User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2011

Schapelle Corby

Hello there. I'd like you to reconsider your "full protect" of this article as per my comments here. essentially, the "trouble maker" has been indef'ed and there is concurrent positive discussion about how to improve the article. Semi? I'll mention this at the current ANI discussion about that page - hope you don't mind. many thanks and kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I have reduced the protection level to semi, and left the expiration as is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Love your work. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User names

Re this, are you saying that a user name that includes an obvious company is OK if it is clear that it's not a "group" account? If so, I completely disagree, corpnames that are obviously single-user are blocked all the time. – ukexpat (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy covers user names that are company names, not user names that are clearly personal names with a company initial appended. Therefore it isn't a violation. The policy also states that it is better to block for a bigger problem (vandalism, spam, etc.) than a smaller one, and that's what I advocate in this particular case. Feel free to report it again and I will abstain. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to make an issue of it, but, as I have said elsewhere, I think the policy is being very inconsistently applied by the admin community. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons rename

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Anachronist. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg

FYI, I've taken this file to FFD. I must say I'm frankly a bit surprised at your de-tagging it, but FFD will sort that out. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was frankly surprised that it was tagged in the first place, since it's pretty obvious that there isn't a comparable free alternative. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Schoolblocks

Hey, when you block shared IPs, especially school IPs, which could have potentially hundreds or even thousands of people on them, it's usually best to use the {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}} somewhere in your log summary because the template is transcluded in the message editors see when they try to edit from the IP, providing them with information on the block/how to appeal it and how to get an account via ACC, whereas "vandalism" is not very informative to someone who tries to edit and isn't the person (or people) the block is targeted at. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. I forgot about that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hi Amatulic, just to let you know that I unprotected the above following a request today on RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you did that, thanks. I thought it was about ready for unprotection but I missed the RFPP request. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

two questions

Could you please tell me, why you don't disclose on your user page that you're an admin and why you have been edit warring, trying to blank warnings from the talk page of an IP which has been a source of ongoing vandalism and harassment? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: Not all admins disclose it, and I know of no requirement to do so. Anyone who wants to can look up user rights, and anyone who views my talk page would know immediately. It's personal preference. I'd simply rather be viewed as an editor rather than an admin. Also, any two editors could have made the edits we made. We don't have a disagreement about administrative actions, so I don't see how my status as an admin is relevant here. Both of us are editors in this. The fact that both of us happen to have additional rights is immaterial.

Edit warring: After I did my initial clean-up of the page, I reverted you exactly once. My subsequent edit kept the warnings in a collapsed section so that any new warnings are immediately visible after the block expires. Anyone can expand the section to view them. You, on the other hand, have reached 3RR ([1][2][3]), so I find it ironic that you accuse me of edit-warring.

Why blank them: I may have missed a policy or guidelines somewhere, but I have seen no requirement to keep stale warnings on an anonymous IP talk page, if those warnings have nothing to do with the current block. I know of no requirement to remove them either, for that matter. For long-term blocks like a year or more, there's no reason for warnings to appear on the page at all, since most admins will pay more attention to the block history. I personally find a long list of stale warnings irritating, so I tend to remove them as a matter of routine.

I was just about to block that IP address but you beat me to it by a couple of seconds. So, I simply did my routine clean-up on the page that I normally do after I block an IP address, which consists of inserting a block notice (which you did), checking if it's an educational institution (which it was), tagging the page appropriately (adding SharedIPEDU and replacing your anonblock tag with schoolblock), and removing stale warnings.

By the way, if you want an easy way to know the user rights for anybody, just add these two lines to your vector.js file:

//List usergroups on User:USERNAME or User talk:USERNAME

importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

Then every time you go to a user's page, you'll see what rights they have right after their name. I find it extremely useful. I never have to guess, with this tool. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin Q on page moves/merge

Hey Amatulic, another editor recently converted the Vine training redirect into its own article and left Vine training system as is with the note "ought to have an article on the process before you have one on the device. otherwise I recommend vine training system be moved here". I think this editor has a point and the entire Vine training system article is probably best situated under the Vine training article. Because of edit history, etc, I don't think we can do a cut n' paste merge (even with attribution?) but I wanted to know if you think this needs to go through WP:RM or anything else? Appreciate your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem performing a merge by cut and paste. To take care of the attribution, just use the {{copied}} template on the talk page of the destination article. I don't think this is a controversial merge, so there isn't a need to formally propose it on WP:RM — and I don't think a move is feasible anymore because both articles now have content, and one isn't merely a redirect anymore. Just follow the directions at Help:Merging#Performing_the_merger. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic! I didn't know about the copied template. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the histories of these two articles overlap considerably (the original version of Vine training was cut from Vine training system), I think a histmerge makes sense. Do you mind if I list them at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Me? Why should I mind? Either way will work. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim majority countries

Can you please restore UNHCR references for Eritrea and Guinea Bissau confirming they are 50% Muslim? Seethakathi (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, User:Local hero ignored and removed these references blindly without discussion. So I called him a troll. Seethakathi (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want an administrator to make edits to a protected article, please use the {{editprotected}} tag on Talk:List of Muslim majority countries to ensure there is consensus for the edit. Discussion should take place there, not here. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis Zorich

• - Hi, I see you edited the Croatia article - would you have a look at this and suggest if it is clear enough to add to the Louis Zorich blp .. perhaps with the citations and an explanatory comment in the footnotes?

Zorich was born in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Croatian immigrants Anna (née Gledi) and Christ Zorich.

Here is the explanation .. Chris Zorich is half Croatian and half African American - his mother was therefore a Croatian - Zora Zorich http://www.chriszorich.org/biography/ - Zora's sister in law was Olympia Dukakis - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4034185.html - Sometimes Chris Zorich's Uncle Louis and his Aunt Olympia--Olympia Dukakis helped pay Zora's rent http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-12/sports/sp-2728_1_chris-zorich ... so Zora is the sister of Louis http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114272,00.html making Louis Zorich ethnically Croatian. ...

- Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're proposing to write something more than what sources say. The above explanation constitutes a policy violation; see WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, it isn't acceptable to synthesize a conclusion that can only be implied by, or deduced from, putting different sources together. It would be best simply to state that he is of Croatian and African descent, which is all the source really says. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking, I think you are talking about Chris Zorich, he is indeed half African and half Croatian and it already says that about him in our article - his mother was the Croatian part, his mothers brother was Louis Zorich. Is Louis Zorich then Croatian - he clearly is if his sister is, I realize it is a little bit of OR and synth of sources but if his sister is Croatian he clearly is also. Only no source can be found that explicitly says he is. I have been resisting its inclusion but having looked at the sources and the detail I have accepted it is correct, no worries I will let the user know. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Shmeat

Hello. I noticed you declined a speedy on this article. Are you sure it's not a hoax? I know "sources" are provided but I'd gather those sources are far from passing WP:RS. I suspect that this is either 1) An extravagant hoax or, 2) Soapboxing. I'd lean toward hoax since one of the websites (www.noshmeat.com) was created yesterday according to a whois. The other website (shmeat.net) has nearly no content whatsoever except what seems like a sales pitch and links to another site (savingadvice.com).--v/r - TP 01:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Shmeat.net has significant explanatory content when I access it, and I don't see a sales pitch, just a small link at the bottom.

In any case, more sources exist. The Colbert Report covered it (or rather made fun of it) in 2009,[4] and even National Public Radio (NPR) covered this term as early as 2008.[5] If anything, the NPR story is a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that NPR article supports my db-hoax argument. The NPR article says "Shmeat" means meat sheets. The article says that Shmeat means "the words ‘shit’ and ‘meat’." The subject may be notable, but as written I still think it's a hoax. As far as Shmeat.net, I wasn't sure if sales pitch was the right word, but I was looking for something along the lines of that it is Soapboxing the subject and then linking to a completely different website not related to Shmeat.--v/r - TP 02:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The part of the article about etymology is wrong, yes. That isn't grounds for deleting an article about the subject. That's grounds for correcting the error. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've included a link to this discussion on Talk:Shmeat.--v/r - TP 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sharing opinion vs radical action

I must admit I was thoroughly angry when I read my article had been deleted without an opinion or suggestion posted concerning it. After reading up on you, I am relieved this action was not performed by one who trolls, is unwilling to help or cannot admit fault. Might I now impose of you an opinion on how said article may be improved at Fireside Lanes (Citrus Heights) to better adhere to guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. It would be much appreciated as I thought I had done a passable article. Please keep in mind, not all are as advanced in skills as others might be. With that said I will keep posting edits of my first article (even without helpful opinions/actions), for as the saying goes: "Practice makes perfect" & "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again". CHEERS ~~geekbowler7901~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekbowler7901 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Actually there was an opinion concerning the deleted article Fireside Lanes (Citrus Heights, California). It was tagged by User:Gilo1969 as an advertising or promotional article, qualifying it for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G11. After looking through the article, I found no assertion or evidence of notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and no coverage and multiple, reliable sources of at least regional nature as required by WP:SIGCOV. It seemed to me that "recognition" by some bowling organizations (without citing any coverage) and citing search results doesn't constitute significant coverage. Therefore I determined that the G11 tag was valid, so I deleted the article.

If you are associated with Fireside Lanes, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance.

I suggest you create the article to work on and improve in your own user space before you create it in main space. That is, simply create User:Geekbowler7901/Fireside Lanes (Citrus Heights). Once you are satisfied with it, feel free to ask me or any other experienced editor to look it over prior to moving it to main space. Or, you can request that the article be created at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to get a community consensus on the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ActionPacked! Networks and COI

The reason why I raised the concern about COI is because of the general spamminess of the article and when I went to see who the PR person is for the company, lo and behold, Mike Downes, with an email of mdownes@etc. Perhaps someone else with the same last name chose a username with the same email format (first initial, last name), but for that person to then also be editing the article about a company who employs a PR person with the same last name, adding spammy content....well there are just a lot of coincidences there.--Terrillja _talk 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like something you may want to take to WP:COIN. It looks suspicious, I agree, although at some point you just have to assume good faith. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tausique

I think this user should read WP rules first, I assume he tries to make WP to represent Salafi view. Kavas (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New England Estuarine Research Society page deleted

This page was just deleted stating "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." The organization's leadership is new to wikipedia and would like to try recreating the page. Any suggestion from you to improve the content, since you deleted the page, would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandra Garza (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have suggestions:

• First read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as it may apply to you.
• Next read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which spell out the criteria for inclusion of any organization in Wikipedia. The New England Estuarine Research Society failed to meet those criteria. If you can write an article that does, then it will likely not be deleted.
• Third, you may want to create the article in your own user space first; for example User:Alejandra Garza/New England Estuarine Research Society. You can work on articles in your own space, provided they are not promotional, without someone coming along and deleting it. Main space articles are a different matter. Articles about organizations need to meet some minimum criteria or they will be deleted, sometimes quickly.

Finally, keep in mind the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve as a promotion or information channel for organizations. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Distribution 360

Just a quick note to say I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article. I believe the article and the references provided do add up to a "credible claim of significance" under speedy deletion criteria A7. Given that the article spent more than a day in the "speedy" deletion queue, it's safe to assume that several administrators looked at it and weren't confident enough that A7 applied to delete it.

On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that the company is notable. If it were nominated at AfD I would probably vote to delete it. It's just not quite a clear-cut enough case for speedy deletion.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Thanks for cleaning that up; I had planned to do that today but got distracted by a sockpuppet investigation. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Android (operating system)

Hi. I intend to drop protection on this article down to semi as the issue is really just one user with a COI whose only interest is getting his app store listed in the article or, if he can't have his way, removing mention of any third party app stores at all. There was a brief disagreement earlier about what counts as a genuine app store but this was really just a front for this user to continue adding his own one back in with every edit and the problem goes back further than just those few reverts. This can be safely treated as linkspam and if his IP was static he'd have simply been blocked already. – Steel 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Maybe we can add the spammed domain to the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. – Steel 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you had done your job correctly reviewing the history, you would notice that the original poster was from GetJar who deliberately removed references to other app stores yet kept their own. In all fairness, I not only kept GetJar in the list but even separated the list by indicating what was considered "direct" downloading and was "indirect". It is clear that by reverting back to the original text, you have blatantly supported GetJar. Therefore, either remove the lockdown on the article and revert it back to what it was before or I will take further action to have a higher admin in Wikipedia do it and have your account permanently blocked. The history of edits is clear evidence that GetJar has abused Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.151.231 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Threats don't work around here. GetJar happens to meet the WP:N and WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. That's why it has its own article. Others that you seem to like, don't. Until they do, only notable ones will be included, per Wikipedia guidelines. Try reading WP:UNDUE while you're at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, as the user who made that edit, I can assure you, that I am not affiliated with GetJar in any way. In fact, I never heard of them before noticing that section. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems the anonymous editor should add WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to his reading list. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Agha Petros

Hi, I have enough reasons believe that both users Nishra d'jilu and Cimsam belong to the same person. They have been almost exclusively involved in this article in the English and French Wikipedias, they make identical claims, and they seem to use the same terminology. A recent sock puppet investigation request was however declined since Nishra d'jilu hasn't made any serious contribution to the article itself since a month ago. The issue now is not actually whether sources are to be found online rather than one source making ambiguous claims against others. Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks. -- Rafy talk 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

About Mike Masnick

I notice that edits I have submitted have been repeatedly removed. Considering this bio is already a stub, and considering that the information in the edit is as viable as anything else in the bio, I do not understand why it is consistantly removed. It would appear that the person has fans that do not agree with the new information, even though the edit reflects a catch phrase for much of the person's work, and appears regularly in commentary about his work. It is something that should be part of the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.65.236 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to figure out why you aren't addressing this issue. Is there some existing relationship here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not a party to your dispute. I can mediate if you want, but that requires agreement from all other parties. My involvement in this article was simply to protect it from the edit-warring that was going on. If you have a content dispute with someone, take it to the talk page of the article, work it out, and place an edit request on the talk page to make a change. Neither you nor anyone else in the dispute has attempted to discuss anything on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

you should probably know better

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Ziauddin Butt. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Instead of editing it yourself, you should have asked me to change it. Thanks! 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I merely tl'd (refactored) an article tag that doesn't belong on talk pages. You should know better than to post bogus warning templates. Particularly, see WP:TPO. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your alteration broke my comment-- tl doesn't work when there are other parameters specified. There is nothing on WP:TPO that condones your behaviour, and there was nothing bogus about dropping a template on you for inappropriate refactoring of other users talk page comments. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPO section "delinking categories". You placed a multi-category article template inappropriately on a talk page. I simply de-linked them. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you broke the markup. The way WP:TPO wants you to de-link categories is to put a ':' in front of them. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some templates automatically categorize things. The only way to de-link the categories in that case is to de-link the template. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about logos

