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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedamjedan (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I've tried it and I thought it tasted remarkably like Plavac Mali. At least the one sold at Sierra Ridge.

I have restored the article to your user space at User:Sedamjedan/Amanda Eliasch. Good luck with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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.[1][2] 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)

my account name

Hello, You wrote on my talk page: I must also mention that your account name implies shared use between two individuals. Is that the case? If not, you may want to mention that on your user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The name "Jack 'n Jill" was the name of my preschool. Auburn was the name of the town it was in.Jacknjillauburn (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

can you modify your protection to fall to auto confirmed after full protection falls off? There is and has been a long history of sockpuppetry by a banned user. half of the edit war is because the dob is an obsession. relevant info can be found at the SPI for User:Smauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, full and semi protections don't stack. One replaces the other, so I have to re-protect manually when it expires. Full/semi, create, and PCP all expire independently, but full and semi aren't independent of each other.

Notes to myself: article Shraddha Kapoor, full protection expires 19:53 12 May 2014 (UTC).

I set a reminder to myself on that date. Please ping me in case I forget. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection restored, set to expire in 1 year. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B11avm/sandbox

You declined the speedy here. I'd like to point out that this account has been used to promote a client [3] which was reverted [4], and created an article to promote the same client at Nyanza Autoparts which was deleted. That this auto parts company is a client can be verified by viewing the lower right of their website. The account is obviously being used to promote the business interests of BNP Digitalmedia. This sandbox article is nothing more than a vehicle intended to promote BNP Digitalmedia. There are no sources, no claim to notability/fame of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the sandbox article is straightforward and not unambiguously promotional, and there is no prohibition against anyone with a conflict of interest from editing. In fact, the sandbox article has a "Submit" link at the top for submitting it to WP:AFC, which is the recommended venue for anyone with a conflict of interest to submit articles.

Regardless of the user's history, the fact remains that if he wants to write an article about his client, starting it in the sandbox and submitting it to AFC is the correct approach. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

He's not writing about a client. He's writing about himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Even then, WP:AFC is the place to go to write an article about oneself or any other subject with which there's a conflict of interest. In a case like this it's best to give the user some WP:ROPE to do things right. If he hangs himself by trying to circumvent AFC, then a block may be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wilma.Franzese - About your conflict of interest

Dear Amatulic,

I would like to say that I am truly sad and sorry about what happened. I just wanted to save all the information to not to lose them. I didn't know that by clicking button´save´they will automatically appear on the Wikipedia page. Today I was supposed to make necessary changes (e.g. deleting dispensable links as to the Facebook page), but sadly I found out that my page had already been deleted. I can assure you that I am familiarized with all the relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. According to this situation, I would be extremely grateful if you could reconsider your decision and bring back my article, so I could reedit it (according to all the terms of using Wikipedia). However, if this is not possible, I would like to write it one more time, but without any errors or inaccuracies which could disturb Wikipedia policy.

Thanking you in advance. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Yours sincerely,

Wilma F.

I have restored the article User:Wilma.franzese/Schiano Bikes for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparent NLT vio at Right Sector talk

Apparent NLT vio by Darouet at Talk:Right Sector (13:37, 11 May 2014). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC:

? I see nothing resembling a legal threat in that edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never threatened anyone here or elsewhere, and I like Dervorguilla to boot. I think Dervorguilla is referring to my objection to labeling Anton Shekhovstov as a "self-style conspiracy theorist," but Dervorguilla correct me if I'm wrong. -Darouet (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

? I see the word "slander", which Darouet was doubtless using informally and which Dervorguilla finds it convenient to label a legal threat because it's also a term of law. As we know, Dervorguilla likes terms and forms of law a lot. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike. I see no legal threat anywhere. I see a short mention of an off-wiki legal threat against an off-wiki person (Shekhovtsov), but discussing a legal threat isn't anywhere near the same as actually making one on a talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood Darouet’s comment, Orange Mike (or Amatulić). Can you clear up a couple of points for me?
1. Which particular assertion does his comment identify as “slandering” somebody?
2. Who made that assertion? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My guesses:
1. The assertion that Anton Shekhovtsov is “a self-professed conspiracy theorist.”
2. A WP editor (in this case, Dervorguilla). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 05:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the basic issue–
Darouet’s comment begs the question of whether WP is slandering the named scholar. It then goes on to say that WP is slandering “the scholar who might be the most well-known researcher on this subject.”

