. I agree with you that WWB is attempting to be an honest broker here. I hope you are recovering well and having a Merry Christmas season! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

2004 Ingoldmells bus crash

Hi! I just reverted the PROD you added to the article because I think it meets WP:EVENT, given that it had national media coverage over an extended period of time, so I don't think it would be an uncontroversial deletion per WP:PROD. AfD seems more suitable. Marianna251TALK 00:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Marianna251, already at AfD. If this meets our inclusion standards, the standards need to be changed. A bus crash with 5 fatalities has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of the coverage. The GNG can’t trump NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It doesn't fit PROD but AfD is perfectly reasonable. Not sure how WP:EVENT could be amended, though - this could just be one of those cases that gets by on a technicality because perfect guidelines aren't possible. Something's always going to slip through. Marianna251TALK 00:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh, it’s pretty uncontroversial, I can’t think of any admin who would have a problem deleting it via PROD, but I have no problem going to AfD. EVENT doesn’t need to be modified since it is already subordinate to NOT. Anyway, thanks for the note. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Haiyenslna (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Haiyenslna, I noticed you have spammed this message across a bunch of peoples' talk pages. Is there some specific assistance you're looking for? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested requested moves related to definite articles

Hi Tony, it's the former 142.160.131.202. (It seems my IP address has shifted, which I've never known to happen before.) Regarding those contested requested moves related to definite articles, would it be possible to cancel all of them except for The Anglican Missal? It doesn't make sense to have the same discussion concurrently in a half-dozen different places, so I figure I can re-request after the first RM is over. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@142.161.81.20: sure, I figured it was you. I typically decline those as a whole and let them be bundled, but as these aren't really related except for the definite article, I sent them to discussion. I'm about to head to bed, but if no one has commented except Bradv, you can close them yourself by following the instructions at Template:RMnac and making the outcome withdrawn. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you couldn't assume it was me – it could be any of the many editors concerned about the application of naming conventions in articles on the history of high-church Anglicanism!

But will do. Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirection of Sequencing.com to Brandon Colby

Hi User:TonyBallioni, I noticed you reverted my edit o Sequencing.com page and redirected it to Brandon Colby. The reason you provided is, AfD closed that way. Yes, the discussion had closed that way but that was due to some errors in the page at the time. You should have gone through the content before reverting my edit. The content is different altogether and it makes no sense to redirect the page to the Brandon Colby. If I had restored the page, the way it was, then you could revert my edit. The content and even references were all different and it fulfills all the prerequisites for a stand-alone page. So it makes no sense to redirect the page to some other page.TMOR (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

TMOR, it didn’t address the notability concerns that were at the heart of the AfD. That is why I restored the redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, The notablity criteria says: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The article has more than a dozen sources included in the article, though there are hundres on the web, and all are from reputable media organizations. In the previous content the page had used sources from the company's own website, that made sense when it was redirected. But now the situation is different altogether. If you go through the content and check the links you'll get the idea. All the source are from independent, reliable and trustworthy sources and verifiable. TMOR (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

TMOR, they all either pre-dated the AfD or were press releases. I'll ask the closing admin, Bishonen for her thoughts here. In other related business: have you been paid or are you in anyway related to Sequencing.com or Mr. Colby, and have you previously used any other accounts? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, No they are not. I don't know why did you redirect without any review. And I am neither related to anyone nor I used any account earlier TMOR (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've compared the AfD version here with TMOR's expanded version here, and I see TMOR has added a good deal of text and no less than 12 sources. The text isn't written in a very encyclopedic manner, but the big problem is the sources; I have to agree with Tony that none of the sources are independent; they're basically Sequencing.com talking about itself. TMOR, are you really claiming that a text with phrasing like "Our Universal Genetic Data Compatibility enables apps to be able to process genetic data" and "We also provide developers with easy-to-use APIs", as here is independent of Sequencing.com..? And even where this tell-tale use of pronouns is absent, it's easy enough to spot a promotional press release. I thought at first that the review here might be an exception, but, no, it doesn't even mention Sequencing.com. It's a review of Dante Labs. Are you claiming Dante Labs is the same thing as Sequencing.com? I'm afraid that, even if the two are closely connected, you really can't get any notability from a review that doesn't mention the article subject. (Some of the other "sources" don't mention it either.) In short, TMOR, notability according to Wikipedia's criteria isn't about the number of sources, but their quality. I agree entirely with Tony's revert to a redirect. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

TonyBallioni and Bishonen, the reason is, if we exclude the sources mentioned by you, there are enough sources to support the article as a stand-alone article. What about this and this. According to you, The Huffing Post, Yahoo Finance, and all other media outlest are not reliable sources?

