User talk:Anachronist

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.

Hi!

Hi! How are you? Please visit Deletion review for Hiroyuki Tsuchida An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hiroyuki Tsuchida. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Gang Recording Studio

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... "Claude Puterflam founded the Gang Recording Studio in the heart of Paris" the studio is truly in the centre of Paris.

"the studio was specifically designed to have a relaxing feel to encourage the creativity of the artists" This is the case for any studio in the world, Studios NEED to HAVE a relaxing ambiance.

"remaining consistent with the requirements of professional recording environments." it seems obvious that professional studios focus on their work environment.

"which ensures perfect insulation" A perfect insulation has nothing promotional, it is the correct way to describe a physical behavior for wave propagation.

"high quality audio" It seems obvious for a studio.

Hopefully wikipedia will stop deleting this article, or at least explain in detail why or how this article is promotional. Please have a look at articles about notorious recording studios such as Electric Lady Studios or Ocean Way Recording and explain me why this one is so different.

Thank you for your time.

Re: deletion of the Dân Bắc Kỳ article

Hi Amatulic, can you please undo the deletion of the Dân Bắc Kỳ article temporairily please, because many of the diffs and edits on that article's edit history is associated with a group of sockpuppets, under the user Jspeed1310, which i need to complete the SPI report i'm currently filing. I just need the article back up for a short time until the SPI completes, after which it'll be free to be deleted permanently. Thank you! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the article to your user space: User:Nguyễn Quốc Việt/Dân Bắc Kỳ. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of X500

Hi. We are a mobile phone manufacturer based out of Miami, FL. We develop AWS devices for all of the prepaid carriers in the USA. Our devices can be found in over 20,000 retail stores across the country. Many people do not manufacture AWS devices so we want it known that our device is 3G on AWS bands. Currently, the device is available through T Mobile, Go Smart, Ultra Mobile, Ready Sim channels just to name a few. I have a spec sheet highlighting the AWS frequency and other features of the device to help with your review. Please let me know if I can provide you with any more information to help have our device approved. Thank you Samsocial (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely WP:CORP. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a publicity medium and should never be used for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

editor

thanks for the comments. Most people in his situation have the sense to call attention to themselves. I think enough has been said--anything further would just encourage them-- and the community will decide on the items up for deletion at CSD and AfD, and DelRev if it comes to that. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but it's always a good thing when paid editors call attention to themselves. They invite close scrutiny, and either they mend their ways or end up blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:DJ Buddy Holly (DJ Devious)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djdevious regarding this user. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a comment there. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

declined G11

fyi: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonita Platinum DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HCW33

Please see User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. This editor appears to be one of about two dozen editors collaborating with each other to create or improve business-related article. Unfortunately, their understanding of what "improving" an article or what a suitable new article is does not (yet) line up with reality. Ditto their understanding of what companies do and do not qualify for articles.

The ideal outcome is that all 24-or-so editors accept our help and channel their interest and effort into creating quality articles about notable topics and adding quality improvements to existing articles. This will take time and effort on their part and our part.

The short-term goal, well, my short term goal, is to let them know that we want them to continue editing, but that for now they need to take a step back and stop editing business-related articles until they better understand what is and is not appropriate to have in such articles.

Towards that end, I have asked for help at WT:WikiProject Business.

Doctree and Kudpung (Kupung is an administrator) are both already participating in the discussion. Your input would be valuable.

If he appeals his block denying he is a sockpuppet, consider unblocking him. If you have opened any SPI, ANI, or related discussions, could you cross-advertise those discussions to/from User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua, so that the discussions can all be moved to one place? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the account because both HCW33 and Helen1023 identify as being a PhD candidate in Information Systems at the same university, the first initial is the same, and there is a high intersection of the same articles in the contribution history. This did not look like a collaboration to me. It looked like a WP:DUCK sock. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit, this is one of those cases where, until there is an up-close investigation, this group (24+ accounts so far) look/quack both like collaborative editors cribbing off of and assisting each other and a bad-faith sock/meat farm. In fact, my initial reaction when I discovered the first few was to open an SPI. It was only after realizing that a few said they were students and the idea of a collaboration was plausible did I resume assuming good faith. Also, FYI, 220 of Borg opened a parallel discussion going on at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Group of New/Newish Editors Creating/Editing pages about companies about a day after I created User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. It looks like a significant a number of experienced editors are watching these new editors very closely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Amatulic!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Amatulic: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Soka Gakkai

