User talk:BethNaught: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:42, 27 January 2016

My real name is not Beth. See my user page for an explanation.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Good grief

After seeing just that oppose vote I am even more sure I do not ever wish to be an admin. Thank you for being wise and ignoring it. Why you want to be an admin is a mystery, but good luck with it. I am sure you will do it with care and wisdom

Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heck, Fiddle. Only one of 19 successful candidacies so far this year has sailed through with zero opposition, and that was a former admin applying for reinstatement of their tools. While Naught hasn't had null opposition, they are on track to come in second this year in the oppose metric, and first among first-time candidates. Contrast with Liz who absorbed 72 negative !votes and came out OK. My candidacy seems to have set off a backlash against what was generally viewed as too much frivolous opposition, but we need to set a balance here. RfA should not be such a "friendly space" as to make editors feel intimidated about opposing candidates. Candidates should be able to absorb some negativity without overreacting to it, as successful ones are given a block button, which shouldn't be used as a weapon against someone who annoys them too much.

You should run. While I can't promise you would have naught opposition, based on the guide-writers' reaction to your Arbcom candidacy, I expect you would pass with a higher percentage than I did. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: It was that particular opposition that struck me. Your suggestion for my own candidacy is appreciated, but I no plans ever to yield to the temptation. Until my personal circumstances made withdrawal wise I stood for ArbCom without the mop and bucket, and polled remarkably well despite withdrawing. There is a link on my user page about me and adminship. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a cute kitty :) But seriously, when one runs for RfA, one has to be prepared for "Andrew D finding ever more ingenious reasons to oppose"; and it is heartening to see others who show trust in me. You would have had my vote for ArbCom and I would most likely support you at RfA, but your reasons are very reasonable and I respect the good work you continue to do at AfC, especially now I have left it. BethNaught (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that is the most reasonable thread on that site I've ever seen. For the hell of it, I'll note this. I was kind of proud to have such a staunch AfD opponent support me. (Hey Timtrent! How you doing? You haven't missed anything funny or exciting yet.) Drmies (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#118 still active (while I didn't know yet what an admin is, or an arb), - getting melancholic (looking further also over 95 and 98) but should turn to laughter, my Christmas present to the world (watch it grow up) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been far too long since I did any choral singing. Thanks for the link to Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, it was a real pleasure to hear. BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my friend, I wonder why some folk have to speak at all, or why they set the fingers in motion without engaging the right part of the brain. But then, by their words do we know them. I love your diff, by the way. I often disagree with them as well, and yet find the disagreements to be handled well. That, I think, is almost more important than anything else. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all the best people get one oppose at RFA ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Singular They Award
	I applaud your stance, and so does some lousy linguist. That one should call this a 'stance', in 2015, beggars belief, but hey, it is what it is. Good luck with the tool that seems to be coming your way. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used singular they for as long as I can remember, so on a personal level I find its rejection bewildering, let alone for any other reason... thank you for your support! BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singular they was good enough for Shakespeare, and that makes it good enough for me! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some cookies for you

Cookies!

Etamni has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Because RfA is never easy, even when you are running at 99% support.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Enjoy! Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 20:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. I love coming home to cookies, thanks indeed :) BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staggeringly early (but accurate)

congratulations on getting the mop! Totally deserved, as the RfA comments reflect. Regards, Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't over till the bureaucrat signs. Hopefully I won't get sent over the top before the end of Sunday... BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wear a private's uniform so the snipers don't pick you out. Deffo do not wear a wikipedia T shirt. Then you'll be perfectly safe ;) Irondome (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, good advice :) BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Supports come early while the Opposes usually pop in around Day 3 or Day 4 so I think you are definitely in safe territory. It's great to get that kind of support! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't suddenly lost the ability the count, we're just entering Day 3 :/ BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw that there were 4 days left. Well, pay no mind to me. My only advice is to candidates who are not doing as well as you are...many candidates withdraw as soon as Opposes appear because it is very painful to see your fellow editors detail what they believe are your failings and flaws. So they quit. But I think if they had hung in there, there is often a rebound towards the end. At least it happened in my case. It's just that an RfA feels like the longest 7 days of your life, especially if you are in the discretionary zone. So I'm glad to see you are doing so well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it makes more sense when you put it like that – that is an important consideration. Let's hope the winds continue to blow fair, though. BethNaught (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate RfA is a stressful time even if you run at near 100% support, as you never know what somebody might pull out of the woodwork and cause a pile-on oppose. So I think you're right to keep congratulations premature just for the minute. As I gave you 10/10 in the opinion poll, it's fairly obvious what my view on the whole situation is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Almost) Congrats and questions

