User talk:Anachronist

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watch list. Thanks!

Stevia name in Romanian

I changed the name of English Stevia with "iarba dulce" since Romanian "stevia" it is a totally different plant.And yes, the name that I put in the list is the real plant from "stevia rebaudiana". It's just a coincidence that the name in 2 different languages it's the same: the plant however are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Marianatiru (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Unblock for good behaviour? He used his declared socks to edit after his block ... no way this could have ever been acceptable as an unblock. Please fix ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious.

...and he came clean about those socks. He also feels the pain, and blocks are not punishment. I am convinced he understands the consequences of recidivism. I am convinced he wants to contribute. I also felt that the existing duration was excessive. Given those things, I reduced the duration. I plan to watch him like a hawk; any evidence of disruption and the block is restored, for a longer period. If you feel differently, you are welcome to restore the block, but I ask that you give him a chance to prove himself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because of the socking after the block, this was one of those situations where you're required to discuss with the blocking admin, as per policy. Unilateral reduction was very inappropriate. His belief that "see, the encyclopedia is falling apart without me" is further proof that he needed to remain blocked as that's his sole argument for unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the policy, and I do apologize. We are discussing it now. Are you truly convinced that a probationary reprieve is unwarranted here? I'd like to extend this editor an olive branch.

If you are adamant about it, I can restore the original duration or split the difference if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the original block length was overly generous, but based on escalation. His "rush" to get back at it shows he doesn't understand the reasoning behind his block whatsoever. It's still therefore not punitive, it's protection, which is of course the purpose of blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it seemed to me that the prior discussion about his block on his talk page showed that he understood and agreed with the reasoning for the block, and there was no need to rehash it in the recent unblock request. I took the entire talk page into account in my decision to reduce the length, including his demonstrated enthusiasm to work on articles in his own space while blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not the case as can be seen. I have, based on this discussion, not only re-implemented the original month, but removed his talkpage access for improper use of it during the block. Please note, after his block evasion, I had intended to increase the block length - but chose not to as part of WP:AGF. I'd be happy to extend it to 3 months, but I don't think that would be good for the editor or the project in the long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Gotta run an errand now, will post an apology when I return. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI (to both of you), after Bwilkins' block modification the user did this on the Simple English Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I blame him for his feelings in spite of the inappropriateness in venting them. He is understandably frustrated by getting caught between two conflicting admin decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, blame the admin instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions. Sheer brilliance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. But his reaction is like being let out of jail only to be dragged back in a few minutes later. Understandable. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He appears to have calmed down per this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NJ Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries

Please feel free to review some of the changes be debated at Talk:Wineries,_breweries_and_distilleries_of_New_Jersey#Reverted changes. NJ Wine (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for revising the page history for this article. I had improperly reverted the move of the page, resulting in the split page history. NJ Wine (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I had to do the same thing on the talk page. It's done. It wasn't as much of a problem as I expected, since there was zero to little overlap between the two pages. Merging histories can be a mess if each version of the page continues to be edited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I am not returning to work on the article/list. I don't need that kind of nonsense and petulance in my life. I have more important things to do than waste my time only to deal with someone acting territorial. Let him win for now, if he does it again, we'll act accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be back sooner than I thought, User:NJ Wine was blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. See his user page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment

Hello, Amatulic. You recently participated in this discussion; I'm leaving this message on your page to tell you that your input would once again be greatly valued. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan deletion

Hi! Would like to invite you to comment on Talk:Misha_Bryan as there is a discussion on why the page deserved deletion. You are listed as deleting the page. Thanks! --newzealander 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewzealanderA (talk • contribs)

The proper venue for your discussion is WP:DRV. I have deleted that talk page because it is associated with a nonexistent page, but I have restored its content to your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If you could restore the Misha Bryan deleted article to my user space to work on, that would be great. NewzealanderA (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! FYI - I have edited the Misha_Bryan_(singer) article and presented it to User:Sionk to review. Thanks for restoring it to my user page. Of interest, you might want to know that this same user has done the same type of deletions elsewhere using the same non-Wikipedia arguments. One is going on right now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_Devlin_(singer). The discussion there is very similar to the one had for Misha Bryan. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic - you are invited to offer your opinion at User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B#User_Consensus_Request regarding X Factor contestant Misha B - User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. Thank you for your time!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mourvedre Page

Hey Amatulic-First thanks for providing so much high quality information on wine and everything wine related. I recently wrote an article on Mouvedre for my company blog and thought it might warrant a mention on the page given the Dr Vino reference as well as others. It's found at http://www.uncorkedventures.com/blog/Mourvedre

Anyway, I thought it would be a "better" approach to contact someone I saw actively editing wine sections and ask for inclusion rather than add the link myself since that clearly looks like Spam.

If nothing else I hope this can be the beginning of a conversation. I am happy to help out in the wine section when possible- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAselstine (talk • contribs)

Hello Mark. Nice to meet you, and I like your blog article. Unfortunately, links to blog articles are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia (see WP:ELNO for guidance) unless the blog is written by a recognized authority on the topic. The Dr Vino link was not appropriate either (and even if it was, it didn't enhance the content already in the article). Someone else has already removed it.

Thanks also for not adding that link yourself; it speaks well of your integrity. Asking another editor or proposing a link on an article talk page is always the best course of action for someone with a conflict of interest.

External links are a convenience for an encyclopedia, not a necessity. All an encyclopedia really needs are references to reliable sources, and even those don't need to be online. The best contributions you can make to Wikipedia are content contributions, rather than links. My own family has a successful winery, for example, but I would never dare add a link to it anywhere or even mention its name; it just isn't relevant to this project. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:ShanaMarketing

I question whether this is a valid username block. She seems to be Shana[in]Marketing[for Inova]. I don't see how this is a username violation, since she's not marketing anything called Shana. It's a COI and spam problem, certainly; but not a username problem, regardless of how I feel about marketing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The account was engaged in promotional edits, and gave the appearance of a marketing company contracted by Inova, so I blocked accordingly. If this is a name like Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs) then you're absolutely correct the user name isn't a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Update (also responded on your talk page). The username is fine; I found what appears to be her LinkedIn profile. I will change the block and block message accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lado Kingdom