I wonder if its not time to take this article and even the article on Daisaku Ikeda to a higher level in terms of moderation or supervision. Same goes for the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. With all due respect I try to keep a balanced view in my edits also when it comes to critical issues. I even refrained form editing on Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda in any major way lately but it just seems that some editors carry on with a white washing campaign and misinterpret alternative or critical views as an attack. As much as I like to contribute to Wikipedia in the English and German version the work in the English version especially makes one feel slightly frustrated.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia, with the largest audience, so it attracts a large population of special interests wanting to promote their point of view.

As far as moderation, it's on my watch list. I observed that much of the disruptive behavior (at least the persistent image removals) seem to come from anonymous IP addresses or unconfirmed accounts, so semi-protection is a good solution for that. These editors are always welcome to post edit requests on the talk pages.

I don't see recent disruptive activity on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism to justify protection at this time, but I have put them on my watch list. Semi-protection wouldn't do any good on Daisaku Ikeda because the disputants are all confirmed editors, the best recourse there, if disruption continues without resolution, is to request temporary full protection at WP:RFPP to force everyone to work out their differences on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Its good to know that a few have the articles in question on their watch list though. A few of those who were persistent in their behaviour have been silent for a while. Thanks!--Catflap08 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

---

See Talk:Soka_Gakkai#Semi-protection. Kiruning (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands

Thanks for cleaning up the talk page! John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's been on my "to do" list for a long while. The archive bot won't archive any sections that don't have a date in the final signature, and the person who posted those never signed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:HCW33 (again)

User:HCW33 is part of a class, and Helen is just another student in the class, so would you be able to unblock them? The professor currently is going to work with us on fixing this all up, so it would help if we could unblock the only person blocked in the class. Thank you, and have a wonderful day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And you know this how...? I see no communication from HCW33, who has instructions on posting an unblock request, nothing on your own talk page regarding this situation, nothing on User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua where the activites are being recorded, nothing on his talk page, and zero communication from any of these socks with the Wikipedia community. Sorry, but this was a WP:DUCK. It smells so strongly of paid-editing sockpuppetry by a PR firm, I will need more explanation than your assurance before I unblock that account. I was about to block some more before you posted this note. I will refrain and wait for your response. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I am working with the education program with OhanaUnited and we started discussing offline about what to do here. I guess there is no rush in doing this, so we'll let you know what's up when we sort it out. Have a good day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We know this from here and here. We're trying to get a hold of the professor but the indications suggested that they were not socking or paid editing (which were the basis of your original block). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And yet, nothing specifically about HCW33. As I stated before, HCW33 has instructions on posting an unblock request. I have no assurance that this person is even a part of that group. If this group of students is truly interested in communicating with the community as claimed by the letter of that professor, then let's see some evidence of communication on publicly viewable talk pages, not copy/pasted emails. Wikipedia works by community interaction, not by back-room deals. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if we were to be discussing sensitive information, such as the identities of these users, we should be doing it on-Wiki? Okay, I'll remember that the next time I work with editors who don't want their identities leaked to the entire internet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not interested in personal details. I'm interested in seeing any evidence that they are making any attempt at all to work with the community on talk pages, discussing articles, guidelines, improvements, etc. And, posting an unblock request with an explanation. I see none of that. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Most students I work with aren't as willing as your average editor, so this is not surprising. I am going to leave it here, but I just want to let you know that it would be actually surprising if they went through this approach, as very few students are willing to challenge authority, something which also is a major thing where these students come from. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you a mind reader?

Just wondering what put you on the trail of Sleepfoundation? I'd just asked them to abandon that account! Hordaland (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It came up in an OTRS message some time back, so I put it on my watch list. It came up again in my watch list again earlier today, which prompted me to look at it, and I noticed all the edits by that account, so I soft-blocked it (meaning the person isn't prevented from creating a new account, and the IP address isn't blocked either). ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. & thanks for definition of soft-block -- I'd wondered. --Hordaland (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

recreated page

Sheela armani, which you just deleted, has been recreated. Rosario Berganza 07:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

...and just as quickly deleted by Jimflbleak.