Hi $\beth _{0}$ , how's it going? Firstly, let me almost congratulate you on your almost mop! Secondly, I have a couple of questions about how you found WP:ORCP, especially in relation to how it could be improved and how much it influenced your decision to run for RfA - if you would like to answer them, please see this page. Thanks! -- samtar ^whisper 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to wait until the RfA is closed so that I can get all my thoughts in order and reflect on the whole process. But it's on my to-do list. BethNaught (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, no rush whatsoever

good luck! -- samtar ^whisper 11:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replied. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you! And congratulations, both personally and on behalf of the ORCP "team" :) now get to work! :P -- samtar ^whisper 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted (at my request mind you, pitchforks down everyone) one of my subpages with your new-fangled admin ~~toys~~ tools :3 -- samtar ^whisper 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hello Naught, On the 18th of November, i left a message here about my draft "Jubril Enakele" However, each time i check this on google(https://www.google.com.ng/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jubril+enakele+wiki) i see my message to you on the 1st page! This is a little confusing, as I thought drafts are not meant to be indexed. Is there anything that can be done about it? Or is this a normal occurrence? I tried to edit your talk page earlier but i guess that was not the solution. I really would love a feedback as soon as possible. Thank you so much. Alexejesi (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did message me on the 14th of November about an image you uploaded. At the Google search you link to the link I'm seeing is to File talk:Jubril Enakele. Managing Director and CEO, Zenith Capital Limited.jpg which has since been deleted. Either we're seeing different things, or you're seeing what I'm seeing; if the latter is the case, Google's cache has not updated.

In general file pages, file talk pages, user pages and user talk pages are indexed by search engines (I think) so it's not abnormal for this to happen. That's what happens when we work on a free and open encyclopaedia, I guess. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Naught! Alexejesi (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hey I noticed your RFA. I want to say i think you will be a great admin, based on the responses. I can't vote since im not exactly experienced but thumbs up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

In focus: Drone photography: New possibilities and new challenges

In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015

Arbitration report: GMO case decided

Featured content: An unusually slow week

WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations

Traffic report: A feast of Spam

Gallery: WikiConference USA 2015: images, slide decks, and videos

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congrats for the successful RfA! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations on a fine showing at your request for adminship. Please take a look at our shiny new Wikipedia:Administrators' guide for helpful advice as you step into your new role. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Go forth, and do good unto the wiki. –xeno^talk 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats BethNaught and welcome aboard! To echo what Xeno said, our admin guide is a brand new portal for all things admin, so if you have any feedback on it that'd be great (I authored much of it, with much help from some friends). Feedback aside, I in particular encourage you to check out the various tools, scripts and gadgets, as this stuff will make admin life much easier. Best wishes and look forward to working with you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That admin guide is really handy. If anything comes up I'll mention it. I'll definitely be making good use of Twinkle and your responseHelper script looks intriguing. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thanks for running. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations (and condolences)! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 20:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations - you deserve it and I know you will use the tools honorably and in a manner that benefits Wikipedia to the fullest! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, BNaught. Well deserved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats and thanks for putting yourself forward. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone for your good wishes :) BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the beginning of the end! (Seriously, though, congratulations!) Biblioworm 22:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks :) I've been finding my feet with the delete button. The interface is not optimal on a tablet... BethNaught (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your fine showing! I am pleased to present you with your admin T-shirt. Wear it with pride. Or something. (P.S. Here's a hint: the delete button works better if you don't try to do it with your feet.) --MelanieN (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I knew you would be a shoo-in. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I knew you would become an admin. I will also send a cookie Class455fan1 (talk to me) 12:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! May your naysayers always be as few, and as ineffectual. Maproom (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Hello BethNaught: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

A turkey for you!

