User talk:Amatulic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Landmark Media / Dominion Enterprises federal lawsuit[edit]

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

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

PROD[edit]

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

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

Third opinion June 11 regarding Adjective Used[edit]

Hi,

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

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

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

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

RK Sloboda Solana[edit]

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

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

@HellerTZ: So, start over. The article I deleted had only one sentence in it that failed to explain the club's significance or provide any independent reliable sources. If I restored it, it would be deleted again quickly by someone else for the same reasons. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what we expect to see in an article accepted into main article space.
If you need time to draft an article, don't write it in main space. Use your sandbox or draft space instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Duels[edit]

Moved to Talk:Duel

SFr[edit]

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

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

Travesty? Clarified to be you put a lie there.[edit]

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

It should be obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English. Just look at what I removed, for starters. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI
1.1 "Love Interest" on stage-Significance of 2014 event is Loong at 70 switching "Love Interest", not just one but two. Young actresses (age 2?+3?) were selected for the same role. They took turns to play the same characters. Loong celebrated 50th anniversary in 2011 with one former co-star who was a classmate of Loong from 1960. They went steady in 1977. That is, Loong, known for portraying loyal lovers on stage (romantic literary scholar as written by librettist Tong Dick-san), had only one same actress as "love interest" for close to 40 years. (Yam is known as "opera fan's lover".)
1.2 Practice makes perfect-In Hong Kong, ticket sale does not generally support one play to be on stage 25 days in a row. The norm is one play each day or every two days. The only chance for them to play the same female lead 15 times non-stop is when they shared the stage with Loong in 2014. At least 70% full is necessary to breakeven. Full houses are bonus. Those first 20 shows in 2014 were sold out within hours. First ten shows in fact were sold out within 30 minutes. The 25 shows were sold in three separate offers. Both venues in 2014 have over 1000 seats as the one in West Kowloon Xiqu Center under construction would be.
1.3 Young Talent-Initiatives like Cantonese Opera Young Talent Showcase and Hong Kong Young Talent Cantonese Opera Troupe have provided a platform for amateurs since 2012 and 2008 respectively. Loong however started hiring up-and-coming performers from training school in 1983. I know for sure two, of the 1983 hires, are still on stage while one is working behind the scene. Actually, most Cantonese opera career veterans age 60 or older in HK worked for Loong's troupe at some point. You can almost count those, like Law Kar-ying, a peer never worked in any capacity for Loong's troupe, in main roles now on stage with one hand.
2.1 Disagree DVD instead of Loong the Artist-IFPI List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes lists only Artist Name and Record Company Name. For Classical and Operatic Works Recording , the first award for Best Sales Releases was given out in 2012. From 2012 to 2015, only two names appeared three times. Loong is the one, of these two, on the List of Ten Best Sales Local Artistes in 2012 and 2015. As opera performer, Loong is the only one on that list twice.
I had no previous plan to include in Wikipedia the above detail information.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Take this to the article talk page, please. Also I must ask, what is your association with this actress? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am amazed how little resources Wikipedia has, having found the article lacking compared to what's been available online for ages and what veterans like her peer Law Kar-ying, who has no reason to talk her up beyond courtesy on the record, had to say. I have used none of those quotes from Law so far only because they are too colloquial for me to translate from online resources while Wikipedia obviously has difficulty reading even "properly written" Press report with information listed above. You cannot read them does not make them false. Personally, I do not appreciate accusations and allegations, without substantiation with facts, especially with words like "Travesty" in any civil environment. 207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. You have repeatedly added promotional puffery to that article, sometimes using Wikipedia's narrative voice. This is completely unacceptable, violating some basic rules such as WP:NPOV, and gives you the appearance of having a conflict of interest. That is not an accusation, merely a question based on observation. I must say that your attempts to translate sources are commendable and deserving of admiration; I know how dissimilar the languages are, and how much work it is to translate. The promotional tone of the article, and the improper emphasis on accolades violating WP:LEAD, was indeed a travesty, although the article is slowly improving. In terms of Wikipedia:Civility, we comment on the content, not the contributor, and that is all I did in my edit summary that you're complaining about. I was not criticizing you. Just the content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you failed to comprehend my last message: Take it to the article talk page. And you have not answered the question, what is your association with this actress? I will not respond further on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Can do nothing but accusations and allegations in addition to putting lie in the article. Read the answer already given. You, if can read and speak Chinese, can find all information I added online but those associated with her should have more. You just have NO ground for own misconduct and pretend to be otherwise. A lie is a lie. What limited resources illustrated by Wikipedia having you as administrator. LIAR.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for Undeletion File:OldRockinChairTom4.jpg[edit]