Hi, how can i upload A logo for Syrian Football clup like Al-Karamah SC so which Licensing i should put ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo yaser (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Click on "Upload file". In the list where you select the image type, click on "It is the logo of an organization". Currently that link doesn't seem to be working, but you'd go from there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User Moscowrussia blocked

Hi! i saw you blocked user Moscowrussia for what appears to be an edit war. User Moscowrussia is using highly reliable sources i.e. - daily Israeli newspapers Globes and YNET for contributing material here. I am kindly requesting that this page becomes Locked and Fully protected and that user Jonathanwallace is banned from further editing. Santiro (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... who are you? A new account that just appeared after Moscowrussia was blocked? The fact is that Moscowrussia violated WP:3RR and Jonathanwallace did not. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said on Editors' Assistance this article needs a lot of attention and is outside my area of primary interest. I was trying to help out. I'm not inclined to make any more edits, but suggest someone take a look at WP:BLP issues over there, as assertions about the criminality of living people are constantly being sourced to sources such as PR Newswire and foreign language web sites that may need evaluation to determine if they are WP:RS.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the grounds for which user moscowrussia was temp blocked WP:3RR but we should use more discretion in understanding background here before applying WP:3RR. As user Santiro has clearly stated and I kindly repeat his / her request: "User Moscowrussia is using highly reliable sources i.e. - daily Israeli newspapers Globes and YNET for contributing material here. I am kindly requesting that this page becomes Locked and Fully protected and that user Jonathanwallace is banned from further editing." As PRNewswire is no longer being used as a source and is not subject of a RS dispute but rather the largest domestic daily in Israel - YNET - and the established daily Israeli business newspaper - Globes - are now being used as RS. We kindly ask all adm to please review these respected medias articles in Wiki (not to be defined as foreign language Web sites - that is discrimination) and make every effort to fully protect the article of Michael Cherney from further vandalism. Thank you. internationalcriminallaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Again, who are you? Yet another single purpose account that magically appears right after Santiro was blocked. Oh, and the Michael Cherney article is now fully protected as requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

demographics of kenya remove protection

yes, i'm anonymous but that does not mean I am unconstructive. They have created groupings for the peoples of kenya that the kenyan government throughout its history has NEVER used and then the editors complain when I create consistency. Some of the editors have acted as though they "own the page" (i.e. Midday express) and have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. I request arbitration, not semi-protection, especially at this point. Please note the talk page: I have continuously recommended returning to tribal classifications used by the kenyan government and have been denied. I have attempted to include new census information from 2009 but have been denied. Overall it seems there is little interest in accurately representing the demographics of kenya (please see how the luo tribe, kenya's third largest was entirely missing until I edited it, while smaller tribes were thoroughly discussed, including their history and past status) and more in pushing ethno-linguistic groupings that are not relevant to the kenyan context. Midday express has been blocked repeatedly in wikipedia for their baiting editors and unconstructive edits, so please thoroughly review the talk page and un-protect, or revert to an earlier stage when there was consensus (when it was by tribal groupings). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.74.249 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles get protected when edit-warring is observed. Edit warring was taking place on Demographics of Kenya so I protected it. In particular, I observed few constructive anonymous edits in the article history, and also that multiple editors had reverted you already (including your removal of sourced text), so semi-protection seemed best.

The place request changes to a protected article is on the article talk page. If you have a dispute with one other editor, try Wikipedia:Third opinion as a first step. If you want to include material that contradicts what the cited sources say, you need to propose your own sources. Editors have not refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. Middayexpress has replied to you. Please continue the discussion there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tina Turner

I hadn't seen the RFPP request: I had already blocked 67.85.168.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks. The IP doesn't seem to hop, and it's been chronically disruptive. You may want to reconsider the protection.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually noticed you blocking that address before I protected that article, and pondered whether I should protect the article at all. Examining the edit history of Tina Turner, I saw no constructive edits from new or anonymous users for the past month. Generally I'm inclined to semi-protect an article for as long as it appears the disruption has been going on, so it seemed 3 weeks was a good period. I will not object, however, if you decide to reduce that duration to something less. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No argument from me. Just wanted to make sure you had weighed all the facts in your decision.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Extremely concerned

I am extremely concerned that you consider that not all of User:Sculptor Dame maintenance template additions were incorrect. Please indicate which ones you think are correct? Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am looking over the edit history of Sculptor Dame now, reverting where needed. There are still a couple articles I am uncertain of because of broken reference links, or references to shopping sites: John Maltby and Gordon Baldwin. In any case, I still believe that Sculptor Dame needs some education rather than blocking. I have warned the user. If it happens again let me know and I will block. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ah, the sweet bliss of youth

Hey admin guy, there's a user named User:Logical Cowboy who's using Twinkle like a fire hose, and ruining the geraniums. He's tagging everything that exists for non-notability. Go to Robin Lakoff. Look down at Selected writings by Lakoff. Use Google scholar and Google books on the name.. and remember that Google scholar will vastly undercount, because the name will appear as Lakoff (1975) rathr than "Robin Lakoff"... Ahem. Ahem. Canst thou speak with this strapping young lad, this paragon of youthful innocence, and ask him to cease and desist with the twinkling? Tks. Locke'sGhost 05:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, nice to meet you. I find comments about how old I am to be a little weird. No one has that information here. I suggested that Locke's Ghost should read WP:PERSONAL and stick to the articles rather than personal comments. Anyway, with regard to Robin Lakoff, what I did was note that the article did not establish notability according to WP:PROF. Locke's Ghost deleted the tag without actually establishing notability. Whether I use Twinkle or Huggle or emacs seems besides the point. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head wondering why I'm suddenly in the middle of this dispute.

In any case, Lock'sGhost, whether or not the subject of an article is notable in the real world isn't the issue. What matters more is whether the article about the subject adequately establishes notability. If Google searches turn up sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, why, then, are they not referenced in the article somehow? Oh, and Logical Cowboy is correct: comment on content, not the contributor. Speculating about someone's personal life isn't appropriate behavior here.

And Logical Cowboy, I am not a fan of automated tools. I have seen too much disruption arising from their mis-use. Do you see an article for which you have notability concerns? WP:SOFIXIT. That's more constructive than hit-and-run tagging. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Good luck with your wonderful and extremely valuable twinkle pursuits. Locke'sGhost 15:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopes Abandoned

can you please explain how you felt this article qualified under A7 when evidence was present and couple to the fact far less notable bands still have a page on wikipedia when they clearly do meet category for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BAND for criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Hopes Abandoned did not appear to meet any of the criteria, and no reliable sources were provided as evidence. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists isn't a reason to keep an article. If other less notable bands have articles, they should be deleted too. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont mean to seem fatuos or arrogant but i would ask what expertise do you have in the music industry, in particular the Australian industry? i ask as Hopes Abandoned satisfy the criteria listed under Nos. 1,2,4,9,10 and 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Expertise is not required, only knowledge of WP:BAND, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources. The Hopes Abandoned article contained zero verifiable, reliable sources as evidence that any WP:BAND criteria are met. Let's look at your claims:

Criterion 1: No evidence was given that the band been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent of the band.

Criterion 2: No reference was given to verify claim of being on a country's national chart. http://www.mp3.com.au/Charts/Artists/Punk does show the band as a #1 punk band, but so what? mp3.com.au is a free service dedicated to helping unsigned artists promote their music — in essence, a repository of non-notable bands.

Criterion 4: No evidence was given of coverage of a national concert tour was provided in the article.

Criterion 9: There was no mention of any competition in the article.

Criterion 10: The article mentioned inclusion in Triple J Hottest 100 of 2010; however I could find no evidence of the credibility of this claim. The only links shown by Google that mention Hopes Abandoned and Triple J Hottest 100 are all unreliable sources such as Facebook; nothing on the official source abc.com.au which hosts the Triple J Hottest 100 information. I did search, but I couldn't find it.

Criterion 11: The article mentioned nothing about the band having been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Therefore, the article was deleted. The fact that the article has been deleted three times now suggests an attempt to promote this band rather than contribute to the encyclopedia.

If I restore the article, it would be deleted again by someone else, or at the very least deleted through the WP:AFD process. If you want to write an article on this band, I suggest you start it in your own user space where it won't be deleted. Just create User:Monaro632/Hopes Abandoned and go from there, and be sure to provide verifiable and reliable sources to back up the WP:BAND criteria before moving the article into main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, in relation to the "promotion" of the band, i am not associated not affiliated with the band in any way, shape or form, as i feel you were trying to insinuate, also stating expertise is not required in a subject to allow it to be reviewed for deletion is i feel a major policy flaw by Wikipedia, it would be exactly the same as asking me to verify and decide upon an article on a large hadron collider for instance, a subject of which i have very little knowledge, would it not be proper to have experts in the particular field review articles of that field?

I know nothing of any other attempts to start such a page, when was this? also if there have been three attempts would you not think this would suggest some notability if people are repeatedly trying to start a wiki on them?

the article stated they were nominated for the Hottest 100, not that they were included in the final listing, the band have also been in rotation on the Triple J radio network.

Could you assist or offer some guidance as to how the article could be correctly formatted so as not to be deleted in future? other than what has already been posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The prior incarnations of this article, it turns out, were not recent. I apologize for the insinuation.

Wikipedia articles are judged according to compliance with published policies and guidelines. The fact that this article failed to meet the criteria is hardly a flaw in Wikipedia policies, it's a flaw in the article. It takes at least two editors to delete an article such as yours: the one who judged it deletable, and the admin (me) who had to agree that it was deletable. My analysis above should clearly demonstrate that I did proper due diligence. I am fairly sure the editor who proposed it for deletion conducted a similar review and found no reliable sources that could establish notability.

Expertise is not required because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for experts. ANYONE should be able to verify the claims made in an article. If that is not possible to do, if an article must rest on expert judgment, then out it goes.

I am happy to assist. The formatting (layout, sectioning, etc.) of the article was not a problem. The major problem was that no verifiable, reliable sources were provided to back up any claims of notability of the band. Be sure to include those, you should be fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability will tell you more than you want to know about what are good and poor sources. Wikipedia:Citing sources will tell you how to cite them. Just create the article in your own user space as I suggested, and when you think it's up to the point where anyone can verify the notability claims from the sources you provide, let me know and I'll be happy to look at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, i shall contact you again once i have improved the article to standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaro632 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted article to User:Monaro632/Hopes Abandoned for you to work on. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Debate Team

I would like to request an explanation about Debate Team (band) deleted for the same reason even though they just recently as of January 24th, 2011 released their first EP on iTunes. Furthermore, the band is made up of very well known artists including Bob Morris from the Hush Sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.65.235 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That was deleted in error since the band does meet WP:BAND criterion #6. The article has been restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:KitchenKop

Quite frankly I am amazed that you are in any doubt about this being a violation. The name plus the linkspamming, what more do you want? – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See the box at the top of the page WP:UAA. It's better to block on the larger problem. The name isn't a violation, in my reading of Wikipedia:Username policy. Spamming is a violation, and the user has been warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I visit WP:UAA enough to know what the box says, thank you. What I don't understand is how you can say this is not a blatant u/n violation, so we will have to agree to differ on that one. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't blatant, it's borderline. It would be blatant if the username matched the blog name. Believe me, I was looking for a reason to block everything about that user, if you read my first comment. Further examination revealed that blocking isn't justified... yet. Another attempt at spam and I'll certainly do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread

FYI, a recent AN3 decision you made has been brought to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AN3_review_requested. --B (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

-- which I was just about to tell you. --JN466 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Teaching newbies v. asking them to leave

Hello, I am trying to understand why we turn away editors who don't conform to our standards rather than working with them.

You recently blocked User:Cmeditorial for editing for promotional purposes. While in some sense that may be true (as they have only made it to editing one article and asking for help with it, and it is an article about an org they are related to), in another sense they have been slowly learning how Wikipdia works over many months, developing an article first in their userspace, and then asking nicely on AFC and on the article's talk page and EAR for guidance. They clearly want to learn how to be good editors.

An unkind talkpage message and indef block can turn away a spammer, but can also turn away a potential good editor. (In this case, a whole slew of them, since the group in question is a network of university student journalists.) ArcAngel's comment to them before yours seemed sufficient to me to encourage them to conform with Wikiepdia policies. Were you drawn to the user because of ArcAngel's categorization, or because of their post on EAR? Was ArcAngel's comment too lenient?

How do you see the current intent the username policy? Is it to make those who violate it unwelcome / to discourage them from returning? If so, perhaps the policy can be reworded to make that more clear. If not, can we correct inappropriate names in a way that encourages newbies to do things better or to find a different entrypoint to editing? The current canonical "you've been indefblocked!" template mentions that it is possible to edit again, but almost as an afterthought; the reader may well already have quit the site.

This seems relatively harsh to me. Anyone who clearly indicates their affiliation in their username is trying to be transparent and to do the right thing, which means they are potential good editors -- far more adaptable than borderline trolls, for whom we show legendary patience.

I would welcome your thoughts on these matters. –SJ+ 11:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also undeleted College Magazine, as I see no reason to speedy it (author COI not being a reason to delete in itself). Feel free to request deletion, though it seems notable to me by the standards of student magazines. –SJ+ 11:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My blocking of Cmeditorial was based on the account seeming to be operated by a group of people, and representing a group of people, rather than an individual. That alone would have resulted in a softerblock, which includes an invitation to create another account. However, the fact that the account was used to write a promotional article caused me to escalate the block to spamusername.

I don't remember how this account came to my attention. I regularly patrol WP:UAA so it could have been there, but I also run across promotional accounts on my own.

I see the intent of the username policy as encouraging individuals to engage in non-promotional editing. I have no problem with someone disclosing their affiliation in a username that is clearly an individual's name (like a real name with company initials appended, or something similar). In those cases I have a pretty good track record of declining block requests I find on WP:UAA.