If it appears a third time, let me know and I'll salt it to prevent re-creation. Hopefully the user will get the message about autobiographies on her talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Here's another gem btw: Paul Assani. Rosario Berganza 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, someone zapped that while I was typing the message. ;) Rosario Berganza 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the table on Financialization page is vandalism

In fact, I did use the talk page to explain why I thought deletion of the table comparing financial turnover to GDP was vandalism of the heart of the article on Financialization. Perhaps you failed to see it? Clearly, you do not address the issue I raised there. TonyWikrent (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek addressed the issues quite well in his replies to you on his talk page. Perhaps you failed to read them?

My point about using talk pages was that you're supposed to do that instead of revert-warring. I have also replied on the article talk page. If you want the table in there, do it properly with wiki-markup and citations, using information that isn't more than a decade out of date. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, tertiary sources

with respect to this, please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. it is a primary source. Would you please revert yourself? Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's a primary source according to MEDRS. However, MEDRS also says "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source." That is the case here. Therefore, I do not see how reverting my restoration of that content would improve the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree; this is not what MEDRS is about. I opened a discussion on the talk page; please come talk. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for talking to the page creator on my talk page. That's what I meant to happen by putting the talkback template on your page.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hi Amatulic - would you mind stopping by WP:ANEW and commenting on your alleged violation of the 3rr. Looking at the diffs, it does look like a violation of the 3rr to me, but I'd like to hear comment from you before trying to do anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring: / disruptive editing / 3-revert rule violation on Health effects of wine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall concern is that discussion was taking place and one should get consensus on the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you did not see the final edit summary.

By my count, that was two reverts (the first two edits made substantial changes to content and sourcing in an attempt to satisfy objections). Furthermore, there was no consensus evident to remove a well-sourced statement that has received significant coverage in both mainstream and scientific press.

Nevertheless, I will abide by the block. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Would recommend a RfC rather than continuing to revert in the future. Restoring any content repeatedly even if in a different forms still count as a revert by my reading. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy The Groundhog

Hello, I indicated on the comment for Jimmy the Groundhog that I had started with the source for the Wiarton Willie and was editing to replace Wiarton Willie information with the Jimmy the Groundhog information that I have acquired from reliable sources. I also indicated on the Jimmy the Groundhog talk page that I was currently editing the page to remove the Wiarton Willie page and add Jimmy the Groundhog information. But when I went to save the page - it had been deleted. Why did no one read the talk page and wait for me to finish adding the information that I said I was in the process of adding? Can you undelete the page so I can add the mentioned text? Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 02:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. And I looked at the article, which was identical to another article except for the name. Main space articles need to have some minimum threshold of acceptance before you put an article there.

You're welcome to try again, but please do it in your sandbox or at WP:AFC where you don't have to worry about someone coming along and tagging for speedy deletion, and someone else deleting it.

If you need help moving the finished article out of your sandbox, drop me a note and I'll be glad to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bring back SubtweetCat

It has come to my attention that you are responsible for the removal of the page titled "SubtweetCat". Obviously this was done in error. Please correct your mistake, if possible. You are depriving readers, especially of the Tweep variety, of essential information.

66.87.68.102 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Madeline

Absolutely not. You have got to be kidding. Readers have been deprived of nothing.

Wikipedia doesn't host articles about non-notable individuals who happen to have an internet presence. Exactly what part of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) does this anonymous pseudonym meet? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bring back SubtweetCat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B10F:8F1A:B48E:34D3:90B4:BF96 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No. See comment above. And try familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonder about your criteria