Hello Amatulic. I nominated the redirect "Lado Kingdom" for speedy deletion because there never was such a Kingdom. The article "Lado enclave" was renamed as such by a hoaxer. After this was corrected the redirect (and the adjoining talk page) remained somehow. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does seem to be an alternative name preferred by those with political allegiance to it, based on my Google searches. Therefore, I felt the redirect was reasonable. It certainly isn't an official name, but it's a name that some use. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will not contest this and I thank you for your time & effort. It just seemed to me that it was strange to have a redirect based on a hoax. But since the hoax exists..... some people might come looking for it I suppose. One remark however. Searching on Google will only redirect you to the original author of the Wiki article and two of his friends from Denmark.Greetings! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant references to "Lado Kingdom" I found were mostly forums and blogs (for example this one from 2007), but it wasn't clear that the authors of those postings were related to the author of the Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dischi Ricordi

Hi Amatulic! What does that mean? Of course I know that Dischi Ricordi was a subsidiary company of Casa Ricordi, but they're not the same thing and I don't see why so different things should be treated in the same article (Fiat and Chrysler are part of the same company, but we have two different articles). Apart from that, the article Casa Ricordi doesn't even mention what Dischi Ricordi is and why it's related to Casa Ricordi, so that redirect makes no sense: the reader searching for Dischi Ricordi does not get any information more than if the redirect didn't exist (on the contrary, the reader runs the risk of confusing Dischi Ricordi with Casa Ricordi, which are related but anyway different companies). If any information on Dischi Ricordi will be added on en.wiki, it should be put into a new article; in the meanwhile I think the link should be stay a red link. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable redirect, especially since the Ricordi Group's web site, linked in Casa Ricordi explains the connection. All that is needed is a sentence of explanation in the Casa Ricordi article. It is not unusual for topics on which articles do not yet exist to be redirected to a related topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your intervention with User:Fightingagainstlies on the Oktay Sinanoğlu article. I've been trying to communicate with him (via his talk page and the article talk page) and offered to help, but he didn't seem to want to collaborate. Thanks for stepping in and allowing him a chance to cool down about it.

P.S. I know you're busy on weekends, so don't need a reply, just wanted to say thanks. P.P.S. Really like the fractal user box you have on your user page. Vertium (talk to me) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of section I added to "Robert O. Young" from 67.91.184.187 at 21:57, on 7 July 2012‎

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

If you have objected to my system-generated "errors" in my use of weblinks, I have corrected those, and my writing now more closely follows Wikipedia's general style.

However, my use of sources which you acknowledge as "reliable" is reliable and honest.

If you find my writing to be "all very interesting", it is likely that others will also find it to be so.

However, kindly refrain from removing truth.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you will be blocked from editing if you continue your disruption. See WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not tolerated here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The facts I have included pertain directly to the core of Robert O. Young’s writings. I have carefully removed any evidence not based upon reliable sources. All my references directly support my statements of fact. I have footnoted nearly every sentence from sources that directly support those sentences. I fail to see how my writing doesn’t exceed any imposed WP:BURDEN.

I am quite certain that I have not synthesized in any way except that which only the most extreme interpreters of the term “synthesis” could accuse me of. If recognizing that Young’s “pH” for vinegar is so absurdly out of touch with reality as to be akin to stating that an automobile could travel faster than the cube of the speed of light, then I have done so {remember, the pH scale is logarithmic, and yes, that is what the numbers are}. If recognizing that one set of numbers neither coincides nor overlaps with another set of numbers, and stating that fact constitutes synthesis, then I have done it. However, in such an overly strict interpretation of the definition, any sentence construction varying from plagiarism {verbatim copying} would also be liable to the charge of “synthesis”; because any variation from the original author’s words could be argued to be “synthesis”. It seems to me that that is not what Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become: because Wikipedia says that authors should write in their own words, carefully rephrasing reputable sources’ information, so as not to plagiarize (WP:NOR). Nor do I believe that Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become, a hiding place for the incompetent (or fraudulent) to hide their incompetence (or fraud).

Furthermore, WP:CALC seems to allow precisely this sort of observation , and the “calculation” required is even more essential to the root of mathematical thought (a rudimentary determination of equivalence) than those mentioned there (arithmetic, adding numbers, converting units), because “the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.” See Equality_(mathematics)

If you still say that my writing is WP:SYN or fails to meet WP:BURDEN, please state precisely where or how my writing fails. Perhaps you could help?

As you can see, your repeated objections have encouraged me to further refine my writing. THANKS.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over that edit, and I don't see anything that would stretch much beyond a Chemistry 101 level of background knowledge. I'd suggest adding {{cn}} to anything that isn't obvious rather than reverting. It should not be difficult to source or rephrase.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it still isn't acceptable. It's basically a criticism written in Wikipedia's voice, using sources that don't criticize the book. It is pure WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Note the word "imply" there. I see someone else has removed the section, yet again. If you want a section describing how wrong Robert Young is, then find a reliable source that says it, but don't say it by combining information from unrelated sources that don't even mention the book.

To the anonymous IP address adding it: Start using the article talk page to discuss your changes, if you honestly cannot understand why your addition contravenes Wikipedia policy. You will not get this material added to the article by edit-warring. That will only lead to a block. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikitam331

I notice you unblocked User talk:Wikitam331. Now, that may have been fair enough, but when he says "It's not like I voted multiple times in the discussion", that is manifestly untrue. He accepts that 76.125.166.228 is his IP address, and clearly voted here, in support of the move request that he himself had proposed. Just thought you ought to know this. StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock of Wikitam331 [1], your summary said Editing while logged out does not appear to be an attempt to create the illusion of multiple participants -- did you look at Talk:Reformations? The account and the IPs all !voting in the move discussion. If it were a simple matter of forgetting to log in, I wouldn't have bothered. However, this user and the IPs are being a PITA in that ddiscussion. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked carefully at that page before making my decision. I saw multiple comments and one vote from the IP address. There is one IP address there, as explained by Wikitam331, the other one that appears isn't his, and I also addressed that in my unblock response. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make the following statement with a straight face Assuming that 12.165.27.130 isn't you, your IP address edits don't give the appearance of trying to create the illusion of more participants than there were. Even granting that the other IP is not a sock,This vote, along with this comment do not seem so innocent. But if Wikitam331 behaves appropriately going forward, this is a moot point. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldie Harvey

Do you know what happened when I userfied that page? Check out my help desk request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird. I have re-userfied it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical move

Regarding your help, I confess I wasn't quite sure of what I was doing. Thanks for sorting out. Much appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed clear what you intended, so I just performed the move. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help at ANI