	Turkey
	Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator, and Merry Christmas! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Congrats!!!! --joe decker ^talk 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

My grandma made this brownie for you to congratulate on your successful RFA. I wish you the best for the festive season. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Congratulations on becoming an Administrator. Enjoy this! Class455fan1 (talk to me) 12:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – eight long, sordid, should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. (Hey, I got called 'an affront to common decency' last week, so yay!)
Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

Katie^talk 15:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA! To keep you warm during the holiday season, please have a sample of the organic coffee I drink every morning! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more congratulation

And thanks for proving your nomination by deleting, at my request, this useless common.js file in my user space. Pldx1 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding another late congrats! (Sorry to barge into your conversation, Pldx1). Well done, very pleased to see your RfA closed as successful. :) Orphan Wiki 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will sneak in here to offer another late congratulations. I have been offline for over four days but for a brief look-in. I am sure you will do a great job. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry stuff.

Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Poepkop (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I see you've already started working at WP:RPP. Good luck! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 24:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add {{sprotect2}} and etc. to articles you've protected (see here). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to, thanks for pointing that out. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Nightly News

BethNaught, I know you're on wikibreak, so here's just an FYI: The IP is at it again. And José's article. When you come back, you can take care of it. If it becomes a bigger problem, I'll go to the noticeboard. Enjoy your break! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kristen Welker one of the Saturday anchors? I'm not in America so I'm not on top of these things. It doesn't look like it from the internet though. BethNaught (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Welker occasionally fills in, only if needed. She anchored the Today Show on Christmas and Nightly News as well. I'm looking for video to back it up. Basically she's a when needed anchor. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Council for Technology and Industry Advisory Council

Thank you so much. I've had an uphill battle the last few days, especially in reporting mass copyright violations to several articles. I suspect everyone's vacationing in the Bahamas, what with the salary administrators pull in. Happy Holidays, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing it and working to stop them :) BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bannedmeansbanned

Hello
You took part in the TfD on this a while ago; I have opened a discussion here if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel not on AN/I?

I am pretty sure I've seen a user with his revdel request on AN/I. Anyways, if you can't find a user who was recently active in the category, where should I go to request a revdel? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee

Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended

Featured content: The post-Christmas edition

Traffic report: The Force we expected

Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015

In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"

Gallery: It's that time of year again

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. – Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mărășești

Thanks for protecting the above article - I've asked the person who originally inserted the casualty figures to provide a source. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please delete this page

Hi, BethNaught. Could you please delete this page (on speedy request). The rationale: it is not yet 2016, UTC. Many thanks. Neve-selbert 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's now 2016 UTC, and in any case that was a highly pointy nomination. BethNaught (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could you just delete it temporarily so I can add it back up again with the correct information. Neve-selbert 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, the list is in-fact 50% factually inaccurate, misleading and false. For example, President Barack Obama will not become a state leader in 2016 until 05:00 (UTC). Of course, it is 99.9% unlikely he will die or resign office, but still, anything is plausible and we must not make premature presumptions. I have downgraded my speedy request to just a normal one. Regards. Neve-selbert 00:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have had to re-upgrade back to CSD, as XFD usually takes around a week. Neve-selbert 03:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nice work :)

Nice work with the ban evasion, and thanks again for protecting my user page Happy New Year! -- samtar ^whisper 10:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Does this meet criteria 2 (grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive vandalism on a BLP) for revision deletion? If so could you please revdel it? Thanks! Btw congrats on your RfA success! BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it does. It doesn't libel or smear the subject, it's just plain vandalism. OTOH since it's another amateur soft porn pic being used for vandalism, I added it to MediaWiki:Bad image list which prevents its use on Wikipedia, thereby hiding the picture from the diff you give.

