This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:De728631

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

Deletion review for Honour (film)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Honour (film). 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.

User:Smoothest Aashu[edit]

User:Smoothest Aashu re-created himself only minutes after your kind deletion. Any chance of a little salt on his tail to end the tedium of repeat CSDs ?. Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. Although it was less promotional than before I zapped the page again and left him a note about appropriate user page content. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record: indeffed by Smalljim (NOTHERE). De728631 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
But still able to post his promotional stuff on his old talk page here!. Any chance of tighter sanctions ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure. JohnCD revoked the guy's talk page access. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

stop changing genres to suit a mass WRONG OPINION of what a genre is.[edit]

stop changing something to suit what you believe is goth rock when it is metal,hard rock,shock rock, and anything unrelated ot the music. your giving people wrong information about a band that has nothing to do with the music. just because someone looks like something doesnt mean they are.stop changing things to suite your opinion on what the genre is.

You are right: my opinion is totally irrelevant – but so as is yours. All that matters is what professional critics have written in reliable sources. That is how Wikipedia works. Fan-based likings and what "true goths" may personally think has no place in an encyclopedia unless it has been published on a noteworthy level. Please see also this essay. And please sign your contributions to talk pages by using four tilde characters ~~~~. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation[edit]

Hello De728631,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your research[edit]

Thanks for your research on the page on Dinesh Singh which was deleted. I also had the impression that the page that was used to justify deletion as in fact a copy of the wikipedia entry that was deleted. Best, (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Animesh

You're welcome. Let's wait and see what Jimfbleak thinks about it. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

Hi there. I see you're an admin and that you recently blocked someone for breaching 3RR. Currently (at my time of writing), the Clovelly is subject to a dispute and I am up to my neck in it. Just before I started writing this my revision was on display. By the time this is sent it may not be. What I want to know (if you get to it on time) is, am I currently in violation of 3RR? I've made four edits but the first was an "addition". I admit it is the same as what I was doing a few days earlier (and that may be wrong too) but I am willing to self-revert if the opportunity is there and I really really have to. Can you advise at this point (without need for further action)? --Mario Payne (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing: to be safe I self-reverted although it is next day, hope now it won't end up with block. --Mario Payne (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. From what I can tell, this edit of yours was your first revert in the series at Clovelly. Additions that do not remove content written by other editors do not count as reverts, nor do consecutive edits by the same user count as individual reverts. Anyhow, you're now at 4 reverts even though you self-reverted your last edit. But since you've noticed your mistake of getting into an edit war yourself I don't see any need to take action here. Generally I'd say once your revert gets reverted, it's time to start a discussion at the article's talk page instead of hitting the undo button again. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks for that. --Mario Payne (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)