User talk:TonyBallioni

Good work closing RMs

AFAICT, you're the last person who closed anything from the RM backlog. Good work! It's starting to build up a bit...

There's one RM near the bottom there that I initiated and that has a lot of debate. I'd love to see it closed one way or another; obviously I think I'm right but if the decision went against me that's OK. I also have no problem with non-admin closure.

I don't want this to seem as if I'm forum shopping; I really just looked down the page history for the last time something near the bottom was closed, and you're the first person I saw. Homunq (࿓) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Homunq, that is quite the RM. I just read through it and while I feel I have a decent grasp of the concepts involved, it might be better for an admin to close it. I try to stick to the relatively uncontroversial RMs, but I would be willing to consider closing it if BrownHairedGirl were also fine with it since her proposal of electoral system seems to be one of the main options being discussed right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I expect her to see that you've mentioned her name. User:BrownHairedGirl, if you're OK with Tony closing it, I think you could say so here.

Again, by speaking here, I don't want to be putting my finger on the scales in either direction. All sides in this debate have in my opinion been quite reasonable, all deserve a fair hearing and an impartial decision. In suggesting that I'd be OK with a decision that goes against me, I do not wish to minimize my sincere convictions on the issues as I've expressed there. It's just that any decision is better than limbo.

Thanks again for considering this. Homunq (࿓) 23:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Tony, I'd be fine with you closing it. Whether you want to do so is another matter, because the nominator posted such huge volumes there that the result is an absolute mountain to wade through. I don't think I have ever seen an RM so overwhelmed by one person. If you feel up to that, then good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and Homunq, the close is done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

I want to ask some quick questions about what this means. Is that OK? I know you've waded through a lot so I don't want to put any more on you if you don't want me to. Homunq (࿓) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I tried to be as transparent as possible in the close statement to explain the process I went through to come to the close, and welcome any other questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not issues with your close — you were clear, and thanks. Just want to know what I should do going forward. The article and general topic needs cleanup and probably splitting. So, breaking out of this annoying indent level to a list of questions, from easiest to hardest...

• I guess that I should get the relevant categories and templates renamed and fixed to agree with the new naming?
• Is it OK if I mention the primary alternate names (voting rule, and maybe also voting system) in the first line of the article?
• If I'm gonna spruce up the article, is it OK if I refocus it slightly towards what I see as appropriate for the new name? Not really cutting anything out, just rewriting the parts about how it relates to other things to reflect a slightly different scope.
• Is it OK if I make "voting system" into a dab between electoral system and Electronic voting? (For the latter, election technology would be better, as the template, but seems it's been moved.)
• If I were going to split this up, do you have any pointers for how? My first instinct would be to carve out a good 70% of the article and move it to voting rule or 50% to single-winner voting rule, but it seems pretty clear to me that whatever good faith I had in my heart that would look pretty bad right after this closure. But the article does really need some sections broken out. Should I just keep hands off, or should I do my best to color within the lines, and if so, what are the lines?

I think those first four questions are not too hard; and I think I could probably get away with just WP:BOLD as long as I maintain some self-awareness and discretion. But that last one, I really don't know. If any of this seems like it's above your pay grade, just say so. If you do, I'll err on the side of caution. But I'd rather not have to err; I think I can be helpful on this stuff. Homunq (࿓) 04:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to answer concisely, not meant as being rude :)

1. I'm not very familiar with category processes and they would need to follow whatever procedures are in place for categories. You could link to the close here BrownHairedGirl has worked with categories on some other moves I have closed and could provide more advice. Templates you could probably boldly change any text.
2. I think that would be fine, be bold, and if that doesn't work, discuss on the talk page.
3. I think that would be fine, but I also think you have a fair amount of people who were involved in the discussion that would be interested in helping. WP:BRD is good here as well, and I'm sure that many of the people who commented would be happy to help with any adjustments to the content that needed to be made.
4. I would working on Voting system (disambiguation) and make it a hat note. Just my advice, but I think it would probably be the easiest and least disruptive.
5. I would suggest opening up a conversation on the talk page about splitting. I would not take any offense from it, and actually assumed it would happen given the conversation.

