User talk:And Adoil Descended

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, And Adoil Descended! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SudoGhost 02:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Wikipedia:Glossary might help as well, it's essentially a list of Wikipedia terms, like AGF. Hope this helps. - SudoGhost 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Logical punctuation[edit]

Hi, I just reverted a couple of your edits because Wikipedia uses logical punctuation. :) LadyofShalott 02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Signature in AfD[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at First Light's talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CVUA[edit]

CVU Academy.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good evening! My name is Achowat and I'm an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. If you'll have me, I'd love to work with you to help you understand how we on Wikipedia handle vandalism. I've watchlisted this page, so feel free to respond here. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Achowat. Nice to meet you. So, how do we begin? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the first step is to read the various processes involved in the Four Steps. (Identify, Restore, Warn, Report). So take a few minutes and read WP:VAND, WP:REVERT, WP:WARN and WP:GAIV and if you have any questions, let me know. Achowat (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Question: what is this Twinkle that I've seen people mention? Is that some kind of a software program? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Twinkle is a pop-up menu that can be activated under your options. When it is enabled and you press "TW", you get a pop-up menu that allows you to Welcome, Warn, or Report a user, plus many more options, such as CSD, PROD, and XFD tagging. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! And, if you don't mind my asking...why are you stalking my page? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All the Instructors have that nasty habit. It allows us to more quickly respond to your questions than if it were only me watchlisting it. How is your reading coming along? Achowat (talk)
I read the articles. Now what do we do? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The easiest thing to do is spend a few hours vandal patrolling this weekend, using Twinkle if that's what you feel comfortable with. On Monday (or, likely, Sunday night), I'll review those reverts and see if there are any concerns I have. And remember, use the "Rollback - Vandal" option in any situation where you would use the WP:Rollback feature if you had access to it. Achowat (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, a few things. First, your vandalism reverts look good (in fact, there are situations where you might be assuming too much good faith, which is definitely the side to err on). The big thing that I'd like to see is more use of the warning templates. They serve three real purporses: they show vandals that we "know what they're up to", which scares a lot off; they allow the next anti-vandal to give a more stern warning; and they comprise the "sufficient warning" needed to block a true vandal at WP:AIV. Essentially, every time something is "vandalism" (ie, you would use Rollback on it) then there should be an accompanying template at that User/IP's talk page. Achowat (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Achowat! And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems you've done no counter-vandalism work since my comment. Is everything ok? Is counter-vandalism still an area of focus for you? Achowat (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have not been on this website that much since the 12th. And when I am online, I don't seem to find that much vandalism that I can revert. And when I do, it seems that other guys beat me to the Twinkle punch. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that can get disheartening. Perhaps it'd be wise to use the DefCon system ({{Vandalism information}}) which uses Huggle statistics to inform counter-vandals of a high level of reverts. It's not always 100% accurate, but it does a good job. Achowat (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
So I've gone over your contributions and it seems like you have a full handle on what is and is not Vandalism. I'm willing to graduate you out of the Academy today, but would you like me to "nominate you" at WP:PERM for the Rollback bit? I think it's quite clear you can be trusted with it. Achowat (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, Achowat. Thank you very much for graduating me from the Academy and for offering to "nominate" me at WP:PERM. I am flattered that you consider my efforts worthy of your attention and support. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and nominate yourself at WP:PERM and I'll add a Non-Admin Observation that I think you're ready. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thank you, again, for being so nice to me. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue[edit]

Hello And Adoil Descended. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Source is under a compatible license. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for update, Malik! And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, Buzzme; there was enough context to identify the subject :). Context is "can you tell what the article is about?". If so, it shouldn't be tagged using that - although as a non-notable website it did meet A7. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Graduate[edit]

CVU Academy.svg CVU Academy Graduate
Having successfully completed the course of study and having successfully demonstrated the ability to Identify, Restore, Warn, and Report, it is my privilege now to declare you a Graduate of the Counter-Vandalism Unit's Academy. Do us all proud! Achowat (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

.

