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.

3D Hubs discussion

Hi Amatulić, Thanks for reviewing my article! I know 3D Hubs well, but I don't have any conflict of interest with them. I'm totallly new to wikipedia (as an editor), I just know some html and I copied the format of the page from wikis of other similar companies. Sorry if some parts seemed overly enthusiastic, hope it's okay now. Cheers, (User talk:Kisg24 09:35, 17 October 2014)

Nice job cleaning up /High-frequency_trading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading

Spent a lot of time on it and it really needed a good clean up !!!

cheers !!!

looks amazing now

Brad Katsuyama is a financial services executive, working as the president, CEO and co-founder of the IEX, the Investors Exchange. Katsuyama is also the focus of Flash Boys, a non-fiction book by Michael Lewis about high frequency trading (HFT) in financial markets. Brad Katsuyama led a team that implemented THOR, a securities order-management system that splits large orders into many different sub-orders that arrive at the same time to all the exchanges through the use of intentional delays. Starting at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the largest future exchange in the world is the location where Spread Networks started a 827 mile long fiber optic line all the way to the Bats Exchange, Inc in Northern New Jersey.

ending idea

Starting at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Spread Networks spent $300,000,000 million to shave off two miliseconds connecting the largest future exchange in the world is the location where started a 827 mile long fiber optic line all the way to the Bats Exchange, Inc in Northern New Jersey. David Adam Kess^\ talk / 19th of January 2015 (UTC)

References

Wiki Page Issues For Artist

(moved to User talk:Joeysevenforever)

The Borgata move to Borgata per COMMONNAME

Hey,

I have an uncontroversial move request The Borgata is formally known as Borgata per COMMONNAME. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reconsider declined U5

User:TYRA-Lugano/Tony Resta is more like "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities", WP:OR and fails WP:UP#GOALS specifically "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" Also it is WP:UP#PROMO and it's quite WP:STALE from a non-contributor [1] If you want to reconsider, great, otherwise I've got to run it through MfD. Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks more to me like a work in progress about a musician who doesn't yet meet WP:MUSICBIO. I hadn't noticed it was stale. That would qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G13, as an abandoned draft article. I deleted it just now for that reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA

I see that you keep returning my Username for Administrator attention reports. Isn't it not allowed to have a username that clearly implies intent to self promote, especially when the user creates an article alike to their username. Music1201 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: Where exactly does Wikipedia:Username policy say this? Please review it before you report more of these, particularly the section WP:SPAMNAME.

A real name that represents an individual person, regardless of whether the account proceeds to make promotional edits, is allowed. Repeated attempts to self-promote may result in a block, but the username itself is not actionable. I encourage you to continue reporting other names as you find them, but please cease reporting personal names of individuals. This wastes administrator time, and the WP:UAA list is already lengthy enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OTRS question

Hi, Amatulic. To continue the correspondence from RfU, what should I do in instances where the copyright holder has no website and no other email address than a Yahoo or Gmail one? I've come across a few like these, including a case involving a film director who had no other email address than a Gmail one, and another in which a noteworthy person wanted to upload a picture of herself taken by a family member with no other email address than an @yahoo.com. Not sure what to do in instances like these. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Most people have some other presence on the internet besides email. Linkedin, Facebook, or other social media accounts, if the account is well established and not created yesterday, can be used for verification purposes. The person should be able to add a comment or make a small modification to their Facebook or LinkedIn page (such as posting the ticket ID) temporarily for verification.

Another option, particularly if it involves a notable person (celebrity, public figure), is getting a written statement from that notable person vouching for the identity of the email address of the photographer, provided that the email address of the notable person is verifiable. Of course, this isn't possible if the subject of the photo is deceased.

You can also ask the person what they can offer to verify their identity, explaining that anyone can create yahoo or gmail addresses in anyone's name. In one case I handled (this had nothing to do with permissions), the correspondent's Wikipedia account had been blocked for impersonating a notable person. He sent me a scan of his driver's license to prove that he just happened to have the same name as a notable person. This was sufficient to get the account unblocked.