My speedy deletion of College Magazine is explained in my rationale: Notability not established and uses only primary sources. I see now that it makes a claim of notability (badly sourced) so I agree that an A7 speedy was wrong. Good catch. I decline a lot of CSD A7 tags because I see a claim of notability. I don't know how I missed the one that's currently in the article.

Some new accounts should be taught. Others should be told to leave. Still others should be told to leave and prevented from returning. In review, I agree that this might be a more borderline case. I have no objection if you decide to unblock. I will do so if you ask. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić, thank you for elaborating. I agree about the three categories, and wonder where different groups draw those lines. (And I think we should clarify both where we intend to ask people to leave and where we intend to retrain and recruit them -- currently too many standard templates are passive-aggressive or send mixed messages.) People taking up protector and vandalfighter roles may think about this more than anyone, and so have the clearest / most consistent interpretations; welcomers and editor-helpers may not, and may not follow editors through their first 50 edits. We have mechanisms for watching pages, but none for watching users, or users's blocklogs, or deletion logs for pages users are working on; so it's much easier to catch and respond to RC than it is to respond to the latest admin actions taken against a cadre of newbies you were mentoring.

I currently am more sensitive than usual about this, as I am working with data on the proportion of readers who are 'locked out' (perhaps 50% of readers never see an edit tab due to semi-protection; less than 15% of editors remain active after 2 months of editing, down from 45% a few years ago; newbies tagged as spammers often leave without ever understanding why; it's not unusual to be blocked without malicious or unkind behavior; it's hard to challenge deletions because we've chosen deletion over page blanking.) Since you are quite thoughtful about how you interact with other editors and review their work, I am particularly glad for your input. –SJ+ 08:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts. I agree, many users who may seem to want to use Wikipedia as an advertising channel can be educated to the point where they are productive. One I have in mind started out here as a WP:SPA with a WP:COI, and remained active that way for a year or so. Then he began contributing elsewhere, and now he's an administrator, and since then I haven't seen him touch his COI topic. It took a couple years for him to "get" the bigger picture concerning what Wikipedia is all about. If that's any example (just one data point), the year or two it took suggests the difficulty of the task in turning around other COI editors.

I have mixed feelings about welcome message templates. To me, they give the appearance of hit-and-run posting. I haven't seen one yet that was appropriate for an IP address, and yet a lot of IP addresses get tagged with welcome messages as if the IP will be an individual long-term established editor.

It's no secret in the business world that Wikipedia is often among the first hits that turn up in a Google search for any topic. I know from my personal interactions with business professionals that Wikipedia is viewed as a promotion channel, a way for a non-notable company or organization to get their name at the top of a Google search if they can't manage to do it on their own. There are even seminars you can attend on how to do this without being detected. These people already have their mind made up about what Wikipedia is for, they appear here for a specific purpose, and have no interest in contributing anything other than their promotion. Some of these accounts I've found are PR companies whose job it is to write promotional Wikipedia articles for their clients. Clear and obvious appearances of such editors should be shown no mercy, and I show them none.

But I'll be the first to admit that a battleground mindset can result in hasty administrative actions when it comes to borderline cases. I'd like to think that my blocking of CMeditor was based on sound reasoning, but I admit my deletion of the article was hasty, so my own behavior is borderline in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To Amatulić. Many thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious administrators like you!--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Superb! I agree wholeheartedly with the granting of this award. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you. This is a pleasant surprise to see when logging in this morning. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted references

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomie (talk • contribs)

I spent all day yesterday removing links from a few hundred articles. I took care to remove orphaned references too, but given the number of articles I'm not surprised I missed some here and there. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical analysis

I believe it was you who misread that diff. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You restored an unreferenced paragraph (which you have now deleted), and you removed (again) a section that contained two references. If anything, that should have been paired down, not deleted altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to sort it out. My entire edits were blind-reverted, and many improvements that had nothing to do with removal were undone. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I sorted it out. I just manually re-inserted a couple of paragraphs you deleted that had citations, but left out a lot of other unsourced text that you removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. One of the citations only covered a single sentence, the other kind of glossed over that it was not a general finding, but rather opinions expressed in a single research paper. Yworo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Take it from there. I'll point out that research papers don't generally publish "opinions" but rather observations or results that any other researchers can verify. A single peer-reviewed research paper is a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, the "opinion" portion of the added text was synthesis on the part of a Wikipedia editor, so I've removed one sentence to make it clear what observations and results were actually reported. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

SOCR disambiguation page

Do you think the SOCR disambiguation page should point directly to the Statistics_Online_Computational_Resource, as the other SOC-R entry seems to not be of sufficient notoriety (no Wikipedia page and little can be found online about it that may justify a disambiguation page? The Statistics_Online_Computational_Resource appears to be the primary topic for SOCR and according to this Wikipedia policy probably justifies the link to the main SOCR acronym. Thanks. 128.97.129.33 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your perspective. If you're in the military, SOCR is a type of special ops boat. The term doesn't have its own article, but the acronym does appear (undefined) in articles about special operations. Google searches turn up hits on SOC-R boats in the first page of results.

I have expanded the list of acronyms with others that may eventually warrant articles.

You are correct, though. I'll make the appropriate changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected page after a content dispute should be unprotected soon but...

the discussion at Talk:Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be as fruitful enough. Could you perhaps take a look, and offer a recommendation (perhaps to take an issue up at an appropriate noticeboard), as you protected the page? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:EurosportManagement

I dont disagree with your blocking it as promotional but its only edit was to remove an obvious BLP violation and the user who reported it as promo-username restored the violation. Would you mine reinforcing the WP:DOLT essay to Teapotgeorge? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. Because that edit was constructive, I didn't hard block EurosportManagement, but gave him a softer block that allows him to create another account from the same IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I did read what EurosportManagement (talk · contribs) removed from James Haskell's article. The content was correctly referenced, no one has threatened legal action as far as I'm aware and I was under the impression that Wikipedia wasn't censored? I'm not sure why it is a BLP violation? Regards.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, true. However, there are sensitivities to be aware of when dealing with a biography of a real living person, because such biographies lead to real legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation. The article may be fine with or without that bit (fine with it because it's properly referenced, and fine without it because it's an irrelevant detail for a biography). Did you read the essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, it states "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." which I entirely agree with, but the content you are removing is very reliably referenced and no one is questioning that it happened and other connected articles also mention it. I am not about to edit war over it, someone else has restored it in any case.RegardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I'm fine with it either way. Note that *I* have removed nothing from that article. All I did was block someone who did. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your input

I happened to notice you commented at Talk:List of disputed supercentenarian claimants#Notability. There is a case open at WP:AE#NickOrnstein. I would welcome any comment you can make, either in the enforcement request or on my talk page, as to what you think is going on. (Or tell us what to do in the Result section). It would be embarrassing if the usual AE admins are baffled by an enforcement only a few weeks after the case closes; we should have some idea of what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your input on Jules Dervaes

Hi, would you take a look at Jules Dervaes. I read "Urban farming family who trademarked "Urban Homesteading" accused of plagiarism" [6] and checked Wikipedia to see what exits on the subject. There was nothing on the page concerning the controversy brought up in the article, then I checked the page edit history and noticed that someone or some number of people had removed anything that was controversial from the article, they also removed most of the external links. Now there may be valid reasons for doing so, but there is nothing in the edit history that would suggest such a reason. Also the editors who removed the material seem to exist solely to edit this page. I restored the material to the page. It looks as though it might need some level of protection, but what level and for how long, etc I am not sure. Any input would be welcome. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the page to my watch list. For now, let's wait. Semi-protection won't work because the disruptive editors are using well-enough-established accounts. If edit-warring commences, disruptive editors can be blocked after being warned appropriately to take the dispute to the talk page. If a block or two isn't effective, the page can be fully protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the input,and glad to have another pair of eyes looking things over. Brimba (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

AE approach

Hi there! User:Sandstein has proposed a new approach to Arbitration Enforcement, which has been discussed on his talk page [7] and [8]. I would be interested to know your opinion, based on your substantial experience. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Inviting discussion on Wikipedia:External links regarding Yahoo Groups citations

As you mentioned in this diff at the RfE against NickOrnstein, there has been consensus in the RSN on Oldest People (now archived) in which I also supported that Yahoo Groups citations that refers to specific messages in the group (for instance, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/16492) is not acceptable for article mainspace. For project or talk pages, it seems like the consensus was that "as long as it's not carried over to article mainspace, then that's okay until a better citation can be found".

Before the RfE against NickOrnstein, I had provided my line of thinking here that "Yahoo Groups WOP is a closed membership. I do understand the logic of not allowing the citation because "Mr. John Q. Public" would not be able to see the citation. I will look into those citations that had pointed to the Yahoo Group WOP, and as a member, I'll see if those messages point to an outside source for citation use." For instance, that Yahoo Group message #16492 link above -- which a non-registered member of the Yahoo Groups WOP would not see -- refers to a death of a Lettie Broome and the message includes the link to her obituary. Ironically, NickOrnstein was the one who composed that particular message on WOP. What he and everyone should do is actually use the link from the message like this, not the actual WOP message #16492 link.

That said, when you provided the WP:ELNO guideline #10 which it did say: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." I then read the entire Wikipedia:External links page, and realized that the page seems to be providing conflicting information. Can you look at Sites requiring registration section please? There, it also repeats my thinking -- "Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers."

However, the bolding of "Outside of citations" and the use of a reference note caught my attention. If you look at the reference note, it explicitly says, "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles."

I realized I was baffled by that statement (as I am still not entirely sure what it is saying) so I decided to go here to enlist your thoughts on what that reference note meant. Again, I'm not saying I'm endorsing that Yahoo Groups (and specifically the WOP group) continue to be used as a citation itself; in fact, I still support the rationale that if everyone can't see the citation, then it's not an usable citation. Just wanted to cover all bases and see if that's why some editors are just so darned stubborn in using WOP citations (they probably don't even know about this particular reference note anyway). Thoughts? Thanks in advance, CalvinTy 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really a contradiction. Citations to sites requiring registration are often acceptable; for example, scientific journals usually require you to be a member before you can view anything more than an article abstract. But that isn't the issue with the Yahoo WOP group. The issue is that it's a discussion forum. Citations to discussion forums are almost never acceptable. Exceptions would include an article about a particular forum, or a forum that is widely referenced or discussed by other reliable sources that meet WP:RS criteria. I don't know of any Yahoo group that would qualify as an exception.

WP:ELNO was probably not the best guidance document to reference for this situation. The correct documents would be:

• Policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources — Self-published media, such as ... group blogs, Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable as sources.
• Policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources — Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.
• Guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online_and_paper) — Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated....

I hope that helps clarify things. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that reliability is a sliding scale. The most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications. The next most reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. At the very bottom of reliability are self-published sources. Self-published sources should be used with caution and sparingly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo groups are often inaccessible unless you register. In addition, they are full of copyright violations, including downloaded articles, another reason not to link to them. I belong to a number of Yahoo groups, and own or moderate several myself. I can't think of any that meet our criteria for use. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your responses about Yahoo Groups citations. As I suspected, regardless of whether a particular Yahoo Group requires registration or not, it's the focus on the fact the Yahoo Groups are another format of a "forum", a discussion forum -- as well as the fact it would be "largely user-generated" in any case. At least, if anyone else has a further issue with the Yahoo Groups citations, we can point them here for clarification.  :-) Thanks for your time. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

pretty vandalism

Thanks for clean-up of the secret talkpage colourer-inner. Aren't people odd? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. I have no idea what account that person might have had previously, or what we might have done to set him off vandalizing admin talk pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To you Question

You made a great statement at close. With respect to your message, it was top, too bad these couldn't be seen earlier. In keeping with my own manner. I show tendency (in the absence of farce) to most often first state; All the good nice things and true observations and empathy for correctly expressing that it would not be for me and everything else being true. The only conflicting premise I would have sent back is: When you described "Dealing with conflict", your general phrasing; "is part of the job", "compatible with the job" "enjoy the job", for this emerging theme I would simply add it was never intended to hold the obligation of a "job". I nominated myself on a different platform and to use the tool in the manner I described wouldn't have with it any stress of obligation. Only that upon appropriate necessity and clarity, would I consider autonomous, otherwise I have the best mentors for the questions I would need getting started. for the most mart I could imagine some AfC actions where a mop with a broken mop handle could function. To me the issue was impeding my integrity. Trust could have prevailed, I think it was a missed opportunity, so I completed the emotional lesson, that was left to conclude, and am better for it. I have heard people refer to RfA as broken, I intend to look for was to impact the process. For sure, because of my memories going through. I have gained a perspective. With regard to fixing, RfA, I would not go through under current practice, In all honestly, however, because you viewed the position as a "job" you attached your view upon it and the stress. And if I thought "Job" I would fully agree. For my RfA it would have landed as a "Tool". and that requires AGF. A tool carries much less connotations of stress. Anyway I guess mine will try to be an advocate for positive change. and from here be seen again on Wikipedia. But yeah, looks like it might have been another long 1. My76Strat (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the term "job" in the context of "task" or "activity". Please re-read what I wrote in that context. My impression remains that you would find adminship distasteful as soon as you get embroiled in a conflict, which will inevitably happen regardless of your intent. From my own perspective, I find it to be a huge distraction from things I'd rather be doing with respect to content editing, and my time available is finite.

