User talk:Amatulic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Need your additional comments on declined article[edit]

Hi! Could you please check the external links in the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unison RTOS: all external links redirect to different reviews and articles from independent experts (except the second one - it links to official website). Also I need your help about your comment "the submission reads like a brochure, with too much unnecessary detail" - I tried to create this article as some alike (Unix) - so I just do not understand what I need to change. Thank you in advance for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talkcontribs) 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide examples of sources that constitute reviews by independent experts, and show how they are referenced in the article. Honestly, I don't see any. The two inline sources currently in the article cite the inventor, so those sources are not independent and do not constitute coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources as required. The links you provided are simply product description pages, not coverage of the topic as required. The details about components and features are not useful information for a layperson wanting to learn about the subject and make the article appear like a product brochure aimed at industry insiders. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)



Hi! Thank you for comments!

What can advise about this article: http://www.m2mevolution.com/ - that is independent review by rather respected person.
Or this one: http://enewschannels.com/ - it is also the riview by independent author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talkcontribs) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The M2M article is OK, but still marginal, because it's reporting on the company's own press release rather than engaging in independent coverage.
As for the other one on enewschannels, you gotta be kidding. That's a press release that was given to the author to publish. It is not independent. Verbatim identical press releases can be found on press release sites such as this one. Press releases are not acceptable, even if they are parroted by an "independent" author.
To be independent, a source must have no connection to the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)




Sorry, I did not check if the text is unique. I will try to find another articles. Thank you for helping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talkcontribs) 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

KEN Greenbook[edit]

With regards to your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KEN_Greenbook#Page_moved ... the changes have been made. Kindly approve. Thank you.KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. The article still has serious problems and cannot be approved until corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Please take a look. Thanks. KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DPT Laboratories[edit]

Hi Amatulic. Per your comment at Requests for undeletion, I'm requesting a move of DPT Laboratories. to draft namespace at Draft:DPT Laboratories or to userspace at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Laboratories1. The company is notable per the sources, and I'd like to examine the article in hopes to improve it. I have notified User:INeverCry on their talk page and it was archived. I reposted it, and it was archived again. I believe this article may have been deleted due to an error in which assertion of significance regarding the company was mistaken as advertising or promotional. Please respond at your convenience. NorthAmerica1000 07:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored it to Draft space. There was no point restoring the talk page as it contained only one Wikiproject template, no discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response to this request. Sincerely, NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Afusat Saliu[edit]

I wish to request that you re-examine the speedy deletion of Afusat Saliu. This was originally proposed under A7, no assertion of significance, but you invoked WP:BLP1E, famous for only one thing, which may or may not apply in this case, but is not grounds for speedy deletion, and is not the same as A7. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't invoke BLP1E as a reason for speedily deleting it, I mentioned it in the rationale for the purpose of saying "see this also, Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on people famous for only one thing."
I deleted the article because there was no assertion of significance. Many people face deportation. That is not significant. Many girls in Nigeria are subjected to genital mutilation. The fact that two girls face this prospect is unfortunate, but also not significant. The fact that many people signed a petition is also not significant; this happens every day on petition web sites.
Given those facts, and the fact that the only coverage of the person is in relation to a single event, the article would likely not survive WP:AFD if nominated for deletion due to WP:BLP1E. Therefore I deemed the speedy deletion of the article to be uncontroversial and in accordance with WP:CSD#A7.
I offer you three options:
  • If you wish to have it restored to main article space, you may open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, citing this section on my talk page.
  • I can restore the article to your user space for you to improve further at your leisure, bearing in mind that a biography article based on a single event will be nominated for AFD when moved back to main space and likely not survive.
  • It may turn out that the notable topic is not the person, but the controversy, in which case the article should not be written as a biography, in which case you should either re-write it as an article about the controversy, or expand our existing article on female genital mutilation.
~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish to open a case at deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Afusat Saliu[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afusat Saliu. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy-restored the article's history to facilitate discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta[edit]

Just a heads-up, I've nominated this for deletion as a copyvio of http://www.commoncause.in/nl/july-sep12/6.html which was modified "Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM" according to my web browser. It is very likely that the text on the commoncause web page was written before July 2012.