• Specifically it is this thread. Note that Miszabot was re-enabled and attempted to archive but there was a blacklisted link so it didn't write the page...unfortunately it can't be undone by a non-admin because of the link. We need help getting the threads back, Cheers,
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I had just figured out how a non-admin could do it after I asked you. By editing from this rev, taking care of the offending url and then copy/paste over ANI making sure to restore any subsequent comments. I'm trying to make sure I know what to do next time. Thank you for straightening that out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All I did was show the bot's diff, and then I clicked on "undo". The next screen said the edit could be undone, which means nothing added afterward would be disturbed, so I just 'cleaned' the URL and submitted the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am back

Hey mate, block is over now. It was horrible. Just want to thank you again for your help and for replying to my posts last month. Kept me in check and now I want to start off with a clean slate. Anyway I have one question, what will happen to my other 2 accounts. The 3rd one I made was for evading but the other 2 have been along for a year now (I think) and I dont want to sign in to one of the other 2 accounts and than log back on to my account (this one) and see that my IP Address is blocked. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to FootballinIndiaWiki, IndianFootballPlayersWiki, and RedBullNewYork2012, those are already blocked, so there is no danger of you getting blocked again for logging in to them. If you have others, let me know and I can block them too without blocking the IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying is I can log onto them and then log off them and still edit with my IP Address and this username. I dont mind if that is the case as I only use FootballinIndiaWiki and IndianFootballPlayersWiki for the watchlist (basically in order to keep things organized I made those two) so I can stay logged on Google Chrome and use Safari for the other two accounts. I am hoping to delete RedBullNewYork2012 completely. I dont have any others. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism

I note that you removed links to a blog I referenced in the Sherry article. That blog (or column or online magazine) is the only English language source of the new Sherry legislation. But note that you did not remove references to two other blogs in the External Links section. Feel free to act consistently by deleting these other blogs and tidying up the content as necessary.--GinaKendal (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My purpose was to clean up a specific links you added. Thank you for pointing out the others; they are now gone. Be aware that English sources are not necessary. Particularly if official sources exist, as they did in the articles to which you added those links, the official sources should be cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

a thought about references

Hello Amatulic.

I am writing to you not about my wife Lena Pessoa (yes, she is my wife, and I agree with the fact COI is important for the american wikipedia's community) but about this affair generally speaking.

About that article, before you arrive there with a cool attitude, I had been agressed by 2 censors, I forget their name and you destroy Lena's page, including the "talk" part of it. I just noticed about them, 1 was a Indian from Dehli, signing Eagle something, and watching him, I notice he was not "cultural" at all. The second one, beside being a God Freak, was angry because in certain references I talked about, Lena Pessoa was only referenced in "One" page ! This is the heart or my feeling of today.

If you are a musician, you can use as references a record. Anybody in the world is able to have 1 record printed, you have major companies or louzzy one, you can pay for the publishing of the record, blah blah blah.

If you are a writer, the same constatation apply.

If you are a Scientist, like you, you may have citations in Scientists Newspapers (very important, this is one of the propagation system for Sciences), books with you name, if you are famous ... I would not say that you may have books and be a crook, for instance in France we have these brothers Xxxxxxff ...

And if you are a designer, architect, then you need to proove your work with Books under your name ! a book talking about the more luxuous store in the world where you have 1 page, not even mentioned on the cover, is not good. You cannot reference something like 3 stores in New York, 1 in Miami, 4 in Los Angeles, 1 in Dallas, just to mention Usa, even if you can show pictures on differents internet sites ... Yes, Designers are suppose to be "social", go everywhere to piple a lot, they cannot be quietely in their house, reading books, traveling, waiting for their clients to come to them !!!

So voila my feelings,

A bientôt :-)

Mouzaia (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Previously I recommended you create the article in your own userspace first. I think I may have moved it there. Unfortunately, another admin deleted it as a copyright violation of http://pt-br.facebook.com/DeuxL?sk=info -- Wikipedia can not re-publish content that already exists elsewhere. I recommend you try again, create User:Mouzaia/Lena Pessoa in your own words, and I am sure there will be no problem.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) explains how a person can merit an article on Wikipedia. The criteria are not negotiable. The subject must have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Without such references, an article can still avoid speedy deletion if it explains explain why the person is notable. But still it may not survive WP:AFD without adequate sources.

As I wrote to you on your talk page, I am happy to review the article when you have added sufficient reliable sources to it, prior to moving it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying my own work ? because the text on Facebook is my text ...

Also 'Not negotiable', OK I am not going to negociate anyway.

But in fact, in that French Paper called Le Monde, there was a very good article about Wikimania published yesterday, I am so sad to read Wikipedia is sick, now I know more why.

Thanks again for your help.

Mouzaia (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have permission to copy text published elsewhere. Just because a Wikipedia account claims "it is my text" or says "I give permission" does not mean it is true. Wikipedia needs some sort of official permission from the copyright owner, with proof that the owner is who he claims to be. See WP:CONSENT to learn about how to accomplish this. However, I think it is easier simply to re-write the text in different words.

I would like to read that article you linked to, but apparently it is unavailable to non-subscribers. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You ask for it ? you got it ! but in french :-(

Mouzaia (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I can't download the file. Oh well. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Computers :-( here is a dropbox url ! hope it is better ! Mouzaia (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Google Translate worked very well. I have seen similar articles in English. Improving editor diversity is a good thing, and a visual editing interface may help. But I disagree that a visual editing interface will solve the problem of declining contributors. As Wikipedia has grown, so have the policies and guidelines grown in number and complexity. As you have observed yourself, it is difficult for a new editor on the English Wikipedia to be familiar with all the rules. I believe this difficulty in learning the rules is a reason for the decline in contributors. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

difficult to understand difficult rules :-) à bientôt Mouzaia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

A user you blocked seems to be evading an indefinite block by using this account to recreate this article. The article has been marked for speedy deletion and I have marked their userpage for G11 deletion. Think we need to start an SPI? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend starting an SPI just to establish a record, because I suspect this isn't the last sockpuppet we'll see from this person. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:New Jersey wine

I proposed a format for this article on the talk page and would like your suggestions (my intended project for upcoming two weeks after I finish up my two current ones). On another topic: Where did all the deletionists come from regarding the list? I'm inclined to split the list into its components (wineries and breweries) and look forward to an NJ beer article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested format sounds fine to me.