Some helpful background material, from Black’s Law Dictionary (2009):

slander per se. Slander for which [actual harm] need not be proved, because it imputes to the plaintiff any one of the following: … (3) conduct that would adversely affect one’s business or profession…

and from AP Stylebook (2013):

Potentially libelous stories.… Transmission of a corrective may itself have legal consequences because it formally acknowledges an error.… There is always a risk that the clarification or retraction, while well-meaning, would undermine your position in a libel lawsuit.

So the issue here may be whether Darouet’s well-meant comment could perhaps undermine WP’s position in a libel suit. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Some policy, at NLT (emphasis added):

What is not a legal threat

A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat.

Perceived legal threats

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia…. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are … "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue….

A user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies … and require assistance in dealing with such comments.

Would it make sense to for an administrator to assist one or both users in understanding what the term “slander” means? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m withdrawing my request, in the hope that no more assertions by editors about other editors’ “slandering” will be made unless actually warranted. Thanks for listening! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwertylaw

Take a look at the deleted edit, and you will see spamming. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was promotional, but the username "QwertyLaw" is not the same as AstapovLawyers, the entity being promoted. The block is fine, but technically not a username policy violation. I'd change the block message to {{uw-adblock}} with an indef=yes parameter. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fix a page?

Hey, can you fix the revisions for File:Windows 2000.png? I tried to delete the versions that had been deleted prior, but messed up and I'm not sure how to repair things. I figure it's better to ask someone else to step in at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs to be done, because I don't know which versions should be visible.

It might be cleanest simply to delete the entire thing, then restore the selected revisions.

Remember with an image, there are two groups to delete/restore: the page revisions, and the uploaded files. You delete page revisions just like with any other Wikipedia page. You delete the uploaded files from the page itself (scroll to the bottom and you see a "delete" link next to every uploaded version).

From the logs, I'm guessing that anything dated after 20 May 2011 would be restored, and anything before that would remain deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair use image, so what needs to be done is to delete all of the image revisions except the latest one but restore all of the page revisions. (Sorry for butting in here, but I sort of started this whole mess, so...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the entire page, then restored it all except for the most recent image. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering what's going on with this file, since my watchlist is bursting with entries about it. At first, I thought maybe you guys just want to restore and instead hide past revisions (per new instructions) but now... alright, would it be alright if I asked what is going on?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic posted a request at WP:REFUND to undelete some deleted uploads for review, and then delete them again. Tokyogirl tried to comply but had some confusion with the admin tools, since this was her first time using them on an image. Then she asked me (above) to clean up. So I did. That's what happened. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

? about RFPC

Just wondering why you're not using the {{RFPC}} template for standard responses on Request for Permisisons/Confirmed the panda ₯’ 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Two possible reasons:

(a) Because it's easier to use generic templates when I'm in a hurry.

(b) Because the canned responses are not what I want to say.

I do this on WP:REFUND too, but at least the template collection there includes a generic "not done" response. This isn't the case with RFPC, and I don't know enough about creating templates to rectify this.

Why? Does this break anything?

There's something broken in the software, by the way. Unconfirmed users who try to upload images are being shown what seems to be a hard-coded, non-configurable error message that instructs them to post a plea to RFPC, but we reject reject requests for confirmation when the reason given is a desire to upload images. Fixing this bug would likely eliminate a lot of requests on that page. I have posted notices about this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Confirmed#Correction needed to error message as well as to MediaWiki_talk:Permissionserrors#Correction needed (which controls the anonymous IP error message but not the unconfirmed register user message). So far no one has responded.

What would you suggest is the next step? Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well, 2 of your responses today matched the template ... so I was surprised to see you hand-type them. I'm not sure where that error is coded ... WP:VPT is likely next the panda ₯’ 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I hand-type about 1/3 of my WP:REFUND responses too. I don't frequent the page enough to memorize the response codes, and often typing out "Please read the big box at the top" seems quicker than looking up the code trying to find the right one, until I find myself typing something longer than I intended, and I curse myself for not thinking ahead. :) My last two responses were also far more succinct than the canned response. I suspect that few people read the responses anyway. In some cases I have followed up to the user talk pages and got no reply there either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability Rules - Please Elaborate!!!