As an aside, revdel requests are better submitted through private channels such as email. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx 4 listing it - I wasn't sure if it was really bad enough to warrent revdel, but I thought it might be. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Much appreciated. It's a serious issue and all, no doubt about it, but at the same time they didn't intimidate me. Cheers! :) Amaury (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're OK. Absolutely intolerable behaviour. BethNaught (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, it looks like they are evading their block yet again as 172.56.39.218. Same IP range as the other three IPs from this user that were blocked and same editing pattern of reporting users and IPs on WP:AIV, with most of them being bogus reports. They also remove other users' reports with decisions that, really, administrators can only make. On top of that, Taokola is also EnRouteAviation before they "discontinued" that user. So they've got quite the trouble-making history. :) Amaury (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about EnRouteAviation so I reblocked that account. I can't say I'm familiar with their other IPs? It sounds like you should file an SPI. BethNaught (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely consider that. For reference, here are the past IPs that were blocked by different administrators:

172.56.39.106

172.56.38.28

172.56.39.194

And while I was looking through the AIV history to get those, it looks like there are at least two others that I oversaw, one from today, not including the one I linked to you above. It just comes with the territory, I guess, haha! Amaury (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Based on that information, I have blocked 39.218 as a WP:DUCK. BethNaught (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up range blocking 172.56.39.218/23. BethNaught (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka filed. BethNaught (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the padlocks

Thanks for doing the drudgework of putting padlocks on all of those indef-protected soft-redirects to Wiktionary.

I wish there was a bot that would sweep all protected pages every few weeks (or on-demand on a per-article basis) and fix incorrect protection templates. It would have saved us both a lot of work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These padlocks should really be automatically displayed by the software. I wonder if this has ever been proposed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: I've wondered this as well. This should be doable as a gadget. We have a gadget for protection symbols at a another wiki that I contribute to. There are some differences compared to the templates that we use now. It puts the protection indicator (padlock here) in a different spot and is not based on a template. This could be implemented to essentially transclude the padlock templates we use now instead. It is based on the edit/move protection level, not the reason or duration. I don't know if it is possible to take those into account. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		For replying on my talk page for the concerns raised on the article List of state leaders in 2016 Ninney (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, my dear friend, for blocking the vandal. I don't know what I would do without you.

Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page Deleted?

Hi BethNaught,

Actually i don't understand why someone post some stuff on my user talk page Talk Page and then you deleted my page ? Sorry i can't understand what's going on ... can you please explain ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsamaDaniyalXen (talk • contribs)

A vandal posted a rather rude message to your talk page and to many other people's talk pages. Since that message was the only thing that had been posted there, I just deleted the page. BethNaught (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

Hi. Could this IP please be blocked. They have been warned twice including a final warning and they have continued to be disruptive and vandalise. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by MusikAnimal. BethNaught (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion, please

I have run across a relatively new user, BoxOfChickens, who may be overly zealous, especially in warning new editors. Instead of raising it at ANI I wondered if you might take a look and see if my unease is justified. I have chosen at this stage not to tell the I am discussing them. I've tried a note on their talk page but seem unable to engage them in conversation. Fiddle Faddle 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Your uneasiness is well justified. BoxOfChickens is one of those users at AIV who final warns a user and reports them immediately after. This event also fits their pattern of giving multiple final warnings which include gratuitous shouting. So overzealous are they that they have accidentally reinstated vandalism for which they themselves have been reverted and warned (in this diff see also Anna Frodesiak's warning about reporting a username for being an IRL name even though it wasn't a celebrity name). As a climax to this litany, see this gratuitous inflexibility and hostility when dealing with self-identifying BLP subjects. The BLP subject was blocked for edit warring but if BoxOfChickens had acted better the situation could have been avoided.