As a piece of personal advice, I would suggest waiting a week or two before opening up a splitting discussion. I think you would be fine to open per WP policy and I don't think it would be POINTy at all, but you have clearly put a lot of thought into this and care a lot. It is really admirable. That kind of dedication can make having a discussion not go the way you want be emotionally draining, and further work might not be as good as it would be if you took a step back. That's how I would approach it myself, but I also don't think it is required and it is really up to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems like good advice from Tony. But please may I add that in any future discussions, @Homunq should be much much less verbose? The RM discussion was overwhelmed by posts from Homunq, which made it very hard for people to follow the discussion.

As to categories, I suggest leaving them until all article moves have been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks again to both of you. Homunq (࿓) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks. Homunq (࿓) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I left a comment. Not sure how helpful I can be towards the actual content conversation, but hopefully it might be helpful in terms of the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It is helpful to have somebody there who isn't "on a side". If you have any advice for me, I'm open. Homunq (࿓) 01:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you on this. I realize that I need to adapt my pace to others at least as much as they have to adapt to my higher energy on this article. But it's frustrating to me; from my point of view, I make good-faith efforts to discuss my intentions, and try to improve the article... and then I'm summarily reverted without real discussion, in at least some cases for reasons that seem to have more to do with how I acted in the past than with the merits of the specific edits that are being reverted. So I'd appreciate you either saying another word over there, or if you think I'm the only one whose behavior should change, just saying so here. Homunq (࿓) 23:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message again, Homunq. I'm a bit busy in real life right now, but I'll try to have a look and say something within the next 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Actually, since Number57 is engaging, I don't feel as urgent a need for you to drop by. I was mostly upset by BrownHairedGirl; what she did felt to me like arbitrary reversion accompanied by drive-by personal insults. I know she's busy and deals with a lot of sealions so I understand her side but it still felt as if she could have done better. But now that the discussion is moving on that's water under the bridge. Homunq (࿓) 15:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This matter has gone to WP:DRN. I see no need for you to participate but I thought you should know. Homunq (࿓) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kika Silva

Don't erase that article on Kika Silva --Danrolo (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

John Crumbley

Do not delete the article of John Crumbley. He is one of the most notable high school baseball coaches in the state of Florida's history. The winningest of the Tampa Bay area, he has coached many former and current major leaguers dating back to his days as head coach of the Jesuit Tigers. He is not just notable in Tampa, but throughout the state of Florida, coaching four state championship teams. --Debosilla (talk) 6:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Estonia

Hi, Why do you want to delete it? I would like to explain the article "Baltic Estonia". The article wants to explain how wide and deep-rooted actually are Estonia´s ties with other Baltic states especially Latvia. It gives some new information about that how these two countries are one unite in many aspects. The thing is that there are some wikipedia fighters from Estonia who have fulfilled wikipedia with in my opinin 100% propagandistic stuff there they try to "prove" that Estonia is not Baltic but "Nordic". Those authors know perfectly what are the Nordic countries in reality and what aren´t but they try to brainwash wikipedia readers and make them to believe that things are so like they believe. The article Nordic Estonia and Estonian ammendments to article nordic countries is biased and does not fulfill the wiki criterions in my opinion as it is stump speech and propaganda. Behind there is 1-2 estonian persons with Swedish roots. They represent in real life sort of 0,..0001% of Estonians. Their activity is ridiculous https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Estonia_cannot_into_Nordic.jpg Sorry for being a bit emotional but the way how wikipedia is used as propaganda tool is very annoying, hypocritical and based on cherry picked and completely marginal facts... It is regrettable that such things happen in wikipedia. The article Baltic Estonia wants to point out that Estonia is really a Baltic country. This is a question of dignity and staidness what we unfortunately seem to lack as we want to be anybody else.