Sweet! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Lad[edit]

Hey AAD. I (in a roundabout fashion) was asked to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Lad and your close of it. So, the first thing to bear in mind is that while non-admins can close AfDs, we don't necessarily encourage it except in very specific circumstances - namely when the outcome is beyond a shadow of a doubt. And on the shadow of a doubt front, it's always good to remember that closes are not nose-counts; the number of people voting "keep!" or "delete!" is secondary to the strength of their arguments and whether they have disproved counter-arguments. It's also secondary to whether their arguments are in line with policy and what Wikipedia requires of articles.

So, in this AfD we have people near-unanimously saying "keep"; that's fine. Always a good sign that it's appropriate for NAC :). However, as the last comment in the article pointed out, one of the sources is not independent and the other is (possibly) not reliable, and having a single independent, reliable source does not notability make. This argument should, I feel, have been taken into account in the closing, and the closing comment doesn't suggest it was :(.

Now, I'm not here to scream or rant at you, just to give you some advice on how AfDs (and non-admin closures) are treated and what the expectations are :). Hopefully that will be the end of it and we can all move forward - nobody expects editors to be perfect, just to learn from their mistakes (and lord knows I've made a lot). However, if you are feeling particularly WP:BOLD, you could undo your close and leave it for someone else - it's completely up to you. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attenion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thought about your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opexa Therapeutics. It's true that I agreed with the "keep" outcome; I felt it was a "keep" because of additional sources I had added, and there was one other person who agreed with me. However, one delete nomination plus two "keep" opinions do not really add up to a consensus - at least not an obvious, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt consensus such as Ironholds says is needed for a non-admin close. Personally I'm not an administrator, but I hang out at AfD a lot, and I don't think many admins would have closed this discussion with so little input; most want to see at least three concurring opinions before calling it a consensus. IMO that discussion needed another opinion or two, maybe a relisting if its seven days have run out.

No harm done, since my hunch is it would have eventually gotten those additional "keep" comments. This is just a friendly comment - intended as helpful feedback, particularly if you are doing non-admin closures in preparation for a run for administrator (and I encourage you to think about that). Thanks for helping Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your comments. I have noticed articles being deleted from the AfD pages with only two or three calls for their removal, and I figured that the same standard could apply with preserving articles. Or maybe I was being a little too bold? In any event, I do not believe that the initial reason for deletion retained its relevance in view of your wonderful additions, which is what Ironman alluded to in his earlier comment about "beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt" reasoning for a non-admin closure. But, then again, he only turns up here to tell me what I'm doing wrong! :P But thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I don't get many visitors, so anyone coming here is always welcomed! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed articles being deleted from the AfD pages with only two or three calls for their removal, and I figured that the same standard could apply with preserving articles. There's a difference between "three votes for delete (counting the nominator's), none for keep" and "one vote for delete (the nominator's), two for keep." The first is consensus; the second is not IMO. But as I said: no harm, no foul. Do keep on closing discussions, you're helping Wikipedia. And as always at Wikipedia, if anyone disagrees, they'll let you know! 0;-D (P.S. If Ironholds has adopted you, you're in good hands.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Melanie, I wish that you and Ironman gave pep talks to other people on this website. I came back from a holiday break and I just took a look at the recently closed AfDs and I found three non-admin closures that did not follow any of the guidelines that you prescribed: [1], [2] and [3]. This website's unofficial rule seems to be "Every man for himself!" And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Hey there[edit]

I noticed you have put a deletion notice on Lumber Avenue by accident. Its okay, I have removed it so do not worry. Cheers. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It was no accident, and the article is now the subject of an AfD discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

For relatively new articles and such, may I suggest wp:speedy deletion? Uses less resources (admin time) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jim! You may want to take a look at what I did - I put a Prod tag on Lumber Avenue, but the editor who created that article removed it. So, I took it AfD. I decided to take the other two articles that he created to AfD, because I thought he might remove any Speedy Delete or Prod tags. I just wanted confirmation that my opinion of those articles was correct. In any event, there turned out to be a funny surprise: the editor in question was unmasked as a sockpuppet! So, it all worked out in the end. :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Also recognize that "speedy deletion" means anything less than 7 days ... there's no rush. dangerouspanda 12:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Seven days = speedy? Hmmmm. :/ And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter[edit]

