User talk:Anachronist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Amatulic)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Speedy deletion contested: Wilhelm Vossenkuhl[edit]

Hello Anachronist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: Appears to be a notable academic. Please see the German article at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Vossenkuhl. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Eastmain, having an article in another Wiki is IMO not a criterion for inclusion in en.Wiki. Especially as in this case where the German article has only a list of the subject's publications and two interviews as sources. If you can establish that he holds a named chair, then he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Otherwise it is a candidate for one of our three types of deletion process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) To be fair, the article makes (at least one, arguably two) credible claims to significance. Having said that—and certainly in the article's current condition—Eastmain has somewhat merely postponed the inevitable: it's unlikely to survive an AfD. Which, if I ever get off this blarsted phone, I may lodge myself. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: @Kudpung: While the article as it stands looks speedy-deletable to me, in looking at the Google translation of the German Wikipedia article, I find the statement "From 1993 to 2011 he taught at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich as a chair holder of Philosophy I." Holding a chair position is sufficient to meet WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. It is likely, therefore, that an AFD would result in a 'keep'. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I knew about the chair. I was just testing how good we are at researching for articles. A bit disingenuous perhaps, but it worked. We still need the source though. While this source, not used on de.Wiki, is important and while Vossekuhl as a subject is highly notable, the Wikipedia articles about him probably meet one of Wikipedia inclusion requirements per WP:NACADEMIC, but must nevertheless be adequately sourced. The creator, EgyptianSnow on the other hand, should probably be asked to provide complete articles rather than starter stubs of little value in the expectation that others will do their work for them. I have moved the page to draft. (FYI: Eastmain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That hoary old chestnut "just testing"  :D *pokes Kudpung* But seriously, if there are furren langwidge sources out there, can we get them into the article? I'm afraid I (as is probably claer) have no effective access to de.wp, but thanks Acanchronist for clarifying. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Title.[edit]

Hello. Just a question please. How can you edit an article's title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talkcontribs) 17:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You have to move the article to another title. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: warring[edit]

Hi. You left a message on my talk page regarding edit warring on the Beachwood, Ohio article. Just so you are aware, if you look at the talk page for that article, both I and another editor have both left rational explanations for the various reverts (the reverts were made due to inaccurate and/or random/redundant information as well as NPOV language), however, the other party in the alleged edit war has not responded. If you get a chance, I would ask that you please look at the history of the article going back the past 8 months as the editor (see: User talk:Davidbergeraza1823), was previously warned repeatedly under another username ( see: User talk:Mark612 ) about his editing. He has a history of either inaccurate or unsubstantiated edits that are akin to marketing language and/or journalism. His edits are limited to a handful of articles, at least one of which he created himself and has since been deleted per WP policy. And for the record, I reached out to two different admins regarding this and received no response. Meanwhile, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and have no agenda other than to keep the articles encyclopedic and on topic. But now I'm being warned that I will be barred for trying to make edits that, under WP editing guidelines, are effectively in the right. Please have a closer look. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. To an uninvolved admin, I see several back and forth reverts, well-reasoned, but that is no excuse for edit warring over a long period, as has happened. Stability of the article should be preserved. I don't care how much time any of the editors have on Wikipedia, warring is warring, and if you can't avoid doing that, my options to preserve stability are limited: protect the article, or block accounts. In the event that both parties seem equally disruptive (even if in good faith), I would block both parties. Rather than resorting to those solutions, I elected to warn both parties and then I went through the article with fresh eyes to remove anything that seemed unsubstantiated or non-neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum. I see another admin already protected the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About Your Recent Reversions[edit]

I believe you may be acting overzealously. I would like to discuss a certain issue with you you continually intervene in. The issue involves several members with administrative status, intense COI, and a case I am going to submit to the arbitration committee. Is there anyway we could speak in private?73.58.148.1 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss what you want to discuss in the open, on the article talk page. In your case, I saw an anonymous IP address with zero previous edits remove validly sourced content from Karl Kjer without leaving any explanation whatsoever. It looked like vandalism, so it was reverted, plain and simple, which is a standard practice. If you want to defend your edit, please do so on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing refspam[edit]

Hello! I'm writing on your last edit of my article List_of_WebGL_frameworks. You removed most links from that article with that edit. The problem is that not all WebGL frameworks listed there have a dedicated article. So the only way to confirm that a particular WebGL framework exists, and that it is notable (I used to remove non-notable frameworks from that list), is to provide a reference to the official website. Also, without having a direct link, WebGL developers would need to take some efforts in order to find the official website where downloads, demos and documentation are usually located. If providing a link per each table entry is against the rules of Wikipedia, I'll just remove all frameworks without a dedicated article from there. SantaWinsAgain (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A list that includes a bunch of external links (even if they are disguised as references) to the home pages of websites is basically a web directory, which violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ideally an encyclopedia should be self-contained without the need for external links. In fact, there is no requirement that any citations be available online. There is no harm in including a complete list of WebGL frameworks that aren't notable that people may have to look up. It is also a common practice for lists to contain links only to other Wikipedia articles. Either way is fine. If you do decide to remove any entry without a dedicated article, you may want to modify the lead sentence to clarify that the list includes only WebGL frameworks that have their own articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll leave it as is then.SantaWinsAgain (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

from talk section on Aspartame[edit]

