♠ New messages to the bottom please. I will reply here without pinging unless asked otherwise.
♠ Please link to articles you're asking about by enclosing the title in [[brackets]].
♠ For undeletion requests, provide 3-4 reliable sources that indicate notability.
♠ Less is more. Walls of text and piles of links will be ignored.
♠ Please don't template the regulars. I don't mind criticism but being templated is a bad way to start a conversation.
♠ This talk page is watched by a few friendly talk page stalkers who may respond to messages when I'm not around.
Good Day, Asartea suggested I talk to you, I was just hoping if you could temporarily unblock the recent history to the Charles Henry Allan Bennett page. I was unaware that the quoting of paragraphs was against fair use, if you look though a lot of work went into it, and there are many salvageable parts. Also the one I was quoting was from the 1950s so I didn't think it a problem. The page; http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/honourfathers.pdf I have not see before, that that may reference the 1950s Book edited by Christmas Humphreys also, so not sure what that was about. Anyway I am happy to rework the content and have since found the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria so shall review it before posting again.
I did spend some hours carefully quoting things, so would really appreciate just to get a copy of it again (as would be a hassle to go back again to those sources), then can see how to make it comply with the wikipedia standards. If you have any thoughts or suggestions also I am happy to hear.
I have been having a bit of a look at the various pages Wikipedia:Copyright problems it says "Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure". Also looking at Wikipedia:Non-free content it is very dense, it says under the text section "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes.". I guess some of the last edits that were made were to much text, as mentioned though I am happy to rework it, and open to suggestions if I could be given access to the most recent edit temporary to copy the notes that were made. Thanks :-) 203.59.32.61 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't formatting or attribution. It's that vast swaths of the article were constructed from blockquotes, which is way past what's acceptable for "quoting". The majority of any Wikipedia article should be written by Wikipedia editors working from sources, not by stitching blockquotes together. Any time we quote from a source, it should be as minimal as possible to comply with copyright, and should be immediately germane to the rest of the editor-written content. Barbara Gordon#Critical and editorial commentary is a good example of large quotes used selectively. There are two blockquotes that illustrate the perspectives described by the sections they are attached to. They do not form the body of those sections.
You should probably also understand that just because something feels "old" doesn't mean it's no longer copyrighted. Copyright is quite lengthy in the United States; the onus is on you to prove that something has entered the public domain before treating it as such. Commons has a detailed guide here: Copyright rules by territory/United States; the table on the top right sums up most of it.
I'm happy to email you a copy of the content (restoring it would be a copyright issue, so I will not do that), but I need you to tell me you understand the distinction between using a quote to illustrate a point (fine), and using quotes to build the substance of the article (not fine), before I do so. Otherwise I suspect we'll be back at square one very quickly. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Day, Thanks for the example, I shall review, yes I understand, I shall write the content in line with the guidelines, also seek the permission of the copyright owners if more use is sought. Basically I was planing to rework, also review the links I had put in and make sure they were suitable. I shall try to seek suggestions/permission before posting anything beyond the example stated. I was only working on this page as it is a poor representation of the man. And as I have been mainly doing self study these last few years, fair use is different to what it is in the public domain, so it was just an honest mistake. Please note would be good to get a copy of the whole article, as I had placed some links in the lower section also. I have created a one time link so you can access my email: https://onetimesecret.com/secret/o4kwh0859yws1mbnob3oa0r225o70k3 the passphrase is PremeditatedChaos. With Kindness and Thanks; also if you have any other suggestions, I am open ears; as clearly I messed this one up! Thanks for being so helpful. Peace.