How do you plan to move forward? Their talk page shows they throw their interpretation of the book at a situation without applying much common sense. I don't think I have the energy or ability to make them understand and given how events have played out with the BLP, a unilateral block would look questionable to uninvolved users. Perhaps seek a topic ban from recent changes and new page patrolling at AN(I)? BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will go to ANI. It seems the best way. I will make one final attempt to engage with them first. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Ping me if you do, please. That paragraph of diffs is too much to waste 😞 BTW are you sure you don't want some RevDel? BethNaught (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little revel might be useful, but I was wondering what one really ought to do about that IP. It is a legal threat, but one that might be best ignored. It;s really particularly unpleasant. Have I interacted with that IP ever, I wonder? Or is their brand of idiocy sprayed everywhere? At your discretion please revel, I think.

I left a note on the poultry page. If I have to go to ANI I will, I am just hoping to tame them. Leaping straight to ANI is just the behaviour I am truing to counsel them against, after all. The irony is not lost on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)

Done. Unfortunately a WHOIS query resolves to an ISP. You may have interacted with them previously under a different dynamic IP but who knows? BethNaught (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Who can possibly say? I suspect this is some sort of backlash from a couple of deletion discussions I started recently, one on the Psychology of eating meat (kept, though vulnerable) and th either Men Going Their Own Way, likely to be kept but will be claque edited and owned. Each seems to have some sort of sexual issues surrounding it! Go figure. Fiddle Faddle 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Why you reverted my edition in Frozen?

Frozen has a Scandinavian protagonist. - Daniel Steinman (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

From reading the article, the film is only based on Scandinavia, not explicitly set there. To claim otherwise requires a reliable source. Also, as both I and 78.26 explained in our edit summaries, the category you added to the page does not presently exist: Category:American animation with Scandinavian protagonist is a red link. BethNaught (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Steinman: Now, I'm no expert on creating categories, and there's nothing wrong with a category called "American animation with Scandinavian protagonist", but are there a number of American animated films with a Scandinavian protagonist? Creating a category with only one entry isn't very useful, except in limited circumstances. Both BethNaught and I recognize that your edit was done in full good faith, and that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. What is your goal with this edit? What are you trying to accomplish? Perhaps there is a better way to do this than to add a category that doesn't exist. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RPP thanks

Thank you! best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent

In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE

Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided

Featured content: Featured menagerie

Recent research: Teaching Wikipedia, Does advertising the gender gap help or hurt Wikipedia?

WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check a NAC?

Hi BethNaught, sorry to bother - would you mind checking over a NAC I did for this AfD when you get a mo? Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In technical terms, you did not removed the AFD template from the article, nor did you add the "old AFD" template to the talk page. When closing AFDs in the future please carefully follow the instructions at WP:AFDAI. In terms of the outcome, non-admins can close as speedy keep, but only if it's correct. I'm not sure it satisfies the WP:SK criteria but, since WP:SNOW seems to come into play, I won't advise you to revert your close. I would say that though I'm sure you wish to be helpful, it wouldn't have hurted to wait a bit longer before actually closing it to see what others at ANI thought. BethNaught (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bother - sorry -- samtar ^whisper 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small favor needed

Hello, BethNaught. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black account

Please block user 68.118.134.7. Every single edit from there has been vandalism since it opened. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there have only been two vandalism edits today and the last an hour ago. Blocks are preventive so if the vandal has gone away for now as it seems I won't block. Please do report to AIV if more happens soon though and as it's a school's shared IP address there will be escalating blocks. BethNaught (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the Danielle Spencer page

Can you please tell me what changes you have made to the page. I got an email saying that you did but I don't see the changes. Dldavid1970 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that I have made any edits or administrative actions on Danielle Spencer or Danielle Spencer (American actress). I don't know why you received such an email. BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to my talk page?

Seems as though this edit occurred and then you reverted it. What happened here? -- numbermaniac (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody made a suppressible edit. I reverted it and reported it to the oversighters, one of whom suppressed it. That's all I can say. BethNaught (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thank you :) -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox delete

Just out of curiosity, when a page has been nominated for speedy deletion and also courtesy blanked, do you have to use admin glasses to see the text that was blanked? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The blanking is just a normal edit removing all the content and replacing it with the CSD templates and blanking notice. Therefore the potential attack is still visible in the page history. BethNaught (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for answering, and thank you for deleting the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these pages exist?