I kindly please to remain article Baltic Estonia as separate article (at least as long as "Nordic Estonia" exists!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Räcx2 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) 

Thanks for your questions. The best course forward here is to join the conversation at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Maraal

Hi, I request you not to delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thedwivedi#Proposed_deletion_of_Maraal Maraal is a project undergoing at IIT Kanpur. It is a defence related project hence not all the details have been put in public. As soon as it goes public there will be lot of sources to back the claim. Since it is scheduled to go public within next 3-4 days, I created the page. I am working on the page and soon it will have all the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedwivedi (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thedwivedi: I have restored the potential hoax tag because there are zero sources to confirm the existence and Wikipedia doesn't take its contributors research for publication. I will hold off on nominating it for a deletion discussion for a few days to see if appropriate coverage becomes available to meet the general notability guideline, but if I do not feel the guideline is met in two or three days, I am likely to send it to WP:AFD. Also, you might want to read WP:COI, since you do appear to have a connection to this project based on your message above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

But...

We lose information this way. The way I did it, the redirection indicates that all Ignatius I were Patriarchs, the way you did it does not convey that until after you read the whole list... Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, you'll note that none of the articles linked to on the dab page actually have Patriarch in their title. MOS:HONOURIFIC is what controls here. The specific naming conventions for patriarchs would also suggest this because people such as Ignatius of Antioch are not commonly known as Patriarch Ignatius in English. No information is lost because the Patriarch Ignatius I page redirects to the Ignatius I page if people are searching for them. The numeral at the end is disambiguation enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if this is the policy I'm gonna have to fix several things I did... The information is not lost but is least readily available. Thanks for your info. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm going to create a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy since you have created about 30 redirects and dab pages pretty quickly. They will help sort out what the best way forward is! I'll ping you in it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Common claims of significance or importance

I made my comment in the wrong section, and have now moved it. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for the note. I think you also accidentally moved my comments about being a notable professor's wife up as well by accident. I've moved it back down. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Contestation of Speedy deletion nomination of WRENN

Hello, thank you for your feedback on my article WRENN. I have reviewed your reasoning for the page's speedy deletion and have found some flaws I would like to address with you. While you are not incorrect in saying the article is significantly similar to a previous version, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4. This is due to the fact the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and thus according to CSD GD, excludes the page from deletion. Upon reviewing the previous deletion discussion which came to an end on May 17th, 2016, one can see the reasoning behind the deletion was arguably a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the fact the articles about this subject were not as reputable as they needed to be in order for the page to remain in the database. In addition, the largest reason for keeping the page in the last discussion was to help establish a differentiation between two artists who both were going by the same name. It was established that neither were notable and therefore it was not Wikipedia's job to help differentiate the two. Yet, upon further observation the revised version of this page does not mention that dispute, and instead stands on it's own, with a firm backing of reputable sources such as Billboard, Alternative Press (music magazine), and The Fader. Not to mention establishing proof of two nationwide tours, and multiple musical appearances on TV shows airing on prime time networks (see: Fox, The CW, Showtime). In conclusion it is obvious to see the previous reason for the deletion no longer applies and therefore does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4, or truthfully, any deletion at all. I look forward to hearing your thoughts after a secondary review. V.Putnam (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

V.Putnam, I did not see the original article, but the AfD seemed to deal with similar claims, and the Billboard source that was cited I could not actually find. Anthony Appleyard deleted at as G4. He might want to weigh in here. Barring him restoring it, you would need to go to WP:DRV to recreate the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni and V.Putnam: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRENN (2nd nomination) for new discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Anthony Appleyard: Thank you to both of you for your feedback. You will see I have added the correct link to WRENN's feature in Billboard. I am glad that the issue of speedy deletion has been resolved, yet I still disagree with the nomination for deletion. I would appreciate if both of you would take a look at the updated page and let me know your thoughts.