On Talk:List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey, I have no idea where the sudden deletionist attention comes from (and note in a section above on my talk page as well as my WP:RFA that I've been accused of being deletionist too, but that's a common misconception about m:precisionists). I note that Agne has chimed in with some comments. Given her professional knowledge and being the Wikipedia Wine Project's greatest contributor, if she voices misgivings about an article's existence, I consider her view to merit special attention. I do agree with her that the list could be more encyclopedically useful than a collection of red links, which essentially is all it is at the moment. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad link

This is in regards to your rv. As I stated in my original edit summary I recalled hearing about a policy that links mentioning a Wikipedia page need to be done as ELs since mirrors and such would convert normal internal links to links on their site- rather than to the Wikipedia page which is the true destination. Unfortunately I can't seem to remember where this was, are you aware of some policy I'm not? Thanks, OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I reverted you, I also started a discussion on the talk page, so please continue this discussion there. I'm interested to see your argument about why you think one particular wikilink on Wikipedia merits singling out as an external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see the thread there. Missed it in my watchlist. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne RMs

Hi, greetings. I'm not sure what to make of this but there is some odd activity from a Ho Chi Minh City IP in the archive resets to Talk:History of Champagne. As closing admin perhaps you might wish to have a look at it. I'm not quite the purpose is or what influence, if any, it was meant to have on past or possible future RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case the IP edit seems to be related perhaps to a possible planned future RM which hasn't happened yet. Wheras in cases like Talk:Praha_hlavní_nádraží it relates to making previous contrary/failed RMs invisible by setting up bot archiving. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be reading too much into it. The edit simply sets up auto-archiving for that talk page. It looks like a proper edit to me. The 60 day age for archiving may be a bit short considering the average activity on that page, so I changed it to 365. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, yesterday I might have been, hence the cautious tone. But today it's now a cluster of a dozen IPs all working to the same modus operandi. Naturally not all the archiving of previous RMs has clicked in yet, and Talk:History of Champagne is among those that hasn't archived the old RM yet. I have only listed the ones that have actually potentially affected already closed RMs here. 60 days is typical of the forward looking resets of the IPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were two RMs on Talk:History of Champagne about a month apart, and the first one appears to have been archived. It's no big deal, archiving talk pages is not a bad idea, so I'm hesitant to categorize this activity as disruptive. If a talk page is normally not active, then you can remove the template or extend the archive age trigger. 1 or 2 years is fine for a low-rate talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, done when logged in archiving is good. FYI the IP which reset Talk:History of Champagne archive has just been listed among the IP cluster in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Though it is not among the planned RMs at User:Kauffner/RM incubator. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Hi...a NPOV has been pinned to the Misha B page. I believe its unfair as though I am a fan, I have honestly tried to be neutral. Apart from a brief period a few years ago I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning as I go. (I am not good with stress) Your wise comments would be appreciated. Just for your information and hoping for your comments

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==

Hello. Just to let you know ...This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard The thread is "Misha B, Talk:Misha B". Thank you....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 in "Haute tension"

There is some ambiguity in Wikipedia's policy on what uncontroversial maintenance actually means, hence I cannot allege that there was some mistake on your side. In any case, I reverted the unexplained move to "Haute tension" by LF (talk · contribs), not discussed or announced nowhere in the acceptable form. Unfortunately, I cannot restore suppressed edit histories, including a quite fine redirect, properly sorted with {{R from other capitalization}}. Also, your deletions largely concealed (from non-sysops) LF's actions and his attempts to provide a substantiation for the page move which is now reverted. I hope, you are willing to restore edit histories of the redirect and its talk page – just go to [2] and [3] and follow restore … deleted edits links. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Looks like you repaired the moves, and I have restored the histories. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Sweet, thanks. Now I can go marauding with impunity! :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. You still aren't exempt from being blocked directly, though. Happy marauding! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh...um, I'll just slink away then. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Theosulwebmaster

I'm sorry — until just a moment ago, I overlooked the fact that you weren't ready to unblock this user, so I unblocked him half an hour ago in order to enable a WP:CHU request. I don't think it would be right to reblock when he's made no more edits, but please note that I've given him a strict no-more-spamming warning with a reminder that more spamming will result in an indefinite block that's likely to be permanent. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, actually I was prepared to unblock him as soon as he could assure me that he understood the guidelines, but your warning is assurance enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy projects

I would ask you to explain (and possibly amend) your closing statement in regards of article's sources: upon reading CBSNews' item I had impression that it lacks depth of coverage, as the article doesn't discuss the features and workflow of this piece of software. To make it clear, I propose an imaginary test: would you be able to identify the subject of this article if all "Easy Projects.NET" occurrences were replaced with "XXX"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is borderline, and spent a while waffling back and forth in my closing decision. In the end, I determined that nothing in WP:SIGCOV requires "depth of coverage". The CBS source constitutes an article written by a seemingly notable author writing for a major national news organization, both independent of the product, devoting an entire article (albeit short) exclusively to reviewing the product. This is far more than a trivial mention. The fact that it isn't a detailed review doesn't invalidate the coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG.

As I stated in my closing statement, I invite anyone who feels the closure was improper to open a WP:DRV issue to overturn it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I filed the deletion review request. Hope you don't get offended. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs

Wikipedia:COMPROMISED#Compromised_accounts - Here it says I can request the unblock if I can demonstrate I have control of my old account, which I do. The thing is, nobody know my password and can't enter my account neither my e-mail, but I do use the "remember me" while loging in. My account isn't compromised. Nobody can't access it except me. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well User:Wustenfuchs is blocked indefinitely. For your new account User:FuchsWusten, you might also consider implementing Wikipedia:Committed identity as a further means of proving that you are who you say you are if you're ever blocked in the future due to a compromised account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer all of my edits to the new account? And why is so impossible to unblock the old one as I proved It's still under my control. Also, another problem. I never said my account was compromised, and because of misunderstanding I have all of these problems now. I have control over my old account, and the thing with other people using my account was just hypothetical. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A goof?

Did you block a template? [4]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked a user, then clicked on the last section on the user's talk page, intending to add the block message to the end, but I failed to notice that the last section was a transclusion of a template (she had tried to write an article on her talk page and that template was at the end for some reason). So the block message ended up on the transcluded template instead.

A dumber goof I once made was blocking myself by accident instead of someone else, thereby destroying my perfectly clean block log. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vu TelePresence

You speedy deleted Talk:Vu TelePresence just after I contested the deletion. I think it should be restored because a newbie editor requested help ther and may not have had time to see the response. BYTE and all that. Cheers. --agr (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for restoring just the talk page of a deleted article. If you want to communicate help to someone, wouldn't it be best use the talk page of the editor who needs the help? I often answer contested deletion comments on user talk pages because I know the user won't see the response on the deleted talk page. You have the ability to extract content from the deleted talk page; please consider doing that.

