User talk:Renamed user cdb78c3737e6b7f6ba7e28cedcc6608711202eee

Welcome!

PLEASE NOTE

If I have nominated your article for deletion and you would like to know why, please first have a look at the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

• WP:N (General Notability)
• WP:BIO (Person Notability)
• WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability)
• WP:WEB (Web Content Notability)

• WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability)
• WP:V (Verifiability)
• WP:RS (Reliable Sources)
• WP:COPY (Copyright)

If none of these pages addresses your concerns you can

leave me a note and please also sign using ~~~~

---

Deletion of The Ouchies

Hi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ouchies was deleted by you. My apologies for not including more information about the band. I am new to Wikipedia. I do have some links to public information about the band such as interviews and discography sites. Will including this help get it approved? Thanks!

Bobfrombham (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, I nominated it for deletion because it did not cite any references to prove the band's notability. The list of requirements for creation of an article for a band are outlined in WP:MUSICBIO. I would recommend creating the article as a draft or in your sandbox first, and once it is completed you can move it to the mainspace. — IVORK _Discuss 23:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will get it updated with proper references in sandbox first. Thanks! Bobfrombham (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Natureium. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nemy Rose, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Natureium (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Internet meme page

Hello, I am contacting you because you seem to have answered a section in the discussion of the page "Internet meme". I would like to add some content to this page but my account isn't confirmed yet. I wanted to add a section about racism in memes, and more precisely about the debate on whether memes portraying racial minorities reinforce negative racial stereotypes that exist in real life? I think this would be quite interesting since several articles were published on the subject. You can find something interesting through this link for example: https://www.theawl.com/2014/08/memes-and-misogynoir/ I feel that for the sake of neutrality, it would be interesting to add this subject. | Courstech (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day Courstech, you are only four edits away from getting auto-confirmed. Additionally you can submit an edit request onto the page Talk:Internet meme using the template below. Then any autoconfirmed user can add them in for you.

{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}}
{{subst:trim|1=  <!-- Insert your text between this statement and the }} below --->

}} ~~~~

Good luck! — IVORK _Discuss 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Eastern Cobras

Hello IVORK. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Eastern Cobras, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: See WP:CCSI.Look at other deletion alternatives. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day Winged Blades of Godric I concede the point for the university club, and the A11 probably also wasn't needed ontop of the A7, but as for this Rugby team, is it really notable being that it is competing at sub-state level? It's only source after I've removed the Wikipedia link is the in-house roster. — IVORK _Discuss 09:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not got much/any idea about notability of rugby teams.But, in general, the ambit of CCSI is a lot lesser than that of GNG/NSPORTS.And, being a state-level rugby team, passes that.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric my point is that it's sub-state level, not state level. As for WP:CCSI#CLUB, the club as stated above is not in a notable league, nor has it won any notable trophies, delving into the actual WP:CLUB, it doesn't operate on a national / international level and for the last point, again it's only source it's own roster. Not several independant reliable sources.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you don't have much/any of an idea about the notability requirements for Rugby teams, I'm unsure as to why you are contesting CSDs for Notability on Rugby articles. — IVORK _Discuss 12:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I'm unsure what you mean by saying the scope of WP:CCSI is lesser than WP:GNG. GNG is an actual guideline, where as CCSI is just an essay. So yes, but I'm not sure the relevance of this. — IVORK _Discuss 12:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, interpretation of A7 is solely based upon CCSI, not upon GNG/SNG pass/failure.And, you may choose to seek deletion at AFD.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Kimberly R. Cline speedy A7

Hi IVORK, I've declined the above A7 speedy as president of a university is a clear claim of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Renamed user cdb78c3737e6b7f6ba7e28cedcc6608711202eee, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests

Thanks for completing this task. I never noticed it, yet ultimately it should have been I that sorted that part except I never paid any attention to the feature. All the best. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

AFD of Elaine Herzberg

You nominated Elaine Herzberg with the comments to "redirect" to Uber#Criticism because it is a one-event. This is true and I feel (and have stated) that any article concerning an "event" should not be given a biographical article title resulting in a "pseudo-biographical obituary". I do feel that there is ample sources to argue inclusion (somewhere) that at the least will result in a "no consensus determination on closing" that was already prematurely attempted. The "issues" that may have resulted in the accident, evidenced by sources, that there are possible software concerns (I have included ones I have so far found in comments), on more than "just Uber", and national attention to these, may have resulted in this tragedy being avoided. This, to me, is significant to have a stand-alone article on this subject and can include other centrally located and sourced content with issues and concerns.