DYK for Susanna Elm

On 18 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Susanna Elm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources such as the Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Susanna Elm. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Susanna Elm), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to speedy deletion of Evita Robinson

Tony, thank you for your letting me know about this issue. The article for Evita Robinson was originally created by a new Wikipedia editor during USF SOLIS Wiki≡quality: Black History Month, so it was extremely discouraging that it had been deleted within days of being written. I ensured that the formatting of the article adhered to Wikipedia standards and even rewrote parts, but it was still ultimately deleted. After the AfD process, I saw the comments of the administrators discussing the article and was happy to see that one individual was supportive of keeping the article. Below is my response contesting the deletion (posted on the article's talk page) of this new article for Evita Robinson:

This page should not be deleted because there are more than plenty of sources to warrant its notability, as can be seen through a simple Google search of "Evita Robinson" or "Nomadness Travel." Several of the sources are credible as well, particularly The New York Times, Mashable, Huffington Post, and Ebony. Evita Robinson, as stated in the article, is a pioneer in the urban travel movement, a defining factor in her notability as an influential young black woman. The remaining sources used may not be the most popular; however, they are representative of diverse perspectives, either within the travel industry or of African-American media. I don't believe this page should have been deleted in the first place, but I have rewritten it (using some of the feedback from the AfD process) using additional references to strengthen its notability and highlighting the importance of the content written. If the article is found to be insufficient, it should be marked as a stub and encouraged to be expanded rather than deleted outright. --PersnicketyPaul (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I decided to recreate this page for today's edit-a-thon event Wiki≡quality: Art+Feminism celebrating Women's History Month. This article has been created in an effort to increase representation of African-American individuals, as well as women more generally, on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you'll consider my argument for keeping Evita on Wikipedia. —PersnicketyPaul (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PersnicketyPaul for the note. I am not an administrator, so I cannot look at the deleted version of the page. I know that the recent AfD had concerns with the notability of the subject and the general sources available to be found were addressed in the AfD and not found to meet GNG. This is why to me it looked to qualify for G4. I'm sorry for any discouragement you might feel. WP:DRV is generally a good place to go if one of your articles has been deleted, and you believe new information would have led to a different outcome. This is especially the case when the AfD was so recent. An admin will be able to look at the pages and the deletion discussion and figure out whether or not the consensus reached at the AfD applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Mark Dice

I'm working toward arbitration. I suggest we all do. meatclerk (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650:, arbitration enforcement is not a happy place to be. It'd be much better if you did not try to escalate it to that point, especially given the apparent WP:MEAT at work here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration. Done tonight. Have a good night. meatclerk (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Evita Robinson

Hello TonyBallioni. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Evita Robinson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. SoWhy 13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy and TonyBallioni, Thank you for your time and consideration regarding Evita Robinson. I'm happy that the article has been noted as substantially different from the original deleted version, and I hope this one will instead be marked as a stub rather than deleted in the near future. —PersnicketyPaul (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, as I mentioned above: not being an administrator myself, I could only look at the AfD, and the new article itself. Glad that the new version is different. Thanks to SoWhy for reviewing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Groningen Journal of International Law

Hiya, In regards to your marking the Groningen Journal of International Law for speedy deletion, I can provide the following references that verify the work of the journal:

1. Book1
2. Book2
3. Book3
4. Book4

I do not see why you are marking the page to be taken down? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User9228, I nominated it because it didn't seem to address the concerns raised at the AfD discussion of it. SoWhy, an admin declined the deletion on the ground that it was different than the article that was deleted. Randykitty, another admin, nominated it for deletion again on the same G4 grounds. I have not touched the article since SoWhy declined it. Out of curiosity have you ever used another account or have you been asked to edit on that article by someone else? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I created a new account as my previous one was blocked due to the username not following the policy. My previous post above gives you 4 relevant books that make reference to the journal. Furthermore, I have put in more referencing on the page. This is an improvement from the previous page, is it not. Can you give me direct indicators as to what you see a problem with? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, for the response. The second G4 nomination has since been declined, but the admin noted that it likely still has the same issues as before. Since the original AfD nominator is involved at this point, I will let them see if they want to nominate it for AfD a second time. From my looking at what you provided and the page, it doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:NJOURNAL, which would be the basis for any future AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove the deletion issue from the page.

