User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

3RR

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

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

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

Evidently you did not see the final edit summary.

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

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

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

Jimmy The Groundhog

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

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

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

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

Bring back SubtweetCat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonder about your criteria

Hello Amatulic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sphero

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277.

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

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

Deletion review for Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Actually, it's Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame), but I've grouped them together.) ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

BLP Violations on Mata Amritanandamayi Page

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

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

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy

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

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

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

Marc Latamie's article for delation

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klonarda Nezaj

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

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

Harry Maxwell

Hi Amatulic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Deletion of CloudSOC

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

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

YMCA Camp Wanakita

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

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

Explain yourself

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to edit summary

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

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

You basically have four options:

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

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

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

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

Sockpupetry case

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

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

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

So it turns out that this is part of a university program? Something isn't quite right about the whole situation - what action can be taken? -SFK2 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. To me the "isn't quite right" is a group of editors who are unwilling to engage with the community, but instead embark on projects to create promotional pages about companies, and communicate by back-room channels via private email than via talk pages. According to the two sections I linked above, it may be a good-faith class project verified by private email conversation that didn't involve me. My only involvement was blocking one account as a sockpuppet, which introduced me to the bigger picture later. You may want to look at the pages of the people above who left comments in that section. They know more about the situation than I do. One of them has kept an extensive record of the activities of this group. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jimmie Jansson

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

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

Withdrawn AFD

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

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

Openupashop

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique

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

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

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

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

It's back, and he doesn't appear to be any more notable than 3 days ago. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-deleted and protected from re-creation, warning left on editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Gang Recording Studio

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologique (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Every one of those lines you quoted has a promotional tone, and none of them make the subject notable. That's primarily why the article was deleted. Because you evidently did not read or understand the multiple notices on your talk page, the article is now protected from recreation. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Furthermore, the article failed to meet the criteria for inclusion for companies, spelled out in WP:CORP.

It seems obvious that you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Please read and abide by WP:COI before proceeding further. Your best approach is to submit the article for review via WP:AFC rather than submit it directly to main article space as you have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Mellor

Hi Amatulic. I'm trying to create a biography for Jonathan Mellor, but it appears the page is locked down, due to non-notable articles being created. Your name is against the last deletion of this article. The Jonathan Mellor I wish to create is an athlete who competed at the 3000 metres event in Poland this month, therefore meeting WP:ATHLETE. I'd be greatful if you could allow the page to become unlocked so I can create the article (should be within 24hrs of posting this request). Any questions, please get back to me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The last version of that article was about a non-notable theatrical performer.

I suggest you create the article in your sandbox or a sub-page in your user space, and when it's ready, let me know and I'll move it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've created it here in my sandbox. Grateful if you could move it into the live world. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! ~Amatulić (talk)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

delete the review please from afa rapper Dr.afa (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

United States $2 bill

I noticed that you made an edit to the article on the United States $2 bill. In particular, I'm curious about why you reverted a change that I made to the date for the obverse design. The design was approved, and production of the notes began in 1928, so I'm wondering why you changed the date back to 1932. The 1928 date conforms to the information provided by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Almostfm (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In a single action reverted several recent edits that changed content without explaining why in the edit summary. I may have restored a version too far back. If yours was caught up in that and it was a correct edit, please change it back. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No sweat. I'll change the date back Almostfm (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dupe detector fail

As to the dupe detector fail, see, e.g., this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is weird. The duplication detector currently doesn't seem to be working at all, if you display the version of this page that has the speedy delete tag and click on the link.

In any case, thanks for pointing this out. I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed exactly the same thing. I've seen it fail in that manner from time to time (btw ... the article remains, with the copyvio).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Something must have distracted me. It's gone now. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Tx.Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai again

I've just blocked two editors for editwarring at the Soka Gakkai article. Since you were the last person to make a substantial edit to the page, other than those two editors, would you please take a look at it? Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember making any substantial edits to that page, other than to revert one of the many attempts by anons to add non-BLP-compliant promotional content for a self-published book. My involvement has been as an admin. After that I semi-protected the article, because it was clear that my previous pending change protection wasn't having an effect. Anyway, I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to fully-protect the page for an indefinite period until the participants can formulate a consensus-based editprotected request. I'm happy to monitor the progress. What do you think? An alternative is to ban the combatants altogether from editing in that subject area. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going by this edit; I'd forgotten you were an admin, although I would have approached you the same way if I'd remembered. Let's see what these two editors do after the blocks expire; they were 24-hour blocks, so it shouldn't be too long. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I had forgotten about that one. Anyway, thanks. We'll wait and see. There was some progress on the talk page before this edit war, although the participants seem fond of walls o' text, which is why I suspect their communication isn't as effective as they'd like. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#kavkazcentre.com