Hey And Adoil Descended. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dfgtj[edit]

Hello And Adoil Descended. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dfgtj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is not patent nonsense. G1 only applies to content such as "th453wt3h2srhwrth". However, I have re-tagged it as a G3. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Obviously, I need to tighten my G-string. :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wicked Walking Tours[edit]

it has a link. --Cake102992 (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs a bit more than that, I'm afraid. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your great works on reverting such unnecessary contents and for maintaining this encyclopedia. Have a nice day! :) Mediran talk to me! 10:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thank you very much! My very first barnstar! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Diverging C Curve[edit]

Hey, sorry, I took down your speedy template because I wasn't able to see how it was blatantly a hoax. It might be more blatant to someone with some knowledge of the issue, of course. Do you mind creating an AFD of it? I could but I'm just going to say I have no clue and therefore no opinion. Peace, delldot ∇. 05:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have deferred to someone who understands economics, or at least can spend 45 seconds looking up references to affirm that such a theory does not exist? Or perhaps you can read the article and check that the "economist" who created this is a secondary school student? If I didn't confirm that it was a blatant hoax, I would not have tagged it as such. In any event, I put it up for AfD - it will take a few days longer than necessary to get rid of such rubbish, but at least this phony article will be removed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

inre 1906 (film)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

close[edit]

Good NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulevard Drive-In Theatre (Allentown, Pennsylvania) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Cookies![edit]

Christmas Cookies Plateful.JPG Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi And Adoil Descended, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Mediran (tc) 01:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have been off Wikipedia for a bit, and this is a very nice treat for my return! And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

on unanimity[edit]

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbler

To nitpick... Consensus was not unanimous due to the unretracted position of the nominator, and ambiguity about whether "keep" and "merge" and "move" are all the same thing. I think you should cut "unanimous" from your close. However, thank you for the very good NACs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think the non-admin closure was inappropriate. Several editors (four out of nine editors who !voted, plus my own comment) advocated moving or merging the article. Two of the "keep" !voters gave no reasoning other than that they agreed with Howicus, who had actually !voted "keep and move". So, while there was a great consensus that the article should not have been deleted, there was not, in my opinion, a consensus that the outcome should be a simple "keep"; more strongly, I feel that the consensus was to move or merge the page. Non-admin closures should only be made when the consensus is clear. Because this AfD was closed as just "keep", any editor now wishing to move or redirect the page must establish an explicit consensus to do so, which will be difficult, since the Bubbler article receives very little traffic. Dricherby (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The consensus in question, as I see it, is the wealth of opinions that followed the initial point raised by the nominator. There were no calls for deletion after the discussion began - the unanimity, in my view, is based on the total absence of calls for deletion once the discussion began. Had there been one person who shared the nominator's opinion, I would have abstained from a non-admin closure. Opinions on whether to move or merge or redirect the article, however, should be discussed outside of the AfD section; that is not the purpose of the AfD vehicle. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion began when somebody suggested deleting the page, not when the first person commented on that; for me, though, the "unanimous" thing isn't a big deal. However, opinions about merging and redirecting are absolutely part of the AfD process: WP:DISCUSSAFD explicitly suggests "merge" and "redirect" as possible recommendations; WP:AFD/AI gives instructions on how to perform a close when the consensus is to merge or redirect; WP:NAC explicitly mentions merges and redirects as closes that a non-admin has the capability to perform; there are templates to mark a page for merging after an AfD is closed with that conclusion. You are right that merging and redirecting is not the purpose of AfD: an editor who wants to propose merging or redirecting should do that on the relevant talk pages. But merge/redirect is very much a possible outcome of AfD. Furthermore, it was an outcome that received much discussion in the particular AfD in question and your close does not even mention it. Dricherby (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for the shortcomings of my closing statement. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

California legislators[edit]