This page has references and sources. They'll be published shortly. Remove your deletion nomination. Hamidyasir (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamidyasir you are welcome to make that argument at the discussion page for this article, but my searches reveal no actual sources, and the sources you have been adding to the article fail verification in that they don't actually mention the subject. I see no need to withdraw my nomination at this time, but if sources are provided that do meet our standards, I gladly will. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Email

Done. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've revdel'd their other contributions. It's the same message, but it might be worth including in your email. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just sent them to WMF. Thanks for your work and accessibility. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

NewLabour Party

Hi TonyBallioni. Could you please reconsider your closing of the move discussion? To suggest there was a consensus of any kind is rather farcical. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, I've relisted it because I don't think further discussion will hurt, but I do think the close was within discretion, and that another reasonable closer could have closed it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for relisting.--Nevé–selbert 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nather Jarrar

Hi Toni,

i noted your messages on the article. I need help on the issues and citations. It shows it is an orphan whic i do not understand clearly. I noticed the person has been tagged in the article of the Official Club.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahabi1 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your message

Hope you don't mind me replying here as my email address contains my surname. I'm not sure if you're the cause, but given recent happenings, I haven't been in a particularly gay mood lately. When I'm not happy, I sometimes sometimes say something stupid and/or offensive. I hope I haven't just done so here. I think that also plays a part in it. As for the violence stuff, I post at ANI because that's the best way to get attention. Something needs to be done, and asking an admin privately will delay response. Someone's bound to be watching ANI, and there's no guarantee an admin's talk page has plenty of stalkers. I've reported suicide threats before on ANI with no problems. Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for the response, appreciate the privacy concerns, just emailed because of the violence concerns and not wanting to up wiki-drama. I get ANI because of the attention standpoint, but have seen ANI posts about similar things where users have tried to play counselor to the threat, so wanted to raise the possibility of doing it privately. Anyway, hope you feel better soon, and sorry that you are feeling unhappy. And don't worry about whether you said anything stupid or not-- I tend to be stupid so whatever you say can't possible offend me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just checked my talk page and its archives, and you don't seem to have caused me much stress (unless we've interacted somewhere else?) :). I'm planning on taking a WikiBreak, but I have 2 outstanding GANs. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh, AfD and MfD, and I'm always sensitive to people's feeling and like to take responsibility fort anything dumb I might have said. Anyway, good luck on the GAN's. Like I said, while we disagree on some stuff, I do appreciate your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hello, TonyBallioni! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Saper Law Offices

Hi there, hope I'm doing this right!

You recently deleted a page I created for Saper Law Offices. I'm wondering (1) if there is any way I can still access the page and (2) if there are changes I can make to get it reinstated.

Thanks! Peter.jay.cramer (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem deleted the article as an advertisement. I'll defer to him, because I don't have access to the text anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TonyBallioni. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Teach17 Replying to your request

Thank you for your feedback on my article. I have reviewed your requests and I would like to explain several things. I am student and education enthusiast. The article I created is purely based on existing facts, the sources I inputed demonstrate all the information that is contained in the article. The organisation is unique in the region and does incredible job in insuring all children have access to excellent education. Nothing in the article is exaggerated and everything is properly grounded on the media articles, websites and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teach17 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Teach17, thanks, your username suggested an official connection to the subject, which is why I asked if you were a paid editor. Always glad to have more education enthusiasts on here. Sorry for the multiple warning templates, since you kept editing without replying it looked like you were ignoring them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bestinmexico replying to your proposed deletion of Hospices of Hope article

Hi. I have been out of the country this past week so I have not been able to get back to you about the proposed deletion of the Hospices of Hope page. I just wanted to ask about some specifics of what I can do to make this page more suitable. I have been using some pages of other local and small charities as a reference point for this page, such as Build Africa and Children in Crisis, and from what I can see, the types of sources I have provided are very similar and I have provider a wider range from what I can see. I am happy to work to get this page more suitable and find better sources if necessary but wanted to get some clarity of on this. Thanks, Bestinmexico (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bestinmexico, thanks for the message. I'm a bit short on time now, but the best way to bring an article up to standards is by having multiple in-depth secondary sources covering it. I don't have time right now to look through, but the sources I saw looked like sources that confirmed basic facts (like locations being opened) or non-independent sources. I could certainly have been wrong, and will take a look at the article again when I have more time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction

Hi Tony, can you please restore the edits you made regarding my article "Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction." I didn't intended for AfC review, and don't consider the article a draft. Many thanks! Rh Mosstrooper (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rh Mosstrooper  Done TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rh Mosstrooper (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction on Danilo Velasquez Reference

Tony, my entry is in error. I need your help. I just want to forward the Danilo Velasquez entry on the 'USP Hazelton' page to the 'MS-13' webpage. Please help. Thanks......Cocoruff.