Also I note that the author of the original article has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, apparently used multiple accounts to edit that article, and is fully capable of using WP:AFC or working on it in his or her own user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hamari Boli = Hindi-Urdu Reinvented!

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com . Bohat Bohat Shukria! edge.walker (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GWR TEAM

This is Guinness World Record Team by the way. I must check some of their other edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was a username policy violation. I think the account is trying to be constructive but doesn't know how yet. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Chris Cross article was evidently written by the subject or their agent. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Ashwell

Why did you delete the article Mark Ashwell. There was nothing wrong with it. Can you please sort this out for me as its your problem not mine, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was about someone who owns a non-notable company, happens to be chairman of a local football club, and apparently has only local coverage. I agreed with the nominator that the subject failed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Amatulić (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thewolfchild unblock

Hello Amatulic, I'm rather concerned about your unblock of Thewolfchild (talk · contribs). Why did you do this without first consulting me as the blocking admin? (as is required by WP:BLOCK#Block reviews). I blocked this editor for his consistently aggressive manner, which was continued in the various unblock requests and an email he sent me asking that the block be lifted about a month ago. I don't impose indefinite-duration blocks lightly, and I think that lifting this block on the basis of a not-very-genuine looking single sentence unblock request was not a good judgement call on your part. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I should have contacted you first.

The fact that the unblock request contained a single sentence was irrelevant to me. He had answered your own question in detail, and his responses to others were detailed and had evolved toward civility. He complied with the prior admin who declined an unblock request to take some time off. It appeared to me that he met every condition imposed upon him. I decided to assume good faith that redemption is possible, therefore I lifted the block and have been monitoring him closely, ready to re-block as soon as he shows any evidence of recidivism. So far his edits have been mostly to his own user space, with two other constructive edits in article space.

And, I should have written my reasoning above on your talk page before taking action. Please accept my apologies. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you're keeping an eye on him hopefully not much damage is likely to occur. However, his unblock requests - including the email he sent to me - were equal parts good-sounding commitments and promises of continued aggressive behaviour, which explains why they were turned down by various admins, so this really should have been discussed before any unblock was made. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Every few hours I look at his contributions. Not much activity. I sure wish Wikipedia had a "watch user" administrator function that gives me an alert when a user has made an edit. I believe it's been proposed but rejected as too easily abused for stalking. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've often wanted that function. From memory, even listing editors you're keeping an eye on in your user-space (eg, a list of {{user|x}} templates) is severely frowned upon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rocky Rivera

Hello Amatulic. I had contested the speedy deletion due to notability of the Rocky Rivera article, and was intending to include more resources proving so, such as [5] and [6], in addition to citing I'm_From_Rolling_Stone. Are those sufficient sources to restore the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincetessence (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those sources would satisfy the folks at WP:RSN, so I have restored the article to User:Quincetessence/Rocky Rivera for you to work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted. It is usually best to work on a new article in your own user space first and then move it to main article space when it's more complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip! Sorry, it's been a few years since I've edited on wikipedia. User spaces are new to me (regardless of whether they were actually new). Remembering to sign this time, Quincetessence (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor

You marked this edit minor, when it was actually a revert of non-vandalism. This is a violation of WP:MINOR. Please do not use the minor flag except in the case of trivial, uncontroversial changes. This change was neither. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Errant mouse click, force of habit. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem; mistakes happen. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep or delet?

Hi, in this case, the result was keep or delete? None of the arguments where refuted as perhaps you noticed.Farhikht (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the closing rationale? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And with respect, I didn't understand why a promotional artcile, created by a SPA user, with some references written by the subject, all of them non-reliable, should be kept? You didn't even relist it.Farhikht (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether someone is an SPA doesn't matter to me; I consider the merits of the arguments presented regardless of who makes them. The fact is, there was some independent coverage that caused the article to squeak by. Perhaps I erred in closing it as 'keep' rather than 'no consensus, but I saw no reason to re-list it as the debate was already fairly extensive. I have no objection if you bring my closure to WP:DRV (which may result in re-listing), or wait a couple of months and propose it for deletion at WP:AFD again. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Angelscript

This has just been recreated again and is still a copy vio. Maybe needs salting?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author claims to have removed the copyright violation, although he keeps restoring the article with the db-copyvio tag on it. The article is really about content available on the web, so it meets WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion. I left a note on the author's talk page; if it's created again, I'll salt it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to know what kind of Notability i should provide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_%28programming_language%29 is pretty much same. both open source zlib licensed scripting languages released in the same year. AngelScript also have many major games and applications released with it. http://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/users.html I was about to write that section. found lack of a wikipedia article to be dissapointing. so i made an account and started writing. it has many well known games written with it. I want some more criticism about the article. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saejox (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Squirrel has barely adequate independent coverage demonstrating notability. I suggest you create the article in your own user space (e.g. User:Saejox/Angelscript) and work on it there. That way you don't have to worry about it being deleted while you improve it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Quick note to thank you for deleting Brown anole leaving way for a page move! (No need to respond.) – Paine (Climax!)  18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Vive la Difference

G'day Amatulic. First of all, thanks for your guidance; I am quite new to the Wikipedia thing (debuted yesterday) so my apologies if I did anything wrong or that generated additional work for you and other moderators. I contested the speedy deletion status due to the page being work in progress while I gathered notability evidence for the Vive la Difference band. They have been selected as participants for Channel 31 music show/competition but is yet to be announced as the show is not airing until several months. As I noticed several articles discussing participants to various notable TV reality shows, I assumed this to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. The page is now deleted but maybe this decision can be reviewed? I did not realized that the tag that was in the header of the article was for the speedy deletion and should not be removed, I have now a better understanding of the way the Wiki works and have been reading the fundamentals on first pages/articles. Sorry for messing up with the tag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbejac (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When the band meets the criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BAND, then it would merit an article. See also WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia generally does not publish articles about things that haven't happened yet, and never publishes articles on non-notable topics in anticipation of future notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:GARAGE

Hadn't seen that one before. That'll come very much in handy. :) Peridon (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I use it only for obvious cases. Some bands are borderline notable but don't quite meet the thresholds in WP:BAND (like maybe they've released one album through an established record label, not two as required), in which case mentioning WP:GARAGE is needlessly insulting. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

cortandfatboy

Hello, I'm the person responsible for creating a page for cortandfatboy, a podcast in Portland, OR, which you recently decided to delete. I wasn't aware that the show was the subject of a deletion debate back in 2011. I looked through the comments that were made in the original debate and I think a lot of snap judgments were made. In short, I think there's plenty of solid citations to warrant a page for the show, many of them dating from 2011 - 2012. There seems to be no clear, straight-forward process by which to pitch a new version of a deleted page on Wikipedia. More than anything, I'd just like to know why the new page was so quickly deleted without any sort of proper review? Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted hastily, and it already had ample review. The old deleted version, the version in the page history of the redirect Cort and Fatboy Show, and your version appeared substantially the same; therefore, the original deletion decision (the "proper review") still holds. Moreover, the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy repeatedly underscored the point that a podcast having received attention from major news outlets doesn't make a topic notable unless that attention constitutes in-depth coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The 'keep' proponents argued that that trivial mentions, routine local coverage, or even in-depth coverage by a blog make a difference. They are wrong.