If all else fails, you just have to exercise judgment, assuming good faith if needed. But I recommend, if all you have is a yahoo or gmail address, don't take the correspondent's word for it, try to explore ways to verify the identity. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Micah Meisner

Hi.

This is rather old, but I only noticed now. You deleted Micah Meisner as A7 and G11 on 7 March 2014, but the article at that point was not eligible for speedy deletion under those criteria as it had gone through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Meisner) and was kept. Could you please restore it? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq: When the subject of a biography is described as "up and coming", the claims of significance are unsourced and unverfiable, it was edited by the subject himself, and the only relevant reference given is the subject's personal blog, well... that struck me as a ripe candidate for deletion under A7 and G11.

At the time, I didn't realize there had already been an AFD on this that closed as "keep". I'd be willing to restore it to draft space for improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can place it draft, I'll clean it up and move it to article space. Thanks --Whpq (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq:  Done, at Draft:Micah Meisner, along with its talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My Confidential Documents

Dear Amatulic,

I want to let you know that I wish to have all the confidential documents I forwarded to the OTRS oversighted. I don't wish to share the documents in any form on Wikipedia. Please do not reveal these documents on Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: OK, what exactly do you want me to do? I published a verification of credentials as you requested in the OTRS ticket — but only in the ARB case page, not in the ANI discussion or on Jimbo's talk page as you asked. No personal information was revealed in that comment. Now that the case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology, my comment (as well as those of others) no longer exists. Do you want someone with WP:Oversight rights to expunge that from the history? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's ok the way it is and I agree with you that no personal information was revealed in that comment. Thanks for the good work. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Amatulic. When you moved New Order to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "New Order" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I need to fix those. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Am. Could you point me to the WP:RM for this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't one, and it didn't appear that one was needed. It's obvious and uncontroversial that a defunct rock band, which adopted a well-known and widely-used term for its name, cannot possibly be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term, which pre-existed the band. The term's usage in reliable sources likely doesn't refer primarily to the band (which would be difficult to prove either way), and the band definitely isn't primary with respect to long-term significance as required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the previous move discussion at Talk:New Order (disambiguation)#Move to primary location? Also, AngusWOOF has tried to revert your move, see WP:RMT. Cmeiqnj (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. I started with the "New Order" article and saw no move discussion related to the band, so I moved it. New Order (band) is the correct name for the article, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I fail to see how that can possibly be controversial. As for the disambiguation page, I have no objection to moving it back to New Order (disambiguation), but that would result in leaving the primary term New Order as a redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Who said they were defunct? They released an album last year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I thought they broke up 10 years ago. The band's active status, however, is irrelevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato Sri Tahir listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Sri Tahir. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Sri Tahir redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Parul Yadav Image copyright

The image deleted by you is officially shot for her website. we are new to editing content on wikipedia not sure how else we can prove the authenticity. however you can refer www.parulyadav.com kindly advise

Navin poonacha (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad/FAQ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Muhammad/FAQ. Since you had some involvement with the Muhammad/FAQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Landmark Media / Dominion Enterprises federal lawsuit

Amatulic - you removed cited and sourced details about a federal lawsuit against these two companies. You claim that the suit is "irrelevant" and that including the lawsuit information amounts to editorializing. It is an active case and therefore by definition, relevant. Your sole determination that the details are "irrevelevant" and your act of removing them is based on your purely subjective unsupported reasoning. Your actions defeat the purpose of this site. What is your great concern with this topic? Are you an employee of Landmark Media or Dominion Enterprises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolk Truth (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Norfolk Truth: Take it to the article talk page, please. On Talk:Dominion Enterprises you have offered zero arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy to meet your WP:BURDEN of supporting inclusion of lawsuit information. As to your question, I never heard of these companies until after you started disrupting their articles with irrelevant information that does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I turn your question around: what is your great concern with this topic that you feel it is important to include details that have zero coverage in secondary sources? Are you a disgruntled ex-employee of Landmark Media or Dominion enterprises? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