Cocoruff, thanks for the message. That can be pretty easily done as a redirect or with piping. A concern with the redirect option would be that since he is a living person having a redirect of him directly to a notorious gang for anyone who is searching might not be ideal. You could also use piping in the article text itself to do that, but the article already has a link in the summary to MS-13 so it is probably unnecessary. If you really want the link to go to MS-13, I can make the quick fix for you, but the better option might be to just not have it as a Wikilink on his name, and let people click on MS-13 directly. I also think letting the article be deleted makes sense at this time too rather than changing it to a redirect. Let me know your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Theological virtues

I fell across this article recently, and it struck me as an appalling mess (and I say that as an atheist). This is a major topic (to say the very least!) in mainstream Christianity. Is it just me, or does the article as it stands have a Calvinist bias, mixed with some touchy-feely New Age stuff? IMO it needs a total rewrite by someone who knows their theology - which isn't me, and may or may not be you, but you were nearest when I started rolling this ball. Narky Blert (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Narky Blert, thanks for the message. Glad you somehow found me! I haven't looked too deep at the edit history here, and to be honest don't really want to because that rarely does anything to engender good faith. The issue with this article, and with a lot of religious articles on Wikipedia, is that religious register is definitely a thing and difficult to control for.

Quick thoughts: the lede is definitely written in a Protestant register, and the section on the Bible reads similar, though the only citations are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it has the Douay–Rheims Bible cited, which is not something you would expect given the register of the article before the Catholic theology section. The Bible section can probably be excised since it is all primary sources to the Bible itself and I would be willing to argue is an original publication of scriptural exegesis, which violates WP:OR.

Catholic section could be expanded to be a multi-volume book if someone wanted to, which raises the question of how to balance it with any Protestant views. It would be more difficult there because the term Theological vitrue, has a very strong Catholic connotation, and while I'm sure you could find some Protestant sources calling them that, you're more likely to find it under faith, hope, and love there. Anyway, I'll see if I do some work on it. Any thoughts you could provide would also be appreciated. The best professor on medieval Christianity I know is agnostic, so the atheism doesn't really affect your ability to offer insight here! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the article history (against my better judgement), it seems to have been originally written as an article on Aquinas' views, which make the Calvinist undertones of the language very interesting (to someone who actually finds religious register an interesting topic...) Odd. I've removed the Bible part as OR. My new best guess without going through every edit is that someone said "Hey! Other Christian traditions have faith, hope, and charity" without realizing the article was about the Thomistic understanding of the terms, and introduced their own religious vocabulary into the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I found you, because you had approved an article I had just written - and I took a look at your user page.

I know what little I know from my Anglican upbringing and from reading Dante. AFAIK, RCs and Anglicans are as one on 1 Cor 13. IDK if the Eastern churches have a different view on it - but I suspect not, because for me that chapter is rather central to anything which I would call Christianity. That said, it's the sort of topic where even a non-edit by an Orthodox believer could be of value, in the interests of WP:NPOV.

I am a "weak atheist" - I can get along with anyone who follows the golden rule, and will cheerfully argue the time of day with anyone else who does. That also means, that if I see something which looks as theologically unsound and as WP:POV as the article in issue, I get the vapours.