List of Internet slang phrases, it's fully protected and there's "apparently" no existent page there, with it saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for List of Internet slang phrases in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.". Could you delete this page, along with List of Internet slang? There's legitimately no reason to keep these pages around. Ana r chyte 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are meant to be like this. If people search for that title, it tells them that Wikipedia doesn't have an article (it doesn't; it was moved to Wiktionary) and where they can find the information, including a link to the page's new location on Wiktionary. This is analoguous to leaving a redirect after a page move, except here the page was moved to a different wiki. BethNaught (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But even then, going to a nonexistant page is more useful. It shows this: https://gyazo.com/f0803f33d23f3168577c8ec80cdb792d (don't mind the green circles). This has even more links than the current ones. Ana r chyte 12:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place. If you want them to be deleted, WP:AFD is thataway. BethNaught (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

In the media: War and peace; WMF board changes; Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias

Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF

Editorial: We need a culture of verification

In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street

Op-ed: Transparency

Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report

Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016

News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee

Blog: Inside the game of sports vandalism on Wikipedia

Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jani-King

Thanks for quick response. Article is quite old and company gets occasional media coverage which were my only reasons for not speedying immediately. (It came to my attention from the Stratus article - the creator of that page was asking "They get an article, why don't we?") Blythwood (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Deletion

Why did you delete my page? Shaikhsikandar (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote in the deletion log, there are several reasons:

It was promotional. Per criterion for speedy deletion number G11, pages which consists of promotion can be immediately deleted. While your page was not outright advertising, it was wholly positive and written in an adulatory rather than encyclopaedic manner.
It was an biography of a living person without any references to sources. These can be deleted after a week; taken in combination with G11, it was immediately deleted.
This is not technically a reason for deletion, but it was an autobiography. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, because your bias towards yourself means you will likely write a promotional rather than neutral page.

BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with MetLife article?

Hi BethNaught, I'm been working on behalf of MetLife to propose improvements to that article. I see that you have been active recently on the page and appear to be a very experienced editor, so I wondered if you might be available to help me with a few requests?

To briefly summarize, though some positive changes have been made to the page by other editors, there are some issues that have been introduced and some outstanding problems I would like to address. In particular, I'm hoping to correct inaccuracies and bring the page inline with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. I posted a note to the Talk page back in November, to summarize and clarify the outstanding requests, but so far I haven’t had any replies.

Again, while there have been changes made to the page, it’s been difficult for me to get editors to respond to my requests or to discuss where changes have introduced problems (e.g. the addition of company structure information that's confusing and outdated). Because of this, I'm reaching out to you to see if you might help. Due to my paid COI, I have not and will not be making any edits myself. I’m watching the Talk page and will gladly respond to any comments or questions there. Many thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry not to be any help but evaluting COI requests isn't my strong suit and I'm not feeling well at the moment. You'll get it looked at sooner by asking somebody else. :( BethNaught (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out

Op-ed: Not a pretty picture: Thoughts on the "monkey selfie" debacle

In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up

Traffic report: Danse Macabre

Featured content: This week's featured content

Blog: Fifteen years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIV thanks

Thanks very much for your help here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reprotect/delete (return to draftspace) Ryan Driller