On January 15, 2013 you deleted a version as a BLPPROD. If the deleted version is basically another copy of what is there now and what is on the commoncause page, AND if that page was added to Wikipedia before "January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM," then the copyright-violation is no longer clear.

If the version you deleted is completely different and not an obvious non-starter, then consider restoring it and adding the sources listed in the copyvio version to the talk page as possible sources and re-start the BLPPROD clock. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed this to a suspected copyright violation per the above and per the comments on the contested deletion, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 31. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be the correct way to go about it. If there's no response in a week, remind me and I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you check the dates and content of the deleted version? If the dates are early enough and the content is nearly identical, the current version may not be a copyvio. If the content is not the same, it may be a useful replacement for the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The most recently deleted version is from 14 January, and has just one paragraph consisting of 3 sentences that are nearly identical to the most recent lead 3 sentences currently replaced by the copyvio tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Telerik[edit]

Hi,

I want to thank you for not deleting the Telerik page outright. I've reworked the page and submitted it for review. I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's likely to pass muster? I'd hate to go through a three week process and have to go back to step one.

Thanks, MaximZero (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it still comes across as somewhat promotional overall. If it is rejected, you don't have to go back to step 1, you just have to revise it until it's acceptable.
Some advice that may help: the lead section of any encyclopedia article should serve only as an overview summary of the rest of the article. It should not cover topics that aren't covered in more detail later (for example, Telerik Platform and the pledge to create an education platform aren't mentioned anywhere else). You should just have a briefer sentence about each and provide more detail in the article body. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion[edit]

You reverted my edits to this article without understanding what is going on. If every First and Biggest is to be included in that article, then that article will become too big and probably an encyclopedia onto itself. The history of talkpage of that article clarifies the situation. For example I deleted the entry of "First to leave Gold standard" and the "Tallest building". If we have to include every first, eg. First car, First Republic, First paper currency, First diaper, First tap water, Tallest tree, Tallest antenna, Tallest ....

You know where it will go. It will be only a matter of time before that article will be flooded by people wanting to include their tallest, biggest and firstest. And then it will be the end of that article.

Anyways, why I am giving a damn? To hell with it.--103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what is going on: you were edit-warring. The article has clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which you evidently did not bother to read, and have resorted to edit-warring.
Similar arguments to yours have been made for other list articles such as List of common misconceptions, in spite of the well-defined criteria for inclusion that have evolved by community consensus.
If you want to change the criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. Edit warring will not resolve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding[edit]

Hello Amatulic, I am in the process of working on this page with Wikipedia help team. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talkcontribs) 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. My tagging of the article is still appropriate, as it alerts other editors of issues and improvements that need to be made. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Amatulic, please see my note on the crisis bonding talk page.Dr. Susan M. Sutton Clawson 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talkcontribs)

Thank you for taking care of this situation for us. Delete the article, then restore the redirect - the perfect solution! --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith[edit]

Does the list of religious texts include stuff like this? Reading the article on Hadith I'm not sure. The editor adding this is new and still very uncertain about how we work, see Talk:Quran. He wants to create an article, it will be interesting to see what he does. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, I found (and modified) his edit to HadithList of religious texts while examining his contribution history.
I was initially going to revert it, but eventually decided to leave it in. Every Muslim I have asked, insists that while the Quran is the primary text, the Hadith are equally important in many respects and determine some fundamental practices and beliefs (such as the belief that Muslims must be offended by depictions of Muhammad, and teaching found only in Hadith). As I understand it, Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God, and Hadith are quotations and teachings of Muhammad, which provide clarity and understanding of the word of God.
I have no objection to removal of that entry, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Hadith are obviously important to varying extents, but I'm not convinced they are religious texts, but no point arguing that, as I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither am I. Might be a good question to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk#Humanities. In fact, looking over the archives, some light is shed by Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 26#Hadith, which suggests that Hadith are analogous to the Catechism in Christianity or the Talmud in Judaism; that is, they are commentaries or clarifications on the text that is considered "scripture". Are Catechism or Talmud considered "religious texts"? Adherents likely consider them that way, but I am not sure about religious scholars. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The Talmud is in the list. I think I've got better things to do that will improve Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Me too. Although, Wikipedia is a low priority for me right now, just something I do when I take a break from seeking my next contract. Real Life must always come first. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crisis bonding. Since you had some involvement with the Crisis bonding redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Elliott Wave Dilemma[edit]

Hi Amatulic,

Thanks for contacting me about the removal of the external link on the page Elliott Wave principle.

