User talk:Adam9007

Maverick Squad article correction

Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_Squad

A barnstar for your work with speedy deletions

Thanks so much for your work preserving the intentionally narrow scope of A7. As I've mentioned I've gotten worried about the scope of A7 and the willingness of editors to step beyond that scope. I've been working a lot in the A7 category removing tags that blatantly don't fit the criterion myself, but sometimes it seems like nobody agrees (and yet discussions about the actual criterion are always so contested). Appable (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: Thanks! Zoominfo Crawler was wrongly deleted A7 and overturned on that basis. And I see Swpb is unwilling to admit he was wrong and has PRODed NextGenSearchBotarticle saying it "Should have been speedied as a business". How anyone can say it's a business is beyond me. Even the admin who deleted Zoominfo Crawler (an almost identical article) has admitted A7 was and is wrong. I don't know if you saw it, but I recently started a discussion on the CSD talk page about editors assuming ownership after tagging for CSD (particularly A7), and I think his behaviour falls into that category. Adam9007 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are bragging that you "saved" Zoominfo Crawler, a promotional piece of shit that is very likely written by someone working on behalf of ZoomInfo, which is a company? Unbelievable. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: A7 did not apply, and it was not obviously promotional. It was (and is!) clearly still being worked on. Please do not judge an article until it is finished. And how do you know the author is a Zoominfo employee or is otherwise doing so on their behalf? Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually was the other way - it was created by someone who has an ax to grind against Zoominfo, who didn't know what they were doing. It is so easy to tell when there is advocacy at play. So easy, I was too quick to judge which type it was when I wrote above (I was angry and reached a conclusion of what the problem was too quickly in what i wrote there) but the fact that the "article" was garbage and going no where was blatant. I still cannot see how you can be proud to be only an obstacle and not a corrective, helping force. You know a lot, and I wish you put it to use to move things forward instead of just parrrying. I have asked for your advice below. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud...

What if A7 had a term in it stating something to the effect of "If an uninvolved editor removes a speedy deletion tag under this criterion in good faith, do not restore the tag."? I don't think A7, as it's used now, actually meets the first criterion for new criteria — objectiveness — but that might help a bit by preventing warring over speedy deletions and encouraging controversial speedy deletions to go to PROD or AfD. Appable (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: I think the essay Wikipedia:Why_I_Hate_Speedy_Deleters says just that, although it's talking about admins. I also think it explains the rest of the problems we're having with CSD very well; that nominators are not using caution, and that they're not aware (or simply don't care) that meeting the criteria means it may be deleted, not must. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, that's one of my favorite essays (along with WP:A7M). Agreed that speedy deletions absolutely should be uncontroversial, as soon as they're controversial speedy is obviously not the right process. Appable (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: And to think someone said on the big discussion that we shouldn't go by such essays as it violates WP:CIRCULAR! What the heck? Without those essays, there's nothing to go by! Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

advice

what is the correct speedy category for this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's been improved since you posted this, but I don't think it meets any speedy criteria. It would have been BLPPROD eligible (assuming it was in the article space), but a source has since been added. Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