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

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

Recent edit warring about Gulf vs Persian Gulf[edit]

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

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

File:TwoLittleIndians1.jpg, File:TwoLittleIndians.jpg, and File:TwoLittleIndians3.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

Well, I'd ask you to give a fair use rationale also. Being used in an article isn't sufficient, if they're non-free, then a proper fair use rationale must be supplied. So you may as well go to WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Banned (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Banned (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only two links.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Graham (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Graham11: I think you have the wrong person. I didn't originally create that, I just moved it from somewhere else. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. Sorry to bother you! Graham (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaza Holocaust redirect[edit]

Hi, Amatulic! I see you closed RFDs #2 and #3 on the redirect Gaza Holocaust in 2012, so I thought I'd let you know I've put it up for a fourth one, to see what people think lo these four years. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago; I don't even remember it. I left a comment in the new discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Haha yes, I figured you wouldn't remember. But I like how RFD moves at so gentle a pace, where an overarching discussion can span 5 or even 10 years. It's sort of refreshing, with how fast things can move elsewhere. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Undeletion/Reopening of page Shantanu Maheshwari[edit]

Hi there. The aforementioned page has been prevented from editing or creation because of too many past drafts. Could you please give authorisation to recreate it? Or Change the name of this page Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) to Shantanu Maheshwari please? The malplacement and improper naming has been causing a lot of inconvenience since a very long time to a lot of people. The content in the malplaced page is refined and fit to be published. Kindly consider renaming the page Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) to Shantanu Maheshwari or recreating the page to Shantanu Maheshwari itself. Thank you. Sarah297 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC) User: Sarah297