I know notability is not asserted by number of sources, but what I mean is, if one source is not reliable then it could be and can be removed. The solution was not the redirection, might be some other tag could be placed on the page. TMOR (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen, I am astoished why didn't you find the name in the sources. I hadn't added the references blindly. I had read every phrase before including in the reference. Especially you talked about Dente Lab Review, please read the sentence with the sequencing.com, I have only written that part of a sentence in my own words and referenced that sentence with this link. Please have a look, this is the sentence taken from the article you mentioned above that it even doesn't mention the name: sequencing.com and promethease.com – where a whole host of further disease risk, drug-resistance, family tree, or appearance decoding can be done with apps and reports.

Also, if you mention only one reference which doesn't include the name sequencing.com I'll stop arguing. It is a challange by me. TMOR (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(TMOR, if you have more to say here, please indent your responses for readability, and, especially, don't un-indent mine. See WP:INDENT, and take a look at how I've done it now, with colons.) About the Dante Labs review: yes, I missed the mention of sequencing.com there, and in a couple of other sources, sorry about that. (I searched for a capitalized name.) Good point! But it's a mention in passing. Please take another look at the notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". A suggestion: why don't you work on improving the article Brandon Colby instead (not in a promotional way, please)? If a reader tries to look up Sequencing.com on Wikipedia, they'll be redirected to Brandon Colby, and presumably they'll read that. Two admins have told you the sources you have added don't pass muster for a standalone article. If you don't want to take our word for it, I suggest you take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard and make your case there. Start a new section with an informative name, at the bottom of the page, and provide the links people need to evaluate the issue. That doesn't have to be all the links to all the sources: a link to your version and a link to the old version that was on AfD will work as well or better. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, Sorry for inconvenience, I was not aware of the indentation. Thanks for your detailed reply. Only two references trivially mention the name, other 11 references discuss the subject in detail. Do you mean this article just mention trivially? This link is like New York Times in the field of Genomics. Also, what about , this link?. No, I don't want to improve the article of Mr. Colby, if I wanted such, I could have done that earlier. Please look into the references, at least the references mentioed here. All I want to do is the restoration of article, if you do that, I'll remove the sources which trivially mention and restructrue the content. TMOR (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The first source was already discussed at the AfD. The second source doesn't look to come from an RS to me. It seems like a fairly new trade pub/blog [4], but I'm not familiar with medical sourcing as much as I am PR in general. Maybe Doc James could weigh in as to his thoughts on where Frontline Genomics stands? He's typically who I ask for help on these sorts of things. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure of the users connection with the subject in question is also missing. Agree souring is poor and typical of that of paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, I had clearly answered in the second reply about my relation or whatever. I have been contributing for Wikipedia, so I wanted to present the article in a better way. I just need the answer, is there any way to improve the article as a stand-alone page? TMOR (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you haven't clearly answered Tony's question, because it wasn't about "whatever", it was about three things:

a) have you been paid?

b) are you in anyway related to Sequencing.com or Mr. Colby?

c) have you previously used any other accounts?

You answered b and c but ignored a. Please see my comment, and my repeated question about paid editing, on your own page now. If you just remove my post, as you usually do with such things, that's up to you, but it really is in your own interest to reply to it. Incidentally, you have also completely ignored my suggestion above that you take the question of your sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. That would be something constructive to do, as opposed to keeping on nagging individual admins here on Tony's page. You don't agree with our opinion of your sources; fine; take it to the noticeboard for wider input. I'm done here; I seem to have already spent too much time advising somebody who doesn't have their listening ears on. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC).

Note. In view of their continued unresponsiveness,[5] I have blocked TMOR indefinitely for violations of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC).
- Bishonen, you seem to have forgotten to block. Also, if you look at their block log, they are most certainly UPE. The other account's deleted contribs are telling. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  - Ha, there you see what happens when people become stupidly dependent on Twinkle doing all the paperwork. Thanks, Tony. Now they're blocked. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

Where has the time gone?!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) ^{^{Atsme📞📧} 12:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)}
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: it doesn't need water won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a fun holiday and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Oh, Atsme, you could have left it as Christmas, my rant below was just making fun of TNT over the exact word XMAS. He's a good friend, so I sometimes take liberties in making fun of him. I wish you a very Merry Christmas yourself (I do celebrate it. Looking forward to seeing the tress at my folks house this year

). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, *lol* Not intending to profile but your last name and my grandparent's name (Petteruti) have a similar end ring so I just assumed...but then I thought, well hell, I hit him twice with Christmas tree worm, talk about tacky! There was no escape - I sought shelter.