what would have been the right speedy delete tag, for an unsourced autobiography for a newbie created as the category, Biography? Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Simply being unsourced is not a criterion for speedy deletion. What do you mean by category? Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes i know that. I am sorry i asked. The link I pointed you to was an autobiography posted at Category:Biography - look at the URL. Forget it though, really. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:In the future the best idea is to move it to article space or draft space and tag the category as uncontroversial maintenance. Appable (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Re I think there is a claim of significance; performing alongside notable people. A notability issue that you may not be aware of is that notability is not inherited. See WP:ITSA. Hope this helps.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim of significance isn't notability though. While notability is not inherited, performing alongside notable people in many cases is a claim of significance (particularly if they are notable on a global scale). Remember, claim of significance was deliberately worded to be much lower than notability, and merely offering a claim that, say, an actor played a role in a notable film (not an extra but an actual actor) with no source probably is a decent claim of significance — if there's enough coverage that the film is notable, it's plausible that there's significant coverage of the actors within the film. Appable (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: You know what, I think a change in terminology is in order, if not a whole rephrasing. The words significance and importance obviously aren't doing the job they're supposed to, because they're too often confused with notability. This is one issue I raised last time, a few months ago. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Hi, Adam9007. Thanks for your edit to Vicky A Clark. I didn't realize that such little time had passed since the article's creation, and I appreciate you for keeping an eye out and allowing for new users to have adequate time to construct the new article. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Your edit summary in removing this CSD seems to imply WP:INHERIT. I'll take it to AfD for discussion. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: According to WP:A7M, that is a credible claim of significance, which is not the same thing as notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay reflecting one editor's view point, not policy. Let me highlight the one part of the CSD's definition that he doesn't highlight... "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" which fits this example like a glove. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: So you think I should just pretend that it doesn't exist? I agree that being signed to such a label is an assertion of importance. Importance/significance is not the same thing as notability; it is a lower standard. Official policy states that. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooo... Notability is NOT inherited but Importance and Significance are? I see. I don't agree, but I see. Bazj (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability is NOT inherited but importance and significance are? Yes, exactly correct. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: No, I'm saying that is in itself significant. I did not say anything was inherited. Again, significance is not notability. Being signed to a significant label might not be significant, but being signed to a notable one almost certainly is. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INHERIT is an essay, too, BTW Bazj... one that doesn't apply to speedy. You should also read WP:CCS, which is an essay but linked from the CSD policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr Thanks for the link to WP:CCS. It's probably the best attempt at explaining the difference between notability & significance I've seen yet. Using the a/b tests it outlines, this case passes a but fails b because the best claim of notability the article makes is inherited from its record label, which isn't notability at all. Bazj (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mean this directed to you at all, Bazj — but this is why I think the wording on A7 is absolutely problematic. While it was never the intent of A7 significance to follow notability guidelines and policies, it's often interpreted as such. However, significance and importance were deliberately chosen instead of notability because on Wikipedia, significance and importance are entirely different (and far lower) standards than notability. Appable (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the only place that Wiki has developed its own lexicon. It boils down to WP:CIR; editors need to learn policy before taking on technical tasks like CSD. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: "the best claim of notability" - again, A7 only requires a claim of significance to fail, not notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little concerning that someone with hundreds of entries in their CSD log so poorly understands one of the criteria. To repeat, WP:INHERITED does not apply to speedy deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr if you're going to veer off on an ad hom there's no point continuing the discussion. Bazj (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You demonstrably don't understand A7. That's not an ad hom. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to User respect IP2 at User talk:Tk420

I did create Template:User respect IP2. By "they" I mean intellectual property rights in the plural e.g. trademark and patent as well as copyright. Tk420 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tk420: Someone saw my user page and thought it had been vandalised because of that box! They took it to me I can be a major pain. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Maybe it should be reworded? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Significance of writing for a newspaper