Hello Amatulic. I have declined the technical move of this article until you have a chance to give an opinion on the recreation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello! I wanted to bring something to your attention. Back in July you protected Shantanu Maheshwari from being created. Well now Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) has been created. I'm not sure what the best course of action is to take here. Can you tell if it was the same user who created both pages? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah297: @EdJohnston: @Zackmann08:
I have merged the history of Shantanu Maheshwari (born 1991) into Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I have also declined the speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4 tag because that shouldn't apply to drafts. So now everything, all the history including the deleted history, is in that draft article.
Given the multiple issues listed, I am skeptical that the topic merits an article in main space, but I have no objection to moving the draft over the protected name. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
In your edit summary, you have stated that the draft article needs a review before moving to main space. Do you have a suggestion for how such a review can be arranged? I see that Maheshwari's chief claim to fame is his ongoing role in Dil Dosti Dance, an Indian TV show that does not even have its own article. It also says the following: He is a part of the 'Desi Hoppers' dance crew and led them to India's first ever victory in the World of Dance Championship in Los Angeles in 2015. He also gave a special performance on America's Got Talent (season 11) and received praise from Simon Cowell and Nick Cannon. Maheshwari's name is not mentioned in Wikipedia in connection with either of those contests. The tone of the article suggests scrounging around for any possible hint of notability. In my view, the notability problems mentioned in the AfD have not been overcome. There are some hits in Google News, but they cover him mostly as a participant in televised dance contests. It is unclear how we consider those when evaluating the notability of dancers (see WP:ENT). EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: By "review" I meant "someone go through the sources cited (which are way more extensive than the article originally deleted) and determine if they meet WP:SIGCOV." I'm currently at work now, and I'm looking at a really long day (and night) ahead of me, so I don't expect to have the time to do that anytime soon. I too had concern with the article's tone and apparent need to cite any source no matter how small, to bump up the references count. If you have examined the sourced and determined that the original notability concerns haven't been overcome, then we should not move the article into main space, but leave it in draft space for further improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I would like to point out a few misstatements you have stated here. Maheshwari's ongoing shows are a very acclaimed dance reality show and a fiction tv series, not the show that he started out with 5 years ago. He has worked in over 6 different TV shows since the first show you're talking about. There are ample references proving the same. There are also references and official links of the America's Got Talent performance and it's news. Hence, the fact that it has not been mentioned in the show's wikipedia page seems to be an issue of that page's edit and does not nullify the proofs of his performance. There are pages of personalities less acclaimed and much less notable on Wikipedia. Maheshwari is not 'scrounging for any hint of notability' as you stated, he actually has notability and acclaim. And lastly, televised contests are what give dancers notability, and not just in his country I'm sure. Besides, it's not just the televised contest, but also world dance championships that give dancers notability, which Maheshwari already has under his belt. With reality television shows, fiction shows and world dance championships under his belt, his notability is not unfounded and deserves a place on Wikipedia. Kindly review the content and references in the draft with proper scrutiny and help make the article come into main space. Help with the neutrality and citations would be appreciable to make the process quicker. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah297 (talkcontribs)
@Sarah297: This conversation should really be taken to Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari.
Please don't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Each article stands or falls on its own merits, independent of what other articles may exist. If Wikipedia has articles on less notable people, then perhaps they should be deleted too.
Also remember being "acclaimed" isn't a valid reason for inclusion here. Fame isn't the same as notability the way Wikipedia defines it. Just having worked in some shows and having appeared on TV isn't sufficient. The coverage is all that matters on Wikipedia. What we need to see is significant coverage (not brief mentions, not a paragraph in a larger list, not an appearance in a show) in reliable sources (not blogs, forums, or sites with user-contributed content) that are independent of the subject (not interviews or the subject's own web site). And we need multiple sources that meet those criteria, with more than just local coverage. If his appearance on America's Got Talent is "news" as you say, where is the significant national news coverage? Analogous to dance championships, there are notable wine competitions also, but not every winning wine deserves its own Wikipedia article. The coverage matters more.
Wikipedia:Golden rule provides a brief overview. Wikipedia:Notability (people) goes into more specifics for different professions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Amatulic: I completely understand your concern. I assure you of the proofs of the significant national coverage regarding the event. All the headlining national newspapers of the country have covered him. You will find it all in the references of the draft. The passivity of that reply was just a bit concerning, seeing that they didn't even get the facts right. Apologies for the argument. I urge you to review the references and then determine whether or not he can qualify for an article in the main space. Would appreciate any recommendations regarding the neutrality and the citation issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah297 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

muhammed[edit]

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

ummm, I'm really not trying to sound racist, but the difference is that christians and scientologists are less likely to be radical extremists who are willing to shoot people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.208.129 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? If there's a change that needs to be made to that document, please propose it on Talk:Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Creation of Aarhus Symposium[edit]

Hi Amatulic

Can you please explain the reason to deleting this page about Aarhus Symposium? Or please point out a place in the text where the significance of the organisation does not meet the significance in the real world?

Best regards, NikolajGjoede

@NikolajGjoede: Please read the criteria for speedy deletion that applied to this article at WP:CSD#A7. The article must make a credible claim of significance. The nominator didn't find any claim of significance (why is it notable?), and neither did I. The mere fact that the organization exists and serves a useful function is not a claim of significance.
Having a credible claim of significance will prevent the article from speedy deletion, but it won't prevent eventual deletion. For an article to be kept, it must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Your article had zero such references.
Please read Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected for an article to be kept, and for more details read WP:CORP, which explains the criteria for inclusion of articles about organizations. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Amatulic. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

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

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

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)