I am sure you are following the AFD but kindly request that you look at recent suggestions to see if you deem there to be a compromise or not and offer an opinion. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Howdy Otr500, yeah I have been following. And to be honest the article has changed and gotten enough media attention to convince me it does deserve to stay in some form as my initial nomination was just days after the event. However it's not like me withdrawing / changing my vote will nullify the AfD. I tend not to respond in AfDs as it can appear to be WP:BLUDGEONing — IVORK _Discuss 13:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that but you stated that you believe "it does deserve to stay in some form". This is indicative of "not at the present title" it would seem that a self-concern of bludgeoning, that to me is a form of Wikilawyering, would be an attempt at "pounding home a POV" rather than agreeing that an article has merit for reconsideration. This would deem to me to offer another side of the coin of not just "fly-by" !voting while presenting an opinion aimed at collaboration for Wikipedia improvement. I am not just selectively sending messages but intend to send to the participants (except three apparent vandals) of the AFD. I have never done this before, nor asked an admin to reverse a decision, so new at this aspect and really really slow. My goal is to not let the continued "no consensus" closings result in articles being in the wrong namespace when this is against policies and guidelines that may also, by consensus, result in not having the 2, 3, and 4 AFD's. Another concern is that editors have it within the Wikipedia structure to make decisions that have been so long burdened to an admin. Wikipedia advances collaboration but it does not just have to involve only content editing. Consensus on a particular area can be decided and an admin just make the formalities. I have come to understand that "any" confusion such as multiple suggestions, or a somewhat close consensus, and a closer is advised to close as "keep". I have seen (and likely you) that it seems a head count is sometimes used even if against policies and guidelines. At any rate, thanks for your reply, and have a nice day. ----- Otr500 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Kyle M Hamilton

hey IVORK its the actual Kyle M. Hamilton typing this message i apologize for my poorly put together submission . I am an actor / Director Ive worked on movies and televison networks like Netflix / Discovery channel / B.E.T i would gladly like to chat over the phone and maybe verifie some stuff and show you its the real me and i am currently on a tv series for netflix called Frontier with Jason Momoa.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6451779/ www.facebook.com/OfficialKyleMHamilton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.211.109 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@134.41.211.109: G'day mate, please see WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR for a list of the notability requirements you'd need to reach. It is not recommended that you create articles about yourself as you're a lot more open to conflicts of interest. Additionally, personal contact between edittors and subjects cannot be used as a reliable source as Wikipedia doesn't allow origional research. All reporting needs to come through in the forms of reviews, or news articles for example. Please let me know if you have any further questions — IVORK _Discuss 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you have an infobox on you User Page. How does one make a personal infobox? 71.206.3.92 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Howdy 71.206.3.92, I suggest you check out the code for one I made here or here by clicking edit. Further info can be discovered by going to the Template:Userbox page. Let me know here if you have any more questions / want one. — IVORK _Discuss 04:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Collection of fan mail

Calm down, It's just a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.59.211 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, your "jokes" are going to get you blocked if they continue. Please stop as warned and asked by IVORK, thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Whelp, I warned him... and so did IVORK... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... user is blocked now. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: go bugger a roo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2260:9260:DD06:AB4D:9BE1:401B (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Deinococcus marmoris

Hi, IVORK, you recently restored information that I had taken down from the live Deinococcus marmoris Wikipedia page. I took down this information because it was not supposed to be added to the live page yet. I was still working with it in my sandbox, and I am not ready for it to be on the live page yet. Thank you so much for keeping an eye on the page, but I will add the information back when it has been revised and checked for any errors! --Eliseduhon (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I've moved Deinococcus marmoris back to main space, since the article had existed since 2014, long before this current science class assignment. The students can work on a new version in user space, but I don't see a reason to remove the article from the main encyclopedia for their project. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, big oops there, I had missed it wasn't origionally their article, cheers — IVORK _Discuss 02:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A7 on Lena Atti

Hi IVORK -- I've declined this speedy request as having a work in a permanent museum collection is a sufficient claim. I think Atti is probably notable and there seem to be available detailed sources to expand the article. Please be doubly careful not to discourage good-faith new contributors of articles on underrepresented areas such as native crafts. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Herzberg Redux

Please take another look at Talk:Elaine Herzberg#Requested move 6 April 2018 and see if you'd like to join the consensus that's been forming over the past week. Respectfully, Eliyahu --Eliyahu S ^Talk 07:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No dramas Eliyahu S, was BOLD and did it myself, 15-0 is definitely enough — IVORK _Discuss 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Atomicdragon136 edits to HowToBasic

You reverted the user here. I wanted to alert you to the fact that the edit you reverted was hihgly problematic and the user's edits are suspect. It is the second time they have made the edit. The edit removed a vast amount of sources and improvments to the article, such as removals of OR. In the initial edit, they did all this without an edit summary. The edit you reverted, gave a partially misleading edit summary ("Addition of birth name") as you can see. R9tgokunks ✡ 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No dramas R9tgokunks, the page isn't too far away from needing protection placed on it. It should die down with time else we'll go that route. I'm not an admin if that's what you were thinking — IVORK _Discuss 09:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bjerknes force

Hello

I noticed that you have requested my article be deleted

I believe this article is worth including, and I intended to expand it greatly over the coming days and weeks, when I have time to do so, as I mentioned in the edit summary. Please allow me to do this. The topic forms an important part of my PhD research and I thought it was an obvious omission from Wikipedia, that I would be well placed to add to gradually. Please could you let me know how many words do I need to include in what time frame before it is no longer eligible for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbleEngineer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day BubbleEngineer, so long as you plan on expanding the article past just a definition, it's fine. I've removed the WP:PROD for now. You're obviously much more knowledgable in the subject than I am, I would recommend adding things such as related formulars and/or applications of use. The request was only for it's current form as it appeared to purely be a WP:DICTIONARY definition, rather than an encylopedic entry. Perhaps look at pages such as Minnaert resonance or the Bubble_(physics)#Pulsation section for an idea. Thanks — IVORK _Discuss 01:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan Moore (Russian athlete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital FM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

When is a redirect not a redirect?