Thank you for your merry wishes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please do something with Archaeological Museum Umerkot too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisal Ahmad (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wisal Ahmad, I'll look at it later. A bit busy now, and not yet had my coffee. Cordless Larry, good call on the copyright investigation: not sure how much experience you have with text copyright, but typically the practice we use these days is to remove any copyrighted text (including close paraphrases), and revdel using Template:copyvio-revdel (or you can just ask me on my talk.) Its essentially what the people at the copyright page will do, so unless there is something complicated, its normally just easier to do it yourself. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I did remove the copyright text, when I added the investigation template. I thought that the presence of the investigation template attracts a copyright clerk, who performs the revision deletions? That's how I've done things in the past, but please let me know if that's wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A clerk will look over it that way, but the now standard way of doing it is through Template:copyvio-revdel or asking an admin directly. The copyright investigations template is used for more complex cases where excising the text completely would be a net negative (i.e. a rewrite is needed because the article and content is actually important) or in cases where it is likely that a copyright violation has occurred but the exact copyright status of the material is unclear, so having it reviewed by someone who is familiar with our copyright policy would be beneficial. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have sometimes wondered whether a clerk investigation is required when I can perfectly well tell that something is a violation. The wording of WP:DCV could probably do with updating, as that is what I have been following until now - though I have done so thinking that parts of it are a bit ambiguous when it comes to determining which path to take. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No one is working on the cases at WP:CP at present (like for the last month or so), and there's a lot of unresolved cases on the board right now. Sorry about that. I will try to get some done today. If it's a clear-cut copyvio and you don't see a need for the editor who added it to be given a week to attempt revisions, please remove the content and request revision deletion, either through use of the revision-deletion Template:copyvio-revdel or posting on the talk page of an admin with experience doing revision deletion (Tony and myself would both be happy to help with this). I usually list at WP:CP where there's a long-standing article will be more or less destroyed or stubbified by copyvio removal, or cases where an editor has attempted to paraphrase a source and has not done a very good job of it and a week to get the prose compliant is all they need to fix it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Diannaa. This isn't the first time you have provided me with advice on dealing with copyright violations. You certainly do not need to apologise for the unresolved cases when much of the workload falls on you. I would just emphasise the point I made to Tony, that WP:DCV could perhaps be updated to advise readers about requesting revision deletion directly, which might reduce the load at WP:CP somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony has done some amendments at the policy page to make it clearer that listing at WP:CP need not be the first resort in clear-cut cases. Diff of Wikipedia:Copyright violations. That should help. Thanks Tony. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I hadn't seen Tony's amendments before I made this morning's comment, and I think that they help clarify things. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

	Season's Greetings!
	Merry XMAS! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that User:There'sNoTime did XMAS to annoy me since I think it is tacky and he knows it. Also, should anyone wonder where the X in Xmas comes from, it is actually quite religious (which is neither good nor bad): see Chi Rho and Xmas for a bit of background X being the Latin character that looks most like the Greek chi, the ancient abbreviation for Christ.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Cough cough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have a friend name Christina who as a nickname goes by Xtina (pronounced ex-tina) for that reason. Also, I don't know if I've ever told you I appreciate the possible double play on your username: it obviously draws to mind the liturgical Latin Church practice by the same name, but also can be taken to mean the literal translation, which is obviously the other side of the coin from the Church of Rome. Also, TNT likely didn't expect to get such a lesson on religious terminology today. Poor chap. Side effect of somehow putting up with me. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Prasanth Manghat

Hi @TonyBallioni:, I noticed that you have deleted the article Prasanth Manghat, under G5 of Wikipedia deletion policy, because it was submitted (for Article for Creation) or created by WikiBaji, who later got blocked/banned from Wikipedia. I do not know why the editor WikiBaji created this article. I want to inform you that User:Wikibaji had drafted a short article just copying the same content from The Wall Street Journal's Profile. And the draft was approved. I'm unaware of his/her motive behind drafting the article.

