User talk:Eventhorizon51

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


Hello, Eventhorizon51, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Eventhorizon51! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Maywood Community School was accepted[edit]

Maywood Community School, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Itemirus (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vengeance (2013 film)[edit]

Hello Eventhorizon51, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vengeance (2013 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anna David (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) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:02, Monday, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew Patrick (YouTube) (July 12)[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 read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
Reventtalk 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube). Thanks! (tJosve05a (c) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) (July 24)[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 read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
JSFarman (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to Rosanna Pansino[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:Eventhorizon51/sandbox a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rosanna Pansino. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Len Ford[edit]

May I ask why you reverted my edits on Len Ford? Esszet (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. From what I saw in the comparison between revisions of your edit, I thought you removed a quote from the article. I just took a closer look and it looks like your edits were in fact constructive. I'll undo my revision to the page. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifying authors[edit]

Hi. Thanks for patrolling new programs, a tedious and depressing but essential task. When you PROD an article such as Andover HSx, please notify the author by copying to their talk page the notice that is generated at the bottom of the PROD template when it expands on the article and, if the author is new with a blank talk page, make it less WP:BITEy by preceding it with {{welcome}} or another welcome message, to give them some links to advice on how to do better next time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tippets+random+no.[edit]

Hello Eventhorizon51, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tippets+random+no., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

Your signature at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/也是醉了 seems to be causing problems in the edit window by taking up far too many lines. It should take no more than two or three, per WP:SIGLEN, and should not be more than 255 char. It's not obvious why it's doing so: your signature looks very straightforward with just custom colours and could probably done with much simpler HTML.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's doing this. All I typed in for my signature is [[User:Eventhorizon51|'''{{fontcolor||yellow|Event}}{{fontcolor|#00FFFF|black|horizon51}}''']] <sup>([[User talk:Eventhorizon51|talk]])</sup>. Is it supposed to automatically change into whatever it is in the edit window? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't seem like my sig is doing the same thing on this page (or any other talk page I've edited). Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You should never include templates in your signature. There's not one reason but a whole list: WP:SIG#NT. If you are trying to achieve some formatting then do it using raw CSS/HTML; look at the output for where your sig worked as expected and copy and paste that. If it's too long, i.e. if it exceeds the 255 char limit, you'll have to find some way to shorten it even if that means losing some of the formatting. But your sig doesn't look as if it's doing anything too fancy that would need more than 255 chars.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it at the AfD by substing the parser functions. If you replace a template or call, {{...}} with the same but prefixed by 'subst:', i.e. {{subst:...}}, the template is replaced by its output as you hit save. WP:SIG#NT strongly discourages but does not disallow substing, for the reasons given. In this case I think using HTML/CSS is far better as then you can be sure what you'll get, and again I don't think you are doing anything that can't be done that way.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I fixed a couple more instances of it too: [1], [2]. Whatever the cause it's possibly something you changed around that time; earlier pages seem not to have the problem.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion not applicable to user pages or sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#List of criteria states that you cannot request a page for speedy deletion if it is a user page or sandbox. Undescribed (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Undescribed: It most certainly does not say that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Under G1. Patent nonsense - line 2 "This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace." Undescribed (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's specific to G1, which isn't what you said, and you're wasting server resources for no good reason, with over 500 revisions in just a few minutes, so IAR would apply to delete anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
G1 is the violation that was applied. And what exactly is "IAR"? Undescribed (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Undescribed: WP:IAR stands for Ignore all rules, a policy that encourages actions that help the project even if they don't follow the letter of other guidelines. I do appreciate the reminder that G1 does not apply to user pages, but editing rapidly without a purpose is a drain on the servers. It wouldn't be as disruptive if you put meaningful content on your userpage about you as a user. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Please do not describe an article written in good faith by an apparent schoolchild as "vandalism". Vandalism is an attempt to deliberately harm the encyclopedia, not just a naïve failure to understand its purpose. As reviewing administrator, I deleted the page "School buddies" as a test page, which I consider the kindest way to deal with such pages. I will now go and try to say something nice to the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive criticism. I'll keep this in mind in the future when I'm patrolling new pages. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Pepper article[edit]