Hello Amatulic,

Even though I respect your decision, I wonder what kind of criteria were you using in your decision. Basically you are saying that no corporation (unless it is a BIG name) can put a referral to their stuff. If I was writing about Microsoft there would not be an issue I guess. As regarding the Horizon Oil spill , I found my notes very humorous and it was underlining the community concern and involvement in the event. As regarding the "logo" page, I`m a professional logo designer with over 20 years of experience and thousands of brand identities designed. I find page about logo extremely useless. The only information it gives is about 3 guys big shots who got famous designers. No information about the actual purpose or different styles to give readers more information about the actual logo and the process. This page should be called "3 top logo designers". I have a lot of usefull information about the logo, but because I actually have a commercial source of information you will not use it. How come? Is Wikipedia only for amateurs? As soon as I put a reference to a professional source , you mark it as "advertisement". But when big companies do the same such as HP or IBM, you would trust them immediately. I don`t know how deeply you are involved in the editorial process but I have similar issue with "Logobee" page. That was removed for the reason of being "advertisement". I cant believe someone can simply do this without a good reason. Logobee existed for many years and the page created was caring very useful information about the company history, business owners, and criticism. Logobee is doing a lot of charity work, which has been noted in the referral. Besides if this material was considered as "advertisement", I see not much difference from pages like this Logoworks. If you let page like that exist but remove logobee page, you are acting extremely hypocritical. Logobee page , was a very useful source of information for Wikipedia users. I kindly ask that you restore the page. If you do feel that some of the material presented looks like "advertisement" I do not object to removing it from the page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodikbobik (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete the article. I nominated it for deletion. That's a big difference. You need to contact the administrator who deleted it, or state your case at WP:DRV to build wider community consensus.

A large part of your activity on Wikipedia appears to be publicity for this company. You have added inappropriate links to other articles along with promotional text. This is an important policy: Wikipedia is not a publicity medium.

Your attempts to insert links to this company, combined with creating an article about the company, strongly suggests that you have some sort of association with the company. You need to disclose that association publicly, on your user page or in talk page conversation. Please see WP:Conflict of interest for guidance. If you have a conflict of interest, your best venue for submitting articles is WP:AFC.

Regarding Microsoft, which you mentioned: No representative of Microsoft wrote their article.

Regarding Logoworks: They didn't write their article either. Also your comparison amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not a valid argument to keep or delete anything. Each article stands or falls on its own merits without regard to whatever else might exist. Unlike Logobee, Logoworks has had significant coverage in nationally distributed news sources, easily meeting the notability requirements in WP:CORP. Logobee did not meet that threshold. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, I really appretiate your commnets. Thank you. Can you please explain more about you reaction to my actions. I`ve found out about Logobee a long time ago, as being a logo designer myself I felt strange not to find any resources on Wikipedia about the company. When I posted the article I didn`t intend to "falsely" promote it. Right after the submission, the page got a warning "orphan page, needs more outbound links from Wikipedia pages". That was my only reaction - to seek appropriate pages where Logobee link would be appropriate. I still do not understand why the links I submitted on other pages appear inappropriate. As I explained my reasons above (adding it to the "logo" page). You are saying that these actions look suspicious, I say it is pretty normal stream of actions by the creator of the page. As for the notability requirements, I can easy provide more resources, but that was never given to me as a choice, before deletion. I would love to hear from the administrators that the content was OK, need more links. Because the reason that was given to me sounds like the material is bad "advertisemnt". In the wikipedia guidelines it is not saying how many or how good the "notability links" should be. So I assume it is open to the admin interpretation what is considered a sufficient requirement. I still get the feeling that the administration of Wikipedia is using bias opinion regarding resources submitted. Instead of looking at the real value of its content. As for the logoworks editor, I strongly believe that no one will be able to write an article about a company without some sort of knowledge or association. I`ve seen logobee actions and have deep respect to the work they do. As did the editor of logoworks that saw something that triggered him to write about them. --Dodikbobik (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodikbobik (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding internal wikilinks to other articles to prevent your new article from being an orphan. I was referring to the external links you added to other articles, which were inappropriate and seemed to be solely for the purpose of promoting the company. In the case of the logo article, you referenced a blog, which are generally not acceptable as references. In the case of Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, you added irrelevant prose for the purpose of linking to the logobee website. The fact that you were able to obtain a vector-format version of their logo, unavailable from their web site (as far as I can tell) also suggests you have an association with the company.