"Hey! Other Christian traditions have faith, hope, and charity" <bangs head slowly but repeatedly on wall>

Feel free to {{ping}} me. I'm no Thomist, but at least I know who you mean. Narky Blert (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. NPOV is key here. I'll definitely look for sources on I Corinthians 13. I'm not a fan of direct citing the Bible in Wikipedia, it just begs for original exegesis unless you have scholarly sources. Edits may be a work in progress for a while, but it'll stay on my to do list. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For amusement only - have you ever heard of Cardinal Sin (Filipino bishop) (yes, really). Narky Blert (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That is competing with WP:HAPPYPLACE for most hilarious redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sumsuma

Thank you Tony for your kind help in assisting me with my Sumsuma article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFunmat (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Vision vs Mission article

Hi TonyBallioni! Thank you for input! I am deeply studying separate topics of Vision and Mission and was reading corresponding articles in Wikipedia. I found these articles incompatibe between each other and with duplicated or unsynced parts about Vision vs Mission comparison. So I decided to cut materials from both articles and put them into separate article, hoping that someone knowing English much better than me will correct or rewrite this new article. I would do this if it were in Lithuanian language, but not in English.

I'm sorry but editing of nowadays Wikipedia and reading it's rules is too complicated for me. I was very enthusiastic and active 2004 (few years after launch of Wikipedia), but later Wikipedia became too complicated and I quit as editor. User:Fivetrees

Fivetrees, sorry for not getting back to you! I thought I had, but I had actually just left a message for Bearian seeing if he thought a draft would be better. I did nominate it for deletion again, because it looks a bit like an essay more than an article. If your first language is Lithuanian, you might be interested in contributing to the Lithuanian Wikipedia if that is easier for you. You are of course always welcome on the English Wikipedia, but I just wanted to point out that we have sister projects that work in your mother tongue! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning my page

Hi there, I felt he was notable enough (since he debated with someone as well-known as Carrier). He's written quite a bit of books too, and has engaged with many debates with some notable figures (such as Raphael Lataster, James White, to name two).However, If it does not meet the site's standards (for whichever reason) I completely understand why it will be deleted.

Thanks for letting me know about this, appreciated! AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

AbdulAliAbdullah, thanks for your contribution. All I could find when I did a search on Horn was non-independent or non-reliable sources. I don't really consider debating someone such as Carrier a reason someone might be in an encyclopedia. Carrier is high profile enough that a lot of places will put up anyone against him so as to host. If you are interested in Catholic topics, I could think of some articles that might need help being improved if you are interested. Typically it is easier to improve articles as compared to writing them from scratch. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I'll do that then. I'm a relatively new user here, I guess I'm just getting used to some of these standards, LOL.AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, we've all be there at one point. I've left a note on your talk page with some more suggestions. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for block review". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, bring it back

Dear TonyBallioni, you speedy deleted the wiki page of Incomlend, that I have recently created. I kindly ask you to bring it back. The information is unique and brings value to the readers. I have put a lot of efforts, first, to create it and then to post. Thus, I believe it should be revived. Thank you, in advance! Diana.yakimchuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana.yakimchuk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Diana.yakimchuk, I did not delete the page, because I am not an admin, so I also don't have the ability to bring it back. RickinBaltimore, an administrator here, reviewed the speedy deletion tag placed on the article, and agreed with me that it did not meet our inclusion criteria because it did not explain why this is significant, and why someone would expect to find an entry on it in the encyclopedia. Rick would be the first person to contact about the deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the page because there was nothing in the article that showed how the company met our guidelines for the notability of a company that is required for any article. Also, the page was vaguely promotional as well, which could have led to also using that as a reason for deletion, that being promotion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reponse for speedy deletion

Hi, just a response for my speedy deletion. I know that that page wasn't good enough, because I did not have much information. I will look for more details, and try to contest the deletion soon. Thanks! ;) Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Carlitos Carrisoza, might I suggest creating the article through our Articles for Creation process? It is designed to help new editors with feedback and allow them to develop their articles before they are moved into the main space of the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I missed your message, and the article was created myself. I added new features, however. I will be sure to make this article better! Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk as well, but I went ahead and moved this to a draft article for you. It will give you more time to improve it, and then more experienced editors can give you feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice

I just read all 3 sources on the line for Mark Dice, there is nothing in any of those articles saying Mark Dice has anything to do with Satanic rituals. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)