Please see the link above. It turns out you were the blocking admin too, I don't understand the logic behind the reason as no reason was stated for its abuse. Further the reporting editor was an IP with NO other edits. Please explain the reasons as there have been numerous others seeking to post the site.(Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).

Answered on that page. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Singapore

I noticed that you had earlier warned editor Ujongbakuto about edit warring on the Singapore page. Looks like that editor may be doing it again, recently reverting a significant copy edit that I had done to bring the article closer to WP:MOS. I re-reverted, but thought it worth bringing to your attention. Jaytwist (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Afterglow (a cappella)

I noticed that you deleted my article on this a cappella group from the University of California Davis, why was it deleted? What can I do to make sure it does not get deleted? Is it possible to retrieve the information that I posted? Thanks. Ucdafterglow 16:33, 22 March 2014 (PST)

I didn't delete the article. I deleted a redirect to the article. Administrator Alexf (talk · contribs) deleted the article. The article was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 because it failed to contain any assertion of why the group is significant, and it would have been deleted anyway for failing to demonstrate meeting any of the criteria described in WP:BAND.

You won't be able to reply here since your account is blocked. Follow the instructions in the block message on your talk page if you want to appeal your block. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warning

I saw the warning for the Syrian Civil war template sorry about that did not notice the hours passed between the two edits.I did do two reverts but in two different days so must have missed the hours passed won't happen again.Even tough I would like to suggest to keep a little bit of tolerance on that template as there are many editors who edit the map with no sources or sources that are unreliable and outdated and there are fewer editors like me who tend to correct the mistakes.This guys usually do up to 10 edits per day so it takes a lot of editors to get the map back in order.Daki122 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know you were editing in good faith, and I assumed you lost track of the time, which is why I didn't block you. But please be mindful of the 1RR rule, particularly in articles about Middle East conflicts. There are many hot heads who are quick to jump on the smallest infractions, and administrators who are fed up with the editing conflicts are quick to pull the trigger on blocks, to maintain order. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chessie (band)

Hi Amatulic. When I declined the speedy for this one a few years ago, I really should have added more than just the one reference! Would you have any objection to me restoring the article and adding more sources? I think there's a good chance it meets GNG. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No objection. Go right ahead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Studio 146

I don't think the speedy tag on Studio 146 was warranted. It had been on mainspace for two years and there were references provided in the article. If there were concerns over notability, it should have been taken to AfD, not speedied. In any case, I would appreciate if you can provide a copy of the deleted article at User:Mar4d/Studio 146 where I can refine it. Thank you, Mar4d (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the nomination was warranted. Before I deleted the article, I checked every single reference and found only trivial mentions on the subject. This is not significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Many articles about non-notable subjects simply aren't noticed for years, and then found and speedily deleted.

In any case, I have userfied the article to User:Mar4d/Studio 146 as you requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

May I bring it to your notice that the user seems to have made another inappropriate speedy nomination too [2]. Please restore my article to the mainspace or into my userspace link provided ASAP. Thanks again, Mar4d (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That nomination was inappropriate, but the situation there is quite different than for your article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

MasterMover

In order for me to amend this article I would like to know if there was anywhere I could take a copy of it from? I uploaded part of it from a Word file but the rest was created in Wikipedia. Newby error I guess.

If I can get a copy I can reassess and upload when it meets the correct criteria, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Karl (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the article to User:Russell Karl/MasterMover. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

CSD Alteration

Please take time to actually look at the userpage, talkpage of the article with the spi links or ask the tagging editor in this case myself before removing a G5 tag. It's somewhat disruptive although very much on the minor side of things for sure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I did. You should take more care to nominate speedy deletions properly. It was clearly not A7, and not G11, and G5 has not yet been proven. Nominate it for G5 after the SPI case closes.