But When I got to know about the Prasanth Manghat article, it was just a short article, so I decided to improve the article and expanded it by adding more content and citations. But user User:Wikibaji reverted my all edit. I again made the same edit and User:Wikibaji reverted it again, which turned to be an edit war. It was clear vandalism from User:Wikibaji and was behaving like he/she owns the article. I asked for the help at Helpdesk, Wikipedia administrator Mr. User:DGG came forward to help me and accepted my version and warn the editor Wikibaji. You can see the whole conversation on the article Prasanth Manghat' talk page.

So, I believe, the article should not be deleted just because it was submitted (for the article for creation) by Wikibaji. If he had a conflict of Interest, why would he have vandalized the article. So, I request you to check the whole matter and restore the article. Thank you. 124.155.255.199 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That article had been nominated by There'sNoTime for deletion. I believe there was significant evidence off-wiki that contributed to his choice to do so, but I would welcome hearing DGG's thoughts on this, because I respect his views on paid editing quite a lot and if he thinks I should restore it, I will. My reasoning for deleting via G5 was that there were no substantial contributions from others, and even the larger edits on the end to me appeared to be restoration of content by a banned editor who was editing in violations of the terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider the article sufficiently important to keep in the circumstances DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and DGG: It would be quite unfair to delete the article when most of the work on the article was done by me. And you are aware of User:Wikibaji's vandalism on the article. Don't you think his/her behavior showed that he/she wasn't interested in improving that article? Can you please advise now, how can I create the same article? Thanks. 124.155.255.199 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

124.155.255.199 I would recommend you doing it through the articles for creation process, and also disclosing if you had any relationship to the subject and if you have been paid by them. I will not be restoring the article as Wikibaji was paid to create and promote it in violation of our terms of use, and after reviewing it now with two functionaries (There'sNoTime and DGG), I don't think there were enough substantial contributions to make it ineligible for G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @TonyBallioni: as you suggested, I'll draft the article. I am an employee of Mr. Manghat's company, and I am not directly paid to edit the Wikipedia page. I have different job profile. I had disclosed it even before when one of Wikipedia editors had placed UDP tag on Manghat's article. Later UDP tag was removed. The whole conversation can be found on article's talk page. Please advise, where I need to disclose the same thing again while drafting the article? Also, let me know if anything else is to be disclosed. I want to make sure no Wikipedia terms of use should be violated. Once, the draft is complete, I'll send it to you for the review so that you can Inform me if any policy is being violated. Also, Just want to make a point that if we had hired user:Wikibaji, we would have asked him/her to create an article with detailed information, but the user created a short article just copying the content from WSJ's Profile. And, when I found our CEO's article, I tried improving it by adding more information and citations. Later, Wikibaji reverted my edits and vandalized the article. Doesn't it show that he/she wasn't interested in the article or he wasn't paid? Though, I have no problem if you do not restore the article. I'll submit the draft and send it to you for the review. Thank you.124.155.255.199 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TonyBallioni:, I have submitted the draft of Prasanth Manghat, requesting you to kindly review it to make sure if it doesn't violate any Wikiepdia policies. Thank you.-- 124.155.255.194 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme copyright issue

Hi again. The section William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme#Roynton Cottage, Rivington, Lancashire appears to be a copyright violation of various parts this paper. The background to this is being discussed (in relation to a different article) at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Someone has erroneously, perhaps mischievously, deleted content, where the editor who added it is claiming to be the copyright holder. Should this material be deleted, or can we wait to see if formal permission is given? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I've removed the section and hidden the revisions containing it. Our copyright policy requires proof of a compatible license, and all content is assumed non-compatible and under copyright until we have that proof. The content cannot remain on Wikipedia until we have formal permission, in this case, it would likely be easiest to handle via OTRS. We do this both for the protection of the rights of the copyright holder and to protect others from possible infringement if they reuse our content. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, understood - thanks. By "wait to see", I didn't just mean leave it alone, but I wondered if blanking the section would have sufficed while the permissions issue was resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s easier to revdel now and restore when we get permissions. Legally we need to, and it prevents us from forgetting about it. Undoing revdel is easy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Something tells me that we probably aren't going to get that permission anyway! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Darn. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Numbers

That was my error, apologies. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I figured as much. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

On the possibility of reopening and editing List of awards and nominations received by Regine Velasquez

Hi TonyBallioni

Hope all is well. From my understanding, the aforementioned Wikipedia List of Regine Velasquez's awards and nominations has been merged/redirected to the article back in 2013 after a consensus was made following its nomination for deletion. Having gone through the page myself, it does indeed fall short on verifiable sources and was poorly formatted and presented. I'd like to work on improving the list after spending time re-writing Regine Velasquez's article between Oct-Dec to adhere with WP:MOS, which is in the middle of a peer review and undergoing a WP:GOCE copy-edit. My next aim is to clean-up existing articles/list related to Velasquez.