PROD

In regards to this edit of yours, why did you remove the PROD and not delete the article? The PROD was there for way more than 7 days and there was no disagreement. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: The file had already been deleted in 2014. I restored it based on a request at WP:REFUND. Restoration of articles deleted via prod is considered uncontroversial and the request usually always granted. After restoration, it is necessary to remove the expired prod template. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion June 11 regarding Adjective Used

Hi,

Appreciate your quick response but the reply missed the question asked. It was about the historical fact instead of promotional or not / good or bad adjective used. Please take a look at it again, thanks.

However, if you think that is TOO precise a question for you, I can put that question up again for somebody else.

You do however know these words are used in Wikipedia for very good reasons. Putting them in quotations is not a bad idea. Removal of those words is only Item #1 of dispute since it was the excuse to delete 40% of the article, including references such as the IFPI award page.

The IFPI page was called a Blog. I am seeking opinion as to whether that is good source for reference separately.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RK Sloboda Solana

You deleted page in 2014 Sloboda Solana, as i quote A7 had no significance explained. It is Handball Club. Profesional

HellerTZ (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@HellerTZ: So, start over. The article I deleted had only one sentence in it that failed to explain the club's significance or provide any independent reliable sources. If I restored it, it would be deleted again quickly by someone else for the same reasons. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what we expect to see in an article accepted into main article space.

If you need time to draft an article, don't write it in main space. Use your sandbox or draft space instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Duels

Moved to Talk:Duel

SFr

Hi, Amatulic. Why was SFr deleted with only three votes? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I imagine it's because the admin Sandstein found the arguments persuasive. Basically there were four 'delete' votes (including the nominator) and I was the lone 'keep' — the article's creator didn't even chime in. To any administrator, this looks like a consensus to delete. As such, the deletion decision was proper (even though I disagree with it) and it would pass Wikipedia:Deletion review. The only alternative I see would be to create a new draft with impeccable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Travesty? Clarified to be you put a lie there.

Please clarify:1. irrelevant2. unsourced3. POV details4. travesty207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English. Just look at what I removed, for starters. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

1.1 "Love Interest" on stage-Significance of 2014 event is Loong at 70 switching "Love Interest", not just one but two. Young actresses (age 2?+3?) were selected for the same role. They took turns to play the same characters. Loong celebrated 50th anniversary in 2011 with one former co-star who was a classmate of Loong from 1960. They went steady in 1977. That is, Loong, known for portraying loyal lovers on stage (romantic literary scholar as written by librettist Tong Dick-san), had only one same actress as "love interest" for close to 40 years. (Yam is known as "opera fan's lover".)

1.2 Practice makes perfect-In Hong Kong, ticket sale does not generally support one play to be on stage 25 days in a row. The norm is one play each day or every two days. The only chance for them to play the same female lead 15 times non-stop is when they shared the stage with Loong in 2014. At least 70% full is necessary to breakeven. Full houses are bonus. Those first 20 shows in 2014 were sold out within hours. First ten shows in fact were sold out within 30 minutes. The 25 shows were sold in three separate offers. Both venues in 2014 have over 1000 seats as the one in West Kowloon Xiqu Center under construction would be.

1.3 Young Talent-Initiatives like Cantonese Opera Young Talent Showcase and Hong Kong Young Talent Cantonese Opera Troupe have provided a platform for amateurs since 2012 and 2008 respectively. Loong however started hiring up-and-coming performers from training school in 1983. I know for sure two, of the 1983 hires, are still on stage while one is working behind the scene. Actually, most Cantonese opera career veterans age 60 or older in HK worked for Loong's troupe at some point. You can almost count those, like Law Kar-ying, a peer never worked in any capacity for Loong's troupe, in main roles now on stage with one hand.