That said, if there is any significant coverage since the time of the AFD, then the AFD decision can be overridden. I've seen hit happen before. But you'd have to include it in the article and base your arguments on those sources on the talk page. I didn't see anything that would have changed the decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. I could argue that there's plenty of articles on Wikipedia with less merit and flimsier sources but I'm sure that would only net me a "Other Crap Exist" tag. I guess my biggest questions is why, in this day and age, are blog posts being instantly negated as quality sources on Wikipedia? Everyone from the NYT to 15-year olds use them to communicate. Same goes for podcasts. It's like arguing that television is a short-lived silly fad (i.e. an impossibly outdated and short-sighted opinion, especially coming from a group of people fighting to prove the merit of Wikipedia, itself a new medium). I think the biggest beef the naysayers of the page have is the supposed lack of "in-depth coverage." Several of the sources *did* provide that. Take, for example, the Oregonian stories and the KGW one too (sadly, the clip of the hosts being interviewed has been taken down). There's also the documentary to consider. "Trivial" implies a passing mention, a single line or quote. In each of those stories, the hosts/show were the subject or were featured prominently. I, honestly, believe that those who killed the article couldn't look past the word "podcast" and the silly title of the show. So, yes, removing the article was an unfair, snap judgement. I'd also like to mention that "Aboutmovies," who placed the speedy delete tag on the cortandfatboy article, is the author of numerous Wikipedia articles about obscure Oregonian lawmakers and professors that have no place on the site. Hypocrisy in action. Multnomahblues (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are by their nature self-published sources and are therefore unacceptable for use as references. See WP:SPS and WP:ELNO for further information. There are exceptions, such as if the blog author is a recognized authority on the topic he is writing about, or if the author is a notable journalist. Blogs hosted by major national news outlets such as the New York Times are often deemed acceptable.

You are welcome to try again, but I highly recommend working on the article in your own user space (e.g. User:Multnomahblues/Cortandfatboy) so you can work on it at your leisure without fear of it being deleted. Just be sure it has better sourcing and significantly improved content over previous versions before trying to move it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Ultimately, the problem I'm running into is deletionists. I think the sources are there to warrant a page for this podcast: a cover story in the Mercury, a series of blog posts from the Oregonian, etc. I feel like no matter how much time I dump into this, and no matter how many citations I find, someone's just going to come along, give the article a quick glimpse and drop a "speedy delete" tag (as happened last week). The sources are already there. So what to do? Multnomahblues (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem may be the sources. Local coverage, even a cover story, isn't a strong indicator of notability. Blog posts aren't either. One thing you could try is open a discussion at WP:RSN to gauge the community's view on the sources you used. I think you will find that the regular participants there don't make snap judgments. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go that route. Thanks again for your input/advice. Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried WP:RSN and didn't receive a response before my entry was removed. Another editor suggested that I attempt a deletion review. As I understand it, I'm supposed to place this tag here since you're the admin the rendered the verdict to delete....

==Deletion review for Cortandfatboy==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cortandfatboy. 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. Multnomahblues (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Amritanandamayi

Amatulic, I have made a few new comments in the talk page of Mata Amritanandamayi. I am hoping you can look at them and comment. As you probably remember you locked the page for one week there due to edit-warring. I am very new to Wiki and, with the lock on the page being removed on 24 August, dont really know how to proceed. Can you explain/suggest on the talk page there? Thanks.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to delete a redirect

You deleted Mike Martin (American guitarist), but you forgot to delete the redirect Mike "2of5" Martin. Bgwhite (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rafał Kwaśniewski

Rafał Kwaśniewski shouldn't be deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

He played in (and created) very popular Polish musical groups, which had golden and platinum albums. Dsflkuz (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 results in deletion if the article makes no credible claim of notability. Of the three bands linked to articles, Deuter is a different person and not a band (and the article does not mention Kwaśniewski), the Dezerter article lists him as a past member (and there is no indication that Kwaśniewski created the band or contributed to its success), and the article Kult (band) does not mention him at all. The person who nominated the article for speedy deletion could not find any credible claim of notability, and neither could I. Therefore I deleted the article.

You are welcome to re-create the article in your own user space as User:Dsflkuz/Rafał Kwaśniewski so you may work on it there at your leisure without worry about deletion, and then move it to main article space when the article clearly demonstrates notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Qaxach Tower

Just out of curiosity, but why did you delete Qaxach Tower? As far as I am aware, that was the original page; Kachaghakaberd was the recent cut-n-paste move of it, not the other way round. I know because in fact I repaired another identical cut-n-paste move just two months ago, histmerging stuff back into Qaxach Tower; back at the time I told editors to file an RM if they wanted it at the Kachaghakaberd location, so I'm now a bit irritated they succeeded in getting their way in this rather out-of-process way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit the histories of both pages confused me. One or the other had to go; given that I also found no reliable sources for Qaxach Tower as indicated by the AFD nomination, I decided to delete Qaxach Tower. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

But in doing so, you deleted almost the entire legitimate page history. The clean way of dealing with such a situation is a history merge. (Somebody else seems to have taken care of that now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that just now. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Grassroots shakespeare london

Hi - you just nominated an article I wrote for speedy deletion 23:55, 23 August 2012 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Grassroots shakespeare london (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:CSD#G11 - unambiguous promotion) The company is award nominated and making big changes in the London fringe theatre scene. This may not be important to you, but is considered important enough by the judges for recognition or the audiences who watch the shows. It has real significance and has been recognised by prestigious newspapers such as London's The Evening Standard, which has a circulation on 700,000, a significant number on a small island. Furthermore, it is more more 'unambiguous promotion' than the Royal Shakespeare Company having a page. Can you please reinstate this page as your reasons do not seem to make sense. I wonder if it would have been preferable for you to contact me and request that I address your points, which I could have done. Stellagirl21 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC) stellagirl21 (talk)

Please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages. I didn't see yours until just now, because you posted it in the wrong place.