Just having links or references doesn't make something notable. The type and quality of those references are what matters. See the golden rule of Wikipedia for a concise explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This brings more light to what you were saying and I start to see the picture you were getting. As it may seems like I was doing something wrong. This was not the case. Being relatively new to this, I was naively thinking that Wikipedia would appreciate some references to the external content. As in the case of "logo" page. I actually spent a lot of time researching logo design material and logobee site. At the time, the blog page seemed to have a very good collection of samples and material about logo design. So yes by assuming it would benefit the community I got labeled as the spammer. In regards to the Oil spill, it was also the case of me searching for some material from logobee that could be relevant to wiki pages. You have rightfully cough the misunderstanding and removed it. At the time I thought it would be relevant. Because I made this mistake by being novice and trying my best to find good material, I got labeled and my article got banned as well. Would you agree that my actions were harmful and in violation of Wikipedia rules and polices by trying my best? I understand that your role as the administrator is to catch inappropriate actions by users. However in this case, you reaction and request to remove the page caused me a deep shame. As regarding to where I got the logo file , it was a simple request from logobee to send me the file. If I was really trying to promote, or do something inappropriate like that I would have probably come up with a much more obvious case.I had spent a lot of time preparing this article, this is why it is so painful.--Dodikbobik (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be painful. New articles posted to main article space are closely scrutinized and routinely deleted. Most new editors get tripped up by violating policies and guidelines inadvertently. Your article is also not "banned", it was just deleted as existing for publicity purposes, based on observations of your behavior related to the topic.

Instead of posting your first draft to main article space, it is a really good idea for new editors to work on draft articles in their sandbox or in a sub-page of your user space. Or use the process at WP:AFC if you are somehow close to the topic.

If you like, I am willing to restore the article to your user space, so you can work on it at your leisure without fear of it being deleted. I'm also happy to review it for suitability before moving it to main article space, or you can submit it to WP:AFC when you're satisfied with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, This is at least some good news. If you can point to me my weak spots, I would be in your debt. Please restore it to my space. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I have to inform the deleting administrator first. I'll leave a note on your talk page when it's all done. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you --Dodikbobik (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I got my page restored at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dodikbobik/Logobee. Thank you and Tokyogirl for giving me another chance. Tokyogirl already edited some parts of the article. Do you find anything else bad?--Dodikbobik (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give some heads up, of my new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_brand_new_awards Maybe you have time to take a look--Dodikbobik (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC) --Dodikbobik (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I recommend writing articles in your sandbox (see the link at the top of the page, that's your personal sandbox), or as a sub-page from your user page (as the Logobee article currently stands). You're coming across as a paid editor (and if you are, you should disclose it, we do have paid editors here who are respected), and you are not establishing the notability of your article subjects with adequate references. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see it got nominated for deletion. Honestly I`m not a paid editor, or an editor at all. I have several interests in life , and trying some new stuff. It is pretty puzzling to me right now how some stuff gets through and some don`t. The award I listed is no different from this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Design_Award. In fact there are many references to Wikipedia people. I assumed the role of wikipedia was the source of deep and global knowledge of any subject. I thought my new article (not about a particular company) would serve the purpose of educating people about the contest. There are many important people involved in the project that creates a bigger and deeper array of information about the person. I see some pattern here and it seems there is a prejudice towards entries that are involved in commercial activities. My (univer sitcom) page is still up, no one bothered. --Dodikbobik (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no prejudice against commercial entries. It's just that commercial entries must comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular WP:CORP. Most new articles about companies get deleted, either for reasons of non-notability, or promotional intent, or both. Because we get so much spam from companies attempting to promote themselves, new articles on companies are scrutinized closely, and they must meet the bar for acceptance or they go.

I consider myself an experienced editor, but I sure wouldn't create an article about a company without making several drafts in my own sandbox first. It's easier to write about literature, science, or technology -- see User:Amatulic#Articles I started for a short list of articles I've created, and you'll see I avoid creating company articles. The closest I ever got was to write about Naugahide as my first edit as a newbie. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand. It is tough life. Being completely true, there are not that many articles that wouldn`t in one way or another promote something or be commercial. Even your article may be viewed as such. Good one by the way, and I see the references. By placing an article about a city or an instrument there is always an element of "advertisement". It is insane trying to separate this matter. I really thought I found something good and unique. I`m not directly involved with the awards or logobee. I`m simply related to the area and have a lot of knowledge about it. Now, you were being so kind and cooperative, may we start with reviewing loogbee page please? I`d love to finally get this one resolved, it took too much effort of getting there :) Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have addred more refference links. There are two references to Logobee from wikipedia pages, so it shouldn`t be considered an orphan. Please let me know how it looks. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I saw your comments and responded on my talk page. I would appreciate your response. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I left you a follow up.--Dodikbobik (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, Sorry , I was referring to a different edit. See my page please. Thanks.--70.28.27.57 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphero

Hello. I noticed Sphero was deleted by you per G5, and the archived page also looks biased to me. Out of curiosity, could you point me to the relevant discussions of the block/ban? I've recreated the page, and could you please check if the article meets the standards now? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 03:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277.