When I first came across this page, I went to the first external link for additional reading, but as you can see, it provides very little information. Obviously I was disappointed and found a better page from a site that I frequent. If you think it looks inappropriate, you can add a better page yourself and I'll be happy to read it.

Regards, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblakely (talkcontribs) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, one of those links was low quality, so I have just removed it. I replaced it with a link to the Investopedia entry, which is more substantial. Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)[edit]

I came back to this AfD to reply to the nom, who didn't seem to understand my last comment.  Instead, I found your close.  Do you agree that WP:N is a test to determine if an article should be standalone, and that in the case of an article split, non-notability means recombining the two parts?  And that this is an issue for either a bold edit, or for the content contributors to discuss on one of the two talk pages?  Given that there is no theoretical case for deletion on notability grounds here, was this a WP:IAR close?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The debate had gone on for more than 7 days and was well past time for closing. You raise several points:
  • WP:N can be a test to determine if a subject merits a stand-alone article. The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article. The 'keep' arguments were not compelling, as they were not based on any policy.
  • In the case of an article split into a notable and non-notable pieces, it's perfectly fine to restore the non-notable piece to the original article. That is not a concern for closing the AFD, because the old material is still available in the original article's history, and can be restored by anyone at any time.
  • Once an AFD is created, that is where discussion should be concerning the deletion of the article. Now that it is deleted, further discussion should commence on the talk page of the article from which the content was originally split.
  • I have never found a need to invoke IAR in administrative actions. You asserted "there is no theoretical case for deletion" without any supporting arguments, and your assertion conflicts with the consensus in the AFD discussion.
I knew that no decision I made would be satisfactory to all participants. If you are unable to find the content that was split in the original article's talk page history, I can userfy the deleted article for you if you believe that significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to support the notability of the mall. WP:DRV is also an option. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
All editors who post to an AfD page are advised that a guideline is available.  See WP:BEFORE a1, c1, c3, c4.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You say that "The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article.", and I am not here to disagree with that.
By observing that the material exists in another edit history and can be restored, you agree that there is no applicable content policy for the deletion of the material in the edit history.  Redirects are cheap.  Those are the only two things that can be deleted.  Where is there a policy-basis for deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus was to delete. I deleted it. The fact that the content is still available elsewhere means that it is not necessary to keep that content in another place. There is no policy that mandates keeping redundant content, only that redundant content should be merged per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
You are welcome to open at case at WP:DRV. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For blocking a spammer. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Which spammer was that? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Amongst[edit]

Hello Amatulic. I was rather surprised to see you removing "amongst" from articles with the rationale that it is archaic. Whilst it might not be commonly used in the US, it's still commonly used in the UK, and per WP:ENGVAR, is entirely appropriate. See recent usages from the BBC to confirm.[1][2][3] Cheers, Number 57 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just about every UK style guide recommends against it. For further information, see the while article. This is not an ENGVAR issue, as the word is used on both sides of the pond. It's simply correcting awkward grammar. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless our own style guide recommends against it, I don't see the relevance of what others do. It's still widely used and perfectly acceptable. It is definitely not "awkward grammar", although I'd be interested to hear why you think it is. Number 57 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Phrases like "situated amongst a region" (which I had corrected when you replied just now) is awkward and incorrect regardless of whether "among" or "amongst" is used. Furthermore, whilst the word is commonly used on both sides of the Atlantic, and therefore not an ENGVAR issue, it is also widely considered as archaic and unnecessary by professional publications on both sides. The fact that the Wikipedia style guide fails to address the topic is not a reason to leave it alone. The Wikipedia style guide also fails to address many common grammatical errors and words specifically (such as "ain't"), so does that mean we should just ignore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course that's awkward, but it's because the wrong word was used (among would be equally inappropriate). I also disagree that it's "widely" considered archaic. If the BBC uses it, it's a fairly strong indicator that it's normal. Number 57 14:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The BBC has no consistency, using while/whilst and among/amongst with equal frequency. The UK style guides that do address these words universally appear to consider them archaic. The BBC does have its own style guide, and while it does not address the words "amongst" or "whilst" specifically, there is no occurrence of the word "amongst" in that guide, only "among",[4] which may not mean anything except perhaps as an indicator to what the BBC considers "normal" without actually being prescriptive like other guides. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Enterprise Architect (Software) Deletion[edit]