Do not restore the tags. Doing so is disruptive. Consider yourself warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing them and accusing an editor that they haven't gave any evidence, when they did and it's clear they did is disruptive in and of itself so please consider yourself also warned. Please also point me to any guideline that states at WP:G5 that states I must wait until a SPI was completed. I'm very interested for you to back up your actions here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:CSD#G5 more carefully yourself. And no, you gave no evidence in the edit summary or in the tag, and an incomplete SPI that isn't obviously a WP:DUCK is not "evidence". Waiting for the outcome of the SPI is an administrator's discretion, which I exercised. Bottom line, you misapplied the G5 tag (because the article already had substantial edits by others), as well as A7 (because it had adequate reliable sourcing) and G11 (because it was not unambiguously promotional). A multi-speedy-nomination like that, which is so obviously misapplied, constitutes disruptive behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ok I'm going to ANI because if you can't admit you fucked up even here maybe there you can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Be sure to mention how you've been adhering to WP:CIVIL while you're at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• [[3]] Please by all means do something yourself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Luchetti photo

Amulatic: I have left this response on my own talk page, too. Still unclear how you are notified of edits to your responses on talk pages, so I'm duplicating here:

I just heard from the subject, it appears the photo is after all a selfie, so this is for Amatulic (I'll also post this on your talk page), can you tell us what to do so that the photo can be left alone as is? Here are Cathy's words:

"Brian,

I had the photo taken at Sears for 10.00. It was a photo booth, not a human photographer. Amazingly, it turned out. There is no way I can get permission for this, as I said: photo booth."

Bwisok (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert query

I'm curious why you reverted my CSD tag on this I don't mind but just can't figure why it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted, so in that sense your CSD tag was already "used up". Then someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND, which is perfectly legitimate in accordance with WP:CSD#G13, so I restored it. See the deletion log here.

However, I restored it with your CSD tag still in place, so I simply reverted the most recent edit to get rid of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a restore request, that makes sense! It will take a lot of effort to make it encyclopedic from its current state, so that's why I didn't understand. Thanks for your explanation! JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Interested in closing a move discussion on The Beatles (album)?

I noticed you closed the previous discussion back in August 2011, so I was curious if you would be willing to settle the current discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014 once the 7 days are over on April 7? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't really see any new arguments there. Or consensus. I'll watch it and see how it pans out, although I'm reluctant to close the same topic of discussion twice. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I'll wait until the seven days are out and see if an admin comes along to close the discussion. In lieu of closing, could I ask your opinion on the strength or relevance of the official title argument that underpins much of the opposition to the move? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, I may still close it.

What wasn't established in the previous discussion is that "White Album" is the common name used by reliable sources. When there is no consensus among sources (as was the case in the last debate that I closed), then the fallback would be to use the official name.

In my view, the burden on those who argue in favor of the official name is to prove that reliable sources have no consensus. The burden on those who argue in favor of "White Album" is to prove that reliable sources do show a consensus. I'd like to see the discussion focus on that, instead if bickering over personal opinions. You did bring that up with a reference to hits on Google Scholar, which is a fairly decent point. I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the explanation. Putting The White Album into Google ngram is easy enough, although I am having difficulty finding a way to just display results for The Beatles independent of the band. Do you know a way to make Google Ngram italics-sensitive? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why I added the caveat "if it's meaningful" to my last comment. I know ngram is case-sensitive, but I don't know of any way to make it detect italics. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, I have added this graph to the rationale (which works upon pressing search), while stressing the lack of italics-only search. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a "snow close" at the discussion on the basis that we're being dragged through another discussion about something that has already been fairly decided. Would you consider closing now? Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SNOW does not apply here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself from the closing, and from making any further comments on the current discussion. Is that a problem? Radiopathy •talk• 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have not participated in the discussion. I am simply responding to comments left on my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. - why? And how do you figure a snow close doesn't apply - at this point, this is a disruptive nom.Radiopathy •talk• 21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because it may be helpful data for a reviewing administrator to make a decision. Please also read WP:SNOW. It applies for snowball consensus, which isn't evident as far as I can tell. If you want it closed early, find another administrator. I for one am going to let it run its course to see if a consensus emerges, and even then I may not close it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not promotional?

Let me just quote it.

Beliefs drive consumer behavior and as marketers stop relying on demographics they have typically looked at, and begin to monitor belief instead, they will recognize the value of Faith-Based Marketing.