I also found the Wikipedia:Quotations page and the Template:Blockquote which seem like more relevant information along with the sample you have given, so I can keep this inline with the wikipedia standards. "Overuse happens when: a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere; quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased; the quotations dominate the article or section." Sure. 203.59.32.61 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry for the delay, I was editing at a computer where I didn't have access to my personal email. I believe you've got a reasonable handle on the quoting thing, so I've sent it through now. Feel free to drop me a line here if you have any concerns or questions. Happy editing! ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your closure here was early. And But it was misguided by the false claims that there was not significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. I think you should reconsider the closure. If not, please userfy the page to me, and I will reconstruct it. I've got over a dozen almost two dozen sources to add. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Premeditated Chaos. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Why are you so sure that the two votes were mislead? They're both experienced editors and your assumption that they didn't bother to do a WP:BEFORE themselves is an aspersion itself, as is your insinuation that the nom misled anyone. EGGIDICAE🥚18:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you to correct a mistake that was induced by misstatements. I am aware of deletion review. You have the power to correct the mistake, and I think I owe you the courtesy first. here]
As to the two experienced editors, I've done the research AND provided the sources to PC. If they did WP:BEFORE then it was poorly done, or they lied about the results. Take your pick. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd behoove you to stop casting aspersions, but you didn't even bother to comment in the actual discussion and presented no sources in the discussion, so i'm not sure what you're on about but DRV is the place to go. Bombarding people with emails isn't the way to do this, making a cogent argument in the AFD was the correct proccess, which you well know. EGGIDICAE🥚18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted at the AFD that it had been posted on WP:ARS. I did not comment because I spent the morningGop on researching and wanted to do rewrite before commening. If I had said that they did not do WP:BEFORE, one of them would have said I was casting "aspersions", as he recently did here at another AFD. so I just wanted to fix the article and say, "look". when I went back it was deleted. This can easily be corrected. But we can do it the hard way. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you require assistance finding your way to DRV ? Head right past AfD then take the first turn on the left, that should bring you out at DRV. Nick (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The easy way is to just undo the mistake. No harm, no foul.
Good faith mistakes happen. That is why they put Delete keys on computers.
If you feel the need to go to ANI, all of this will be opened up. I am prepared to defend my actions. I certainly hope the moving partiea share your view. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would PMC undo a valid deletion which no one has contested but you - who didn't even bother to engage in a discussion and instead are still casting aspersions. Go to DRV, file a request and see where it goes. EGGIDICAE🥚19:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of full information, I would assume it can and should be done. But I gather your answer is "No," and certainly that is your right. No harm in asking. We will go up the chain as you suggest.
Please provide me with a copy of the deleted article. WP:Userfy. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A great many questions - (a) who is the "we" you talk about, are you saying your account is shared ? (b) I suspect PMC is offline, shocking that they're not here to handle you 24 hours a day, but such is life (c) have you forgotten how to sign posts and (d) is that DRV open yet ? Nick (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the editorial 'We.' And inevitably it will involve all those who got this article deleted – "we" are all parties to this controversy. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about. My account is not shared. I forgot to sign, and have now corrected it. But if you want to go down that road, feel free.
I am waiting for the userfied copy before I go to DRV. I want to have it all straight with my ducks lined up.
My preference was to simply give everyone a do-over, but I have no drag here, and y'all will do what you want.
I thought that User:Premeditated Chaos had said "no", but if I am mistaken, then we should all wait for the type to cool off and see if that is her final answer. I would like the Userfied copy of the article, ASARP. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holy fuck, Premeditated Chaos hasn't even had the time to respond once because there's been over twenty edits to this discussion since it started, so if everyone could chill out for ten minutes maybe I could do so without having to rewrite my comments to account for the latest responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! So I took the time to look at the sources before responding, and they're pretty classically routine/run of the mill hagiographic coverage of a heroic death ("family mourns death" "guy gets nominated for medal" "another guy in his unit mourns his death" "family is happy he will be getting a medal" etc). No contest that the guy deserves to be lauded for his actions, but he clearly wasn't notable before his death, and I frankly don't see that human-interest coverage gets him over the notability hump when you take WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS into account. (Also, I'm not trying to be a cow, but including this article as a "result" is fairly shoddy research; it's a tabloid article about movie piracy affecting a different guy entirely.) In my personal opinion, I don't see the coverage as provided in the email to be a reason to overturn the AfD. You were editing the article prior to the AfD closure, so you had ample time to make some kind of comment at the AfD but chose for some reason not to do so. So I'm not going to overturn it on grounds of either coverage or your failure to comment.