I did not nominate your article for deletion. Another user (Osarius) nominated it. I deleted it. I deleted it because it qualified under two speedy deletion criteria: WP:CSD#A7 in that it contained no credible explanation of the company's significance, and WP:CSD#G11 in that it seemed promotional. Even if it wasn't promotional, it still did not contain any credible claims of significance.

You are welcome to re-create the article in your own user space and work on it there (e.g. User:Stellagirl21/Grassroots Shakespeare London) without worrying about it being deleted while you improve it, but you may want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you consider writing an article about a topic with which you have a close association. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Orwa Nyrabia

Hi, could you please restore the page Orwa Nyrabia? I made a terrible mistake, I wanted to delete the draft on my user page User:Zozo2kx/Orwa instead, because it was a redirect, I ended up adding the template on the actual article. Is it possible to restore? (I already nominated it to DYK). Thank you, and sorry! Yazan (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist already restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Go beyond the equator

I hope someday you will go beyond the equator, especially Indonesia. Among G20, Indonesia has stable economy, not as the other countries with decreasing growth because of European crisis following the US mortgage crisis. Indonesia is vast archipelago countries with area same with Europe and is dominated by domestic economy and only a third is come from export. Ludin a New Zealander who married an Indonesian girl is the architect of the stealth technology missile vessel which can runs 30 knots, can overcomes 6 meters wave and do not need deep water. By the way Bali is only one of 33 provinces in Indonesia and you will find any spectacular moments in any other part in Indonesia with 900 more of languages, but more than 90 percent of them speak Indonesian language and understand English in major city. Aviation business growth more than 15 percent a year becuase of people need speed and Low Cost Carrier aircraft are available. Passenger ships is modificated to Ro-ro ships to accomodate the cargo and Indonesian Navy need more missile fast patrol boats which should be built in Indonesia.Gsarwa (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting information, thanks. The closest I've been to Indonesia is Singapore. I'd like to go there some time, but in recent years Indonesia has not seemed like a safe place for westerners to visit. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to be honest. Today is safer than a decade ago, but many people who living from any kind of brokerage frequently still blowing the bad issues of Indonesia, because if foreigners make direct business with Indonesia, they will reduce their jobs. Malaysia and China recently make many direct investments in Indonesia because they know well about Indonesia; Malaysia and Indonesia mostly one same ethnic and China has good relationship with Indonesian Chinese Overseas. Indonesian is vast country, so there are many very safe place, but at the other end of Indonesia there are safeless place. Australian tourists is still number one in Indonesia and make Indonesia is their second home country with lenght of stay more than 2 weeks or more. To be objective, in Wikipedia: Global Peace Index, Singapore sets on rank 23, Croatia is 35, Indonesia is 63 and followed by Serbia 64, Bosnia and Herzegovina 65, Albania 66, Moldova 66 and Macedonia 68. By the way, no land mines in Indonesia.Gsarwa (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Crowe & Dunlevy

Hi. I participate in reviewing proposed new articles at Articles for Creation. An article that has been proposed, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crowe & Dunlevy is ready to move to article space as a start level article at Crowe & Dunlevy. The page was salted in 2011 after you speedily deleted a promotional version for the 4th time for A7/G11. The previous page was apparently created by the firm, then a sock (I'm not an admin, so I'm just going off of your edit summary). In any event, I believe that the current article is ready for creation. If you could unprotect the page and drop me a line (either here or on my talk page, I would appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I think the article at AFC still has some problems (sources are mostly local or not independent of the subject), I agree that the article is acceptable for main space. I have create-unprotected it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the article is not perfect, but I also found sufficient sources from outside the local area to be comfortable with notability. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

supporting vandalism

don't waste people's time with bullshit Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

this edit on your part is unacceptable and disruptive. It is a legitimate request on his own talk page. Let an admin deal with it (which I have). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR, esp when it's so obvious. Don't call me disruptive when I'm not. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I call it like I see it, and you are of course free to disagree. I consider WP:IAR to be a lame excuse that I have never had to use in my years on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. we can diagree :) Now will you please revoke the guy's talkpage access, he keeps vandalizing your post. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP who did that. I'll gladly revoke his access if he does it while logged in. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So... you accepted the request? :P [7] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems he vandalized his page as I was replying to you. Talk page access now revoked. Please understand that I reverted your first blanking of his unblock request because it makes it easier for other admins to review the case if needed, without having to hunt through the page history, and WP:BLANKING suggests that unblock requests should stay on the page while blocked (although it pertains specifically to declined unblock requests, I like any unblock request to remain while blocked, declined or not). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

But the IP you blocked actually undid the vandalism to your post. Look at the history... [8] You blocked someone who really did nothing wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crap. You're right. Too much stuff going on all at once, was looking at the wrong diff. Fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ALEXEY_SOROKIN

Hello, did you see the note to not have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALEXEY_SOROKIN automatically deleted.

He is one of the most talented fashion designers of 2012 and is at NY Fashion Week which is top 1% of 1%, I sited press like L'Officiel, InStyle, Depesha (Seattleseanhowell (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Both ALEXEY SOROKIN (the title of which violates our WP:TITLE guideline) and Homo Consommatus were nominated for speedy deletion. There seems to be a question of what is notable, the designer or the design. The Homo Consommatus article is still there, with speedy deletion declined.

Two separate articles are not needed, because the designer and the design are so new. I suggest merging the information into one single article (adding to Homo Consommatus in this instance) and renaming the article as appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not so new and one is a fashion house the other is a designer who was a photographer before. Very different things. (66.108.170.225 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)) Please undelete. This makes contributing really not worth it.

One article contained substantially the same content as the other. After considering your request, I will later today restore the article to its proper name (not all uppercase) and redirect Homo Consommatus to it, because that article is too short to warrant being stand-alone. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, restored to Alexey Sorokin and Homo Consommatus redirects to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Autism Cymru

Hi, I understand Autism Cymru was deleted - or should I say I noticed a red link in a template I built for Autism resources. Is it possible to bring back the page and put it in my user space and I'll fix whatever needs to be fixed to get it ready for prime-time? It would be better than starting from scratch, I'm guessing. But you might know better than me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I userfied it to User:CaroleHenson/Autism Cymru, including its entire editing history. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! It's like magic!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Responsive Web Design

I'd like a 2nd opinion. Is this a bit to spammy? I see it as an attempt to slide in the external link and promote rather add content. Dlohcierekim 22:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like a press release cited to the primary source of the press release. Yes, it screams "spam" to me. Not only that, it promotes a blog, which is too new to have any notability or reputation that would qualify it for an external link, let alone a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

External linking - Wine Tasting

Hi, I'm Ironflood. Thank you for your feedback on the link posted. What I didn't understand is how the other external links on wine tasting page are more informative and relevant than the link I provided? Wineta isn't an author blog, the Wine Tasting Guide articles are written by a sommelier who breaks down what wine tasting really is with more information and tips than the Wikipedia article, which is understandable as external links should be used for extra references and additional knowledge.

