This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:78.26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint: the alleged facts turn out to be true but there is nitpicking about some words? Those words could be rephrased instead of the whole facts being deleted. After criticism, I stuck to the sources as closely as I could. I am not guilty for the words of those sources, it's their choice, not mine. We don't have to remove objective facts from Wikipedia just in order to pamper true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I have restored almost all of the material. Keep in mind that Spectrum represents the "liberal" or "progressive" wing of Adventism, and therefore has a strong editorial slant. It is a reliable source, but we can't use their opinions in Wikipedia's voice. (For instance, the article you cite clearly assumes that Ellen White was a divinely inspired writer but debates the methodology and extent of her inspiration, which is fundamentally, obviously not acceptable for Wikipedia.) Kinda like using CNN regarding Trump, or Fox News on just about anything. It's a reliable source, but you have to weed through their slant and stick to the facts.
I wish to directly apologize to you for being so slow to respond to your queries and requests. I hope the material I added back in conveys the information you were trying to include. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

@78.26: You are invited to vote on portal Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has been nominated for deletion..Catfurball (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Catfurball: Thanks for the notice. I'll try to give this a deeper look in the near future, but it certainly does look under-maintained and little viewed. Committing to maintaining this seems like an awful lot of work for something that is sparsely viewed. Perhaps spending time improving articles related to the Portal would be a better use of time? This is not, in the slightest, meant as admonishment. It is merely a suggestion to think about. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

request for revision deletion[edit]

Hi, I think the article Otto Brixner needs deletion of all revisions prior to [1] due to a lot of puffery content. It has been imported from German Wikipedia where this puffery has also been removed and is dealt by the Arbitration Committee now. --2A02:8388:580:6600:5DCD:A213:DA90:F38 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Puffery isn't a reason for revision deletion. Serious BLP violations are. Is there particular wording you believe rises to the level of slander/libel? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Relating to this revision (but also in older revisions back to the German revisions from which it is translated)
  • "who sentenced the justice victim Gustl Mollath into a forensic hospital" - when do you have a justice victim???
  • "once hiding in bushes along with other undercover investigators" - suggests that he is very interested in putting people to jail
  • "As a supervisor, he eliminated the fee demands of the supervisor which in his opinion were excessive. As a result, those affected had complained about him in a protest march to the president of the judiciary. Although Brixner was transferred to another position, he was regulated the supervisor by law" - suggests that he should not be supervisor any longer
  • "ever made use of communication in criminal proceedings (So-called. Deal on penalty), that is, a practice widely used in criminal justice" - in German law this Deal is something suspect, but the article suggests that Brixner acted rather unusual
  • "considered a judge that is a 'tough dog' ("Judge Mercyless")" - insult
  • "Mollath had presented the court, as proof of his black-money allegations, with a 106-page folder with receipts to accounts in Switzerland and other evidence documents. In his interrogation before the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian state parliament said Brixner on 17 May 2013 that he had never read this folder" - libel, especially since according to German law the court maybe wasn't allowed to read this folder (because the accused has to give his statement orally only)
  • "The revelations to Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner" - I mean "revelations" ...
  • "In addition to demands for reforms in psychiatry and justice, it was required to hold those responsible to account. Above all, the former judge Otto Brixner was named.[15] In its final report, the committee of inquiry stated that it was refusing to punish Brixner." - libel, the article says that Brixner should have been punished
  • "Otto Brixner had interrupted the defendant Gustl Mollath each time loudly and threatened with a reference to the room if [...] Literally, Brixner, addressed to Mollath, had shouted: "If you keep this up, you'll never come out again" (referring to the psychiatry department) [...] Brixner had shouted at Mollath for over eight hours without interruption.[17] [...] Brixner had acted like a "dictator."[18] [...] when you call Otto Brixner, you have to be prepared to barely speak one sentence to the end. He speaks in a very harsh tone." - a lot of irrelevant information, overinterpreting the cited sources and libel
  • "Brixner had determined the appointment of the court on his own initiative, refrained from hearing the accused and operated a willful falsification of the facts with the documentary material available to him" - libel taken from a text of a lawyer that has never been proven. Even the article itself says "appealed in advance for a possible retrial, in particular to a blog entry[24] the former prosecutor Gabriele Wolff" and Gabriele Wolff was never involved into this case.
  • "outrage against Brixner was ignited by the fact that it is the fundamental obligation of all German courts to take full note" - as I said, according to German law the accused has to give his statement orally
  • "Brixner is also already in the run-up to the criminal proceedings in a telephone conversation with the financial management caused Mollath's allegations concerning the black money allegations to be discontinued by the tax investigation authorities" - libel that has already been proven to be not true --2A02:8388:580:6600:5DCD:A213:DA90:F38 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi 2A02..., this was a history import from dewiki, do you see issues with just the history or with the version that was translated here: THIS VERSION ALONE?. If you think the translated version is bad, you can nominate the entire page for deletion. If the only problem is with the imported history, which has since been suppressed on dewiki, we can delete the imported history, restore the translation, then restore the non-suppressed history from dewiki. Please ping me in any reply here. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Well, I do not know the right way to solve this problem. The imported German version of this article contains a lot of libelous information; indirectly it accuses Brixner of crimes. We now have this problemativ German version imported to enWP and translated into English. I removed the libelous content two weeks ago ([2]) but still we have the former, problematic revisions in revision-history. And of course, one can question whether or not Brixner satisfies the notability guidelines at all. --2A02:8388:580:6600:74D8:81EF:2CA7:3823 (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK there are at least 2 ways forward 2A02: If your only issue is with the edit history before 2018-08-02T18:53:07‎, let me know and I'll delete all that history, then re-import the current history from dewiki that you say has been cleaned up alrady. If your problem is with issues after that you may need some WP:TNT and should list the article at WP:AFD. — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: the issue is with the edit history before 2019-06-16T17:03. Since there is still a big argument on how to deal with this article in deWP (here) the problematic contents have been removed there and the article was then blocked so that this removal would not be reverted (as has been done before). So the revision deletion is still pending there. A reimport would also reimport the problematic revisions. On the other hand a long lasting dispute in German wikipedia cannot be a reason to accept revisions accusing a living and named person of crime here... as far as I know I cannot request deletion without an account here, right?! --2A02:8388:580:6600:A175:6AFA:A123:EE3E (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I removed the history prior to that edit here and left a note at Talk:Otto Brixner - feel free to follow up on the discussion there. We will not reimport the history without a request. — xaosflux Talk 14:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