Just following up for further advice, your comment on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_138#Enterprise_Architect_.28software.29

I have contacted Tom Morris (talk) and did receive an initial response, but no follow up (over several weeks). You mentioned taking some other action, but I am a little lost as to whether to proceed with a request for un-deletion. I would appreciate any insight on the path to proceed on. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The "other action" is to open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, to allow the community to determine whether the administrator's deletion decision was proper in view of the arguments given in the AFD and the sources given in the article. The article's revision history would be restored for the purpose of discussion, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Much appreciated. I will follow up on this. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Re. David Hedlund[edit]

Hello. I noticed your message to him on his talk page, so I thought I'd let you know that he already has copied his entire article (45K bytes of it) to his talk page, to continue editing there. Which IMHO is inappropriate use of the talk page for someone who has been indef blocked. Thomas.W talk 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he did that before I warned him about it. I just removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Eric Fisher[edit]

Hi Amatulic, You have recently informed me that I will not receive my article back until I change my username, however I am new to this site and am unsure of how to do so. Will you please inform me of the steps I need to take in order to change that? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherarch (talkcontribs) 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:UNC the panda ₯’ 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
More specifically, go to WP:CHU/Simple and make a request there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta copyvio[edit]

I noticed you didn't create an entry for this page's copyright issues at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#:Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, which left me kind of confused. It's a moot point now, I reviewed the editor's string of edits, found enough evidence of a copyvio to warrant action, reverted back to the last non-copyvio version, and put a {{copyvio-revdel}} template at the top. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator will review it soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought the duplication detector report was enough. It was similar to earlier revisions of the article that had been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G12, but I didn't renominate as G12 because I felt there was sufficient original material in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The template that you put on the article specifically linked to the (non-existent) discussion. The discussion has to be started by the person who applies the template. In any case, it's a moot point for this particular article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection[edit]

User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)



Deletion of Avi Nir[edit]

Hi,

Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page I have created for Mr. Avi Nir, the CEO of Keshet Media Group. Avi Nir, is a very well known TV executive, heading Israels Keshet Broadcasting for the past 12 years, Mako and Keshet International, the international production and distribution arm of Keshet Media Group. Nir, is in charge of very well known local and international shows like Hatufim (Prisoners of War) that has become Homeland, he is also executive producer on Homeland, which granted him a prime time emmy award. He was named Israeli cloture most influential person. As a leading international TV executive and since Keshet International expanded globally with shows like Rising Star, Allegiance, Homeland and many more and formed international production outposts this profile and the profile of Keshet Media Group and Keshet International are highly relevant to understand where many shows originated from and produced by, who this company is and who its top executives are . Nir also serves as Executive Producer on all the US productions that originated from Keshet (over 10)

we made sure we back up everything with relevant links to media sources.

Im a director at Keshet International and we updated the last profile. As a person who uses Wikipedia constantly as a reliable and trusted source of information- i understand and appreciate the importance of the quality of the information. im writing you, since i would like to upload an informative and respectable profile as i imagined we did I wouldn't like to upload our profiles again without getting the inputs from the person who deleted it first on the content and the updating form.