I recommend participating in Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a taste of trying to mediate disputes that don't involve you. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of iNES Page

Fast work you did, thanks! I'll put a redirect to International Nuclear Event Scale in its place. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had some misgivings about speedy-deleting a page that has existed for a long time, but the present content was clearly not acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a hard time determining whether it was spam or just advertising as I have never nominated anything for deletion before. Redirect set up and all is in order now. Hopefully the person who writes the next article reads the rules first. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dark Rising Studios

Heyya, Im new to Wikipedia and am wondering why you have deleted my article :) I'm not sure what i have done wrong :) Thanks,

Aaron1178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1178 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR Violations

Hi, Could you please look at the complaint again? There have been a series of lies and made up stories in the complaints, i would be thankful if you could review the complaints again on my behalf to be fair. I believe they are working together to push their own POV due to their political convictions. I have tried to given them valid reasons on various talk pages to no avail. A fair assessment at the complaint would be appericiated. Okkar (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My initial assessment was to block all parties, but after thoroughly reviewing the edit histories of the articles, I found no violations. You have a content dispute. Content disputes are not settled on the 3RR reporting page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didnt use 3RR to report content dispute, it was the other parties as you can see from their report. I have tried to resolve the content issues on talk page but no avail. What do you when people cheat and gang up on you? Okkar (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The forum for reporting behavioral problems that don't quite fit into the other categories (like vandalism, spamming, sockpuppetry, 3RR, etc.) is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:ANI for short. There you'll have a larger population of administrators to review the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you please take a look at my talk page on a message left by Fletch the Mighty regarding the above two users and their suspicious activities? It somehow raise the suspicion that the user account User:Soewinhan may have been stolen. Okkar (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pollygrind

Hi, Amatulic. I note your comment here. As far as I can tell, the "new" version of this spam article is a straight repost. The creator appears to be the same editor, who is the festival's founder. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, again. Will salt if it happens a third time. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Could You Explain Why I Was Blocked

My acount was recently blocked by you in response to my edits on the article Outcasts (tv series). I do not understand why my acount was blocked yet other users involved (ie:Xeworlebi) were not! I was not adding any incorrect, bias or inapropriate material but my edit kept on being deleated and I was blocked for it even though I was reverting the article because in my opinion the user Xeworlebi did not have a reason for deleating my edit and he was therefore, in my opinion, vandilising my edit. Please could you let me know why I was blocked so I don't make any mistakes I may have made again. Oddbodz (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr

Why am I the only one to be warned? When other people are using sources that are not verifiable, and with the offical website not reporting it. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your answer is? Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not logged in all the time, and right now it's working hours.

At the time I warned you, I saw three reverts in the edit history. Those reverting you didn't have 3 reverts. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the content. See WP:3RR. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I understand and agree with your declining of my edit warring report as there was alot of edits since the report. However alot of edit waring has been happing at List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel so if you could sift through it and block the edit warriors that would be great :) STATic message me! 21:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking User: WWEJobber the most avid warrior would probably have been a better choice then protecting the page. As he's doing all the damage with at least 5 editors reverting his vandalism in the last month with him keep doing the same thing. STATic message me! 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WWeJobber's edits were not vandalism, and all sides were making reasoned arguments in the edit summaries. However, nobody was discussing the dispute on the talk page, as should be happening. Protecting the page is the only appropriate solution in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favor, when that page gets unprotected could you semi it as the IP vandalism is just unnesasary when we already get vandalism from users. STATic message me! 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to return it to indefinite semi protection it had before this started instead of just a week long protection. STATic message me! 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that but I'd like to see what sort of anonymous edits appear. There were some seemingly constructive ones in recent history, and the unconstructive ones appeared to be from an edit-warrior who forgot to log in. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thatcrazyfrenchwoman.com

Not sure how this works but trying to contact you anyway. I am unsure why you have removed the external links I added last night to redirect wikipedia users to thatcrazyfrenchwoman.com. As you would have seen, had you visited the site, this is not spam whatsoever. Isabelle Legeron MW is a HIGHLY respected wine expert - one of only 280 Masters of Wine in the whole world AND the only french woman. links through to her page SHOULD be present on article entries on natural wine / organic wine / biodynamic wine. What exactly gives you the right to decide otherwise? Who are you? Please clarify. Thanks for your help. Tiffany Boeuve (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)User:Tiffany Parminter

Tiffany, thank you for contacting me. Here is why I removed the links:

• The user who added them added a similar link multiple articles, suggesting a pattern of spamming. If an editor's only contributions to Wikipedia are to add external links, then it's highly likely that the editor's purpose is promotional. Promotion is prohibited, especially if the editor has a conflict of interest. Repeated violations will result in the site being blacklisted Wikipedia-wide, preventing anyone from linking to it.
• Upon examining this site, it appeared to be a self-published blog, and blogs are generally not acceptable as external links. There are exceptions, such as if the content is written by an expert in the field. But even then, the links should enhance the information in the article some way, and I didn't see that being the case.
• The nature of the way the links were added suggested a conflict of interest on the part of the editor who added them. Editors with a conflict of interest should never add their own links to articles. Instead, the editor should propose the addition on the article talk page and let the community decide.

You ask, what exactly gives me the right to remove them? Well, any editor has the right to remove anything judged to be detrimental to the project. We also have policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I have followed up at the Wikipedia Wine Project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Thatcrazyfrenchwoman.com to get the community's views on this site. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Up-island spider at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

The article currently has only 898 prose characters of the 1500 required. Judging by your notation, it may be difficult to further expand it. The reviewer was also concerned about the species. Good luck. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on Mandarax's comment. From what I can find there doesn't seem to be wolf spider species called the "Up-island spider" or "hearse-house spider". Looking at the information included in the article from your source it seems to be a possible local folk tale? of the region. The largest wolf spider species in the US, Hogna carolinensis, only gets to 22-35 mm in length, while the reported size for the "Up-island spider" is in the range of 230mm. This plus the lack of any hits for either name on the web are concerning. Did the Working Waterfront article provide a genus or species name to go with the vernacular names?--Kevmin § 07:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. I wasn't aware of a word count requirement. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request

See this (asking since you were the protecting admin). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Zinfandel

I am REALLY new to Wikipedia....so please excuse if this is totally the wrong way to do this post. I just wanted to let you know I sent an email....which I did BEFORE I saw your message to not send email unless we had had prior communication. Sorry about that.

MotherlindaMotherlinda (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I have replied by email. Oh, and generally one posts at the bottom of people's talk page, to maintain the chronology of comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of 2011 Libyan uprising

The IP editors weren't vandalising the article, it was a content dispute as they were adding sourced content, thus full protection is appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was correcting myself as you posted this message. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you add a {{Pp-dispute}} to the page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, sure. I never found those tags useful, and felt that adding them should be the job of a bot. But I'll add it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe if you use WP:TW to make protections it does it automatically. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 is mistaken. This is no content dispute. It is 1 user who uses multiple IPs to push for a POV, for which did found no support on the talkpage, besides himself in the guise of changing IPs. just as an example the last five that are in favor of adding the al-Qaeda piece:

• 90.128.116.236 - DE-TELE2-NET3
• 83.189.90.131 - DE-TELE2-NET2
• 213.101.230.37 - DE-TELE2
• 83.189.94.84 - DE-TELE2-NET2
• 83.181.93.81 - DE-TELE2-NET2

and so on and on; the guy just switches IP every 20 min or so, to make it look like there is a debate! while actually it is just him vs. everybody else. if you read the article in question [9] it nowhere says al-Qaeda supports the rebels. Or can you find that line in there somewhere?? there was ample discussion for two days at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda.2C_LIFG_and_mercenaries and Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda_and_Nato_are_co-beligrents.3F.21, to explain to him that if some men out of a group of 25, who went to Iraq to fight and are now fighting with the rebels in Libya this does not mean that al-Qaeda is a co-belligerent; especially as ALL new sources never mention that or outright dispute that. Just while you protected the article two other editors tried to reason with him [10] [11], but he just switched IP again and has shown himself once more just out to disrupt and provoke [12]. The whole day I and other editors have removed this claim, as the consensus on the talk page is NOT to add it as it is OR not substantiated by a source, however the guy behind the IP just comes back under different IP and adds it again. and again and again... to sum it up: no content dispute, but an user disrupting the editing process with a OR, dubious POV, IP hoping and no will do argue; therefore please change from full-protection to semi-protection. noclador (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Noclador. We should be able to edit the article, it's about current events after all. If you just prevent IPs from editing the article, the problem will cease to exist, or become manageable. Cheers, Alfons Åberg (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering here once again but given the IP editor has discussed it further on the talk page and come to a compromise and the registered user above has withdrawn from the discussion I think unprotection would be reasonable now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I'm not inclined to take someone at their word that they're leaving in a huff.

You want unprotection or semi? I can't tell from the comments above. And perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see a compromise from the IP on the talk page.

I suggest that somebody make an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page for a consensus-based change to the article. If that happens instead of blustering, then I'll consider unprotection. Alternately, you can post an unprotection request at WP:RFPP to see if another admin will agree to it. Right now, I see flaring tempers, which doesn't fill me with confidence that disruption won't resume. I'll shorten it to 3 days for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a current event, gets a lot of attention from various WP authors and should not be protected. --Edoe (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising‎

I think that this protection is very ill-considered. The state of affairs three days from now will definitely be radically different from now, and the article will have suffered, becoming inaccurate under protection in the meantime. Protection is a blunt instrument which targets everyone equally and indiscriminately. Under certain circumstances, it can make sense. But this case of a very visible article on a topic of international import, which is constantly changing and being edited by many well-behaved editors, is almost the definition of when targeted blocks of the misbehaved would cause less damage to the project than protection. Would you consider that instead? Dominic·t 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, see my comment above.

I saw an edit war going on. In a content dispute, full protection is an appropriate response. Full protection doesn't prevent improvements from being made to the article, but so far nobody has made any editprotected requests. I see no discussion on the talk page that suggests the warring won't continue. I see no constructive edit requests made in an attempt to improve the article while protected. All I am seeing are complaints.

If it makes you feel better, I don't intend to let the protection go on for three days. However, unless another admin intervenes, I fully intend to leave it protected for a few hours to give warring editors a chance to cool off.

If you want to make an improvement, then suggest one. That's what the {{editprotected}} template is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an edit to be made to the article, and don't intend to ever edit it myself. I was expecting a more serious response from you. It hardly sounds like you've read what I wrote, and telling me "Again," after my first post is a bit nonsensical. I know that there has been warring. I am suggesting that if it is to be addressed, it ought to be by blocking the edit warring parties, rather than cutting off all editing to the highly visibly article on a fast-moving current event. And, er, that's especially true if there is not any talk page discussion that indicates the warriors are likely to reform; you seem to have it backwards. You're creating a barrier to editing by requiring people to edit the talk page and use a template they may be unfamiliar with. In my opinion, your action (especially if it stands) has done more harm to the project than the bout of edit warring did. And, with regard to "unless another admin intervenes," you are seriously tempting me there to do so, but you'll have to excuse my impudence in thinking that it would be more respectful to actually talk to you about my disagreement first. Dominic·t 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I used "again" because it seemed clear you didn't read my comments in the section preceding yours. Apologies if that seemed off-putting.

I am quite serious, and it is regrettable that you cannot take my response seriously. I do appreciate the effort you are making to engage in discussion, however.

The warriors had not reached the threshold required for a block, and there were too many of them.

You are welcome to your opinion. I am letting the protection stand for a few hours. This does no "harm" to the project. People don't go to Wikipedia as a primary source of news. Your argument about unfamiliar templates makes no sense; the instructions for using the template are right at the top of the protected article in big, bold letters, and I see many newbies and anonymous IPs using editprotected templates on other protected articles.

If you object, and can't wait for the article to be unprotected, you are welcome to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. I will not object if another administrator overrides my decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand you here. You're the one that decided to take this action, and you've been nothing but flippant and dismissive about objections to it since. This is a wiki. If you think that protecting a high-profile page isn't harmful, or that all the new editors who will land there will automatically know how to use templates on talk pages, then, well, I am flabbergasted. These are basic principles. I can see it was hardly worth my time to try to negotiate with you. Dominic·t 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why you wish to engage in argument when you have the capability to unprotect the article yourself. It is unfortunate that you consider disagreement with your arguments as flippant and dismissive. And yes, it is pointless to assume that I must respond instantly demands to move my deadline for unprotection by a few minutes. I have stated I have no objection to another admin overriding me, as you have done.

The protection status does not prevent improvements from being made. I am amazed that you regard other editors as too stupid to use a template or request a change on a talk page, when my own observation in other protected articles clearly show that new editors are fully capable of doing this. Please assume good faith which you are failing to do, not only for me, but for everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, I have let it stand for a few hours, I intended to change it just now, but noticed you have already done so. That's perfectly fine with me, I have no objection. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

fyi. When logging Blacklist items, try to avoid adding "#:" in front of single entries. Ie;[13][14][15]. Adding "#:" hides the item on the spamlist search. I've corrected those. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence, I was just re-reading the blacklisting guideline before you posted this message, and I realized I had been logging entries incorrectly. Thanks for fixing them. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

SPAM block

Hey, is it too early to list the site on WP:BLACK? Or is that a last resort if the IP comes back from block and adds the links again? CTJF83 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a last resort. However, you can always create a request. Sites don't get blacklisted immediately unless there's an extenuating circumstance, like a bunch of anons all adding links at the same time. There has to be a request on MediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklist first, with a wait for further analysis and comments, and then listing. Often we've found, however, that once a single spammer is reverted and blocked a few times, he gives up. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I figured, I'll wait and see how it goes...thanks, CTJF83 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Longevity and WP:FLAGBIO

There's been some edit-warring over flag icons on a couple of lists of living centenarians. It's led me to make a proposal to amend the MOS that is gathering consensus. If you could read the discussions that led to the proposal, all of which are linked on the MOS talk page I've linked above here, I'd appreciate it. If my proposal is adopted, as seems likely, I fear implementation of the improved WP:FLAGBIO will cause sparks to fly in the longevity suite of articles. David in DC (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a long debate. I just finished reading the background discussion and your proposal, and I support it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you've explicily stated that your participation in longevity-related articles is limited to enforcement of the ArbCom decision. It's my hope that you'll keep an eye on the MOSFLAG discussion(s) and any edits after the MOSFLAG proposal is decided. I could be wrong, WP:CRYSTAL but I think implementing change, if my proposal is adopted, may lead to activity prohibited in the ArbCom decision. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And so it begins. How broadly do you suppose "broadly interpreted" should be interpreted? David in DC (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Centre for Intelligent Design

Hello! You tagged the article when I first created it. I have added some more references to the article. If you feel it is appropriate, please remove your notice. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced of the notability of this organization. It's too new. I have modified the notice. As for removal, I will leave it up for a few days unless another editor deems the article worthy of removing it. The notice lasts for a whole week, plenty of time to make improvements. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection on Vacuum tube

I considered protecting Vacuum tube myself, and have been closely following the discussion. Recent comments there are productive. Please consider removing protection since it is better if editors can work things out for themselves. —EncMstr (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I reduced the duration to 1 hour. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for the comment on Feezo's talk page. I was just wondering if you could move protect my talk page. Thanks. mauchoeagle 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your page is already move-protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I move-protected it after your second post on my talk page; I thought you'd notice, so no big deal. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest twins

WP:FLAGBIO has been amended, by consensus. Please see talk page. I've implemented the change on a single page, List of oldest twins. WP:CRYSTAL, but I fear resistance. Would you plese keep an eye out for ArbCom violations. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also deleted flags from List of oldest living people by nation. One salutary effect was getting rid of the issue of which flag belongs next to "Korea". David in DC (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching those articles. I don't anticipate that removal of the flags will be too controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a third: List of Norwegian supercentenarians. I'm pleased, so far, that you're right about opposition. Also surprised. Thanks for your cool head. David in DC (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

replied on my talk page

I replied on my talk page. I will not revert again.Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:3RR

I have not violated 3RR and have explained myself on the talk page of the article. I applaud your concern. However, I do not feel that such a serious warning was necessary. Could you please kindly remove the warning from my page? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR warning was not to tell you that you have violated 3RR, but that you are in danger of doing so.