I have zero objection to you taking this to DRV if you want, although fair warning, I will probably comment (I usually don't bother). You don't actually need a userfied copy of the article in order to open a DRV, so I don't intend to do that either at this time. Please don't argue with me about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The movie is about the subject of the article. That article is from 2009, so unless it was made using time travel, I think the hell not. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that a ninety-second little memorial feature was released about him after he died, but amazingly, I am capable of reading, and the piracy article is very clearly about a full-length feature film released in 2009 starring renowned Indian actor Prabhas. Look! We have an article about it and everything right here: Ek Niranjan :) So unless that ninety-second short film was sent back in time to seven years prior to his death and magically gained 153.5 minutes of runtime during its trip through the space-time contiuum, no the fuck I am not. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody was questioning your ability to read.
I sent you rough and copious notes that I was going to use to edit the article. None of it was put into Wikipedia; and you won't userfy it so I can't edit from the old version.
You're so disingenuous I can't take a word out of your mouth seriously. You told me in no uncertain terms "No, you are mistaken", implying that I was too dense to understand a fairly short and simple article. In point of fact I was not mistaken; you were. And now instead of admitting you were mistaken, you come back with this mealy-mouthed 'so we agree that there was a film'. With all due respect, fuck off. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So not only can you still not muster a simple "my bad," you actually edited your own comment after the fact to remove "I am not trespassing on your lawn, or impugning you in any way. Relax, please" in what I can only perceive as an attempt to make it look like my response is angry for no reason. What an incredible act of dishonesty compounding dishonesty. Don't post on my talk page again unless policy dictates that you must. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do take offense at your calling me "dishonest" and I am not going to let that pass — so that someone will say I adopted it by failing to object. I do not believe I edited out anything as you allege. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APremeditated_Chaos&type=revision&diff=1016187858&oldid=1016184393 Apparently I did!] It was not intentional. I don't know how it happened, and it was not an intent to remake history. I think I was trying to sign. If Since I did, it was accidental. I will never darken your door again. But let's drop this and I'll leave. I do not want to foment further discord. Please WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the removal, for the sake of posterity. It beggars belief that that happened by accident and you managed not to notice. If you don't want to be called dishonest, don't be dishonest - and don't double down and do it again in your response. And don't give me "dead horse" when you're the one posting here after I explicitly told you not to. What a display. Goodbye, and good riddance. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Inquisitor's Sword
Inquisitor PMC's Sword
This Italian-style sword is bestowed upon Premeditated Chaos for her skillful and dextrous removal of copyright violations. Please accept this extension of your arm and brandish it mightily in the name of the Encyclopedia. ♠Vami_IV†♠00:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this correctly, but I was surprised it failed WP:GNG so I did an archival search and lo and behold, a bunch of articles which pass WP:GNG! Would you mind draftifying the article, or do you mind if I ask for the article to be draftifyed at WP:REFUND? SportingFlyerT·C18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All spruced up with a few Chicago Tribune articles and other articles and back in mainspace (maybe too soon, but otherwise I might forget) - thank you again. SportingFlyerT·C00:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if there's still anything you need to undelete the wikipedia page.
Appreciate your feedback on this! Thanks so much!
Kenjiiie (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Kenjiiie 5:45am 13April2021 PTKenjiiie (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no, those links are simply lists of articles by Allison provided by places she has written for. They aren't independent indications of notability. You need coverage about Allison from an independent source to make a case for notability. Also, I have to ask, since this is a brand-new account with zero other edits and yet you seem to know your way around wiki-jargon reasonably well - do you have a previous account? What's your connection to Allison? ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Article Text Request
Hello,
I remember reading the article List of fictional works in Gargantua and Pantagruel about a year ago, and I have discovered it was deleted. I am fully aware that the content was unsuitable for an article, but it was an interesting piece (personally) nonetheless, and it did contain a good amount of analysis on the satire and some pretty obscure stuff on old Latin jokes and naming conventions. If you could message me the article that would be appreciated. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefrog488 (talk • contribs)
Very important website. Article was deleted. Everything on wiki's a paraphrase of some location. Where was "consensus" that it should be deleted? Sucker for All (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many people were using this page for information about the school, and I wasn't aware of it being deleted until I needed to go there myself to add some information.