Reading through the talk page I noted that you were involved with the results of deletion discussions. I'm also unsure where to discuss this, so I decided to contact you through your talk page. Hope you could get back on the best course of action to address my request. Pseud 14 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: I'd try talking to Juliancolton first since the page was protected to enforce his closure. He's not around that much these days, but he drops by on occasion. If he doesn't respond to you in a few days, let me know and I'll consider undoing the salting as Mark Arsten is even less active. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: thanks for your response, I did leave a note on his talk page last 26th of Nov, and have not heard from him since, I figured you were right when you said he's not around much these days :), nevertheless, I will leave you to decide at your convenience, I don't mind waiting a few more days. Pseud 14 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: unsalted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: thank you sir! Truly appreciate your quick turnaround. Will start working on this soon as the PR and GOCE copy-edit have been completed for the main article. All the best! Pseud 14 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello there, You have declined my request again. I want to help out in Reviewing new pages. Tell you what day I can request for it again. I understood its complete policies. Thanks -- HindWiki^Connect 07:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

HindWIKI, that was Coffee, not me. Iridescent also expressed concerns. Including Primefac’s removing you from AfC, four administrators have questioned whether or not you are competent enough to hold this permission. Coffee would be the person to contact about this particular request, but I doubt he will reverse his decision and I doubt you’d find an administrator who was willing to grant at this time. My advice to you as the admin who currently is doing most of the NPP coordination work is to come back in three months and focus on improving the encyclopedia and learning more about our policies and guidelines around deletion and inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, can I request again after two months at (19 February 2018)? And I am sure that in the time I would be most experienced. -- HindWiki^Connect 07:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I can’t tell you not to, but typically people who apply again at specific dates such as that are seen as rushing to get permissions, which raises further questions. Just apply again when you feel ready. I suggest around 3 months, but it is up to you when you feel ready. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Any idea about where we stand w.r.t to this RFC. While, technically, it's not challenged/vacated, AFAIR, I have seen pretty enough people objecting to the close and it's broad ambit.How do you feel?Winged Blades^Godric 16:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a bad NAC where the closers directly contradicted WP:N without consensus to do so in a conversation that was not framed as an RfC on changing the overall notability guideline. They made up a change to the notability guideline out of thin air without it being advertised as such, but never implemented it on the actual guideline page (and if they did, it would be reverted). I'm also well known as an SNG advocate (both for inclusion and exclusion), so I'm of course biased in this way.

In terms of NPP, I think a subject that passes NSPORT should generally be given the tick because they typically aren't harming anything, aren't PROMO, and aren't worth spending the community's time fighting over whether it's GNG or bust or sports-guideline-has-no-deadline that matters more. The flip side is that projects like FOOTY do a great job in making NFOOTY be de facto exclusionary (and I think ice hockey and baseball do as well). People like to bitch about how much NSPORTs lets in, but like PROF, I always like to remind people to think about how much it keeps out.

In terms of a way forward, I think the best approach is to work with individual projects on tightening up any guidelines that need tightening up. Something that both the schools RfC and that RfC have taught us is that massive change from established practice is not going to be accepted by a large overarching RfC with a big sweeping close. Change in notability standards is going to be organic and needs to start with local consensus on project talk pages and in AfDs first. Once the standards change in practice, getting an actual policy or guideline document changed is easy and will be universally accepted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100% that it's just a waste of time to AfD sports players that meet SNG. Seriously wondering what harm is there in those articles. I was wondering why this RfC had not been cited in an AfD before (I've only heard it today, despite participating in many AfDes where peoplejust cited SNG). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It gets cited at DRV and in AfD closes, but it almost always ends up meaning that the admin can close however they want and the DRV won't overturn it because there is such confusion in this area. For the sake of comparison, I'd love to see it explained to me how the following line of the close could possibly be squared with the text of WP:N

There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.