You may remove whatever you want from your talk page. See WP:BLANKING for the limitations, none of which apply to you.

Also, your talk page is getting unwieldy. I can help you set up an automatic archiver if you want. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would request that you please remove the red warning symbol from my page. I do not usually remove information from my talk page so I am requesting you to please kindly remove that red sign. I have been an editor for many years and can appreciate the guidelines of Wikipedia. I do honestly appreciate your concern however :) Also, I will archive my talk page when I get the time to do so. I would like to do this myself, however. Thank you for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it.

Auto-archiving is simple to set up. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or look at the MiszaBot template in the page source at the top of my page here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Rollback granted

Dear Amatulic, I appreciate your granting me of rollback rights. I appreciate your kindness to trust me with the tool. I was wondering if you could please consider a temporary compromise for the irreligion article. I understand that my recent additions in the introduction are new and are therefore currently being discussed. However, the study that I readded was in the article for some time before it was removed by an IP Address editor. I have explained by rationale on the talk page and have even trimmed the original content to only include the part of the references that address those who are nonreligious. I think for now, that will be a good compromise between User:Griswaldo and I. Thanks for taking the time to review this request. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not have time today, but this dispute seems like an excellent candidate for Wikipedia:Third opinion. Why not announce it there? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic, thank you very much for your suggestion. I have listed the issue there! When you do have time to look at the issue, please do so. Thanks for your help. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Safavids

Can you change the protection status to ip semi-protection. An ip consistently removes sources which is the main problem. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The main problem, from my perspective as an uninvolved editor, is a content dispute. The last few IP edits haven't removed references, only a reference name, keeping the reference itself intact. They seemed to be otherwise attempts at constructive changes. One doesn't semi-protect an article simply to block out IP editors whom you may find objectionable. Work out your differences on the talk page and come to a compromise. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check again, there is an ip with the starting 75/76 who is retaliating due to ethno-political reasons by removing "Azerbaijani" from the article: [16]. Check his whole edit history here: [17]. He hasn't discussed anything in the talkpage and simply removes items:[18] (see his removal of "Azerbaijani" here which is sourced). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So the article needs semi-ip protection. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you comprehend what I wrote previously?

This is a content dispute. One does not semi-protect a page merely because one editor in a dispute is an IP address. Imagine if the same thing were occurring between registered users, where one does not engage in discussion. The article was fully-protected previously for this reason, and for this reason it is now fully protected again. I note that no attempt has been made to communicate with the IP editor. Where have you attempted to engage this editor on any talk page? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a floating ip that comes up with at least 6 different numbers. And I asked him several times in the reverts to please use the talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from leaving notices on whatever talk page the IP is currently using, and there is nothing preventing you from starting a discussion on the article talk page outlining your reasoning for your reverts. I see no demonstration of any attempt to communicate beyond edit summaries, which IP editors often do not see. Also, if you want to make a change to the article in its fully protected state, reasonable requests using the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page will be seen and considered by any admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is a floating point ip, there is no point. The ip was simply removing sources..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose unprotection of the article and removal of neutrality tags, until the involved editors come to agreement to show the spelling of dynasty's name in Azerbaijani (both Arabic and Latin script), which was the official court language of the dynasty. Also the article introduction must be modified to clearly show the predominant Azerbaijani (Turkish) origins of the dynasty, demonstrated in a number of references throughout the page as well as on talk page and its archives for years. Otherwise, the way page intro looks currently, it's a collection of one-sided POV, purged out of any connection to Azerbaijani. Moreover, the official name used by dynasty was "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" (the Safavid State), Iran was only geographical name, it was not the name of dynasty or state. Moreover, the entity called Iran did not exist as a state for a long time before the ascent of Safavid Empire. Atabəy (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I accidentally removed your barnstar for helping out in the edit war on the Mohammed article. I've replaced it. My mistake! KoshVorlon 15:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I confess this message confused me. I wasn't even aware someone added a barnstar to my user page (one doesn't get informed when someone edits your user page, only when someone edits your talk page). Thanks, no harm done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this permissable?

I ran across this while Nick and I "discussed" a BLP issue. It looks fishy. I thought editing from multiple accounts was a problem. David in DC (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses for multiple accounts but this isn't it. It's blocked now. The account has only 2 edits although the talk page has been edited a few times by the sockmaster. I don't think the account exists for any nefarious purpose. It seems he created it simply to use as a work area before he realized he could create sub-pages in his own account. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with promotional edits by user Dyly27

Hi, you semi-protected the page Faraday effect and soon after the protection expiring the same offending edit (an external link) was reintroduced. Except this time it's by a recently registered user:Dyly27. This person ALSO posted related promotional material on Instructables (which itself might be Afd, I'm not sure). I didn't revert that though maybe you want to. But he needs to leave Faraday effect alone in any case! Thanks, Interferometrist (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Nothing to do at this point but warn the user, which I have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also pissed because he marked the edits as "minor" so they didn't appear on my watchlist -- fortunately someone else caught it first. But I'd really keep your eye on this person since the 2 edits had a clear promotional intention related to that commercial website. - Interferometrist (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. I learned long ago that (at least for me) hiding minor edits from my watchlist is counterproductive. I hide only bot edits, although sometimes I hide my own edits if I've been particularly active. I wish there were an option to "hide my edits if they are minor edits". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is again in trouble, either needing protection or dealing with the offender(s?):

User:Dyly27 reverted to the bad link 3 times and was twice warned to stop. He also added a related promotion link on Instructables, since reverted. He registered only after the first attempt to insert this link had been reverted.

User:66.152.115.226 added this link originally and was the latest to revert my removal of it. He also (I later discovered) foolishly added the same link to the redirection page Faraday rotation which is amusing since it doesn't have any effect that is displayed! (I didn't change it yet). Some unrelated edits by this user were unquestionable vandalism and others could have been simply bad edits which were reverted.

User:98.103.86.233 reverted to the link several times, and has otherwise not contributed to WP. User:132.162.145.149 reverted to it once and has otherwise not contributed to WP

Thanks! -- Interferometrist (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This has now gotten into edit warring territory. Dyly27 and 66.152.115.226 are now blocked for 48 hours. The other two IP addresses don't have recent enough edits in their history to block. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Drosemvp

I saw you marked that as "not blatant"; however, since the edit was clear vandalism, making the use of a real person's name that much more problematic (whether they claimed to be Derrick Rose or not is irrelevant), I have blocked the user indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As the yellow box at the top of WP:UAA says, it's best to block on the bigger problem. I felt the username wasn't the bigger problem so I declined the report based on that, but I agree with your action. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Duly noted on my part; will act accordingly in the future. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say don't change anything, and keep up your contributions to WP:UAA. In the case of DRosemvp, the account ended up being blocked anyway due to your report. The disruption may have continued if you hadn't reported it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User rights

Thanks for the user rights, especially since I didn't request them. I'll probably use them sparingly, and I may need your advice about how to use them properly. I'll review the links you provided. All the best! Cresix (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick's citing Robert as a source

Would you please review this warning and the underlying edit it references? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about the reliability of the source. Are the person and organization cited in that edit summary reliable? If that person is considered reliable then the real issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability. The source needs to be something that anyone can reasonably confirm without pestering the poor guy being used as the source. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

GRG's status as a reliable source is disputed. I don't think it is. I think it's a primary source and citing to it is original research. But I'm in the minority. It was a big issue in the longevity arbcom case. Robert Young has self-identified as RYoung122, the editor who's been topic-banned in longevity articles. He's affiliated with the GRG and a consultant to Guinness on world record-holders in age. He once had an article about him on wiki that was AfD'd in a very contentious dispute. While actively editing longevity articles, he occasionally cited to his own doctoral thesis and frequently insisted that his own expertise trumped WP:RS. Nick is one of Robert's young acolytes. Nick citing Robert, without citing a reliable source where Robert was quoted, skates darn close to the sanctions both are supposed to be following, in my view. Depending on where Robert confirmed this to Nick, he too may be violating the sanctions. For more on that, please see Ed Johnston's most recent posting on the RYoung122 talk page. David in DC (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić, just for matter of record, the content of the edit in question (Marie Prodhomme's passing) was eventually posted on the Gerontology Research Group's website, specifically, here: http://www.grg.org/Calment9.html. Dr. L. Coles of GRG has not updated the Recent Deaths section at this location yet: http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM. I cannot speak for either NickOrnstein or RYoung122, but as it is mentioned in GRG's Correspondents page here, Robert Young is the "Senior Claims Investigator for the GRG, Moderator, World's Oldest People Group, and Senior Gerontology Consultant for the Guinness Book of World Records." I can confirm that Robert Young made the announcement of Marie Prodhomme's passing through the e-mail to the entire group membership at the World's Oldest People Group on YahooGroups. To the best of my knowledge, he did not specifically canvass or inform NickOrnstein of this news for the sole purpose of updating an article on Wikipedia.

Regarding the other comments made by David in DC:

• It is my understanding that, per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Irrespective of his topic ban on longevity here on Wikipedia, Robert Young, as an expert in the longevity field, he has been cited by multiple reliable sources in the media regarding tracking supercentenarians. Reporters of various news media would seek him out to get updates about tracking supercentenarians.
• I am becoming concerned with David in DC's pattern of "picking on" (for lack of better wording) several longevity editors -- most notably NickOrnstein and RYoung122. Amatulić, I had noticed David in DC coming to you several times in the past shortly after appropriately notifying the editor of the issue at hand (but the part that does not appear to be appropriate or necessary at the time) is when David in DC notifies you and/or entice your participation until the editor has responded to David in DC's issue. This could be perceived as long-term abuse on David in DC's part against NickOrnstein & RYoung122. I don't want to make a bigger deal out of it, but if I feel I'm observing this, then that's not a good sign in general. I mean, seeing the statement made by David in DC above, "Nick is one of Robert's young acolytes." is frankly not appropriate, thus my impromptu response here.
• Finally, I have tried to make in-roads regarding GRG as a RS, and I provided references that GRG's data has been regularly published in Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. As he has stated, David in DC understands that he appears to be in the minority in his belief that GRG is not a RS. But, not to hammer him down here, I have to at least say that David in DC and I have applauded each other's efforts in various longevity articles despite the fact sometimes we are on opposite train of thoughts. I only fear that sometimes he's too focused on the editor(s) rather than the content. Sure, sometimes the content *should* be questioned, no problem with that -- but then sometimes things end up along the lines discussing about the editor's motivations. This is why I am discussing all of this here, rather than in more visible locations. I'll stop before my babbling overwhelms anyone.  :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned only that the parties to the ArbCom case abide by the sanctions. Amatulic has announced that he will participate in longevity-related articles only for the purpose of enforcing the sanctions. The two parties to the case who most frequently skate right up to, and in my view across, the lines drawn by the ArbCom decision, are the two editors you identify as possible victims of long-term abuse. Reporting that skating to a disinterested admin, who is a self-declared referee for the decision, merits neither the appellation "picking on" nor "abuse". If I'm wrong, I get a reality-check. If I'm right, the decision gets enforced. Either way, the system works as it should. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of the background that Amatulić is "a self-declared referee" for the ArbCom case, my earlier comments are no longer valid. My apologizes. I think I reacted quickly to the "acolyte" part (knowing that Nick would most likely not bother to respond to that comment from David in DC), particularly when I knew that the information was sent by a message to 900+ members of the Yahoo's World Oldest People Group. For example, there is another highly-visible death, Ella Schuler, that was sent through that channel last evening. I see that Nick made the same action here, but carefully saying GRG in his edit summary rather than using Robert Young's name. Regards, CalvinTy 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

CalvinTy: I wouldn't be concerned about David in DC's motivations. I forget where, maybe it was WP:RSN. where he saw me express an interest in enforcing ArbCom sanctions regarding longevity articles. Therefore it's natural to alert me of potential problems. I am not actively monitoring the longevity articles although they are in my watch list and I look at their histories from time to time. I didn't notice Nick's edit that David refers to until it was pointed out to me.

Whether GRG is to be considered a reliable source is something for WP:RSN to take up. My view is that it probably is reliable, as well as convenient for Wikipedia longevity articles due to a shared mission of documenting longevity cases. It was premature for NickOrnstein to make the edit he did without being able to reference something verifiable. And I must agree with David in DC's assessment that NickOrnstein's behavior so far, particularly the edit in question, is suggestive of being an acolyte of Young.

But none of that really matters. This is a tempest in a teapot.

