User talk:Lankiveil

Archives

Archive 1 (August 2004 to December 2007)
Archive 2 (December 2007 to March 2008)
Archive 3 (March 2008 to October 2008)
Archive 4 (October 2008 to May 2009)
Archive 5 (May 2009 to January 2010)
Archive 6 (January 2010 to August 2011)
Archive 7 (August 2011 to November 2013)
Archive 8 (November 2013 to February 2015)
Archive 9 (February 2013 to December 2015)
Archive 10 (December 2015 onwards)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Christian

please revert page to draft space. I will continue to track down more references. There are literally dozens of them. We just found a front page photograph of the artist, along with the caption "Local artist creates own style". http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/abstract-realism-article.pdf

And the artist was involved in many many juried shows across Canada, invitations shown here: http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/

I'm sorry that this is all pre-internet. The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, the North Shore News (all widely read and respected newspapers that covered the artist extensively, at the national, regional and local level) do not have on-line archives dating to the 1970s-1990s. Icareaboutart (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Icareaboutart: I've restored the article to Draft:Sharon Christian. Please feel free to add additional sources that you think might push her over the WP:GNG. That print article is good but I think that articles from the Calgary Herald and Globe&Mail are more likely to be taken seriously than something from a local newspaper. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Thank-you. Icareaboutart (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fodi Laishu Yaar

Fodi Laishu Yaar was speedy deleted, but it has been recreated again, I suspect by the same user with different username. Can you please delete it again? Is it too soon to block creation? Coderzombie (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coderzombie: I only deleted it for {{db-author}}, but it's been recreated by a different account which makes me suspect something is up. I've just realised the original account that created the article had a name that might suggest a COI. I've dropped a warning on their talk page and I'm not going to delete just yet without giving them a chance to explain, but thanks for drawing this to my attention for a closer look. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Kindly Reconsider the Fodi Laishu Yaar page as it has been created as per Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly team (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fly team:: I'm glad to hear that, but I hope you'll be able to respond to the question I posed on your talk page: do you have a connection with this film, or did you work on it? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Yes we are associated with this film. we are digital partners of the film. Do we need to add more sections in the page to qualify? Is this the reason for page being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly team (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User vandalism

In spite of multiple warnings and speedy deletes, Hariharmahadev, keeps creating page Ragi jani. Can you please look into this incident? Coderzombie (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Lankiveil. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

24.124.16.33

I'm curious as to why a banned user with 195 confirmed and 150 suspected sockpuppets would get only a 31 hour block for evasion. After years of harassment targeting one specific user (you may notice that dozens of those sockpuppets are parodies of my user name), 31 hours seems pretty short. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GaryColemanFan: See WP:IPBLENGTH. It's likely they'll have a new IP within 31 hours anyway, and if they return under that IP they can be blocked for a bit longer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Alica Machado Talk Page

Please explain why you felt it necessary to delete an entire section discussing Alicia Machado's past for the Alicia Machado article. It dealt directly with the accusations Donald Trump leveled at Machado, namely that she was a porn star and made a sex tape. The links I suggested for the article show just how flimsy Trump's claims are. Also she has become an important person associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Eagle 21063: I hatted the discussion rather than deleting it, but I agree with the deletion. WP:BLP extends to all pages including talk pages, and repeatedly raising discredited allegations based on their appearance in gossip rags and advocating for its inclusion in an article, is not the sort of thing that'll go well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Well these weren't gossip rags. The links I provided regarding Machado's sexual behavior were Telemundo, Snopes and New York Magazine. However, I can see I've touched some kind of nerve on Wikipedia so I won't press the issue any further but please help me understand what's going on here. If I've provided reputable sources like the ones I've just mentioned why isn't this appropriate information for a Wikipedia article? Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another question just occurred to me. Did you "hat" this discussion for fear of a lawsuit? Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you delete that page on George Miller?

Self explanatory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.164.133 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer back to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miller (entertainer) where there was a consensus expressed (once again) that Miller does not meet our criteria for having an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]