Hi. I'm kind of gobsmacked by the idea that the simple fact of writing articles for a newspaper implies significance. And Puran Gurung doesn't even purport to write articles. He's a copy editor. He reviews submitted articles; corrects them for grammar, spelling, and style; and makes editorial suggestions. This isn't a position with visibility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Of course, writing for any old newspaper is hardly significant, but doing so for a notable one is. Adam9007 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I disagree with that. I look at the junior writers putting out mundane reports ("a debate was held yesterday over charter schools", "a new Home Depot opened in NoMA") of local interest in The Washington Post and I don't imagine that they, themselves, would have come to anyone's attention as a topic of discussion, let alone achieved actual notability as we define it here. And, again, this isn't a writer, he's a copy editor. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Have you seen WP:A7M? Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam--frankly, that argument is absurd--except for a very feew famous at the art it is a relatively low level position for beginners. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen SoWhy's perspective before. Are you implying that I should know to substitute SoWhy's perspective for my own? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If he was the lead copyeditor he might be significant but I don't think just being a copyeditor is significant (any more significant than another office job at a notable company like Apple, Amazon, Google, whatever. Regarding A7M — I agree with just about everything it says, and I do agree that writers in notable newspapers are almost certainly at least significant, but I don't view that as including copyeditors. Copyeditors are usually less in-the-spotlight, so it's significantly less likely that a random copyeditor will be significant (in other words, the threshold should be higher). Appable (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Even a major newspaper has people writing the articles on local house fires, high school sports, and so on. Unless an article spells out any significance the person might have more specifically—"international affairs reporter", "political columnist"—my reaction is, "Great, this person has a job. So do I." I wouldn't expect that a whole lot of reliable sources hunger to report at length about the person at The Washington Post who writes the commercial real estate transaction blurbs. Note: unless a person's lack of significance is abundantly clear, as when an editor writes about a 13-year-old's football activities, I do run a WP:BEFORE check before requesting A7 deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice the article doesn't say he's a Copy Editor; it says he's the Copy Editor. There's a difference; the "the" implies he's the only one, and therefore, in a sense, the "lead" Copy Editor. And as for essays, yes they are only advice, and yes we are free to ignore them, but please remember that we are just as free to follow them. Most essays have at least some basis in the policies or guidelines. Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So he's the person, at a paper so small that it has only one of them, who points out where the writer spelled "weird" as "wierd" and left out a verb and suggests that he move the fifth paragraph up in front of the second. What do you think the likelihood is that this occupation has led him to capture the attention of reliable sources? What percentage of the world's copy editors have been the subject of even one write-up in a magazine or newspaper? I'm looking at WP:CCS, by the way, which is, at least, a Wikipedia essay subject to input from multiple people, and not one single, arbitrary person's opinion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in consensus, see the discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puran Gurung, which was quickly closed as speedy delete, with three people besides me, including the deleting administrator, opining that it was an obvious A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on

I'm not contesting the deletion of my user page, but it's actions like deleting pages that which make it so hard to do anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a unfriendly place. I agree I was in the wrong, but there should have been a better action than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamebear (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I just created a new article here -->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_Kohli but somebody instantly tagged it for speedy deletion. I didn't have enough idea how to add content or source the article so quickly.. I have tried to put some sources on article's talk page. Can you please help and if possible, can you remove the deletion tag?

Thanks, Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: Well, VQuakr: has already removed it, and I agree with its removal. Adam9007 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

yes. many thanks. Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Schools

True, secondary schools are, for some strange reason exempt from A7 deletion but you are still inviting trouble launching a one-sentence stub in mainspace. Get into the habit of using User:Adam9007/sandbox until an article is viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Okay, but why is it in my sandbox, and not the creator's? Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles Suggestion

Hello, could you please re-read the criterias for notability at WP:MUSICBIO, especially

• Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels

A drummer that has worked as studio musician does not release an recording, the band he has worked for does this: Matt Horn

A debut album is one album: 60 Wrap$$

Thanks -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 18:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: And can you please re-read WP:A7 and preferably WP:A7M as well. Matt Horn and 60 Wrap$$ both make credible claims of significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In both cases you gave notable label as edit summary. A recording or touring instrumentalist works for the studio or the band, but not for the label. What was credible significant with the debut musician with his debut album? Anyway, you are invited to the related deletion discussions.-- Ben Ben ^(talk) 18:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: Yes, I said the label is notable. Being signed to or releasing albums under such a label is significant (60 Wrap$$ makes such a claim). Being part of or working with a notable band is also significant (Matt Horn claims this as well as being part of notable labels). Adam9007 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: The core sentence in WP:A7 (at least for me) is The criterion [A7] does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. There is no guideline for credibility, it's up to you to decide. Here is an essay about, the last paragraph gives a simple rule for decisions.-- Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: Well, there is a good chance that investigating those claims can establish notability (assuming it exists), thus they are credible. Adam9007 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: As I wrote ealier, you are invited to partizipate in or watch both diskussions to see what is going on after a declination of a CSD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60 Wrap$$
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Horn

Thanks, -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC) (The Matt Horn diskussion has been deleted (tTemplate, log and diskussion) by a vandal so there isn't much now. Author is currently blocked.)