Hi, I've removed the criminal allegation from the article, per BLP. It is based on one anonymous complaint, with no indication that the police are investigating, and the second source you cited was simply repeating the first. It would need police involvement or at least much stronger sourcing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, just letting you know that I removed a self-published source that I missed yesterday. [3] I'm wondering whether this article is really policy-compliant, given the focus on these allegations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you removed only pointed out the presence of the letter referred to in the statement. It doesn't make any claims about anyone or anything else besides the letter itself, so I don't see why it's not appropriate for that sentence. Would you mind further explaining why it can't be cited as a source? If it is in fact inappropriate, the claim can still stand (but perhaps modified) since there are many other news articles that point out the significance of the tumblr post. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an SPS, self-published by someone other than the subject. See WP:BLPSPS. Do you have a good news source that refers to the Tumblr post? (Pinging MelanieN as the admin who unprotected.) Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The letter is actually referred to in the BBC article that I cited, though it's near the end. It also makes reference to the number of signatures it has received. However, I still don't quite understand why the letter can't be cited, since the sentence it was attached to didn't make any claims about any people, only the letter itself. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another source that refers to the letter in question. [4] Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you can use that as a source for the letter, but I think this is a problematic BLP. It's unlikely to have much content other than these allegations. See WP:BLP1E. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Sarah. Eventhorizon approached me about unprotecting, since the protecting administrator is not active. I discussed it with them here. I was mainly evaluating the new article on GNG grounds since the earlier deletion was based on lack of notability (their only claim to fame was having been on Big Brother). I was dubious at first, because the only new information is the controversy, and that seemed like just a social media dustup, unworthy of encyclopedia coverage. But looking closer I saw there was significant coverage from two Reliable Sources, which meant it might meet GNG. I decided it deserved a shot at article-hood - subject of course to AfD at anyone's pleasure. Feel free. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, thanks for the reply. I was wondering whether Eventhorizon51 would reconsider whether to publish it, so that it could be speedied. The BBC would normally be an RS, but the BBC article used as a source doesn't look good. One reporter speaks to women, all or most anonymous, who make various claims, then the reporter adds "We have been unable to independently verify that the messages were from [the subject]". Without the BBC, the only mainstream source in the article is CBC, which is about his "prank," or whatever it was. So we have a mixture of weak sourcing (including for one allegation of criminality, now removed), borderline notable, BLP1E, and very little chance of it ever developing into a full biography. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You are suggesting that Eventhorizon tag it G7? They could, of course. But personally I would rather see such a decision made by the community at AfD, rather than between two people on a talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The options are: Eventhorizon could request deletion; an admin could delete it, per WP:BLPDELETE; someone could take it back to AfD; or we could simply redirect it back to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Pepper. It would help to know how Eventhorizon intends to develop it into a biography. It can't stay the way it is forever, but it's not clear how many other RS exist for biographical material. Eventhorizon, could you say what your plans are? Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My original plan was to start this article off with whatever information I can find about the subject at the time, and then opening the article up to the community to develop as time went on. SlimVirgin, you say that the BBC article used as a source doesn't look good, but the only ambiguity in that article is the part where it says that "We have been unable to independently verify that the messages were from [the subject]". That part is only specific to a few online messages and does not eliminate the reliability of other statements made in the article. I can't be sure that I'm absolutely right, but I don't believe that anything in the article as of now (or at least anything controversial) violates the policy at WP:BLP. When I drafted the article, I was careful not to make any uncited claims and attribute every piece of information included to a source. I'm pretty sure that notability is not an issue here either because typing the subject's name into Google will turn up pages and pages of articles dedicated to discussing this person. Also, SlimVirgin, with this edit [5] you removed two references without much explanation. Right now, I still don't know what's wrong with those sources you removed. It seems like the only reasons for possible deletion at this point, as you state, are notability and sourcing, both of which I do not believe are issues with this page. Can you perhaps elaborate on any of the problems you find with sourcing? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for the detailed response, Eventhorizon. First, I should make clear that I have no interest in this as an editor; I'm here only as an admin because I saw it raised at RfPP. The main issue is that eventualism doesn't apply to BLPs; they have to be fair at all times (see Wikipedia:COATRACK).