This article was salted by DGG last year following multiple recreations after AFD deletion. After the events mentioned on the RFPP page, it was submitted via AFC, where two different AFC project members found the new claims insufficient. Rather than taking the matter to DRV, the standard process for matters like this, Sammy1339 joined the AFC project only to reserve the decision of other editors, discovered the page was protected, and posted rather incompletely to RFPP. Despite what he said there, the issue was not the accuracy of the claim involved, but whether the draft had sufficient independent reliable, as noted by the two experienced editors who rejected the AFC submission. User:Bearcat accurately wrote that " It takes reliable source coverage about him to get him over PORNBIO, not primary source mentions on the website of the organization that granted the award". User:SwisterTwister similarly wrote "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neither of them "doubted that he really received the award because the fact that he received it was cited to the granting organization's press release" as Sammy wrote at RFPP; instead, they questioned the independence of the coverage. Given that XBIZ is a PR business and its award nominees are not independently chosen, but "are submitted by clients"[1][2], this is a very reasonable concern. This was an attempt at an end run around both the DRV and AFC processes, and shouldn't have been allowed -- especially based on a misleading, inaccurate RFPP post. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Done. For anyone else coming here asking why, read what's written above. The changes aren't as significant as I believed, so take it to DRV. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Sorry about that - I wasn't aware there was an argument about whether the XBIZ awards counted towards PORNBIO. Can you direct me to any previous discussions of that, to avoid further confusion? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some discussions, but no real resolution even approached. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award and the HuffPost article I cite there for some useful comments, as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#DRV treatment of porn-related content. A DRV might well be a good place to address this question more directly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Interesting. The HuffPo piece you cited makes a damning case. I'll have to look into this more. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339, HW is wrong. The only one on WP questioning if XBIZ is a well-known/significant award is him because he doesn't consider any porn award to be well-known/significant, not even the highly prestigious AVN Award for Best New Starlet (he actually voted to delete a recipient of it). There have been AfD's resulting in "keep" for a recipient of XBIZ's Foreign Male Performer of the Year award (a slightly les prestigious award than Male Performer of the Year) as well as a recipient of the female equivalent of the award Driller won (XBIZ's Female Performer of the Year). BethNaught, could you restore and start an AfD please. Me and Sammy1339 aren't trying to avoid having a discussion on this like HW insinuated above, I actually requested we have an AfD for this last week. The reason why I'm not taking this to DRV is because DRV is not AfD. DRV is meant to review the most recent AfD there was for an article and either endorse or overturn its close. If I take this to DRV, it will be referred to AfD anyways, so why not skip that step? Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebecca1990: I'm reading up on it and reserving judgment for now. If there's really strong evidence that the XBIZ awards are bought, then they shouldn't count. On the other hand people have said this sort of thing about the Oscars for years.

If there's going to be a discussion I would suggest that the place for it might be a policy RfC asking whether the XBIZ awards satisfy PORNBIO#1. We shouldn't pretend it's just about this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into this. I didn't find anything to strongly suggest that the awards were corrupt, as the 2013 HuffPo piece refereced by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz suggested. I also found that Springer's Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities has this to say on page 425:

Similarly, XBIZ describes itself as the “global leader in adult entertainment industry news,” providing current industry coverage on their website as well as two monthly trade publications for the Internet and technology (XBIZ World) and the retail market (XBIZ Premiere) (XBIZ.com). XBiz hosts four trade events annually that include the XBIZ Awards, which honor influential companies and performers in a red carpet event like AVN’s awards ceremony. XBIZ.net serves as the industry’s social network, connecting adult industry professionals with community news, information and business opportunities around the world (Xbizworld.com).

Lynn Comella (2010) suggests that trade shows like those of AVN and XBIZ offer a “sociologically rich window into the marketing and mainstreaming of sex in American society” and provides “an opportunity to assess the challenges confronting the industry” like internet piracy and declining DVD sales (p. 286). Indeed, her ethnographic research on the women’s market for sex toys and pornography involved attending three tradeshows to gather data from industry professionals and trade events and seminars, which she argues are the “best way to gauge what is new, what is notable, and, importantly, what direction the industry is headed” (p. 303).

It seems like on the basis of this it's reasonable to say that the top XBIZ awards satisfy WP:PORNBIO#1. Another issue was brought up at the AfC by Bearcat here. If I understand correctly, Bearcat claims that, while there is no doubt that the subject received the award, we nevertheless need a secondary source stating that he did in order for the SNG to be satisfied. I cannot find any pertinent policy or guideline that says anything of the like, and I have to say it makes no sense to me. Do we imagine that the author of this secondary source would do anything other than check the XBIZ website in order to verify that the person received the award? If not, for what reason on Earth do we prefer the secondary source? In fact this seems like a case where the primary source should be preferred.

