User talk:Adam9007

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

Adam9007 is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

SkeletonKampf's Article.

I fixed my article. There is no copyrighted material and full citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Morning_of_the_Streltsy_Execution

Maverick Squad article correction

Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_Squad

A cup of tea for you!

Welcome back :) Ayub407talk 07:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Article

No, Twitter is not actually listed as a source and even if it was, it's not acceptable at all. There's no biography content listed at that link. Even IMDb would have been accepted before Twitter.... SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD requires no sources whatsoever. It does not mean no reliable sources. It may not be enough to stop a (legitimately) started BLPPROD, but it is enough to stop one from starting in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter never even mentions her career or filmography, all it has are social media messages she herself has put; there's no actual information there. I've alsp, in the paat, simply remoced it altogether and then BLPPROD (Twitter profiles are not welcome anyway). SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It does mention the subject though. which is enough to stop BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'll note Liandika which is (1) not an actual "person" but, worse, it seems to be an actual fabrication, searches easily found nothing and anything claiming to be a "fire sex god" has to be taken carefully. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It was created by an account of the same name, and gods don't come from India (or anywhere else for that matter). It implies it's a person. It's right along the border between A7, G3, and A11 (probably closer to the former 2). Adam9007 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What I'm basically saying is Do Not Remove or revert my changes, I know what I'm doing. The fact you never, again, considered PROD or BLPROD for Guy Hecht is enough by itself. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN Please do not tell me what I can and can't do. Adam9007 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And just to add, I did in fact consider PROD, BLPPROD, and AfD, but decided against it, for I had a better alternative. Adam9007 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There was firm consensus in 2011 that no source meant it literally, with the explanation"Consensus is that only articles including no sources are eligible for BLPPROD, to keep the process as black-and-white as possible" . The current discussions seem to support this view. The argument raised in 2011 was that some Facebook or twitter sources might actually provide information, as people sometimes use them as a principal web site-- & I think such use has increased since then. The only qualification on no source that seems to be accepted is that the source has to relate to the subject, not be a totally general source about,say, the field of work, that does not mention the subject at all.

I agree that the interpretation seems absurd. But there are some reasons for it, and there's been consistent support for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(assuming this is the "article") - I gotta say that this decline of A7 is absurd and problematic . This has been going on for far too long. You really need to stop declining these things and it would be better if you did that voluntarily than by the sanction that will eventually come if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1:Wikipedia_talk:Credible_claim_of_significance#RfC:_Can_SIGNIFICANCE_be_inherited.3F Which part of "There's consensus that a strong association with something notable constitutes a credible claim of significance" do you not understand? CEO is certainly that; they don't come much stronger! It "should" have been a blpprod, but, I was under the impression that merging or redirecting is preferable to deletion anyway? Something that many people here for some reason seem to disagree with. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite true that BLPPROD is void if the article contains any sources whatsoever. Actually "The process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." And again " biographies created after March 18, 2010, that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process." It can't just be a random link, it has to actually have information about the person - information which is included in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You're right; I should have made it clear that by "any source", I meant sources that actually support the article. But I thought that was obvious? Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

The article Black & White (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Black & White (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ThisisDA for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ThisisDA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThisisDA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted CSD tag

Hi! Did you remove the CSD tag from DemExit? The diffs don't show it being removed but it disappeared after your edit. If you did remove it, I'd urge you to look at the nature of sources themselves as well as the COI going on in the history, and reconsider.

Thank you, Jergling (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). The DemExit page is a mess, but, based on the sources, there is enough there that I think the article should be reviewed by the community at AfD rather than via speedy deletion.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the diff does show it being removed. Unreliable sources and WP:COI are not speedy criteria. The article does contain credible claims of significance, so fails A7. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Baba Maharramli

Wow, how did I miss 97 references?! I can't fathom a hunch at my thought process there. I really shouldn't edit when I should be sleeping. Anyways, thanks for fixing that, AfD is much more appropriate. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@Ritchie333: Thanks! Though I'm not sure what makes it the final push? I basically just made a few tweaks to the prose. I also haven't quite finished the essay yet. I've been busy doing other stuff, like article improving. I don't know if you saw on the recent ANI, but the fact I'm even doing an essay has been used against me! It's a lot more than just self-defence. Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it was tweaks I didn't need to do, which is the whole point of collaborative editing (and indeed the reason I get involved with stuff like Wikipedia in the first place, I don't have to do anything more than what I want). I did see the ANI thread, and while I think some of the speedy declines were over-eager, the principles you have are spot on in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

M32 motorway has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Adam9007. M32 motorway, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for M32 motorway

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article M32 motorway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2011, a field of red poppies, cornflowers, and marigolds was planted alongside the M32 motorway in Bristol to improve the view? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/M32 motorway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, M32 motorway), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Larroquette

Question... With Mariana Larroquette... I don't see any "sources". I see an external link... But it isn't references in the article. It is just an external link. My understanding is that external links do not qualify as sources unless cited. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

They do. WP:GENREF. WP:BLPPROD also states no sources in any form. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

You declined the speedy deletion nomination of CSI Church Kaliakkavilai with the rationale Outside A7's scope. By this, do you mean that the church is notable enough to escape speedy deletion? (I would disagree with you on that point, obviously, but it is a valid difference of opinions.) Or do you mean that A7 doesn't apply to churches, in which case I'd have to say you are incorrect. It does not apply to educational institutions (for reasons I can't fathom, but that's a different argument), but it most certainly applies to churches as much as any other organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: When I talk of A7's scope, I'm referring to its categories. Are churches organisations? I don't think so; the article goes on about locations and architecture. Organisations don't have locations or an architecture. Geographic features might. Is the article about the building itself or the body that runs it? Definitely more about the building itself. Wikipedia categorises churches under buildings and structures, not organisations. Tesco is an organisation; a Tesco store is not, even if what goes on inside is part of a business. Royal Mail is an organisation; Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre is not. They may be part of an organisation, but they are not the organisations themselves. Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being overly analytic. Articles about churches have been speedily deleted in the past. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been. Not under A7 anyway. Places of worship are classed under Buildings and Structures (I checked the categories). Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about the building or structure, then that's one thing. But this article is about the church as an organization. The fact that the article shows the church's building is no different than if I write an article about Joe's Corner Deli, and include a picture of the building where the deli exists. The article is still about the company and is eligible for speedy deletion. In this case, I've taken the matter to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Retirement consideration - there's a better path

Adam, I see you're considering retirement again. While that seems like a passive-aggressive response to the criticism above, there's probably a better way forward. You have a lot to offer this project and can make a big impact adding a ton of value. However, I think you're continuing to apply yourself to an area (declining speedy deletion nominations) that frankly, you don't seem to have the judgement required for or the ability to constructively receive and act on the guidance you repeatedly get on this subject. May I suggest that you continue to be an active wikipedian but avoid the whole CSD review process? Your participation there is clearly causing you stress and frankly causing a bunch of extra work for others.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It's meant as the most constructive of advice. We all have our limitations - I certainly do too. Sincerely, Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)