Your response would be highly appreciated

Many thanks in advance

Limor - Keshet International

91.240.235.225 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, none of that matters. What matters right now is that you are blocked, and you are evading the block by continuing to participate without logging in. The only page you are allowed to edit is your user talk page.
Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, because if you are associated with Avi Nir, you should not be writing about it. Articles written by people with a conflict of interest are not written from a neutral point of view, and are often deleted as unambiguously promotional.
Your first priority is to get your account unblocked. Do not attempt to create other accounts. You have one account, and you must use it. At this moment, you cannot do anything else until it is unblocked and renamed. Follow the instructions in your block notice, and be sure to read all the links in it.
The article was most recently deleted due to promotional tone and copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot re-publish material that has already been published elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have been nothing but WP:CIVIL and to the point.[edit]

It is the other editors (like Dave S and many more) that are uncivil. They repeatedly mischaracterize my position and the talk page is full of invective toward me, every time I say something. WP:AGF does not mean we're chumps. And these people are not intellectually honest. It is completely clear on that talk page and how this article has been edited and maintained for at least 8 years. What I wrote is completely legit. Censoring it is not. 71.161.194.233 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

While I personally agreed with much of what you wrote, the behavior of others does not excuse your own. You were not civil, commenting on contributors rather than content. You were doing "my" side of the argument no favors with your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise[edit]

Dear...

Thanks for your advise.

As an experienced Editor , please guide me to host those wiki page again.

As for my concern, those links are genuine. I checked few separately.

Meaning of up coming means .. He had already achieved few things and trying to achieve few more records.

I think you misunderstood it that he had not arrived anything. His name is already associated with so many pages with others in Wikipedia itself.

His movies, albums were already released in theaters.

So, he had already arrived his status.

Any how , as you say I will contact the Admin.

Once again guide me to recreate the pages. --Praisewinner (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)--Praisewinner (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You may contact the deleting admin as I suggested, and if you are still convinced that the deletion decision was wrong, you may make a case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Deletion review is not to argue about the merits of the article, but to discuss whether the deletion decision was valid in light of the discussion that already took place.
If you want to create new articles, your best approach is to use your sandbox or a sub-page in your user space. You may create any page as a sub-page, for example User:Praisewinner/Thomas Rathnam. That way you may work on it as a draft without worrying about it being deleted. Then you should submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where it will be reviewed for suitability before acceptance for publication in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your adivice sir..[edit]

Thanks for your advice sir.

I will try to put it in my sand box and send it to you. --Praisewinner (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Fresh set of eyes[edit]

A pic used to illustrate food and wine pairing in the Merlot article

Hey Amatulic, I'm taking Tomas' advice to seek out a fresh set of eyes about what is going on at the Merlot article. Essentially we have an editor who objects to any images that have a wine bottle involved--even the image to the left that was previously in the article. While I've been trying to work with him to encourage him to replace the images with better free-use alternatives, he prefers to just cast bad faith accusations of advertising and is now threatening to go on a POINTy deletion rampage through all of our wine articles. While there is another editor involved in the discussion that I feel is more amendable to working towards a middle ground in finding acceptable images, I'm becoming more concerned with the behavior of this other editor now that he feels "fueled" by the partial agreement with his POV by another editor. AgneCheese/Wine 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his POINTy deletion spree wasn't a new threat from him. I forgot about this edit summary. AgneCheese/Wine 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that in most cases, an image works just as well without a depiction of a wine label. Wikipedia is not to be used as a publicity medium, even if that publicity is unintended. In articles that aren't about specific wines or wineries, if a wine label is present in an image, the bottle should be rotated to obscure the label partially. Particularly in the picture you included, just the wine glass would have been sufficient although the wine label is somewhat out of focus (and I must say, whatever gooey concoction is on the plate sure looks unappetizing to me; maybe a plastic cup of white Zin would be more fitting there).
One compromise that might satisfy everyone is to apply digital blur and contrast reduction effects to the label and continue using the existing image. For example, in my image File:Jug wine refills.jpg in which the labels were unavoidable, that's what I did: I hazed the labels out to the point where one cannot identify my uncle's winery. I also made sure the image was fairly low-resolution. One can digitally obscure the labels (using blurring, contrast effects, resolution reduction, or a combination) so that they don't look purposefully obscured yet the brand remains unidentifiable. Any "offending" images could simply be re-uploaded to the same name instead of being deleted. That might be a solution that satisfies all parties in the dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be completely amicable to that compromise. As you know, I am one of the most ardent anti-spam wine editors out there so I have no worries or objections about blurring the winery name or what not. I just don't have the technical skills to do that (though I've already tried my best with some of the pics I edited and re-added). My objective is to have fully developed articles that are illustrated with relevant free-images. The key details for me are the color of the wine in the glass, the identification of what the wine is (Merlot, Chard, etc) and the wine region. The winery name can be cut out or obscure in whatever way. That is 100% A-okay because the winery is wholly irrelevant IMO. I was just working with the best of what I had with the best skills and avenue at my disposal. I would be thrilled to death if Drmies or NewTestLeeper were willing to work with me to implement this compromise rather than go on a wholesale deletion spree that leaves our wine articles unillustrated and less developed. AgneCheese/Wine 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I can try my hand at obscuring logos and winery names, although I won't be fast. My first day on a new job is tomorrow and I expect I'll be swamped with that as I get up to speed. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with that because I know that in the end the articles will be better off. There is no deadline or rush on my part. I just hope that NewTestLeeper will cool down and not go on his mass deletion spree across a broad swath of wine articles. That's my only worry. :/ Best wishes with the new job. I know it can be both an exciting and stressful time. AgneCheese/Wine 03:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dix Township, Ford County, Illinois[edit]