Amatulic,

We just submitted an article for review and was rejected by you. You cited the notability rules as the grounds for rejection. However, all the references are notable, and the references are verifiable. One is the corpcounsel.com website, which is a reliable third party website and the other one is the United States Patent and Trademark Office's website. Can you elaborate on this? We have looked at many examples of other articles such as BSTZ for which Wikipedia has allowed submission. What is the difference between our submission and this other page? Thanks.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshadf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the comment I added in the article you submitted, where I elaborated on the reason for rejection. You provided zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The company's own web site, trivial mentions in a list, and a list of self-written documents (patents), do not establish notability. See WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Golden Rule for more information.

Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments about what else might exist on Wikipedia are irrelevant. Each article stands or falls on its own merits, independent of anything else that might exist. BSTZ is a poor article and would likely not survive a deletion discussion if nominated for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A question

Hi Amatulic, you are the protecting admin for article Vulfpeck. It was created and deleted several times, deletion log. I have rewritten and expanded the article with new references. What is the process for recreating the article? Bammesk (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Put it in your sandbox or in a subpage of your user space such as User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. Bammesk (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although it seems to be a WP:ONEEVENT case of notability, which we generally avoid. But the mainstream coverage is good, so I have moved the page to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool :) Thank you for reviewing the article. Bammesk (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:24February2007Reeling.jpg

Informal review requested, this appears to be have been deleted for being orphan. The uploader notes a permission was obtained, Worth checking OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I found this in OTRS ticket 2010012010016701. In fact that ticket asserts GDFL (not CC-by-SA) permission from "Andrew Threipland" for the following images:

• File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg
• File:24February2007Reeling.jpg
• File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg
• File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg
• File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg
• File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg

Since OTRS permission was obtained, these could be moved to Commons. Want me to restore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please!!! Be sure to update the {{information}} before transfer though :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll restore them here and tag with Copy to Commons. Not sure how to transfer images to Commons (never done it before), but I understand any user can do that, it doesn't require administrators. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored and re-tagged. Please perform any additional clean-up or formatting that might be needed for copying to Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg

Informal review requested, in the linked discussion, the uploader claims permission WAS obtained. OTRS check suggested.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I was unable to find that one in OTRS. I searched for variations too. In fact the only hits on "Freyberg" were unrelated permission requests regarding the German Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the uploaders talk page. If the OTRS was sent, it might need to be sent again :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for permission

Master Amatulic, I want to thank you for having faith in me and granting me special tools and permissions to preserve and embetter Wikipedia! That was fantastic! I started doing three reviews on articles and it was great!

Respects and bowing: The Mad Hatter (talk)

You're welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(Deleted) Uploads from User:Rodolph

• User_talk:Rodolph#Please_could_these_deletions_be_reviewed.

These were some that the uploader specifically mentions as being either, their image, or for which permissions were obtained. As with previous 'informal reviewing' an OTRS check is recommended, Although in the case of some items which may be PD-art (i.e a 17th century painting), they could be restored fairly quickly.

I would of course like to thank you in advance for doing this reviewing, and would appreciate you contacting the uploader directly to assist them in 'recovering' the images appropriately.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph

Thank you for your assistance and views so far.

I've asked for some wider views at WP:ANI,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reviewing_image_uploads_by_User:Rodolph Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh

We seem to have a bit of a difference of opinion with Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#QualityUnit ... my opinion matches User_talk:Randykitty#QualityUnit_Page the panda ₯’ 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I know we have no time limit, but I have re-deleted as G11, and kept my closing statement that EC'd with yours @ WP:REFUND the panda ₯’ 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I userfied the article to User:La cate35/QualityUnit because it seemed quite far from "irredeemably promotional". It has problems that make it more appropriate for AFC than main space (too much product detail and poor sourcing) but it was neutrally written and looked like it could be fixed up. I wouldn't have userfied it otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just A Man (1969 debut album)‎‎