New socks of Aryanshukla9936[edit]

Hello. Following up on your fine work on the SPI for Aryanshukla9936, you might like to take a look at the edit history of Draft:Ionnish Patseas, an attempted rebuild of Giannis Patseas under a variant spelling. Original was created by sock Aryanshukla87. The edit histories of the user page and user talk of co-creator CNTFOUNDATION are also worth a read, if they aren't already deleted for username violation by the time you read this. Thanks, 84.21.145.26 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm an WP:ADMIN, but I'm not a WP:CHECKUSER, so although I have no reason to doubt Aryanshukla87 is a sock of Aryanshukla9936, I don't see it from behavioural evidence (which is why I reported Beingaryanshukla). From a behavioral standpoint, Indian record labels and Greek basketball players are a long way from each other. You can make a report at WP:SPI of course. In the meantime I'll be declining this draft, and thank you for bringing the orignal AfD to my attention, that is really helpful. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why was AFD discussion closed for "Seoul National University Hospital massacre"[edit]

I nominated the named article (Seoul National University Hospital massacre) for deletion on 12 June, and it was closed 26 June without any discussion. Why? There were no responses supporting the article or saying why it should not be deleted. There are three sources cited. The second is a dead link from a right-wing newspaper in South Korea, and the third is based on a report from the South Korean military. The first is just a passing mention and appears to include military deaths in battle in the figure given (900). No historians appear to have written about the subject and the article has serious issues with the sources and verifiability. I believe the discussion should have remained open until there were actually responses.

@Incogreader: I have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul National University Hospital massacre had two participants, with a strong rationale for keeping. How can you claim there was no participation? If you disagree you can always take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. (and please sign your messages.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked the wrong discussion page - I never saw the other two comments until now.Incogreader (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joc-O-Sot[edit]

Hello, 78.26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joc-O-Sot".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please delete the revision history[edit]

Please delete the revision history for revisions 905013866, 905013155, and 905014002 in the English WP page for Moon jae-in. They are 2 edits by a new user and 1 revert, and those edits are clearly false and of no encyclopedic value (fitting category for Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material), so I am requesting that you delete them. They are also a serious violation of the biography of living persons policy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905014002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905013866 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905013155 Bukjintongil (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bukjintongil: I don't read Korean at all, so I can't speak to what the changes said, but the English changes appear to be commonplace juvenile vandalism to me, which no one would take seriously. If we were to delete these kinds of vandalism (as oppose to revert, which has already happened (thank you Sophiajoanne) we would be overwhelmed. Is there something in the Korean text which is more insidious than the English changes would imply?

RE: Draft:Nicholas Laucella - noted Italian/American Flautist - Request Administrator Review and a Move to the Main Page[edit]

Ciao 78.26 I have enjoyed reading about your outstanding contributions to the Wikiproject: Articles for Creation and the Wikipedia Teahouse. I recently submitted a new draft biographical article entitled Draft:Nicholas Laucella which documents his work as Principal Flautist with the New York Philharmonic in the 1910's and for several decades with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra in the 1920's and 1930's. It includes several links to his recordings which have been included within the Library Of Congress's Online Jukebox as well as the University of California at Santa Barbara's Online collection of Historical 78RPM recordings. You might enjoy listening to them! In addition, the article is well referenced with reliable sources, including the archives of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in New York City. If you have some free time, could you kindly consider reviewing the article and expediting its move to the Main Page? Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration and best wishes for your continued editorial success on Wikipedia! Enjoy the music! Ciao Respectfully yours 2620:65:8000:A203:E9A8:AC63:64C2:AE1C (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)GCU

Looks like Voceditenore beat me to promoting this to mainspace. Well done! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, well done! I've tweaked it a bit and have added a couple of sources that you could use to flesh it out on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ciao 78.26 & Voceditenore --Many thanks for your prompt reply and kind assistance--it is greatly appreciated! The article looks fantastic - Enjoy the links to his his historic operatic collaborations! Ciao to all 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)GCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:65:8000:A203:E9A8:AC63:64C2:AE1C (talk)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)