2.1 Disagree DVD instead of Loong the Artist-IFPI List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes lists only Artist Name and Record Company Name. For Classical and Operatic Works Recording , the first award for Best Sales Releases was given out in 2012. From 2012 to 2015, only two names appeared three times. Loong is the one, of these two, on the List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes in 2012 and 2015. As opera performer, Loong is the only one on that list twice.

I had no previous plan to include in Wikipedia the above detail information.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page, please. Also I must ask, what is your association with this actress? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am amazed how little resources Wikipedia has, having found the article lacking compared to what's been available online for ages and what veterans like her peer Law Kar-ying, who has no reason to talk her up beyond courtesy on the record, had to say. I have used none of those quotes from Law so far only because they are too colloquial for me to translate from online resources while Wikipedia obviously has difficulty reading even "properly written" Press report with information listed above. You cannot read them does not make them false. Personally, I do not appreciate accusations and allegations, without substantiation with facts, especially with words like "Travesty" in any civil environment. 207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. You have repeatedly added promotional puffery to that article, sometimes using Wikipedia's narrative voice. This is completely unacceptable, violating some basic rules such as WP:NPOV, and gives you the appearance of having a conflict of interest. That is not an accusation, merely a question based on observation. I must say that your attempts to translate sources are commendable and deserving of admiration; I know how dissimilar the languages are, and how much work it is to translate. The promotional tone of the article, and the improper emphasis on accolades violating WP:LEAD, was indeed a travesty, although the article is slowly improving. In terms of Wikipedia:Civility, we comment on the content, not the contributor, and that is all I did in my edit summary that you're complaining about. I was not criticizing you. Just the content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I am really even more amazed how little resources Wikipedia has as you have illustrated from this response.

1. IFPI information you put there is called a lie in simple English since you know the IFPI site.

2. 2005 charity event tells how "puffery" for everybody else is normal for Loong as far as Cantonese opera is concerned. While translation takes too much effort, a picture can speak volume. Both Law and his wife are with their separate co-stars in those smaller photos surrounding the center piece. Jackie Chan and Law in the second page should not be difficult to notice. No plan to include this in the article although it was major event in Hong Kong. Those can read Chinese will find the detail extent of coverage in this Issue mostly related to one of those eight performers only. Jackie Chan was mentioned in the passing only. Can you tell who the center piece is? Don't tell me the ten year old magazine is promotional material.

3. Before you respond, read the first line and last sentence of your above response for starters, please.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to comprehend my last message: Take it to the article talk page. And you have not answered the question, what is your association with this actress? I will not respond further on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can do nothing but accusations and allegations in addition to putting lie in the article. Read the answer already given. You, if can read and speak Chinese, can find all information I added online but those associated with her should have more. You just have NO ground for own misconduct and pretend to be otherwise. A lie is a lie. What limited resources illustrated by Wikipedia having you as administrator. LIAR.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I could also have spent time on Scully & Mulder, having read so much online for decades. Well, I could not find missing information so far.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion File:OldRockinChairTom4.jpg

I've requested this image to be undeleted. If you're an administrator, could you undelete it, just like File:OldRockinChairTom2.jpg Marole3 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, because as I explained in my comment at WP:REFUND I don't believe a valid rationale exists to include it in the article. The other one would be fine, in my view. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf

I've started a discussion to try and resolve the dispute over the use of Gulf over Persian Gulf on Culture of Kuwait. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Culture of Kuwait#Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf. Thank you.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded there after protecting a bunch of those pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:TwoLittleIndians1.jpg, File:TwoLittleIndians.jpg, and File:TwoLittleIndians3.jpg

Could you please restore these 3 images? Thank you. YoshiFan155 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

For no reason? No. The place to ask is at WP:REFUND and you need to explain why they should be restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not simply, I don't think they're orphaned non-free files under CSD F5. If I request there, they'll tell me to give a Fair use rationale. Same with File:Timid Tabby 1JPG and File:Timid Tabby 2.JPG. YoshiFan155 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)