Hi. I'm not sure how you missed the sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this article, but check out the history of User:Maitlandplace and User:Maitlandsplace, and note that the latter was blocked expressly for abuse of multiple accounts after picking up the business of the former account in creating articles surrounding a small group of musicians. Perhaps it was just that in my G5 I named the sockpuppeteer instead of the actual sockpuppet who created the article. If so, I can only say that I figured it was the sockpuppeteer I was supposed to identify, since the sockpuppet who wrote the article is apparent from the article's history. Anyway, I've resubmitted the article for G5, but this time I named the account that created the article, the one that has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how you missed the fact that the article does not qualify for G5, because it was not created in violation of any block or ban as G5 requires. It was created in October 2013, well before any block on either account, and there was no block evasion happening at the time of creation. Had I seen you re-tag it I would have reverted you and left you a warning. Nevertheless, I will not restore the article because it likely wouldn't survive AFD anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check again. If you look at the current state of the deleted page, you'll see that the version that was created in October 2013 was deleted in November 2013, on account of being a copyright violation. The edition of the article I submitted for deletion was brand new, created after the user had been blocked. Indeed, Maitlandplace/Maitlandsplace left a note just yesterday at Requests for Undeletion reading "This is the new page about his first album i created ..." [emphasis mine]. (She's used Requests for Undeletion several times in the last few days to ask that an existing article she'd created not be deleted.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I stand corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Link Removal: Article Meditation

Please refrain from removing relevant links that do not violate Wikipedia's policies as you did with the article, Meditation. Thank You. 96.249.193.79 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your link violates WP:ELNO, and now you are blocked for edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Need your additional comments on declined article

Hi! Could you please check the external links in the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unison RTOS: all external links redirect to different reviews and articles from independent experts (except the second one - it links to official website). Also I need your help about your comment "the submission reads like a brochure, with too much unnecessary detail" - I tried to create this article as some alike (Unix) - so I just do not understand what I need to change. Thank you in advance for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide examples of sources that constitute reviews by independent experts, and show how they are referenced in the article. Honestly, I don't see any. The two inline sources currently in the article cite the inventor, so those sources are not independent and do not constitute coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources as required. The links you provided are simply product description pages, not coverage of the topic as required. The details about components and features are not useful information for a layperson wanting to learn about the subject and make the article appear like a product brochure aimed at industry insiders. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for comments!

What can advise about this article: http://www.m2mevolution.com/ - that is independent review by rather respected person.
Or this one: http://enewschannels.com/ - it is also the riview by independent author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The M2M article is OK, but still marginal, because it's reporting on the company's own press release rather than engaging in independent coverage.

As for the other one on enewschannels, you gotta be kidding. That's a press release that was given to the author to publish. It is not independent. Verbatim identical press releases can be found on press release sites such as this one. Press releases are not acceptable, even if they are parroted by an "independent" author.

To be independent, a source must have no connection to the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not check if the text is unique. I will try to find another articles. Thank you for helping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

KEN Greenbook

With regards to your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KEN_Greenbook#Page_moved ... the changes have been made. Kindly approve. Thank you.KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. The article still has serious problems and cannot be approved until corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Please take a look. Thanks. KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DPT Laboratories

Hi Amatulic. Per your comment at Requests for undeletion, I'm requesting a move of DPT Laboratories. to draft namespace at Draft:DPT Laboratories or to userspace at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Laboratories1. The company is notable per the sources, and I'd like to examine the article in hopes to improve it. I have notified User:INeverCry on their talk page and it was archived. I reposted it, and it was archived again. I believe this article may have been deleted due to an error in which assertion of significance regarding the company was mistaken as advertising or promotional. Please respond at your convenience. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored it to Draft space. There was no point restoring the talk page as it contained only one Wikiproject template, no discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response to this request. Sincerely, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Afusat Saliu

I wish to request that you re-examine the speedy deletion of Afusat Saliu. This was originally proposed under A7, no assertion of significance, but you invoked WP:BLP1E, famous for only one thing, which may or may not apply in this case, but is not grounds for speedy deletion, and is not the same as A7. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't invoke BLP1E as a reason for speedily deleting it, I mentioned it in the rationale for the purpose of saying "see this also, Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on people famous for only one thing."

I deleted the article because there was no assertion of significance. Many people face deportation. That is not significant. Many girls in Nigeria are subjected to genital mutilation. The fact that two girls face this prospect is unfortunate, but also not significant. The fact that many people signed a petition is also not significant; this happens every day on petition web sites.