I look forward to hear your thoughts. my talk page —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

oral rehydration solution

Hi there, this is Justin. I noticed you undid my edits on the oral rehydration solution page. I made the change because 1 level teaspoon of table salt is approximately 6 - 6.25 grams. This is double the amount that is described in the words of the text hence the change to one level half-teaspoon. Do you disagree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.144.37 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the Talk:Oral rehydration therapy. You see, the cited source says (verbatim quote): "A home-made solution containing 3g/l of table salt (one level teaspoonful) and 18g/l of common sugar (sucrose) is effective but is not generally recommended...."

In this case, where there's an internal inconsistency the cited source, we need to figure out what should actually be stated in the article. Perhaps it would best to leave the imperial units off altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Splenda

The user has asked a question on your revert and I have explained what I see but your reasons may be different. The discussion is here. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, my reasons were different. I was thinking that WP:NOTABILITY outweighed WP:MEDRS. I posted a comment on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About the page Mustafa Kayabaşı

Why did you delete the Mustafa Kayabaşı page although he's got a match in a fully pro league? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexus14 (talk • contribs)

I deleted it because only a few days ago we had an AFD that decided to delete the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Kayabaşı. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Last Ounce of Courage

Please explain why you feel user Ckatz did the right thing in protecting the page, or why you felt it necessary to invoke the banhammer threat regarding my edits and failed to assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.164 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You were editing in good faith, yes. However, we have a guideline MOS:FILM that you apparently disagree with, and edit-warring with a guideline is not going to result in your desired version being kept, and is rather going to result in some sort of administrative action. To prevent further disruption, CKatz protected the article for a mere 24 hours instead of blocking you for edit warring. I merely stated that CKatz's response was more generous than mine would have been. I don't see the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If in your opinion, I was editing in good faith, then why did you write, in the history "Rv disruptive/unconstructive edit", and point out "we don't use weasel words"? This shows you have a pre-bias built in here and should not have gotten involved.

I very much disagree with the guideline, especially in this case. The guideline essentially says, we cannot refer to polls of user reviews on film aggrating websites, because people may stack the poll. Well, so what? People who like a movie, like the movie, it doesn't matter why. So, in the end, two sets of film reviews on a webpage, (Rotten Tomatoes in this case) side by side, one notable, one not? That's absurd.

Blocking is supposed to be used as a last resort on Wikipedia, not a first one, so your threat here to block me for an edit war you simultaneously call "good faith" and "disruptive/unconstructive", is uncalled for. Not good admin work. You seem to get a lot of that, if your talk page is any indication.

About A Page You Deleted and Protected Against Re-creation

Hello There, i understand that you deleted a page i have created "DNA Despot" and now its protected against re-creation, and you Have the right to do so, and i just wanted to say i am sorry for the mistake i did, but all the problem that i forget to cite the recourse and write the reference i don't know why, but please gave me a chance to re-create the page with the reference and citing the source of the information and it will looks good and complete without mistakes, if you cant give me a chance, i will ask you to create it and i will send the text and you just click on "show preview" and if you found any mistake then its OK to delete it permanently and thanks and i hope you answer me and help me with this.Mc ahmed 3man (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Mc ahmed 3man/DNA Despot. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Joseprzprz86

Hi, Amatulić. Does the series of edits starting here warrant another post to the 3RR noticeboard? Tiderolls 23:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Multiple reverts in a row, but not back-and-forth warring. I'd say no, it doesn't cross the threshold, because it could have easily been one revert instead of several piece-meal ones. However, the behavior does suggest that re-protecting the article may be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with your take, generally. I only bring it up because the user returns to the article immediately upon the lapse of protection to reinstate the version they were edit warring over previously. Tiderolls 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Unlock paoli dam Page

i never Wrote Never Anyhting False And Gossip In Actress paoli dam page,paoli dam really gave 2.5 minute Full Nude Oral Sex Scene In Bengali Language Film Chatrak(2011) Directed By vimukti jayasunde she herself said that here are links http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-20/news-interviews/31214057_1_french-director-bigger-challenge-vikram-bhatt And http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110910/jsp/entertainment/story_14486573.jsp I MEAN paoli dam can give nude sex scenes But We Can't Wrote About It. Please Please Unlock actress paoli dam page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.195.156 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to the article, please use the article talk page, or use the {{edit semiprotected}} template on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

IP rangeblocks and account creation

Hello, Amatulic. I noticed here you advised a blocked anonymous editor to email an account creator to request an account, or create one themselves at another location. The preferred method is actually for them to request an account through the Account Creation Interface, as a) you need to have an account to use the Emailuser function, and b) ACC allows checkusers to confirm that the person requesting the account wasn't the person the block was meant for in the first place. Just letting you know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that. I had thought the users designated "account creators" could create accounts for others on request, but your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'm confused by your statement that you need to have an account to use the Emailuser function. I could swear I have gotten emails from anonymous users in the past. I wasn't aware their ability to do this had changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, they've never had that ability; you need to have an email address in the system in order to send emails, and IP editors don't have access to preferences. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Splitting of the Moon Article

Dear Amatulic, I noticed that you had reverted some of the edits made by me on the splitting of the moon website. The reason you gave was that you felt that it was hampering the neutral nature of the article. While I cited credible sources that the hoax was propagated on a large scale by a person of eminence Mr. Zaghloul El Naggar. I see all the claims were completely baseless and were propagated on a large scale. Moreover these were even published by Jarfariya News Network- which should serve as a good reference. I fail to see how this affects the neutrality of the article. Infact I feel that not mentioning the source of the hoax/claims is affecting the neutrality. Hence I request you to reconsider the reverts you have made. I even feel that it is only logical to have a explanation about the faults of the claims. If the hoax slayer explanation is not credible enough I shall communicate with NASA Lunar Science institute for a better explanation. However I request you to let the source of the claims be in place. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)