I understand the issue is that the School is not notable. Here's an article from The Spectator last month, headline "A Snapshot of Four Notable Schools", mentioning reasons for the school's notability.
I will undelete per your request since there was minimal participation at the AfD so it should have been marked as soft delete. That does mean it can be re-taken to AfD at any time however. Courtesy pinging the AfD nom Onel5969 in case they want to evaluate the new sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk)17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ItsJustdancefan, assuming you mean Unicable (Mexican network), it was deleted in 2017 because it went through our proposed deletion process. The reasoning given by the nominator were "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirements." If you have reliable sources about it and want to work on it, I am willing to undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inuit clothing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So my name comes up as "Notable Players" on the "Arizona Thunder" indoor soccer team. My name has a non working link under the brothers Rick and Randy Soderman. Is there a chance I can add a small bio to my linked name? I have all the references available.
Hi Chris, that link was added by a drive-by IP editor with no documentation and if the article had more viewers it probably would have been removed by now. I wouldn't generally recommend writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO for the common pitfalls). However if you do have reliable sources that show you would meet the general notability guideline go ahead and post them here and I can have a look. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for saying so! It's been a real labor of love. And thank you very kindly for consistently tidying up after me when I leave extra spaces and things, I appreciate that. :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)14:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
non Jewish emigrants to Poland
Your comment on this edit that "you can emigrate to israel without being jewish", seems reasonable, which means that the category tree is probably wrong. Currently we have this:
None, I should think. The way I see it, parent categories help to categorize the child category, not the contents of each child category. "Polish emigrants to Israel" is a logical subcategory of "Polish-Jewish culture in Israel", but it doesn't necessarily mean that every article categorized in the child must also belong in the parent. Admittedly, I don't live in categoryland, so I may well be wrong, but from a common sense perspective I don't think so. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a merge bot? I used the easy-merge userscript to tag everything appropriately though so you're all covered. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
When I need to think of words that describe PMC dilligence is.... SOMEWHERE on the list. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia and for the colleague you've been. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for helping me start expanding an article. I probably wouldn't have been able to do it without your help. You asking me questions about the game and having me use my answers as stuff to add really helped me out in figuring out what to do. I probably would still be getting rid of supposed vandalism if it weren't for you. Again, thank you so much! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate I probably won't be on Discord today at all, and if I do get on it'll be pretty late tonight (like at least 8 or 9 PST). But if you want to try adding stuff to the article I can have a look and make tweaks. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article Georgians gets disrupted again by IPs. Would it be possible to semi protect it indefinitely? There was 0 disruption or vandalism during 1 month when it was protected but now when it's off bad actors are back to "work". Appreciate your help. Regards, An emperor /// Ave12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, at this point there's only been a couple of edits from one IP across a couple of days, and they haven't made an edit since Jeppiz reverted them six hours ago. I don't think that's sufficient to resume semi-protection, especially indefinitely. Let me know if there's any further disruption from other IPs or new accounts though. ♠PMC♠ (talk)15:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
regarding file-system permissions - Permission-driven user interface
Seems to me that permission drive user interface is out of scope for this article.
Can you provide me an example of this.