Given those facts, and the fact that the only coverage of the person is in relation to a single event, the article would likely not survive WP:AFD if nominated for deletion due to WP:BLP1E. Therefore I deemed the speedy deletion of the article to be uncontroversial and in accordance with WP:CSD#A7.

I offer you three options:

• If you wish to have it restored to main article space, you may open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, citing this section on my talk page.
• I can restore the article to your user space for you to improve further at your leisure, bearing in mind that a biography article based on a single event will be nominated for AFD when moved back to main space and likely not survive.
• It may turn out that the notable topic is not the person, but the controversy, in which case the article should not be written as a biography, in which case you should either re-write it as an article about the controversy, or expand our existing article on female genital mutilation.

~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish to open a case at deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Afusat Saliu

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afusat Saliu. 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. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy-restored the article's history to facilitate discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Just a heads-up, I've nominated this for deletion as a copyvio of http://www.commoncause.in/nl/july-sep12/6.html which was modified "Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM" according to my web browser. It is very likely that the text on the commoncause web page was written before July 2012.

On January 15, 2013 you deleted a version as a BLPPROD. If the deleted version is basically another copy of what is there now and what is on the commoncause page, AND if that page was added to Wikipedia before "January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM," then the copyright-violation is no longer clear.

If the version you deleted is completely different and not an obvious non-starter, then consider restoring it and adding the sources listed in the copyvio version to the talk page as possible sources and re-start the BLPPROD clock. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed this to a suspected copyright violation per the above and per the comments on the contested deletion, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 31. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the correct way to go about it. If there's no response in a week, remind me and I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you check the dates and content of the deleted version? If the dates are early enough and the content is nearly identical, the current version may not be a copyvio. If the content is not the same, it may be a useful replacement for the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The most recently deleted version is from 14 January, and has just one paragraph consisting of 3 sentences that are nearly identical to the most recent lead 3 sentences currently replaced by the copyvio tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Telerik

Hi,

I want to thank you for not deleting the Telerik page outright. I've reworked the page and submitted it for review. I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's likely to pass muster? I'd hate to go through a three week process and have to go back to step one.

Thanks, MaximZero (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it still comes across as somewhat promotional overall. If it is rejected, you don't have to go back to step 1, you just have to revise it until it's acceptable.

Some advice that may help: the lead section of any encyclopedia article should serve only as an overview summary of the rest of the article. It should not cover topics that aren't covered in more detail later (for example, Telerik Platform and the pledge to create an education platform aren't mentioned anywhere else). You should just have a briefer sentence about each and provide more detail in the article body. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

You reverted my edits to this article without understanding what is going on. If every First and Biggest is to be included in that article, then that article will become too big and probably an encyclopedia onto itself. The history of talkpage of that article clarifies the situation. For example I deleted the entry of "First to leave Gold standard" and the "Tallest building". If we have to include every first, eg. First car, First Republic, First paper currency, First diaper, First tap water, Tallest tree, Tallest antenna, Tallest ....

You know where it will go. It will be only a matter of time before that article will be flooded by people wanting to include their tallest, biggest and firstest. And then it will be the end of that article.

Anyways, why I am giving a damn? To hell with it.--103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what is going on: you were edit-warring. The article has clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which you evidently did not bother to read, and have resorted to edit-warring.

Similar arguments to yours have been made for other list articles such as List of common misconceptions, in spite of the well-defined criteria for inclusion that have evolved by community consensus.

If you want to change the criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. Edit warring will not resolve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding

Hello Amatulic, I am in the process of working on this page with Wikipedia help team. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. My tagging of the article is still appropriate, as it alerts other editors of issues and improvements that need to be made. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, please see my note on the crisis bonding talk page.Dr. Susan M. Sutton Clawson 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs)

Thank you for taking care of this situation for us. Delete the article, then restore the redirect - the perfect solution! --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith

Does the list of religious texts include stuff like this? Reading the article on Hadith I'm not sure. The editor adding this is new and still very uncertain about how we work, see Talk:Quran. He wants to create an article, it will be interesting to see what he does. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, I found (and modified) his edit to HadithList of religious texts while examining his contribution history.