WP:N states:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

WP:NSPORTS already makes itself subordinate to the GNG, but we have a strong history of counting any SNG passage as meeting N, and the text of N makes it clear that SNGs are equal to the GNG. An RfC that was framed as a question on one SNG in particular and was advertised as such cannot change the practice for every single notability guideline out there. We just had a recent RfC at WT:PROF that also directly contradicted that close.

I'll also go ahead and point out that notability is only one of 14 reasons for deletion, and WP:DEL7 remains a valid reason to delete even if something passes an SNG. Typically the GNG-or-bust crowd are actually complaining of not meeting WP:V, and their arguments would be stronger if framed this way. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yup, was going to point out that too. NSPORTS uses "presumed to be notable" - the same as GNG (Some SNGs are not like that - they have "may be notable", so in those I'm not sure just meeting is enough). I'm not sure though if the PROF close applies so much, since it is pretty different from the rest of the SNGs. V was indeed cited in the AfD that I think was why Godric was asking this question. I think may need another RfC to remove the contradictory wording in NSPORTS. Guidelines are supposed to reflect accepted practice anyhow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that it was a bad close to an RFC that never elaborated on the question that the closers sought to answer.See the nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake.As to the rest, to re-hash things, I pretty much oppose every SNG other than N-ACADEMIC and choose to believe that such RFCs if properly executed and closed, shall be treated as binding.IMO, They aren't harming anything isn't a very good argument and inclusion on such principles ultimately shifts our focus of writing an encyclopedia to one of constructing a pure statistical archive.And, despite project-specific-opposition, increasingly, more school AFD's/DRVs are being rigorously evaluated and closed as delete/endorse delete.Winged Blades^Godric 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that as long as say in 80-90% of cases sources can eventually be found, then the guideline is good even if currently only stats is there. If that's not true, then the guideline needs to be tightened. Without those SNGs, inordinate time would be spent in arguing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not harming anything typically is an argument used when something actually is harming something (for example, a promotional stub on a non-notable company), and I dislike it in those circumstances too. In terms of sports I don't really care: I'm NCAA basketball fan (Go Heels) and an NHL fan, but I don't follow either closely enough to care about biographies of players. My it isn't harming anything argument here is more along the lines of the fact that most of these articles are written by fans with no malicious intent and when we have so much else to worry about in terms of attack pages, BLP violations, spam, hoaxes, etc. having contentious AfDs over a guy who played a cricket match once in the 1800s is a drain on community resources that I don't think is worth the effort. As a completely unrelated aside, I've only played cricket once, and it was in Grade 5 gym class. One of the most fun sports I've ever played, even if it was only once. If I lived in a different part of the world, I think I would enjoy it quite a lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was heavily surprised to hear that Cricket is even attempted to be played in USA! They have got a national team but.... For me, cricket is the primary sport, I have thrived and thrive on:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC

You may wish to check this idea out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Carl Esbeck

Hi Tony. Another copyvio case, I'm afraid! The article Carl Esbeck was pretty much a carbon copy of his university profile page. The offending edits seem to be this and this. The second of those placed material inside quote marks, but seems to be in violation of WP:COPYQUOTE, comprising a substantial portion of the work being quoted. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Early Wikipedia copyvios, the most fun. All gone now. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed user's sandbox BLP of non notable minor with no sources

User:Lisa400/Mark Shachov is a unreferenced BLP of a juvenile, and "Lisa" is never coming back to work on it. Should it be deleted? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 21:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

G5 it is. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. NPP Perms Request

Hello Tony, if you don't mind I'd like to seek some clarification on your response to my request. You said "tagbombing of articles (...) is probably the single most negative thing about AWB". In my view, the use of automation like AWB to fix typos on any article is a great way to save time. Does the same not apply for using it to add maintenance tags? And it's not like this is over-tagging - something I take great care to avoid. I also often fix (a very very small percent of the) articles I tag. So I am wondering why you see this aspect as negative. PS: But calling my efforts tag-bombing sounds a bit derogatory and very discouraging.