Marketers need to be cognizant of the influence of the faith-based consumer on discretionary spending, media choices, and leisure activities.

You don’t need to look far to see that faith as a core value in many Americans’ lives cannot be understated.

And the demand for Faith-Based entertainment has not slowed down.

Entertainment industry analysts expect the faith-based trend is only going to continue to gain momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith-Based_Marketing

Ging287 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. A few lines out of an entire article don't warrant speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. The article does not require a complete re-write, so it doesn't qualify for deletion under G11. Simply remove those lines. If you disagree, take it to WP:AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your extraordinary patience and unfailing civility at Talk:Muhammad/images, you are hereby awarded a green pointy thing with a cup in front. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...

WP:REFUND is not WP:DRV. We can't !vote for overturn/relist there ES&L 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Too little sleep, and I've been trying to advise someone on OTRS on this matter, repeatedly advised her to use DRV and when she wrote that she did it, I unthinkingly followed her link without noticing it was REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of TINO Methodology for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch deletion

Dear Amatulić, I see you deleted the page "Amanda_Eliasch" for, I suppose, valid reason, since there are several people editing it, I wonder could it be given chance to be corrected first to meet Wikipedia guidelines instead deleting it at once? Is there any chance to bring it up and let me correct it, since I know there might be reasons for your deletion? I would really appreciate it! Greetings from Zagreb and in any case I do prefer Plavac in any form, whether it is Mali, Madirazza, Plenković or Bura. :-)

All best, Vice

The reason can be found in the deletion log, in this case unambiguous promotion of the subject. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Anway, I'm happy to restore it to your user space for you to improve, if you wish. Just let me know.

By the way, I tasted a Serbian wine made from a grape called Granac and I swear it tasted just like Plavac Mali. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will try Granac if I stumble upon it! I tasted Californian Zinfandel / Grgich Hills which shares striking similarity to Plavac Mali.

Please restore the page if it's not a big deal, I'll refine it and make it factual, no idea whoever edited it what they did with it. The 'subject' is a friend of mine so I'll take care. Will edit next week when I get time, so if you can bring it up next week would be great! Thanks a lot!

All best, Vice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.157.77 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I need to know your username here (not your IP address), so that I can restore the page to your space for you to work on. I can't restore it to main article space. I have to "userfy" it. Alternately, if you do not wish to create an account, I can restore it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space for you to work on and submit for review when you think it's ready.

I was also wrong about the name of the wine grape. It's Vranac, not Granac. Sierra Ridge winery in Amador county grows and sells it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Registered, username: Sedamjedan. Oh yes, tasted Macedonian Vranac, I've been pleasantly surprised. If you didn't already, give it a try. A bit wild.

warnborough Edits

Dear Amatulic, I see you reverted a IP addressed change, this was to an irrelvant (website looking for links from Wikipedia) site. I wonder if you could review your changes, and help maintain that page in a true and proper form. thanks,

atb, Bob. BobLees (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your input regarding additional information on Stevia article

Hello, I noticed you were an essential contributor on the Stevia page and was hoping you might have some feedback on some information I would like to include on the Stevia wiki page. I wanted to include some information regarding a fermentation technology that produces a range of steviol glycosides, using sustainable, low-cost carbohydrate feedstocks, which can be sourced from virtually anywhere on the planet. Do you think this information is appropriate and if so, would I be able to fit this under History/Use, which should probably have more subsections (History, Use, Chemistry). Also, under "commercialization", do you think it would be appropriate to add some names of companies who produce biosynthetic Stevia (the actual plant). Thank you so much for your time!

173.58.72.206 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are reliable sources covering the topic, I'd say information about the production of steviol glycosides would be more appropriate in the steviol glycoside article, not so much the Stevia article, which is more about the plant itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Veron (software)

I think you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veron_%28software%29 article which in A7 criteria. Now i wrote an article on same topic in my sandbox for experiment User:FaisalNipun/sandbox. is this article appropriate for publishing in Wikipedia rule ? FaisalNipun (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you seem to have a conflict of interest regarding this subject (it's your software, correct?), please first read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit your article, which is the best approach for someone with a conflict of interest. There your article will be evaluated by a neutral reviewer and you will be given suggestions on how to improve it before publishing it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Metronaut

Hi,

The PROD had already lapsed, so it makes little difference, practically speaking. The speedy deletion was at my own initiative, as the entire text of the article read "Metronaut is a Danish rock band from Copenhagen Denmark, formed in 2006. The band had their international radio debut on Radio Regen on April 15th 2014 at 22:41." I assume you believe that a international radio debut is an assertion of notability. I can respect that position, though I honestly disagree with it. I'm sure you understand that such a close question is a matter on which legitimate disagreement can exist. It was certainly not my intention to cause offense. I will amend the log. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Metronaut article had already been declined for speedy deletion twice before you deleted it.