When I found the article it contained a serious criminal allegation based on one anonymous source who had spoken to one reporter; another claim that wasn't quite the way the source presented it (the photographs); and a third based on a self-published source (the letter). The BBC article – which I believe is BBC Newsbeat, i.e. Radio 1 – is a morass of mostly anonymous gossip, and I think we should not regard it as an RS for a BLP. That leaves the CBC piece, and no clear way of developing the article into a full biography. I think we should redirect it to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, I don't think WP:COATRACK applies here because this subject's controversy is a significant if not the main claim to his notability. It would only be a coatrack if the article mostly focused on, say, one specific victim of his alleged crimes and went into extreme detail about that person instead. This article doesn't do that. It only focuses on his controversy because it's mainly what makes this person notable. Just like how an article about an astronaut focusing mostly on his moon landing is not a coatrack, this article about a web star focusing mostly on his controversy should not be considered one either. (WP:WINAC)
Secondly, the sources currently cited in the article are definitely not the only ones that exist. Just by doing a simple Google search, I can find all of the following sources revolving around the subject: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. None of these ones have been cited yet in the article. Though it's true that all of these mainly discuss the subject's controversy, they definitely establish his notability. I also believe that most if not all of these listed sources are reliable. With all these sources available, I think this article deserves to be kept. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
COATRACK BLPs are when a pseudo-BLP is created to write about one particular issue, which is what has happened here. As you say: "this subject's controversy is a significant if not the main claim to his notability." Please say what sources you're going to use to develop the article into a fuller biography. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are only against this article's inclusion due to the lack of biographical information about the person, fair enough. Finding biographical information about him is not as easy as finding information about the controversy (although there is this video [16] which is currently cited in the article). Nevertheless, can there at least be an article on this one incident as its notability can be clearly demonstrated? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean an article on the video itself? The answer is I don't know. It seems like a minor, non-notable issue to me, but perhaps I'm just not familiar with it. Perhaps you could develop it in draft space. I have no idea what it could be called that would be neutral, but for now perhaps Draft:YouTube pinch video? A stand-alone article would allow you to develop the responses to it without worries about UNDUE (but please watch out for BLP violations). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, the video I linked to in my last comment is a draw my life video that could potentially used for biographical information, not the video of controversy. I could just move the article into a draft space for now and see what I can do with it that would make it suitable for publication. Would that be a good idea? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That might be a good idea - both because Sarah finds BLP issues with it, and to keep it out of the way of edits like this. It might also be a good idea to check with Sarah before restoring it to mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good idea. If you could develop it so that it's not a BLP, but is about whatever notable event you think is worth an article, that would move you away from BLP concerns and personal allegations about him. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Or alternately, if it's still about him but has adequate sourcing for a biography, and adequate evidence of notability in addition to or instead of the tempest in the social media teapot. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Eventhorizon, I'm going to go ahead and move this to draft space, where you can work on it as a bio or event article, depending on how the sources look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), sorry I forgot to tell you about this, but I already copy pasted the article's content into a subpage of my user page at User:Eventhorizon51/Sam Pepper. There doesn't need to be another copy in the draft namespace, so you might want to delete that page or, if you want to preserve the page's history, delete the redirect currently located at Sam Pepper and move the page in the draft space back to its original title. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Everything's back to the way it was, except that Sam Pepper isn't protected (I'm waiting to hear from Melanie about that), so I'm trusting for now that you won't edit it without getting the go-ahead for your draft. Best of luck with it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Pepper 2 (April 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. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was: 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.
wia (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)