This is a prolific paid-editing company who has created hundreds of sock accounts to create articles for clients and evade blocks on Wikipedia. They're still going at it. The page you created looks OK to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Turns out it's Wiki-PR, again. It's rather sad to see Orbotix engage in such activities. But on the other side, they are also victims, cheated by Wiki-PR's false claims ("We respect Wikipedia and its rules against promoting and advertising. And we never directly edit Wikipedia ourselves." and such). Fortunately, the results about the ban come first on a Google search for "Wiki-PR" now (and an article about the legal battle right under Wiki-PR's site) - That should warn them. And are they really still "going at it"? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame). 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. (Actually, it's Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame), but I've grouped them together.) ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I chimed in. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP Violations on Mata Amritanandamayi Page

Amatulic - You've been very help in the past in moderating the Mata Amritanandamayi page. There is currently a content dispute based on a self-published source. Would you please take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.219.20 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic - Right now the allegations based on the "Holy Hell" book are getting play in various media outlets in India. I believe this is why there is so much disruption on the Mata Amritanandamayi page right now. Would there be some justification for locking the page for a week or two while this issue settles down? JamesRoberts (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy

Hello. Could you please take a moment to review the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy page? It sounds like an advertisement, and isn't greatly sourced. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a warning on the COI editor's talk page and did some fairly massive pruning. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. Much appreciated! NHCLS (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Marc Latamie's article for delation

Dear Amatulic, I added the references and the sources in the notice, as requested.Could you please explain me when and how the users decide to remove the advertissment at the top of the page about the delation? What can we do for that? I thank you very much in advance --Lucilulle (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klonarda Nezaj

Dear Amatulic: Before you do too much work on the above article, you may want to discuss it with the editors at Wikiproject Volleyball. Here's the discussion so far: [1] —Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to do any work on it. There was a request at WP:REFUND to restore it, since it had been deleted as an abandoned draft. I noticed that it had never been evaluated, so I saw no reason to deny the request. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Harry Maxwell

Hi Amatulic,

I would like to re-create the page for Harry Maxwell. I noticed you deleted it in January 2014 - citing the reason that the page has re-appeared despite being similar to a previous version.

I would like to re-create the article with the focus on Maxwell as a New Media Journalist and former Reality TV personality, rather than the latter being the focus.

I believe the page is justified under: Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers, and I have enough sources from national media outlets to justify him as high profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual

Do you think I should go ahead and submit the article for creation?

Thanks! Beautifulgalz123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulgalz123 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go right ahead. You might want to work on it in your sandbox or a sub-page of your userpage before moving it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of CloudSOC

Hi there -- the CloudSOC page seemed to have been deleted as it was apparently self-promoting my three published works? I had only included those as references to give the founding member of the company some gravitas and weight, versus not referring to the works. The point of the article is to focus on DNS Analytics technology, which can be used to identify state-sponsored malware attacks (along with all those references that discuss work undertaken by McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, and such). I would like to request that the article is considered for userfication at this time, and reintroduced once I have worked with others to improve the article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismcnab (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's at User:Chrismcnab/CloudSOC. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

YMCA Camp Wanakita

Hello. Could you please take a moment to review the YMCA Camp Wanakita page? It is written like an advertisement. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Did some clean-up including blocking one user violating Wikipedia:Username policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Explain yourself

Explain why articles like Trac and YouTrack, which are essentially the same as Traq, just for a different question, qualify for Wikipedia, but Traq didn't. I seriously don't understand why it should be deleted, it's exactly the same. I'am not related to the Traq project in any way, I don't even use it or want to advertise it. Leandros99 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First, nobody has accused you of having a conflict of interest, as far as I know. I certainly didn't. As explained to you already, articles are evaluated independently, on their own merits. Making WP:OTHERSTUFF comparisons is not an accepted way to make a case for keeping.

You might try looking at WP:42 for a general overview.

YouTrack demonstrated ample coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, thereby qualifying for inclusion by meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirement of Wikipedia:Notability.