Thanks
DGerman (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Inuit clothing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Inuit clothing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George Adams (optician) redirects to the father's page, which seems particularly problematic (there's nothing on the page, at least, saying that he was an optician). There are also a lot of links to that, probably need to make sure they're to the right person
What a mess. The article for the younger guy says he's an optician, but only talks about his instrument work and writing, so I'm not sure optician would be the best disambig for him anyway. I did some hunting around and per WP:NCPDAB, if two people have the same name and general profession, they ought to be disambiguated by year of birth or death, depending. Since we don't know the older's exact date of birth (because of course we don't - that would make things simple), I think the best title format might be George Adams (scientist, died 1773) and George Adams (scientist, died 1795). There are no other (scientist) disambigs listed at George Adams, so they wouldn't conflict with any other names. And then the redirects can be, er, redirected accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk)15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to self in case this comes up at a later date, I don't see any indication that they are reliably or consistently referred to as "sr/jr" "the elder/the younger" so that's not strictly suitable for article titling. ♠PMC♠ (talk)16:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Research on Inuit clothing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Research on Inuit clothing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FYI I recently had an experience with an admin who curtly told me 'I never change my deletion closures, go to DELREV'. So I am afraid his attitude colored my actions here. I appreciate knowing that you'd have acted differently given the opportunity. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed in my search of Yewande Sadiku draft that was submitted you reported for speedy deletion and I have read your log. Please I will like to re-create a Draft:Yewande Sadiku. Thanks for your prompt response. Bibihans (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans[reply]
I didn't delete it, DGG did. You're free to recreate the draft whenever, but you must do it without copying from another website, which is why it was deleted in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted edits on micronationalist
Hello, you reverted my edits on the page Niels Vermeersch, this article is part of the recently updated "notable micronationalists" on micronations. The old page in 2017 had almost no content or sources and was redirected to the page of the micronation, this time the page is simular like Travis McHenry and Kevin Baugh . Any suggestions to improve the article? Delle89 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are doing well. I represent Bookmyshow, India's leading Movie Ticket Platform. Here's the link for the same for your reference.
Link: https://in.bookmyshow.com/explore/home.
Since this was a start-up and earlier the folks trying to create the pages earlier somehow missed to follow the community guidelines. I would like to apologize for breaching the rules the but I would like to set things right, therefore I am seeking a reversal and a kind gesture allowing me to ensure that a page of the brand is created following all community guidelines & people around the world know the evolution of the Start-up Bookmyshow. In India & in Asia this brand is now playing a key role in letting people know about entertainment opportunities in various countries and allowing people to book tickets on their mobile phones.
We are trying to create a Company page on Wikipedia for BookMyShow, India's leading Movie Ticket Platform and a page for founders. While setting-up the process and start creating from Article Wizard which reflects Permission Error to create a draft for BookMyShow.
Details mentioned on the page Creation of this page (Draft:BookMyShow) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists.
We did try to connect via E-mail to Wikipedia Functionaries. But could not figure the next steps for this.
Shruti12111998, sorry for the late response. I have un-protected the draft page so you can work on it there now. The Functionaries list has no jurisdiction over content or page-creation processes, so please do not email them for things like this in the future - more than likely you will just be referred to on-wiki processes. Since you are a paid editor, please familiarize yourself with our guidelines for such editors - in specific, you are required to declare on your user page that you are a paid editor representing BookMyShow. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos, Thanks for sharing your response. Noted to your point and I will surely go through the Wikipedia guidelines. Meanwhile please share you can you share me a link/reference to un-protected draft page that would help me to take the process ahead. Also please let me know if there is any other source to connect for discussion. example: via email or portal/other Wikipedia platform. --Shruti12111998 (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos, Noted with that point. I need a help on how to resolve the term "BookMyShow" blocked from Wikipedia local & global list? Below is the instructions reflected while I try to create a draft page for BookMyShow.
Creation of this page (Draft:BookMyShow) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists.If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:Any administrator can create this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard or on the talk page.Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.If you wrote any text, save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page.'
Followed by which please help me on how can I request Administration Noticeboard to remove this restriction.