Occasionally edited, not frequent. Lower to PC-protection? --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delayed response. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Last one[edit]

Since I prefer not to edit war, i'd appreciate if you use any of these sources to dispel any controversy:

  • Mystical Dimensions of Islam - Page 34, Annemarie Schimmel - 2011: "Jesus, the last prophet before Muhammad according to Koranic revelation ..."
  • My Soul Is a Woman: The Feminine in Islam - Page 22, Annemarie Schimmel - 1997: "... Mary, or Mariam, the virgin mother of Jesus, who was the last prophet before Muhammad"
  • Islam in Iran - Page 7, I. P. Petrushevsky - 1985: "Whereas in Islam's teaching 'Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah) was human; he was one of the great prophets and the immediate predecessor of Muhammad..."

Thanks. Nons3r (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. MOS:ISLAM is Wikipedia's guideline regarding how we present articles on these subjects. In such articles, we do not refer to Muhammad as a "prophet"; at most we refer to "the Islamic Prophet Muhammad" but only when such disambiguation is absolutely necessary. We don't refer to Jesus as a prophet either. Therefore, it is inappropriate to imply that Wikipedia regards these individuals as prophets by putting this information into an infobox. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and health[edit]

Hello, Amatulic! Am I remembering correctly, that you were one of the people who dealt with the problem of alcohol related articles by David Hedlund? Sorry for my faulty memory; I can't remember who all contributed to fixing the "Alcohol (drug)" article, and I can't go back and look because the page has been deleted so its talk page is gone. If this is a subject of interest to you, I just discovered another one: Alcohol and health. It was called to my attention by a new addition someone added (which is also problematic). But then I noticed the section "Pregnancy and alcohol" which is horrible: it cites a single study instead of a review article, and mis-states the results of the one study it cites. Then I looked at the article more generally, noticed its strong anti-alcohol bias and general incoherence, and had a hunch it was David Hedlund's work. Sure enough, it turns out he contributed most of the content, much of which is copied from other articles. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and maybe discuss on the article's talk page. The first question is: can the article be fixed, or would it be better to simply merge any salvageable content to some other article and then nuke it? Also, who else should I contact about this? Thanks for any comments! --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The original "Alcohol (drug)" page wasn't deleted. It was moved to Draft:Alcohol (drug), along with its talk page, because it has salvageable content but couldn't remain in main article space.
I had started looking at other articles David Hedlund touched, and remember coming across Alcohol and health and realized it would be a significant effort to clean it up and re-merge content back to more appropriate places. Then I got a new job which has significantly limited my Wikipedia time to minor gnome work. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful! I learned from that (draft) talk page that this article was originally spun off from Alcoholic beverage. When I have a little more time I'll go through the article section by section and analyze what has to be done. I understand about your new job, you are excused! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

amanda eliasch[edit]

why was the Amanda Eliasch page deleted? unfair and incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I restored it and then it was deleted again. The page's deletion log shows pretty clearly that it was deleted for copyvio and promotional reasons. Take it up with an admin who did delete it, and if you are not satisfied, take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Link removed because external[edit]

Hi Amatulic, you remove the link of ThinkingRock from the Getting Things Done article because it was external only, which I understand. Could you help me to re-instate the original wikipedia ThinkingRock page which was written by an independent author? An administrator deleted it as in his opinion, there were not enough external references. I would like now to add these references but I need the original page back. I have tried to contact that administrator without success.