Despite his claim that the hundreds of California legislator microstubs are "part of a larger project" [4], Aggie88's earlier comments on his talk page [5] [6] make it clear that this "project" is actually an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about the notability criteria for politicians. I've already asked him not to do this on his talk page but he deleted my message [7], which is why I'm saying this here, rather than there. Dricherby (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, his more recent comments seem more measured and at least some of the stubs contain a few sentences of information, with appropriate sources. So maybe this isn't as big an issue as I thought it was going to be. Dricherby (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't over-think these things, Dricherby! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CSD on Bill Cipher[edit]

You placed a CSD on Bill Cipher, but the article is not referring to a real person, it is referring to a character in a TV show, Gravity Falls. I have updated the CSD to A1 and A10, as it has no context, and the character is already described on the show's page. Any comments, let me know! Tek022 | Comments? 21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I realized my tag was not the right one after I logged out and shut off my computer! I did wonder if someone would alert me to my error - and someone did! :D And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Investors Bank Page[edit]

Hello, I understand the reason for the COI tag, and have added a declaration to the Talk page. Everything on the page is a fact. If you still see any specific issues that would warrant the tag, please let us know. Thank you. Investorsbank (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll userfy it for you, but it will be tomorrow I'm afraid Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Jimflbeak. I plan to be around tomorrow, so I will be on the lookout for it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll shortly post the text here. If you recreate you will need to
  • provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Most of the text is unreferenced
  • write in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
  • add more about the company itself, currently it's all about what the company does and its products. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will do my best to make this a presentable article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi And Adoil. Will you be adding this page soon? 70.192.72.157 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope so. I have been offline due to a family matter. I will be able to devote more time to this website in August. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you help?[edit]

I saw that you posted a "this article will be deleted" on another editor's page. I was wondering if you'd take a look at this Doyle Doss bioplug as another possible candidate for removal? The person who edits it is a bulldog about this page, and simply will not consider that 2 tiny mentions in major newspapers and one local reference to having been in the New York Times is sufficient for notability. I don't think so and I tried to talk to the page fanatic, but no go. I see you seem to know something of the process of removing ridiculous pages from wikipedia and was wondering if you could help please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that an article cannot be salvaged and deserves to be deleted, you can always nominate in the Articles for Deletion section of Wikipedia. In viewing this particular article, it appears to be adequately referenced. While it would be nice for the article to have more content, I don't see it anywhere near ridiculous. I am sorry that I could not be of more assistance. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor!
Hello And Adoil Descended.Recently you have signed my guestbook! Thank you very much for signing my guestbook. Cheers.Face-smile.svg--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That is very sweet. Thank you! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:NorbertRillieux.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NorbertRillieux.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The photograph in question was taken in the 19th century. Its copyright expired a long, long time ago. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erskine Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friars Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you help?[edit]

Can you also help me change my user name please? Manny the Frenchie (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how to add references. Can you help? Manny the Frenchie (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, And Adoil Descended. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion.
Message added 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Wickes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Studio One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Thank you. This is a nice surprise. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Mediran (tc) 08:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you, too! And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Wow; approved even before requesting it! That's great to see, after fighting so long for my (still pending) Articles for creation/Erie Business Center. I was beginning to think volunteering was too much hassle for what it is worth! Wikipedia needs more of you :) Idoitfor (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is a nice surprise! And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grand Forks International[edit]

Hello, I have been working on creating a page for the Grand Forks International today, and noticed you marked it as a candidate for speedy deletion. I realize this is only my first article, but I was wondering what I can do to improve it so it will not be deleted. Thanks! Canucksfan97 (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site[edit]

I am not debating the close, as I feel notability had been established... but I wish to notify you of an slight error in your closing statement. The AFd was opened by User:jps, and the one delete vote (apart from the nominator's) was that of User:Spirit of Eagle who DID withdraw. As the discussion did last seven days and there were no delete votes outside the nom's, I do not think your close will be contested. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my error - I misread the AfD and thought the nominator was withdrawing the debate. My apologies. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears from the discussion at WP:FTN that the nom is aware of this and sees no reason to challenge it or take it to WP:DRV. I did not officially !vote but I agree with MichaelQSchmidt that the close is fine. Location (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But you did grant notability likely asked some cogent questions that opened a discussion elsewhere. Thank you, Location Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello And Adoil Descended. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)