Why? Because the edit in question consisted of a removal of information. No claim that someone died was added to the article. Removals can't logically be sourced except perhaps in an edit summary or a note on the talk page. I fail to see the BLP concerns with complete removal of information about a person who might possibly still be alive; the article doesn't claim to be a comprehensive list of living old folks and therefore it likely omits several other living people as well. This isn't the same thing as writing that the subject died without citing a source. Nick simply removed the entry while explaining his reasoning, like any good editor would do. He didn't go off and add the subject's name to a "list of deaths" article, as far as I can tell (which would trigger sanctions without a verifiable source). It seems to me that one could remove any entry from that list for any reason and it wouldn't be the same as making an actual claim about a living person, therefore not a BLP concern. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reality check re tempests in teapots received and understood. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A very astute observation, Amatulić. Point well taken that all of this had to do with a removal of a living case. Yep, moot point. About GRG, yes, I have been meaning to bring it back to WP:RSN, but I'm waiting for the "fatigue" to go away since this issue has appeared at RSN at least 3 times in last few months from what I quickly can recall from mind. Now, I am still puzzled by both your perceptions about NickOrnstein "being an acoltye of Young". From what I have seen about him on Wikipedia as well as on the 110 Club forum, first, he was on Wikipedia way before he even joined the forum last year (he joined Wikipedia apparently at age of 15). I believe he informally met Robert Young on the forum instead. Nick appears to be a very prolific Wikipedian showing that he appears to have his own agenda in editing longevity articles. Granted, he has made a lot of mistakes on Wikipedia but he certainly has learned and adapted (just like the Borg, albeit slower)  :). I don't even know why I'm defending Nick here -- I think it's because he have stated in the past off-wiki that "I'm not going to reply to any of that stuff". That's his prerogative, although at times, he certainly should explain some of his positions while editing, that's for certain. Let's see how things go, but I think the fact of the matter is that Nick has his own mind, Robert has his own mind, and I have my own mind -- sometimes we don't agree with each other, and sometimes we do -- for example, I agree with one of Robert's past off-wiki comments that there does not appear to be a walled garden if we have occasionally disagreed with each other on how best to improve some Wikipedia articles. I'm just glad that there have been no significant WikiDrama ever since the ArbCom Longevity case closed. I just didn't want the pot to be stirred up. Let's hope this lack of WikiDrama continues... Regards, CalvinTy 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding personal speculation of Nick, that wasn't appropriate. This conversation has failed to adhere to WP:NPA. I should have never responded to that speculation, and I apologize for doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Although I too have found Nick somewhat frustrating on some issues, he also had the right reaction to a pretty blatant BLP violation on Talk:List of living supercentenarians, so his participation here has been helpful too (I posted the diff in the section about some parallel universe on David in DC's talkpage). I don't want to speculate about him, merely to give an example of his good side. Also agree with CalvinTy here that except for the very minor flareup over FLAGBIO, things have calmed down a lot in this area; it's much more conducive to collaboration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Otheus

I believe it's preferable not to use templates to warn or advise experienced editors. A simple, brief notice should suffice. Templates are often perceived as condescending as they're primarily used to guide novice editors. Rklawton (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I considered that, thanks. Often I don't leave templated messages for established editors. It seemed appropriate here, somehow, and in any case Otheus removed the message as unnecessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Userfication of Hotforex

Hi there Amatulić. It is the same user, they came on the WP:IRC help channel asking about how to improve/resubmit that page, and I asked them to create a new username because the old one appeared to represent the company (which is against the username policy). --KFP (contact | edits) 03:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Stan hotforex showed up on UAA and I declined to block based on the username, because it represented an individual while disclosing a company association; the name clearly represents one person only. We've had cases like that in the past. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. If it's the same user then the old userpages should be moved to the new space. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Transfer Testers

My apologies; for some reason I forgot to put who it was. By looking at the accounts Transfer Testers created, it was really obvious that it was a sock of MascotGuy; usually his usernames are more distinct than that. WP:LTA/MG describes his MO pretty well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy but I don't see any evidence there that User:Transfer Testers is "obviously" a sock. I just saw Transfer Testers user creation log though I see only one coincidental entry that this may be MascotGuy. Still it looks like a sockmaster. I'll block them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The naming conventions of the accounts he created fit MascotGuy perfectly. He makes an account and then creates as many as he can with it; another example is the user creation log for User:Ships Ahoy, MascotGuy!. He pops up at least a few times a day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked by Edgar181. Thanks for the enlightenment, I can be more vigilant now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PCP trial

I noticed that you've recently declined to remove several article from PC on WP:RPP, stating that PCP still applies to BLPs. I believe you may not be abreast of the latest decisions concerning the PC trial: please see this RFC [19] and its closure by Newyorkbrad, which states that PC must be removed from all articles by May 20th. He does mention, in his second caveat, that exceptional cases might exist where removing PC from a BLP (and replacing it with semi or full protection) would be "grossly irresponsible" -- if you believe the BLPs you declined at WP:RPP fall into this category, please bring them up on the PC RFC page for discussion. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it seems I am a bit behind on this topic. Thanks for informing me. No, I don't believe the BLPs I declined fall into that category. I'll re-examine them tomorrow. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have now unprotected the three BLP articles for which I originally declined the unprotection request. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulić. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Over the Limit (2011)

Over the Limit (2011) is in incubation right now the event is 9 days away. The problem now is we need an administrator to move the page out of incubation.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin who move protected it (User:King of Hearts) evidently intended that it be moved into main space when the event begins. Why the rush? Why not ask that admin to reconsider? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone can bring up independent reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage of the subject and don't fail WP:NOTNEWS, I will be happy to restore it early. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection of YellowMonkey's talk page

YellowMonkey is no longer active on the project and another editor asked to add some links to an article, I told another editor to be bold and add some links and in response personal attacks get thrown. The reason I asked for full protection is that if you look at the history every time anyone says anything there is huge amounts of drama, the same applies to the his Request for Comment.

I think the only way to guarantee there won't be any drama is to full protect the page unfortunately.

Besides the guy is an admin, if/when he returns he can remove the full protection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Observations:

The drama of that RFC happened ages ago in internet time.

I also see no disruption whatsoever on YM's talk page. Just notices and queries from people who don't know YM is no longer active. I do see some recent discussion moved from the talk page to the RFC.

Protecting the talk page won't eliminate the drams but simply cause it to happen elsewhere. I fail to see how this solves anything. I also fail to see how the comments put there so far have been harmful.

I suggest:

• Archiving YM's talk page comments
• Collapsing YM's header pictures and messages
• Putting a {{wikibreak}} tag at the top, with a message saying that YM has been absent since November 2010 and will return at some indefinite time in the future.

The problems you observe arise from people not understanding that YM is not here.

What do you think? I can do the above and protect the page if need be, but protecting the page all on its own doesn't seem like it will solve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also from me - this should have been done a few months ago Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

note

I added back your last statement on the SWL discussion, then reclosed the discussion. Feel free to revert that, however I thought it to be a helpful and clarifying addition. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just noticed that and was surprised. I wrote something there that, upon reflection, I think sums up a view I have unknowingly developed toward external links over the years. I'll likely put it on my user page: "An encyclopedia can function perfectly well without any external links. The ability to link externally is a convenience and a privilege, and in almost all cases the value of content on Wikipedia is not diminished by the omission of any link." ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

TheBrowser.com

Thank you for your invitation to make the case yet again for whitelisting TheBrowser.com &/or FiveBooks.com. However as you know, the existing arguments on the whitelist page have been archived and evidently Hu12 has closed off any further argumentation. I tried to make clear that I don't think it is necessary to add an actual link to the particular document in question; mere mention of the ranking is warranted and can be made without an actual link (so as to avoid the appearance of misusing Wikipedia as a directory service). In any case, the basics of the case for whitelisting are already there in the archived arguments. I could add more detailed information about the importance of expert rankings and recommendations in the relevant specialized branch of philosophy, but I'm not optimistic that my doing so would make much difference. Nothing I say can un-do the fact that someone who (unlike me) is associated with TheBrowser, (unlike me) added a large number of links on Wikipedia. I assume that the Browser editors will make their own case for de-listing. I hope their case will be more successful than mine was. Thank you for your own participation. ~nsalmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your comment, and especially for your understanding. The site is blocked through no fault of your own; thebrowser.com brought that upon itself. Pages aren't whitelisted at the request of the site owner either. You'll see the phrase "trusted, high-volume editor" appear multiple times on the whitelist page, which is a key to a successful request. Unfortunately, the case for whitelisting was buried and lost amid the complaints and back-and-forth attacks. You are of course free to fresh-start a new conversation on the whitelist page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If I were to "fresh-start a new conversation on the whitelist page"--even if I did so on your invitation--one or more Wikipedia administrators would certainly accuse me of attempting to circumvent the archiving process, or of something even more sinister. One benefit of Hu12's decision to archive the argumentation in this case (q.v. the preceding message labelled "note") is that the archived arguments are there to study, so that a conscientious administrator, such as yourself, can review the case and reconsider his/her (tentative) decision on more careful reflection. ~nsalmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Understand that Wikipedia is Not a Discussion forum nor is the whitelist a message board. Vexatious request are speedily closed as was in this case. Perhaps, as mentioned repeatedly, when a trusted, high-volume editor absent of a conflict request the use of this link because of its encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered on a case by case basis. Further requests at this time would not be advisable. --Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I commend you, Amatulić, on your open-mindedness, your fair-mindedness, and equally important, your ability to tolerate constructive and legitimate criticism and disagreement without taking it personally. These intellectual virtues are essential in your position. ~nsalmon

Thank you for the kind words. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your repeated responses at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Troubleshooting and problems to address the spam blacklist problem with the Ingles article. The fix, (?<=//|\.)markets\.com\b, was finally implemented, and is logged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log#May 2011. 67.101.6.37 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Schools A7

Darn, I remember now, this has happened to me once before, too. Sorry about that. Seemed like "company/organization" covered it and using Twinkle you don't see the actual criteria and just trust your memory (not a good idea in my case... :-) Anyway, I know that secondary schools and higher are basically assumed to be inherently notable, but thought this didn't apply to primary schools. I'll leave the issue to someone who knows more about this... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. I think it's any school in general. And this is another reason I'm not a fan of automated tools. I think I have two automated edits in my entire history. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit War: User:Zm69051 reported by User:Tweetybird83

Hey, just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that you mentioned the wrong user in your response to the edit war report. I know it likely won't affect the result, but all the same, wanted to let you know. Thanks! - SudoGhost™ 23:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for your help with protecting the Harry Potter character pages. I noticed I missed one in my request: Albus Dumbledore. Would you be able to protect that as well, or should I amend my request on the protection page... or add a new section for it? Someone seems awfully adamant to add these fan fiction actors... --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your help! --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MB123

Seriously? I've had several usernames blocked for being abbreviations of companies/organizations for which they have edited. In fact, within the last 24 hours I have. How do I get a 2nd admin to look at it? CTJF83 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just put a comment on WP:UAA contesting the decision.

"MB123" could mean anything. That it happens to mean "Mathis Brothers" isn't any way in the same league as actually creating the username MathisBrothers. Also, please see the top of the page WP:UAA, about blocking on the bigger problem, not the smaller. It does no harm to wait a bit to see what other accounts MB123 has. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked another admin on IRC, and they agree with you, so good enough for me. And if they don't disclose other usernames? Is it WP:SPI worthy? CTJF83 00:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:SPI worthy, but there's a problem with knowing only one name: Checkuser will likely decline a request for a fishing expedition. I want to see if MB123 will cooperate. Even with a COI, he's a decent editor, capable of writing in an unbiased fashion, so I don't really want to ban him from Wikipedia. I'd rather convince him to stick to one account and block all the others after that. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree the user is fairly neutral. CTJF83 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent deletion

When deleting redirects you declare "implqausible" please try and check "what links here" first. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right. I shouldn't be doing stuff on Wikipedia after three straight days with no sleep. Sorry about that. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Swiss supercentenarians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Swiss supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss supercentenarians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Owl and the Pussycat musical settings

Please could I mention something about the musical settings of The Owl and the Pussycat? I tried to mention that Elton Hayes did not compose the tune on his recording, but used the setting by Victor Hely-Hutchinson. I mention this because you may have inadvertently deleted it when you were removing the vandalism on the article. I also think it should be OK to mention the Rutter and Humphrey Searle settings, except that the Searle version is spoken and not sung.

Also, if you have a look at the credits of the original Elton Hayes recording you'll see that it credits Victor Hely-Hutchinson as the composer. The other Elton Hayes recordings of Edward Lear also credit a composer of the musical settings that he recorded. Elton Hayes recorded the Dudley Glass settings of The Jumblies, The Quangle-Wangle's Hat, The Duck and the Kangaroo, The Table and the Chair and The Broom, the Shovel, the Poker and the Tongs.Yip1982 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the previous revert. Your edits look fine, although it would be better if you could reference some sources there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR

• Smilingfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Right after you've warned him, he did it again within 3 minutes. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And then he removed the warnings from his talk page, which is fine, but if that removal turns out to be a false sign of acknowledgment, then I'll take appropriate action. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not when he is purposely and deliberately gaming the system, as stated in 3RR, even outside the 24 hours period is considered as a violation of 3RR. This thing has been going for over two weeks now and I still don't see any improvement on his part, because everytime he is here, he always does something (sneaky POV edits) that is sure to cause another round of edit warring with the other regular editors. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You left a good comment on his talk page. I will act on his next disruptive move. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Amtulic, could you provide some sanity check on Talk:Singapore#Full page protection against persistent edit warring by Smilingfrog? IDK, am I being too sensitive? Because I got a feeling the jerk is trying to bait me. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Currentware

The only edits were to the article BrowseControl, in which we read "BrowseControl is a program developed by CurrentWare". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek mythology - more splitting

Hiya. I know you've worked on the above article, so I thought I'd canvass your opinion

re Talk:Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Further_splitting_into_sub-articles.

If you'd care to add any views there, that'd be great. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

re 'Logo' article

I was just reading it for information, and made some grammatical changes for consistency. However, I wasn't able to understand the following non-sentence sufficiently to fix it confidence: "Currently, the usage of both images (ideograms) and the company name (logotype) to emphasize the name instead of the supporting graphic portion and making it unique, by it non-formulaic construction via the desiginal use of its letters, colors and any additional graphic elements." Since you've been a frequent editor of this entry, w'd you attend to it? Thanks. Alethe (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That makes no sense to me either. It wasn't something I added (most of my contributions to that article have consisted of removing linkspam). Let me look at the entire article again, maybe I can fix it based on context. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

About a block you made...

"01:01, 6 August 2011 Amatulic (talk | contribs) blocked Avrailavairllavalava (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)" I understand the block, (in fact, I actually supported it) I just wish to ask if there was a good reason why you didn't enable auto-block. LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. I just re-blocked again to make sure. Auto-block doesn't show up in the automatically-generated description in the block log. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized it would say "Autoblock Disabled" instead of "Autoblock enabled". My bad. :D I guess I forgot that, even though I have my own wiki, (shameless plugging ftw) even if my own isn't really being used for much. LikeLakers2 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I don't autoarchive my talk page

The pace at which I receive messages has tended to vary. A couple of years ago I was requiring an archive every few months. Now things have slowed down again.

And, basically, I just like to do it myself. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just mentioned it because the comment gave me the impression that you'd rather not have to do it yourself.