ThinkingRock is a product similar to the ones listed as software implementations and I find it unfair that the other software are listed but not ThinkingRock. ThinkingRock is one of the rare implementation which is multi-platform with the security to be able to keep the data on desktop and not in the cloud.

Thank you for your help.

Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLem (talkcontribs) 11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the replies to your post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#ThinkingRock. The article was restored 3 days ago to your user space at User:ClaireLem/ThinkingRock. Please continue to work on it there, and do not move it back to main space yourself.
Becaause you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, you should not be contributing content about your company or product in main article space. At the top of the article in your user space, you will see a button to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you believe the article is in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ChexSystems[edit]

Moved to Talk:ChexSystems where it belongs

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Marcosvr/ProMetic (August 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that I have moved this notice to User talk:Marcosvr, along with your signature and timestamp. Sorry if you are not happy with that, feel free to revert. Face-smile.svg Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 11:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's weird. The tool must have figured I was the author since I did some clean-up edits before declining the submission. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a conflict of interest[edit]

No, I have not association with Infiniteconversions.com

Please don't jump to conclusions. I read the site, yes, and I find it to be a well-informed site with suitable writing style and tone.

Why did you remove the links?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankZappa14 (talkcontribs) 2014-08-23T15:26:05‎

Your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to add links to infiniteconversions.com. This is obvious based on your own contribution history, and strongly suggests that you have some association with the site.
Also, this is a blog site, and blogs are generally to be avoided as sources except in special circumstances. Particularly in this case, the whole site including the blog is designed to sell consulting services. Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity or promotion purposes.
I suggested to you on your talk page that WP:RSN is the proper place to discuss the reliability of that source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dorri Olds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dorri_Olds)[edit]

Hello Amatulic…Thank you very much for the comment on the (rejected) submission I made on Dorri Olds. You mentioned the award she won, which is in fact noted on the New York Press website: http://nypress.com/summer-writing-contest-non-fiction-winner-9-lives-for-a-weeble/#respond

I am wondering if this might be sufficient (or at least help) for an article on her, noting she is not just known for a single event.

Your input is greatly appreciated! Thank you!Minusminority (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice piece, but it doesn't do much to convince me that she's known for more than a single event. She won a writing contest and her essay was published in a local-circulation publication. Is that a notable award, or something nationally recognized? It also says at the bottom that her work has appeared in some regional magazines and some books. That's fine, but her work appearing in other publications doesn't help either, because her own works do not constitute coverage of the person. For someone to be notable we need to see coverage about her.
If she were a "high profile" individual, then WP:BLP1E would no longer apply. Right now she seems to be low-profile. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual offers some clarification of the distinctions. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply, Amatulic…I appreciate your help - - and will do more work when time allows…(Also, want to mention that though NY Press was local publication in New York City - it was widely circulated and notable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Press) …Once again, thanks!Minusminority (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Minusminority (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. No problems with the notability of the publication. However, even if she published a piece in the New York Times, which has wider circulation, it still wouldn't be coverage about her. The New York Times has plenty of reporters who write for the paper who aren't notable either, by Wikipedia's way of defining it. "Notable" doesn't mean "famous" or even "well known". For Wikipedia, notable means significant coverage about the subject in verifiable and reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Coconut Article Corrections[edit]

All changes to the Coconut Oil article are discussed and justified in the talk section. Please explain why you reverted these corrections when there were errors in the existing piece and my corrections were based on scientific research data that was properly cited in the talk section. I removed the erroneous statements, so there was no place to cite in the article itself. Blonz (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) ER Blonz, Ph.D.

You failed to use an edit summary to describe what you were doing or why. You did this twice, and you were reverted twice. Talk:Coconut oil contains disagreement about your removal of the statement and accompanying citation. In such cases, it is better to discuss the issue than engage in an edit war, as you seem to be doing. See WP:BRD for guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)