IRacing NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Hi, I see you removed my A7-Web speedy from this article. Note, this is a Web-based nascar simulator league, see iRacing.com. All of the text in the articles this COI user is creating come from the regular Nascar articles, hence the appearance of claims of significance. This user is basically taking our Nascar articles and replacing the real drivers with ones from his online virtual league. Hence the web content is not significant, it is just another online league. Replacing the A7 with the G12 is also not correct, as that content came from our own NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. Crow^Caw 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: I did not realise it was a backwards copy, so thanks for that. But the article claims significance by saying it "is the top racing series of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing". Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes but if you compare to the NASCAR article you will see it is a bitwise copy. So it is not a credible claim. Crow^Caw 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: But that same claim did stop the other article from being A7ed. Just because it's a copy doesn't make it not credible. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• The other article is NASCAR, which was never going to be A7'ed. This behaviour is typical of a vanity page: for someone to take an existing article, e.g. a celebrity, and put their name in place of the celeb's. Thus one could claim that it was making a claim of significance, but being a crudely made copy, they are always A7'ed. This is really no different. This online league is using NASCAR's claims of significance and changing them to apply to it. The NASCAR page is the original source for being "the top racing series of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing". This iracing article doesn't even claim to be the "top virtual racing series..." They just flat copied the NASCAR article and added their name and drivers. Crow^Caw 23:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: If it's the same thing, better make it an A10, or a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• A redirect would be advertising for this league. I'm trying to engage the author but they seem aloof so far. We shall see... Crow^Caw 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Just FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRacing Sprint Cup Series 2016. Crow^Caw 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Puzzle & Action

Your recent P&A articles have some good content, but there isn't enough secondary source coverage to warrant dedicated articles on each. Is there somewhere where we can merge their contents? czar 23:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Funny you should mention that; I've just found several sources on Tant-R (it took some searching), but I haven't got around to putting them in the article yet! Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I've added info and quite a few sources to the Tant-R article. I'm not sure if some of them warrant inclusion though (not because they're in Spanish), though I think the "Gamer" one deserves to be kept, partially because it's a secondary source that supports the article (its news page does). I don't know much about the third game though, so I'm not sure whether to do an article on that. Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How many games were in this series? czar 03:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: 3. I've never played the third one; only the first 2. Adam9007 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Incedo

Hi, you removed the speedy delete from Incedo, stating "There is a claim of significance." Could you quote the claim? I can't see it. What makes it special compared to other IT service providers? Thanks. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: They announced a patnership with a notable company. I see you noticed a PROD was contested on the basis of GNews hits; if that is true then it fails A7's spirit anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[The reference used] lists some 60 companies just under letter "A". Whatever the partnership means, it does not look like a "claim of significance" to me. (Microstrategy is notable but are partners not.) Nevermind. Thanks for your response. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Significance is not the same as notability. I don't know why so many people don't know that. Sources are irrelevant; a credible claim is enough to fail A7. Adam9007 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I know the difference. It was you who introduced notability as a topic in this duscussion ("notable company"). I don't know why so many people are a hasty folk. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: No I didn't. I said being a partner with a notable company is significant. Merely saying the word "notable" does not in itself bring notability into the discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As you like. Anyway, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo. Just letting you know.--WikiHannibal (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

@Lifesavers2004: Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Lagniappe Films, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make a case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Lifesavers2004 ^(talk) / _(contrib) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: I did not create that page, and therefore have every right to remove a speedy tag from it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Lagniappe Films, you may be blocked from editing. Lifesavers2004 (talk)/(contrib) 00:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: Please read WP:CSD again. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Lagniappe Films. Lifesavers2004 ^{(talk)/_(contrib) 01:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)}