The pace on this page varies too. Since I became an admin I've had reduce the age of archivable items to six months. Used to be 1 year. If nothing happens for several months the archiver will leave a couple of threads on the page by default. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking of which (which I wasn't - just a wp:TPS!), 70+ sections here now ... :) Trafford09 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Magic (band)

You turned down the speedy deletion on the above article, could you explain how or where it credibly indicated the importance or significance of the subject? Thanks Mo ainm~Talk 00:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no explicit indication in the article, but after looking around, it seemed to me that this band may be notable. The band is clearly prolific, has had some minor news coverage (as far as I can tell), it's possible that they're actually earning a living doing this, their productions are polished and professional, and they have a fan base.[20] It almost seemed as if they have a publisher, although everything they do could be self-published. Because the notability status was not clear-cut to me, I declined to speedy-delete the article. I'd rather give the article a chance to flesh out, or have a larger audience look at it in an AfD debate, rather than one admin making a decision to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean you viewed the YouTube link that they had in the article, because I searched before I placed the speedy tag and couldn't find anything that would indicate any sort of notability, the rest or your rational is your opinion that is backed up by nothing except a hunch due to their productions being polished and professional, maybe they have a rich daddy. But suppose the community will decide at the AfD. Mo ainm~Talk 01:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fushing"

I appreciate your concern, and congratulate your vigilance, but I belive you were mistaken in deleting my page "Fushing". It is not a "blatant hoax", but a tongue-in-cheek description of a new idea which we are currently promoting; and of which all readers will get the joke. It is a genuine topic, one whose popularity is on a steady upward graph, and therefore merits a wikepedia page written by the creators while still in its infancy. The humourous tone within is befitting the overall tone of our project; not an attempt at pervading misinformation; and there are no factual lies in the description. If your concern was a lack of bibliographical support, the page was only a first draft, and was in line to be edited and contributed to by my collegues; a process obliterated by the haste of your "speedy delete". I will appreciate your correspondence on this issue, and will likewise be disappointed should this go ignored. Sincerely Englishbubble (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Robert@englishbubble.com

(please forgive if this communciation is in the wrong channel, I am new to Wikepedia and its intricacies)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Even if the topic of your article wasn't a hoax, Wikipedia is not a channel for promoting your new ideas, particularly ideas that fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
• Wikipedia:Notability - general guideline of inclusion criteria for article topics

Constructive contributions are always welcome. I suggest, if you are new to Wikipedia and you want to write an article, don't write drafts in main article space. Create it as a sub-page on your userpage first (like User:Englishbubble/Draft article for example). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Deletion

Hi Amatulic,

I created an article at User:Forcrist and asked that it might be moved to a standalone article, Cindy Williamson, which an editor did (and for which I am thankful). However, you deleted the article with the note "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)"

The deletion seems unfair. I had a number of links showing articles and websites that referred to Cindy's work, at least one praised her, and others showed examples of her work for sale in prominent galleries. I followed the standards and guidelines as best I could.

Would you reconsider your action? Thanks ahead of time for any actions you take or advice you care to give. (I really do want to learn how to do this well.)

Warmly, Don Huntington (Forcrist (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't see your message because you stuck it at the top of my talk page, rather than the bottom, and then others put more messages at the bottom.

The person who moved your article also nominated that article for deletion. Apparently he viewed the subject as failing to meet the criteria for inclusion described in WP:ARTIST. After examining the article, I agreed. If you wish, I can restore it back to your user space for continued improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Islam, Moon and NASA.

Hello Amatulic. How are you?

I added to Splitting of the moon‎ page the following: NASA says about the Moon: "it is the result of two bodies colliding with one another!". [21].

Then you have removed it and wrote the following: "it is unclear what this has to do with the topic, although it's an interesting fact".

So, I came here to clear what this has to do with the topic.

According to Islam, the moon was cleft asunder and it became two parts. Islam dose not claim that this has lasted for ever which means that the moon now is the result of two bodies colliding with one another.

That was according to Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388: "The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts". [22].

English is not my 1st language, but I hope that I made it clear now. Have a nice day. شرف الذين (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize for my own lack of clarity in the edit summary. I removed your addition because it had nothing to do with the topic of the section you edited. If you look further down the article, there's another section that discusses the theories of how the moon formed. Your addition would have fit better in that section, although it would have been unnecessary because the text already in the article is sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You welcome. NP. If you look further on my edit above here, there's no theory in it. NASA was talking about a fact, not a theory. The Moon was the result of two bodies colliding with one another is a fact. But, There are theories about how and when that happened, and I did not talk about them in my edit at all. Have a nice day. شرف الذين (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that isn't established that the moon is made up of two bodies. That's just the prevailing view. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anachronist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see edit warring, just vocal policy-based arguing of a point. Perhaps belaboring it a bit. I'm happy to let the debate go on until a consensus emerges and then close it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatles

Hey - nice work on the Beatles (album) close. That was a tough one, and I think you did a good job in your analysis. Dohn joe (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GAYOT.com

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your prompt response concerning our request for being removed from the blacklist. Your response was totally fair and well-founded, and thank you very much for taking the time to write us back. Thanks again for your help! --Sslater4 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Villyan Bijev

Hello. I believe you recommended a speedy deletion of the article I constructed yesterday on the Liverpool FC footballer Villyan Bijev. Appreciating that the word 'speedy' was clearly significant in this case, I contested the deletion as soon as I saw that it had been nominated. Despite this, however, it disappeared within minutes before I was fully able to understand the criteria that had been applied. I am a football writer, author and journalist and have been trying to ease my way into a role at Wikipedia, including joining the official football forums here. (I have noticed that this is a subject area in which there is a need for more authoritative and well-written material.) So I'd really like to understand what the issues were here. In my submission questioning the speedy deletion I explained that Bijev is worthy of a biographical page and that I had constructed it according to a standard template with a range of reputable sources. Was there some other issue in play here? I would really appreciate some help here. Many thanks. grj1958 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villyan Bijev. The criteria are linked to in that discussion. Also Wikipedia has a policy of preventing re-creation of an article after an "articles for deletion" discussion determines it should be deleted.

I am not familiar with football, so if this individual has somehow managed to meet the inclusion criteria within a couple of weeks after that deletion discussion was closed, I will be happy to restore the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the speedy response. I just read the criteria cited when it was previously deleted. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villyan_Bijev Bijev's career has taken a quantum leap in the past few weeks and I certainly think he now meets the notability criteria. As I said in my note challenging the deletion, he signed yesterday for Liverpool FC, one of the biggest football clubs in the world and is the subject of considerable media coverage. Many thanks, grj1958 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I have restored the article and its talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Appreciate your response. grj1958 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:RyukuX. The user thinks that you made a mistake in the length of the block. Considering the circumstances it looks as though that may be true, in which case you may like to unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing is not allowed

The non-neutral manner in which you posted this notification constitutes canvassing. Please don't do it again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please read WP:CANVASSING. Particularly the very first paragraph.

The edit you reference was posted prior to the AfD, so your complaint has zero merit. If you notice, I did not remove the prod tag. I merely announced the article's existence to give it a wider view, as well as provide my my own thoughts. Note also that I agreed that the article topic is questionable. Commenting on another article is not canvassing by any stretch.

Nothing I wrote there attempts to influence the outcome. There was no "outcome" to influence, as there was no AfD. As it happened, someone else removed the prod tag because the prod had been misused.

I recommend you review the policies you have referenced, including WP:CANVASSING, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK. Also you might want to review WP:PROD. You should have been aware that prod tags are supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions, and this is clearly not uncontroversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. It has been pointed out to me that Roscelese has engaged in canvassing off-wiki. Looks like someone needs to brush up on the policies and guidelines mentioned previously. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I only just noticed that you posted this. The incident took place over a year ago and is mentioned on my user page. You don't think the fact that you had to get a cached version is evidence that I tried to remove this from the internet? Don't out people because you're annoyed at them. And now I have to seek revdel for three weeks' worth of material on your talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way - who, may I ask, "pointed out" this fact to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RyukuX

I believe RyukuX needs to be reblocked indefinitely. Please look at User talk:MuZemike#Special CU request. I asked MuzeMike to determine if the person who placed the "Heil Hitler" unblock request on RyukuX's talk page matches RyukuX via CU. MuzeMike concluded that it's "possible, bordering on likely". Furthermore, he found 3 more sock accounts that have the same likely connection to RyukuX. The one that very specifically catches my eye is User: Tavo214. If you look at Tavo214's deleted user page, you'll see that it is the same message "Destroyer Dynasty Incorporated" that one of the already confirmed socks of RyukuX added to WP (see the Deleted contributions for DestrpuerBDT). That edit by Tavo214 was on August 31; i.e., while RyukuX was still blocked. Either he's just been socking all along, or he is working closely with someone else to try to promote this website on Wikipedia by any means. I am unclear whether blocking myself would count as wheel-warring, so I'm not going to, but I seriously urge you to consider re-blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. Somehow I missed your RfA. Congratulations.

RyukuX claimed on his talk page that he was recently a member of an outside group of meatpuppets intent on disrupting Wikipedia, and that he has resigned from that group. If that's the case I am sure other accounts will turn up that look like socks. I'm not sure what to make of that, other than to observe RyukyX's behavior for a bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Zinfandel

Hi Amatulic I've added South Africa to Zinfandel, but it looks like the way references are added has changed a lot and I am not getting it right. I see you are a lead contrbutor on this article, so I am turning to you, but will also leave a note on the discussion page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam Carr

Hi, I see you declined the deletion of Adam Carr's re-direct because it didnt apply to that speedy deletion template. Can you tell me which one would be the right one to use? I have done it before but for some reason I can't remember which one it was. Thanks.--Yankees10 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see he isn't mentioned in the article it redirects to. WP:CSD#G8 would work. I'll delete it on that basis. Thanks for pointing it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Yankees10 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowe & Dunlevy

Hi! I would like to contest the deletion of the Crowe & Dunlevy page. The page contained at least 10 references to outside sources, included multiple external links verifying the notability of the firm and its accomplishments, had no "peacock" language whatsoever, and was completely factual and not biased. The use of words like "best" and "super" was only in reference to actual organizations/lists that presented awards to the firm. The firm has been in operation for more than 100 years, and there are similar law firms in Oklahoma with Wikipedia pages modeled exactly like this one that have not been deleted. Please let me know what I need to add to the page to ensure it will not be deleted in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gail.huneryager11 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of being factual and lacking in peackock terms, It was written like a company brochure, unambiguously promoting the company, with a style clearly suggesting a conflict of interest. This was not an encyclopedia article. See also the comments on your own talk page.

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If other inappropriate articles exist, they should be appropriately tagged as well.

You are employed by this law firm. Therefore, you have a conflict of interest. You should openly disclose it on your user page. Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest carefully before taking any further action on this project.

I see you have created the article in your own user space first (User:Gail.huneryager11/Crowe & Dunlevy). Upon rewriting, you might propose that it be moved to main space at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I don't recommend that you do this yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Einstein's gift

Einstein's Gift is a play by Canadian playwright Vern Thiessen.

Hi. I don't understand why this was deleted as A3. It reads as the perfect stub. Am I missing something here? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. The original CSD tag was A7... which doesn't qualify. I have restored the article, wikilinked the playwrite, and put a stub tag on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see this post. Thanks Viriditas, and thanks again Amatulic. The user who tagged it has a bit of a history of being trigger happy. I was scratching around in his contribs for exactly this. He'd probably be best sticking to inappropriate username work until he reads up a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's Gift

Thanks for the restore. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Xiaoyu of Yuxi

Hi, as you may have seen, User:Xiaoyu of Yuxi is now requesting an unblock. I'm inclined to grant it, but you placed the block, so I thought I'd let you have a say first. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You Have Been Summoned To Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nuclear Time Unit. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rancalred (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancalred (talk • contribs)

Angelbird

Why have you deleted wikipedia/wiki/angelbird ?

The article needed expanding, not deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbrian (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Angelbird was deleted because it met the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. If you believe the company meets the inclusion criteria described in WP:CORP, then evidence of notability, as described in that guideline, should be included in the article. Also, if you work on the article in your own user space (like User:Christopherbrian/Angelbird) and flesh it out there before moving it to main article space, it is less likely to be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean O'Boyle (composer) deletion

I can agree that there wasn't enough information to show the significance of this composer but felt that I should have been given time to correct this rather than have a speedy deletion placed on the page which can result in close to immediate deletion. I will re-create the page with more notability content but would rather see opportunity given to authors to fix the problem say within a week than have it deleted immediately. Splouge (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are other deletion mechanisms that last a week. Speedy deletion is for non-controversial deletions, as this one seemed to be. If you need time to work on an article, particularly a biography of a living person, I recommend starting the article in your user space (for example User:Splouge/Sean O'Boyle and tagging it with {{userspace draft}}. That way it won't be deleted until you're ready to move it into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew "the rod" Taylor

You missed the article's talk page. It's still cluttering up the place. Thanks. danno 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I could swear I deleted it. I know I clicked the "delete" link. I must have forgotten to push the "submit" button. Thanks, it's gone now. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Puffin/nowcommonsreview.js

Delete please, I can't tag it. Thanks. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw a tag on it. Anyway, it's gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

180.191.52.203

This IP's edits are very much vandalism. They have changed communities of license, they have changed broadcast areas, they have added inaccurate or just plain incorrect information to numerous television station and radio station articles. That is the definition of vandalism. I ask that you look at this editors contribs again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Last two edits appear to be constructive changes in content, not vandalism. WP:AIV isn't the place to work out content disputes. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, two edits out of about 50 to 75. Plus, those are in the Philippines and being that both of us are from the States, I don't think either of us can say for certain those aren't vandalism either (hence why I didn't revert them). This is not a content dispute, it is pure and simple vandalism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at just the last few edits, which are the only ones relevant when examining a report. Edits made after receiving warnings, if they appear constructive, suggest that the warnings have been heeded. This report is now stale. No edits have been made for a while. And with the time between edits, there's no telling whether the person behind the IP address is the same. Re-report if vandalism resumes, but be aware that most other admins don't like seeing misguided yet good-faith edits characterized as vandalism. The key word here is blatant. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's stale because I had to wait for hours to get an admin to look at the AIV report (not your fault, but something that happens all the time at AIV) and had to wait for this conversation. No matter though, the vandal will return and more-than-likely on another IP.