Could you please tell me how to go about challenging the people that seem to run the aspartame article. A while back you acted as a third party on the aspartame talk section.

Thank you Claustro123 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No one "runs" the aspartame article, but there are several editors who are keen to ensure that the article complies with our policies and guidelines, and doesn't drift off into the fringes of science. In particular, WP:MEDRS rules. If you can find sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, then base your comments on that. Note that isolated studies are considered primary sources, and are therefore weaker than sources that aggregate several studies. Primary sources can be used in the article, but not to make any assertions in Wikipedia's voice about health effects. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Humboldt-Institut[edit]

Hello, I did a translation of the German Wikipedia article about a language school, the Humboldt-Institut. The article has been deleted, marked with A7 (No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I would be happy to rewrite the article as I think information about a language school that caters almost exclusively for international students, who often do not yet speak the language, should be available in a more common language, such as English. Furthermore the article covers an educational institution, a sort of institution that is specifically exempt in A7. Please let me know. how we can proceed. User:Ristretto_de 15:28, 11 June 2018 (CET)

@Ristretto de: While A7 doesn't apply to schools, the article would not have survived an WP:AFD discussion anyway, and G11 did apply. The fact that it is a language school that caters to international students is also not a reason to keep the article; the school must comply with WP:CORP inclusion criteria, like any other organization.
Because it will not survive in its current state in main article space, I have restored it to Draft:Humboldt-Institut for you to improve. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Thank you. I have rewritten a few sentences to achieve a more neutral tone, added additional references and links to newspaper articles in German and Spanish and submitted the draft for review Draft:Humboldt-Institut. ~User:Ristretto_de 12:55, 13 June 2018 (CET)

Deleted article from November appears to have been recreated[edit]

Hello! I see that in November of last year you deleted the article Zakariya Mohammed and blocked re-creation as it was a recently deleted BLP. It appears that, to get around the block, it has been created again at Zakariya (director) - as a redirect from Draft:Zakariya Mohammed. This time, it appears as though the article has references to it. I just thought I'd let you know about it - thanks! :) – numbermaniac 12:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Question (PCO Imaging Discussion)[edit]

Hey Anachronist :) I have a question about the PCO Imaging Discussion Link The discussion got "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." how long will this discussion probably go? is there anything you can as an admin do? I've never seen that before.. :) Cheers --Lauranos (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

BambooHR[edit]

Hi Anachronist. You speedy deleted BambooHR under "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". An earlier version of the article had been created by a banned user but the current version created by me is not. Please reconsider your speedy deletion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: Woops. You're right. Thanks for alerting me. I have restored it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Cunard (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm...[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCO Imaging you wrote:--Brand Eins: This one is good. I never heard of the publication but it's a good article..Any comments, in light of this? :)WBGconverse 13:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I thought I had looked at all the "about" pages through Google Translate but I missed that one. It makes me think that the Brand Eins coverage of PCO are just disguised press releases. I would therefore consider it a biased source, but not necessarily an unreliable source — that's a question best taken to WP:RSN. If you want to start a second AFD, I won't object, although there was another source that provided some significant coverage, so the outcome might be borderline. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah.I'm willing to brand the Eins one as typical re-branded PR-stuff but I concur on the part of borderline notability.Still, might take a shot:).... WBGconverse 04:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Conroy Protection Note[edit]

Is it actually a thing that even extended confirmed users can be made to go through AfC? I have no love for that article or its editor, I've just not seen that particular stipulation before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Since the extended confirmed protection level was created, I now tend to create-protect articles at that creation level instead of admin-only creation. The idea is that an experienced and trusted editor who wants to create the article can still do so without admin involvement, but a COI editor, who typically won't meet the qualifications for extended-confirmed, will need an extended-confirmed editor to approve the article. I am assuming here that an AFC reviewer will already be extended-confirmed. My protection summary in this case could have been worded better; I didn't intend to require extended-confirmed editors to go through AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad[edit]

Please remove extended confirmed from this article, as is not part of Arab-Israeli conflict. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.248.27 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ #7. This has nothing to do with Arab-Israeli conflict, it has to do with persistent disruption of the article by inexperienced editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)