Bearcat also questioned whether the subject passes GNG, based on a Google news search, plus coverage in the trade journals, I think he probably does.

I understand that Rebecca is terrified of DRV because she believes that the people there have a punitive attitude toward pornography articles. I do think this is a case that might pass there, but I also wonder if it's the appropriate venue, since there is actually no dispute about the previous decision, which was made before he won the award.

To sum up, as I see it there is no doubt that he received the award, and little doubt that the award satisfies the criteria, and the only objection lies in the desire for a secondary source for a specific fact that no one doubts; furthermore some editors want this to go to DRV instead of AfD simply because it was rejected on this interesting basis. On both counts I have to point to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and ask for some good will. The draft should simply be accepted. If anyone really wants to argue that the secondary sourcing is necessary, AfD seems like a perfectly good place. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Sammy1339, primary sources are good enough to prove someone received an award. As a matter of fact, secondary sources can be untrustworthy. For example, Las Vegas Sun mistakenly reported that Kendall Karson "won multiple awards — 2013 AVN Best New Starlet, 2013 Exotic Dancer Awards Adult Movie Feature Entertainer of the Year, 2013 Sex Awards Porn Star of the Year, Sexiest Adult Star and Porn’s Best Body." The official websites for those awards do not list her as a recipient for any of those categories in that year ([3], [4], [5]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 04:04, 27 January 2016 edit Sammy1339 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,929 edits m →‎Please reprotect/delete (return to draftspace) Ryan Driller: add spaces to my comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:42, 27 January 2016 edit undo Rebecca1990 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 6,967 edits →‎Please reprotect/delete (return to draftspace) Ryan Driller Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 598:		Line 598:

	To sum up, as I see it there is no doubt that he received the award, and little doubt that the award satisfies the criteria, and the only objection lies in the desire for a secondary source for a specific fact that no one doubts; furthermore some editors want this to go to DRV instead of AfD simply because it was rejected on this interesting basis. On both counts I have to point to [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]], and ask for some good will. The draft should simply be accepted. If anyone really wants to argue that the secondary sourcing is necessary, AfD seems like a perfectly good place. --[[User:Sammy1339\|Sammy1339]] ([[User talk:Sammy1339\|talk]]) 03:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)		To sum up, as I see it there is no doubt that he received the award, and little doubt that the award satisfies the criteria, and the only objection lies in the desire for a secondary source for a specific fact that no one doubts; furthermore some editors want this to go to DRV instead of AfD simply because it was rejected on this interesting basis. On both counts I have to point to [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]], and ask for some good will. The draft should simply be accepted. If anyone really wants to argue that the secondary sourcing is necessary, AfD seems like a perfectly good place. --[[User:Sammy1339\|Sammy1339]] ([[User talk:Sammy1339\|talk]]) 03:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
			:I agree with you {{u\|Sammy1339}}, primary sources are good enough to prove someone received an award. As a matter of fact, secondary sources can be untrustworthy. For example, ''[[Las Vegas Sun]]'' mistakenly reported that Kendall Karson [http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2013/aug/26/porn-princess-kendall-karson-offers-glimpse-day-he/ "won multiple awards — 2013 AVN Best New Starlet, 2013 Exotic Dancer Awards Adult Movie Feature Entertainer of the Year, 2013 Sex Awards Porn Star of the Year, Sexiest Adult Star and Porn’s Best Body."] The official websites for those awards do not list her as a recipient for any of those categories in that year ([http://business.avn.com/articles/video/The-2013-AVN-Award-Winners-503520.html], [http://www.edpublications.com/award-winners-2013], [http://thesexawards.com/page/4]). [[User:Rebecca1990\|Rebecca1990]] ([[User talk:Rebecca1990\|talk]]) 11:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)