May I also add to my above explanation - I continue to see page-curation as the natural next step to my activity. So i do confess to being disappointed. In any case, this is by no means an attempt to get you to reconsider but an attempt at improving my WP workflow :) -MayureshK 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Using AWB to automate the tagging of brand new articles as orphans, uncategorized, underlinked, etc. is a negative thing, and one that wastes time when done to articles that are CSD or other deletion candidates such as Azerbaycan'ın geleneksel kıyafetleri, Ephemeral rift, R. Ragunatha Reddy, Paras chhabra. Louis Travie was also AWB tagbombed by you for no reason right before you requested speedy deletion. These edits serve no purpose, and if the article is salvageable, might actually discourage the creator from fixing the problem. We encourage people at NPP not to tagbomb and only to deal with the most glaring issues via tags if they are not easily fixable. I'm sorry if my pointing this out is discouraging, but what you have been doing is very highly discouraged for new page patrollers, and doing it automated increases the frequency in which it is done.

In terms of what you can do to make yourself more likely to be granted the flag, I would recommend helping out at WP:AFD or WP:ORPHANAGE to gain experience working with articles that need cleanup and to learn more about our inclusion standards. Do some work there, work on cleaning up articles with issues, and then come back to PERM in a few months, and you'll be a good candidate for the rights. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I don't have (appear to have) the ability to look at history of deleted article. I don't remember having requested articles for deleting .. unless marking them as Orphans/ Uncat/ Underlinked/ Unreferenced somehow caused this. How can I look at the full history (from initial creation through to deletion) for a deleted article e.g. R. Ragunatha Reddy? The best I could get to was this. -MayureshK 22:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mskadu, the Reddy page was tagged with a BLPPROD, which was then followed up a few hours later by your edit, which added {{dead end}}, {{orphan}}, and {{uncategorized}} in the course of fixing a typo (which I assume was the main purpose of your edit with AWB). I know AWB automatically adds those tags, but I can see where Tony is coming from; using AWB to fix typos in new articles is important, but doesn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you've loaded up a list of pages and are clicking "save" after verifying the edit. Primefac (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

(edit conflict) You can't, unfortunately. Access to deleted histories is admin only. I went through your deleted contributions to look for instances where you added unneeded tags to articles that were already being considered for deletion when you placed them. This is pretty bitey, and doesn't really do anything to improve the article. I saw enough there to make me not be comfortable In terms of your live contributions, these are edits where you used AWB to add tags that were either excessive or unneeded to articles that had just been created: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This type of action is discouraged for new page reviewers, who are supposed to focus on triaging the article while also not biting newcomers. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is good. So I plan to keep using AWB for fixing typos in both new and existing articles. I hope that is not a problem? I don't really care what it shows. For me my effort is not aimed at racking up edit counts but improving article quality. Your point about adding tags to articles tagged for deletion (which makes it bitey) is taken - need to figure out a way to get AWB to skip those. As for NPP approval status, I am not too worried about that (any more) and will probably never re-apply. Thank you for your time, patient and effort in answering my questions. Have a merry Xmas and a happy new year 👍 -MayureshK

Typo-fixing is important! I couldn't survive without the AWB people who do that. If there is a way to slow down on the tagging, it would be a plus, but the work you do with typos is important! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For sorting this out. When I see references to G7 and A6 and F9 all I can think of is guitar chords. It's good to have competent people around! Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

Hi Tony, this guy was a CU confirmed sock of Amitbhb12, and he created a number of articles that have the stink of paid editing. I'm sure some of his socks have created articles as well. Got any thoughts on how to proceed with this? G5 ain't gonna cut it, since many of the articles have evolved a bit from other editors. But I look at an article like this and all those IPs just reek of collusion. Like, they have to either be the same guy, or other members of the sock ring. They all seem to come from Pune, Maharashtra, India. Many are on ISP Jio. Anyhow, though I disagreed with you in the moment about May I Come in Madam? I'm interested in your perspective here. By the way, that title is a great example of why a properly placed comma makes the difference between being invited in for tea, or being slapped in the face. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, with the BLP you linked you could probably G5 it: as you said, the IPs reek of collusion, and we tend to be the most liberal on G5 when it comes to deleting undisclosed paid BLPs (it has to deal with the fact that extortion is also a possibility as much as promotion, and it is often difficult to tell which it is). If you don't want to do that, PROD and/or AfD are options, noting that it was a BLP created by a CU confirmed sock, and has all the signs of UPE.

I haven't examined the rest of the contributions of that account, but if they all look spammy, I'd make a post at WP:COIN. The regulars there are pretty good at picking out which ones should go via G5, PROD, or AfD, and if it doesn't fit any of them, have experience cleaning the articles. Also, yes, that TV show most certainly needs a comma :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)