I was initially going to revert it, but eventually decided to leave it in. Every Muslim I have asked, insists that while the Quran is the primary text, the Hadith are equally important in many respects and determine some fundamental practices and beliefs (such as the belief that Muslims must be offended by depictions of Muhammad, and teaching found only in Hadith). As I understand it, Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God, and Hadith are quotations and teachings of Muhammad, which provide clarity and understanding of the word of God.

I have no objection to removal of that entry, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadith are obviously important to varying extents, but I'm not convinced they are religious texts, but no point arguing that, as I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I. Might be a good question to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk#Humanities. In fact, looking over the archives, some light is shed by Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 26#Hadith, which suggests that Hadith are analogous to the Catechism in Christianity or the Talmud in Judaism; that is, they are commentaries or clarifications on the text that is considered "scripture". Are Catechism or Talmud considered "religious texts"? Adherents likely consider them that way, but I am not sure about religious scholars. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Talmud is in the list. I think I've got better things to do that will improve Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Me too. Although, Wikipedia is a low priority for me right now, just something I do when I take a break from seeking my next contract. Real Life must always come first. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crisis bonding. Since you had some involvement with the Crisis bonding redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Elliott Wave Dilemma

Hi Amatulic,

Thanks for contacting me about the removal of the external link on the page Elliott Wave principle.

When I first came across this page, I went to the first external link for additional reading, but as you can see, it provides very little information. Obviously I was disappointed and found a better page from a site that I frequent. If you think it looks inappropriate, you can add a better page yourself and I'll be happy to read it.

Regards, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblakely (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, one of those links was low quality, so I have just removed it. I replaced it with a link to the Investopedia entry, which is more substantial. Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)

I came back to this AfD to reply to the nom, who didn't seem to understand my last comment.  Instead, I found your close.  Do you agree that WP:N is a test to determine if an article should be standalone, and that in the case of an article split, non-notability means recombining the two parts?  And that this is an issue for either a bold edit, or for the content contributors to discuss on one of the two talk pages?  Given that there is no theoretical case for deletion on notability grounds here, was this a WP:IAR close?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The debate had gone on for more than 7 days and was well past time for closing. You raise several points:

• WP:N can be a test to determine if a subject merits a stand-alone article. The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article. The 'keep' arguments were not compelling, as they were not based on any policy.
• In the case of an article split into a notable and non-notable pieces, it's perfectly fine to restore the non-notable piece to the original article. That is not a concern for closing the AFD, because the old material is still available in the original article's history, and can be restored by anyone at any time.
• Once an AFD is created, that is where discussion should be concerning the deletion of the article. Now that it is deleted, further discussion should commence on the talk page of the article from which the content was originally split.
• I have never found a need to invoke IAR in administrative actions. You asserted "there is no theoretical case for deletion" without any supporting arguments, and your assertion conflicts with the consensus in the AFD discussion.

I knew that no decision I made would be satisfactory to all participants. If you are unable to find the content that was split in the original article's talk page history, I can userfy the deleted article for you if you believe that significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to support the notability of the mall. WP:DRV is also an option. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

All editors who post to an AfD page are advised that a guideline is available.  See WP:BEFORE a1, c1, c3, c4.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You say that "The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article.", and I am not here to disagree with that.

By observing that the material exists in another edit history and can be restored, you agree that there is no applicable content policy for the deletion of the material in the edit history.  Redirects are cheap.  Those are the only two things that can be deleted.  Where is there a policy-basis for deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. I deleted it. The fact that the content is still available elsewhere means that it is not necessary to keep that content in another place. There is no policy that mandates keeping redundant content, only that redundant content should be merged per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

You are welcome to open at case at WP:DRV. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For blocking a spammer. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Which spammer was that? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Amongst