Trac is a long-standing article with numerous contributors. It doesn't demonstrate coverage; however, deletion under WP:CSD#A7 as you proposed would not be uncontroversial, considering the number of contributors and age of the article. It would qualify for a deletion nomination at WP:AFD if you wish to nominate it there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to edit summary

"removed G7 - page does not qualify. Ask someone to hide your edits if you have a concern."

Okay I would like my edits hidden. Thanks. BTW, I did not mean to rollback you, I meant to press the thanks button, which happened to be close to the rollback button. I rollbacked on myself immediately. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You basically have four options:

• Wikipedia:Revision deletion, which will hide your edits from everyone except administrators. Administrators can perform this.
• Wikipedia:Suppression of your edits, even from administrators. Only oversighters can perform this.
• Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing - this may actually be what you want if your intention is to leave Wikipedia without a trace and not return. Your contributions will not be deleted but they will be attributed to a new random username not traceable to you. Only bureaucrats can perform this function for you. If this is what you want, then this may be the simplest option.
• If you do intend to return, then you can simply abandon the account and start another one.

If you just want an administrator to delete your edits, you're going to have to explain clearly what you want deleted/suppressed, and why. If there are privacy concerns, and some edits you made aren't relevant to those concerns, then it will be hard to justify hiding them.

Regarding your tags: I did delete a few user talk pages where you were the only editor, or the only other editor was a bot. Otherwise I reverted your tags. Frankly, where I reverted you, I failed to see the harm to you or anyone else by leaving those edits visible. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I am actually having an email discussion with Floquenbeam about this matter. As for my contributions with my old name on high-traffic pages (such as AIV or my old Wiki-friend Hdt83's talk page) before my name change, I think I can leave it for now as edits from seven years ago would be a lot more difficult to locate in those pages and there would be a lot less concerns. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpupetry case

Hi Amatulic, I've been investigating a sockpuppetry case surrounding several users and I came across User:HCW33 who you blocked in December for abusing multiple accounts. Could you provide some more information regarding this i.e. whether there is an existing sockpuppetry investigation? Thanks. -SFK2 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no sockpuppetry investigation, to my knowledge. I blocked that account for seeming like a WP:DUCK, making promotional edits to substantially the same articles as another account created at about the same time, which was also creating promotional articles.

For further enlightenment, see the sections above, #User:HCW33 and #User:HCW33 (again). Those sections include links to other relevant pages documenting this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jimmie Jansson

Hello Amatulic. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jimmie Jansson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Player has played in the SHL (listed on Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA as one of the "fully professional" leagues) since the last deletion debate. Significant enough difference in player stature to not qualify under G4. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see anything different in the current article and the last deleted revision, which is why I nominated it for G4. I could easily delete it myself but when I'm not sure I'll tag the article for someone else to look at. Thanks for your vigilance. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn AFD

Hello, Anachronist. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Openupashop

FYI, there's a chance that this was a sock of З000 ВАЅЅ (talk · contribs) who I blocked a few days ago. The pattern seemed similar to me, although slightly different. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It looked like a bot to me. It was re-creating articles as fast as I could delete them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I had that thought as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique

I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique. While it is true that the Moldovan National Division is fully pro, he has yet actually play any games, which is what is required for notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. This is why an almost, if not entirely identical article was deleted just over a week ago. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I admit I don't follow football, so I am not familiar with teams or players. Is there a good chance he will participate in a match, or is it more likely that he won't? Do these teams maintain players who never actually play? I think what I mean is, it would not make sense to delete the article if tomorrow he he happens to play for the team. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He will almost certainly play senior level football at some point, but he's only eighteen so at this point it's hard to tell when and where that will be. There is very real chance that he'll wind up playing in the non-fully-pro second division, or that he'll leave Moldova altogether and wind up in a country without a fully pro top flight. If I had to guess, I'd say the odds are about fifty-fifty whether or not he'll meet WP:NFOOTBALL at some point. As for him playing a match tomorrow, that I can more or less rule out. Most professional football clubs have one or two young players who are nominally part of their squad, but whose purpose there is mainly to train with the senior team, not to actually play. I should also add that preemptive creations are generally frowned upon. In the roughly four years I've been involved in the deletion process at the WikiProject football, I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that the subject would meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the future, unless the article also already met WP:GNG, which is clearly not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The article is now deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)