The article, while short, nevertheless suggested to me that the band might meet WP:BAND criterion #12 (featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network). This would disqualify it from A7 because it's a credible claim of significance.

PROD vs A7 makes a difference procedurally: Articles deleted by PROD can be restored by request at WP:REFUND, but articles deleted by A7 cannot. I felt that the article deserved closer examination by the community.

Usually band articles are clearly deserving of A7 and I seem to delete them almost daily. This one was more ambiguous. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well-acquainted with the procedural difference between an A7 and a PROD. The reason I said (and I maintain) that there is little practical difference is very simple: I am quite liberal with userfications. Within the limits of policy (ie, excepting BLP issues, copyvio, Office Actions, personal attacks, etc.), I will gladly restore to userfy any speedy deleted content upon request, as I would have done for anyone who objected to Metronaut's deletion, speedy or otherwise.

If you sincerely believed that Metronaut deserved a wider hearing, you might have considered contesting the PROD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it had been prodded until I noticed it had been deleted, else I would have contested it. Anyway, userfication is an excellent alternative if you're agreeable. Let's wait and see if the author requests it. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding redirected username

Hello Amatulic. I have a question regarding the report related to the user named OGmuthafkkinDoc which apparently was redirected to OriginalDoc. Looking at the history of the pages this editor was editing shows the contributions were from the problematic username.[4][5] What would be the correct action for me to have taken under these circumstances? Thank you for taking time to consider this question.—John Cline (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and it is kind of confusing. The edits made by the problematic username were constructive, so WP:AIV wasn't really the place to report the username problem. Rather, WP:UAA is for reporting violations of Wikipedia:Username policy.

In this case, the user had already requested a username change. Administrator's can't rename accounts, only bureaucrats can do that. The bureaucrat Acalamari (if you look at the history of the redirect) is the person who renamed the account and redirected the old user pages to the new pages.

The confusing part is that there are still edits attributed to the old OGmuthafkinDoc name. I believe what happened is this: OGmuthafkinDoc had a long history of contributions. Acalamari moved those contributions to the new username, but the user was still logged in and making edits under the original username after Acalamari performed this move. He should have waited and logged in under his new account name. So we are left with some remnant contributions from the old account where there should be none; all should be attributed to the new account name. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful reply; kind too! I did make a mistake reporting the matter at AIV and I do know what spawned my error. I remain thankful that when at times I do err, the administrators I have observed at both UAA and AIV have consistently, without fail, set right the matter, while tactfully correcting the mistake in my premise. That being said, I wish to close my comment by speaking on two matters I have observed, as they relate to you. Foremost, thank you for all the fine things you have done as a contributor building this encyclopedia. And; the 3RR block atop this page is unequivocal BS! Without judging the person who placed the block, I judge the action logged as a manifestation of poor judgment. Also you handled it well – much better than I could have done. Bravo! Best regards—John Cline (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. Thanks. I've also asked Acalamari to look into it and see about getting those remaining edits re-attributed to the new account OroginalDoc. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Farhad shahnawaz

Hi, Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page i have created with new content. I am not able to figure it out fro the beginning. Please throw some light on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footfallexperts (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhad shahnawaz determined that the article should be deleted. Your attempts to recreate page in multiple places was considered disruptive, especially since a draft already existed at WP:AFC. Therefore, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farhad Shahnawaz for you to work on. Please get it into shape there and nowhere else, and submit it for review. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

More Albert Pyun vandalism

Albert Pyun has now created Cinema of Guam which needs to be deleted. He created the page using a sock aping various editors from Guam and another wiki editors. Page needs to be deleted. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson

By the time I saw your message, the page had already been deleted and the account has been blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)