Shruti12111998 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alexis Jazz, I asked AntiComposite over Discord since they are a Commons admin and they let me know it's not the kind of thing that needs to be exported to Commons. They said you can just leave a note on the Commons talk page if you need to. ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I'm indeffed. Knowing Commons, they might start a DR if they don't know about the interview with Ayna TV. If the talk page on enwiki won't be deleted it's fine since that's linked in the file description, but I usually see these vanishing per WP:CSD G8. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Small nitpick, when inserting Wikipedia links on other projects, the prefix "w:" needs to be added for the link to keep working, but this is no biggie in this case as anyone interested will likely figure out the correct link. The important part is that there now is an easy way to find the associated FfD when looking at the Commons file. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of Inuit clothing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Research on Inuit clothing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that research on Inuit clothing began with detailed images of Inuit people produced by Europeans as early as the 1560s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Research on Inuit clothing. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Research on Inuit clothing), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
I've deleted it and given him a final warning. Salting it won't do much good as he could just create sandbox2 or whatever else, so I haven't done that. I do have it watchlisted so if it comes back up again with the pseudo history, I'm going to block him as NOTHERE. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apcbg, it's not a decision, it's just a comment like any other AfD participant. You don't need to "implement" it unless there is consensus to do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article History of Inuit clothing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Inuit clothing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page enjoyer) I assume that might have to do with Despite what my article creation habits might indicate, I don't particularly care for or know much about beetles, plants, or algae, but they are frequently found as orphans and also happen to be very easy to de-orphan.Elli (talk | contribs) 03:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not intentional! I just like weird colorful indie games :) I guess I have to find a third and make it a hat trick. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Apologies for this random message, but I just wanted to thank you for all the work you have put into the Inuit clothing. I always love learning more about different cultures, and I am very happy to see a clothing-related article in the FAC space for a change. It does encourage me to work on articles about clothing as that has been on my mind for a while now (although my projects would be less on culture and more on fashion). Anyway, just wanted to thank you for your work and I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, never apologize for giving compliments :) I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Since you have some experience commenting at FAC, and some interest in the subject, would you have any interest in commenting at the FAC? It appears to have stalled somewhat. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely help out. I will put up a placeholder comment for now and re-read the article and write up any suggestions later this week. I am sorry to hear that the nomination has stalled a little, and I will do my best to help. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate that. I'll have a look at Katie Joplin in the next couple days if it doesn't get promoted before then (since it looks like there's a pretty strong consensus for support). ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Premeditated Chaos. You reverted my edit of Inuit clothing, which I gave the edit summary "only one alt text per image; omit accessdate for external links that are not references". I believe my edit was correct. WP:ELCITE says, "Most external links should present details different from citations. For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section." Your edit summary said "those are all references". I don't think so. They are not connected to the body of the article with <ref> tags and they are not associated with anything in the article. They are just helpful "for more information" links. Moreover, an access date is not "date when url was last verified to open a page with the given title and other given cite parameters". Template:Cite web/doc#URL defines access date as "full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article". So it doesn't make sense to associate an access date next with an external link that isn't connected to any specific claim in the article. That raises the objection that a reference that is used more than once in an article ought to have a separate access date for each use. I have made this point myself. Nevertheless, this is what Wikipedia calls for. Also, my edit fixed a file link with two alt texts, leaving the caption last. After you reverted me, you edited the article again and removed one of the alt texts, but you didn't leave the caption last, as it is supposed to be. I believe my edit was correct and your reversion was incorrect. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Those are, in fact, references. The article uses the bad, confusing, as we can see here{{sfn}} referencing style, where only the surname of the reference's primary author is given in <ref> tags, and the full reference is given in a 'bibliography' section. This is quite common for articles that rely heavily on book references. Vaticidalprophet05:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Vati said, basically, except for his baseless insults towards the far superior sfn method which I will indef him for shortly. The bibliography isn't an external links section - it's a bibliography, which is a component of the article's references, and therefore should have the access date so the reader can see when the whole source was last confirmed as live. The order of alt text/caption doesn't matter as far as I'm aware, and if it does, it doesn't make sense that you'd only "fix" that one image, because the rest of the alt texts are also out of your desired order. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Premeditated Chaos, I have an issue concerning an article you deleted. The name of the Article is Jay Foley, this person is very notable in the Ghanaian space and have the necessary or enough citation for him to be on wikipedia, he also champions activities related to entertainment, social works and other media activities. I will kindly ask if his article could be restored. The Ghanaian community of wikipedian would do due diligence to ensure that the article is well structured when it's brought back from deletion before publishing.Thank youJwale2 (talk)
I'm not getting involved in the content dispute. I've warned both of you about civility - you more strongly, because your comments clearly crossed the NPA line, while his stood about three inches behind it eyeing it real hard. I will make blocks if either of you escalates your conduct. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool - I just mentioned to another admin that if he's going to gatekeep the article, I'm done with it. Not worth my time. Sorry to bother you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Inuit clothing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:History of Inuit clothing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)