When you revert my redirect. What is the point of making and then assessing a talk page with old spelling for an article that was moved to a different spelling? The old talk page should automatically be a redirect to the new spelling. So now what do you expect people to do who arrive on this talk page? Go the the main article, which does redirect to the new spelling, and then choose the new spelling talk page from there. What a waste of time and effort. According to the page history, you even created the bad spelling talk page that goes nowhere freshly. It's not a redirect as it stands with no link to the correct page and my edit fixed that. You just made it an orphan assessed page again. At the very least it should be a {{soft redirect}} but as it has no content a plain redirect is correct. As an editor who has assessed many Irish articles, the Ireland Project certainly finds this useless as it stands. I recommend you reconsider your actions in the instance. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day @Ww2censor: per my revert notice, when creating redirects via the WP:AFC/R proccess which I do from time to time, it is customary there to leave atleast {{WPAFC|class=redirect|ts=|reviewer=IVORK}} in place on the talk page. Redirects exist in order to correct spelling or alternative names people may search in trying to find a subject. I find it is extremely unlikely that they would not only mistype, but also accidentally start with Talk: hence, I do not expect people to land on the talk page without intention. And again, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects/Reviewing_instructions#Accepting_a_redirect_request, we are asked to Add any other applicable WikiProject banners and save the (talk) page when creating new redirects, I was mearly following this logic. — IVORK _Discuss 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Redirects are still part of Wikipedia's content; individually, they may not be much but collectively they add up to a lot of information. It seems to me it is useful to WikiProjects to have redirects tagged and listed so they can assist with redirect tagging within their own subject matters, see trends and other data, spot patterns that may assist in the creation of more redirects, or even discover redirects that can be converted into articles on the subjects the WikiProject specialises in. IVORK, hope you don't mind me parachuting unannounced onto your talk page and may I take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work keeping WP:AFC/R moving along swiftly. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.11.149.25 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Draft:Palladium Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for Executing Strategy comment

IVORK,

Thanks for reviewing my article. Your edit is certainly fine. I do think the title is reflective of what the article is about. Happy to further discuss.

~David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpmcmillan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Article re Steven Benjamin Damelin

Hi, You rejected the article:

Can you explain why:

How about the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_A._Roberts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Andrews_(mathematician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Olver

What is the difference? In particularly the article re Catherine Roberts? All of these people are my close colleagues.

Lets chat.

StevenBenjaminDamelin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day StevenBenjaminDamelin, I had not declined the article, just the entry you had submitted for review in your sandbox as a test as all it stated was:

This is a wikipedia page regarding the mathematician and scientist Steven Benjamin Damelin. As with most mathematicians who have verifiable articles re them this is a true and verifiable article with references and proofs for everything stated.StevenBenjaminDamelin (talk) 10:54 am, Yesterday (UTC+9.5)

The actual article still exists at Draft:Steven Benjamin Damelin and is still pending review. I had removed the content from your userpage and redirected it to there as Wikipedia tends to not like articles on User pages. I would also recommend giving WP:COI a read, as it is generally discouraged to create articles about yourself and/or people you personally are connected to as you may be subject to a conflict of interest in omitting negative detail, whereas encyclopedic entries need to be purely factual, I will tag the draft with a Template:Connected contributor tag. I will review and fixup the article now — IVORK _Discuss 22:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your note. I understand. That sentence was not meant to be there---it was meant for the Wikipedia editor. Sorry about that. Thanks for editing the article now. Appreciated. StevenBenjaminDamelin (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@StevenBenjaminDamelin: The article has been accepted, the only points I feel are worth mentioning is that while Wikipedia distinguishes between differently capitalized URLs, it does not for the first letter so there is no need to write Electron configurations over electron configurations. I had removed a bunch of those apart from where they're clearly proper nouns, and additionally had removed a bunch of links to terms that don't exist within Wikipedia such as group invariant kernels where you had linked each word individually. If such as term does exist somewhere under a different title or section, you can always link it back again using [[correctpage#sectionoftopic|textyouwantdisplayed]]. — IVORK _Discuss 23:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

5 moves about Papal messages

• I have moved that move discussion (about Rubricarum Instructum, Dolentium Hominum, Misericordiae Vultus, Dominicae Cenae, Ex Corde Ecclesiae) to Talk:Rubricarum Instructum#Requested move 18 April 2018. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Help expanded article by Maureen Wroblewitz from [1]. Thanks you.Kim Mai 13 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)