Hello Amatulic. I was rather surprised to see you removing "amongst" from articles with the rationale that it is archaic. Whilst it might not be commonly used in the US, it's still commonly used in the UK, and per WP:ENGVAR, is entirely appropriate. See recent usages from the BBC to confirm.[5][6][7] Cheers, Number 57 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just about every UK style guide recommends against it. For further information, see the while article. This is not an ENGVAR issue, as the word is used on both sides of the pond. It's simply correcting awkward grammar. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless our own style guide recommends against it, I don't see the relevance of what others do. It's still widely used and perfectly acceptable. It is definitely not "awkward grammar", although I'd be interested to hear why you think it is. Number 57 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Phrases like "situated amongst a region" (which I had corrected when you replied just now) is awkward and incorrect regardless of whether "among" or "amongst" is used. Furthermore, whilst the word is commonly used on both sides of the Atlantic, and therefore not an ENGVAR issue, it is also widely considered as archaic and unnecessary by professional publications on both sides. The fact that the Wikipedia style guide fails to address the topic is not a reason to leave it alone. The Wikipedia style guide also fails to address many common grammatical errors and words specifically (such as "ain't"), so does that mean we should just ignore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's awkward, but it's because the wrong word was used (among would be equally inappropriate). I also disagree that it's "widely" considered archaic. If the BBC uses it, it's a fairly strong indicator that it's normal. Number 57 14:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The BBC has no consistency, using while/whilst and among/amongst with equal frequency. The UK style guides that do address these words universally appear to consider them archaic. The BBC does have its own style guide, and while it does not address the words "amongst" or "whilst" specifically, there is no occurrence of the word "amongst" in that guide, only "among",[8] which may not mean anything except perhaps as an indicator to what the BBC considers "normal" without actually being prescriptive like other guides. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Enterprise Architect (Software) Deletion

Just following up for further advice, your comment on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_138#Enterprise_Architect_.28software.29

I have contacted Tom Morris (talk) and did receive an initial response, but no follow up (over several weeks). You mentioned taking some other action, but I am a little lost as to whether to proceed with a request for un-deletion. I would appreciate any insight on the path to proceed on. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The "other action" is to open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, to allow the community to determine whether the administrator's deletion decision was proper in view of the arguments given in the AFD and the sources given in the article. The article's revision history would be restored for the purpose of discussion, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I will follow up on this. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Re. David Hedlund

Hello. I noticed your message to him on his talk page, so I thought I'd let you know that he already has copied his entire article (45K bytes of it) to his talk page, to continue editing there. Which IMHO is inappropriate use of the talk page for someone who has been indef blocked. Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he did that before I warned him about it. I just removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Eric Fisher

Hi Amatulic, You have recently informed me that I will not receive my article back until I change my username, however I am new to this site and am unsure of how to do so. Will you please inform me of the steps I need to take in order to change that? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherarch (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:UNC the panda ₯’ 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, go to WP:CHU/Simple and make a request there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta copyvio

I noticed you didn't create an entry for this page's copyright issues at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#:Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, which left me kind of confused. It's a moot point now, I reviewed the editor's string of edits, found enough evidence of a copyvio to warrant action, reverted back to the last non-copyvio version, and put a {{copyvio-revdel}} template at the top. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator will review it soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought the duplication detector report was enough. It was similar to earlier revisions of the article that had been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G12, but I didn't renominate as G12 because I felt there was sufficient original material in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The template that you put on the article specifically linked to the (non-existent) discussion. The discussion has to be started by the person who applies the template. In any case, it's a moot point for this particular article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection

User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Avi Nir

Hi,

Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page I have created for Mr. Avi Nir, the CEO of Keshet Media Group. Avi Nir, is a very well known TV executive, heading Israels Keshet Broadcasting for the past 12 years, Mako and Keshet International, the international production and distribution arm of Keshet Media Group. Nir, is in charge of very well known local and international shows like Hatufim (Prisoners of War) that has become Homeland, he is also executive producer on Homeland, which granted him a prime time emmy award. He was named Israeli cloture most influential person. As a leading international TV executive and since Keshet International expanded globally with shows like Rising Star, Allegiance, Homeland and many more and formed international production outposts this profile and the profile of Keshet Media Group and Keshet International are highly relevant to understand where many shows originated from and produced by, who this company is and who its top executives are . Nir also serves as Executive Producer on all the US productions that originated from Keshet (over 10)

we made sure we back up everything with relevant links to media sources.

Im a director at Keshet International and we updated the last profile. As a person who uses Wikipedia constantly as a reliable and trusted source of information- i understand and appreciate the importance of the quality of the information. im writing you, since i would like to upload an informative and respectable profile as i imagined we did I wouldn't like to upload our profiles again without getting the inputs from the person who deleted it first on the content and the updating form.

Your response would be highly appreciated

Many thanks in advance

Limor - Keshet International

91.240.235.225 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)