As for blatant, take a look at this edit. I live in this particular area of Virginia and since radio and television stations are my area of expertise, I know what the vandal has posted to be to be false. But he didn't try this on just one page, he tried it on many, many, many, many, many, many others. If a block on just this IP isn't possible, a rangeblock would be better suited. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't blatant. That's addition of content, with a good edit summary (which you are not providing). You "know" something is false. Another editor believes something is true. An admin can't take your word for it, both of you need sources. That is the definition of a content dispute. This particular dispute appears to be about coverage areas, a rather murky field considering the cross-licensing of broadcasts going on these days. I looked at one example above, where you reverted a claim about KQ2 serving Kansas -- yet this is asserted in the article itself. You claim to have some expertise. Perhaps this editor believes he has expertise in the same area. Have you asked? I see no attempt at communication between either of you. This isn't blatant vandalism by any stretch. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I could provide you with sources, but you would be sifting all day though FCC documents and annoyances. You want 'em, I can get 'em for ya. Just more work for me, while the vandal keeps vandalizing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Me? I don't want 'em, I am not a party to your dispute. Sources are always good things to add to articles; if you have 'em, put 'em in, then there would be no question of the correctness of your reversions. Again, have you even tried to communicate with this person? Have you attempted to find out where he's getting his information from?

From where I sit, I can only look at the pattern of edits. Disparaging the subject? No. Addition of random information? No. Including deliberately misleading information? No. Misleading edit summaries? No. Blatant disruption? No. Any evidence of deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Hard to tell. Please stop characterizing this as "vandalism". It isn't, according to our policy Wikipedia:Vandalism. It could possibly qualify as "sneaky vandalism" but as the policy says, that's difficult to judge, especially without any attempt at communication. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really talk to many "vandals" (I'll put it in quotes since it is currently in question) since they don't normally respond, plus this one has been on several different IPs, which I don't have the where-with-all (due to a migraine) to look at moment and didn't respond on those, so I didn't see much of a chance on him responding on this one. I know that is breaking AGF, but being on Wikipedia for almost 5 years as made me quite cynical (that and being on this spinning rock for 30 years). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Migraine... I sympathize. Hard to get any work done. Anecdotal help: my former boss told me his migraines mostly went away when he got an operation to open his sinuses. And my sister's seemed to have been related to a sleep disorder.

As for being cynical, wait until you live on this spinning rock for 20 more years. You end up with an odd combination of curmudgeonly yet mellow cynicism. I try to be mindful of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism too, after I realized there's no benefit from getting all bent out of shape over what goes on in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Users Sven and HighKing

Hi There Amatulic, you recently commented on the case of Sven the Big Viking and I wonder if you would care to look at the underlying cause of what's happening here and maybe advise how I can take it forward. In my comments on the Sven talk page you'll see what I think of the matter, and this has been reinforced today by HighKing trying to speedy delete an article just because it has British Isles in it (maybe). It seems to me that this user is quite a disruptive force but no one seems to be able to take care of it effectively. While he's actually been topic banned this has not stopped the disruption, with his tactic now being to get others to remove cases of British Isles by requesting references all over the place. If you could have a look and tell me what you think I'd be grateful. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Amatulic,

One of my friend created on my behalf of my website www.funnyncrazy.com. I never told him to create the account. He also put some links of my websites on wiki. I found one and I removed it today. I do not want to promote my website here. He accidently put those links and created account on my behalf. I apologize. But, this has serious impact on my google ranking. I request you to please remove links of my website from wiki. and delete or unblock the user Funnyncrazy on wiki. I just don't want negative impact on my google ranking.

Quick response will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Funnyncrazy (talk ⋅ contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.131.71 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, post new conversations at the bottom of talk pages.

Please also read carefully the notice at User talk:Funnyncrazy. It explains how to appeal a block. One thing you should not do is what you just did, evade your block by posting as an IP address.

That said, I highly doubt you will be unblocked even if you post an unblock template on your talk page, because your username violates Wikipedia:Username policy. You would have to create a new account under a new user name if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia. If your IP address is blocked from creating accounts, you will need to create the account from another location.

There are no links to the domain funnyncrazy.com anywhere on Wikipedia. See this page for verification. Your domain is also not listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist so there should be nothing affecting your page rank. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic

Thanks again for your help earlier. Sorry for doing the whole newbie thing on you, but just making sure I have things setup correctly. BTW - I like the reference links that you have on the top of your page. Went ahead and bookmarked that, hopefully it doesn't move too often. Zackron (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Stick

Hey, I'm done fixing tags and copy-edit changes on the Characters of the Order of the Stick page (for now), so you can go back and edit it if you want. Don't worry about the reference tags, though. I'll finish them up in a little while- I just have to get up and move around for a while before I go crazy. Thanks for helping me out on a page that needs all the help it can get. Sesamehoneytart 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

Any objections to the unblock request at Enomatic (talk · contribs)? Kuru (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection. I think the editor wants to be constructive. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay; I've processed the unblock. Will watch as well to see if I can help. Kuru (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I just lifted the IP autoblock on the account too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Mellen Press

I noticed belatedly that on Spartaz's talk page you cited a book by Edwin Mellen Press as evidence that "List of killings of Muhammad" should have been kept. EMP is recognized throughout academia as a vanity press, so I wouldn't be citing it to support my position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Before I presented that source I checked the Edwin Mellen Press article, which indicated that the source could be considered reliable. So I figured it was good to use. I did find plenty of other sources that looked self-published and I tried to be careful not to include those in my arguments. Seems that one slipped by. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not pay-to-publish, but the buzz is that they don't edit, fact-check etc. at all - printing expenses are covered by the exorbitant prices they charge buyers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(See, eg. [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. etc. - we wouldn't, of course, be able to use these as sources if we were writing about EMP, but it seems to be a pretty good indication that the publisher does not enjoy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Looks like an update to the Edwin Mellen Press article might be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not sure what source we could use to do that. The only thing I can think of that isn't definitely out is the Lingua Franca article, but I don't know the RS status of Lingua Franca and in any case cannot access the article. Maaaaaybe the Miles paper? I don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Miles paper (which is 16 years old) would be OK for supporting a statement that there has been controversy in the past about EMP's reliability or reputation. It's hard to tell if their operations have changed since then, though. The recent forum postings indicate only that a bad reputation, once earned, is hard to shed. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - the recent postings are about recent dealings with EMP. Again, we couldn't cite them, but we'd have to avoid writing about it in such a way as to suggest that this is all in the past. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision visibility unavailable

{{admin help}} I recall an errant mouse click while editing Splenda but this may not have been me. In any case, see this diff. I am able to view or change the visibility of any edit in the article history except for the two shown in that diff. What is going on? I just wanted to check if it was me who hid the edit summary by mistake, or someone else. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was oversighted, not just Rev-del'd, which means that "regular" admins like you and I can't see it. It looks like the username of the editor before you was removed--I would guess that the user revealed either their own personal information (real name, IP address, etc.); then, my guess is that your edit summary said something like "Revert X", where X also contained the personal info. I'll leave the admin help template active just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I recall it was an IP address and the edit summary simply described the edit. Strange. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it has been oversighted if it were not for the fact that the logs for the article contain no mention of oversighting. Oversight leaves a log entry. Also, if you did it then I would expect your admin log to show the change, but it doesn't. It looks to me like some sort of error by the software, but beyond that I have no idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would guess it was Oversighted as well. (Oversight does not leave a log - at least not one viewable to those without Oversight.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 13:25, 6 Tishrei 5772 / 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what was found oversightable about what I remember about those edit summaries. Anyway, I guess it wasn't me who did it by mistake after all. I had never seen revisions that have non-functioning checkboxes before, and wondered how that happened. It seems odd that oversight logs aren't visible to admins, having that visibility would avoid the confusion I just experienced. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought that oversight was visible in the logs, but I have confirmed that it isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Would love a little advice.

Awhile back I made a (failed) attempt at a Slime wikipedia page. You had a thoughtful response, and I took a break from it to make sure I could write it without a conflict of interest (friend of a person in the company). I've recreated it on my personal page information and would love to have some eyes take a glance at it before I try to publish it. Is there any way I can show the preview - maybe in an email or copy/paste somewhere for someone to take a look? Thank you for any advice.Npwright1289 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Npwright1289

Replied on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Made a couple of new edits. Would love if you could take a second to glance at it again. Obviously, no rush :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Npwright1289/Slime_(brand) Thank you! Npwright1289 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Longevity, yet again

At your convenience, would you please review this talk page entry and the edit upon which it is based. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at my inability to help make these footnotes accurate. This is only one example, but it's absolutely representative of the editor's reversions of many of my edits. I think he's violating the ArbCom sanctions, by edit-warring. The view of someone less agitated than I am becoming would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It just gets weirder. David in DC (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page response, if one discounts for grudging sarcasm, seems to acknowledge the rules and assuming good faith and portend an end to edit-warring on this small topic. I complain when I'm frustrated, I figure I gotta acknowledge movement when it's sorta positive. David in DC (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Nick's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Silicom

Hi, a couple of days ago you deleted the article at Silicom citing WP:CSD#A7. Would it be possible for me to gain access to the article as it appeared prior to your deletion of it? While the article may not have satisfied the requirements at WP:CORP, the company itself's received more than enough third-party coverage to meet the notability criteria. Rather than recreate the article from scratch – which I'll do if need be – it'll save me time if some of what was on the old page could be salvaged and then incorporated into an improved article.—Biosketch (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Biosketch/Silicom. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll run the revised article by you before uploading back to mainspace.—Biosketch (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a bunch

Hopefully, my Muslim-using-a-Jesuit-school-account friend can't be bothered to register. Kauffner (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Jablonski

For what it's worth, what I see is an article that's sourced almost entirely to his profiles on commercial sites like iTunes or CDBaby or to his own website, with virtually no sources to real media that meet our reliable sourcing rules. It claims chart success but fails to mention what chart, it's written more or less in the style of an artist's press kit, and going by the username that created it I have to assume the editor in question was Scott Jablonski himself. Perhaps I could have chosen to speedy it as an advertisement instead — but it still seems very speediable to me under one criterion or the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for a biographical article have to be to real reliable media sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles about him. A page that just lists his name and doesn't contain any information about him, such as a directory listing of a radio playlist or a list of award nominees on the award's own website, does not constitute sufficient proof that he passes our notability criteria. They're okay as supplemental sources once notability has been demonstrated by references which actually count as reliable sources, but they're not okay as an article's principal sources. Further, I don't see how the HMM Awards qualify as a "major" award — and his name doesn't appear anywhere on the FMQB charts page, meaning that the source doesn't even support the claim in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one missing something: the very top of the guideline explicitly states that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. It then goes on to explain that the notability claim has to be supported by reliable sources: if those aren't present, then notability has not been demonstrated no matter how many of the WP:BAND criteria the article claims that the subject meets.

Again: what we have here is (a) a claim that he had a charting single, supported by a link to a chart that doesn't even have his single on it to prove that it charted; (b) a nomination for an award that isn't "major" enough to satisfy criterion #8; and (c) cursory proof that his song got played five times on one satellite radio channel. What we don't have is a single reliable source to demonstrate that he's gotten media coverage, talking about him as an artist, by which we can verify any of the article's content — and that's far more important than how many items a musician has met on a checklist of accomplishments. If an article cites a good selection of reliable sources, then a musician doesn't have to meet any of the followup criteria to qualify for an article — and conversely, a musician can meet all of the followup criteria and still not qualify for an article if he's somehow done it without garnering any actual media coverage.

What's important to realize is that artists try to use Wikipedia as an advertising venue all the time, inflating their image by claiming hit singles and music awards and other Big Proofs of Importance^TM that don't actually exist and/or can't be verified at all. So it's not a question of whether he's accomplished WP:BAND #2, 8 and 11 or not — it's a question of whether we can verify, through the use of reliable sources, that he's garnered media attention for those accomplishments. And it's also important to realize that deletion does not mean that he can never have an article on Wikipedia; it just means he can't have that article. If someone comes along and writes a better version that cites real sources, then he'll get to keep that new article regardless of whether he meets any of the supplementary WP:BAND criteria or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

Amatulic, I previously created an article about Enomatic, that was deleted because of the username and the lack of reliable sources. Under my new username, I've created the article again and would like to have your feedback about it. It's still a draft, so no worries, it won't come online before you've checked it. Thanks ! User:Arseguet/Enomatic (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Arseguet

I have responded at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 October 12. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on the article recently, tried to be objective and stay focused on the facts. It's now shorter and clearer, I guess. Please, let me know your thoughts, I'll make any change you require and hopefully will set it online in the coming days. Thanks.Arseguet (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A favor

Would you please review this edit. If so moved, would you please throw in your two cents? I would fully understand if you chose not to. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Darn. I let my hopes win out over my fears. This morning's drama is distressing. Thanks for opining. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking forward to his response to my comments. I guess that won't happen now. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

themoviedb.org whitelist

Re: this: I checked again (like I did before requesting a whitelist entry), themoviedb.org is not listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist . -- Ned Scott 05:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You better check again. The WikiMedia:Spam-blacklist contains the expression \bthemoviedb\.org\b. It's also in the blacklist log. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Seems the latest version of Safari has a bug in its find text feature. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't edit warring, it was vandalism

Please see this message for more details on the user you just blocked, it is a sockpuppet of an IP that was blocked yesterday. So he needs a permanent block, not a 24 hour one. • GunMetal Angel 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In my judgment, this is a content dispute, regardless of the IP address or account being edited from, and regardless of how you want to characterize the edits.

I have no objection if another admin chooses to extend the block. If no admin does this, I will leave it as is and watch it to see if disruption resumes after the block lifts. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the legal threat he posted on his talk page changes things. Another admin beat me to it. In cases like this, I prefer short blocks to see if the user will dig himself deeper and do something that really deserves indef. As happened here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply, new suggestion

Greetings,

I have made a new suggestion on my talk page to address your concerns and see if we can try a graduated approach. I welcome your response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#Longevity-Related_Issues

Sincerely,Ryoung122 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Inca Empire

Thanks so much for semi-protecting this article! -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

re Ring Cinema

Having blocked User:Ring Cinema for editwarring, could you undo the contested inclusion at UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying; I wouldn't like to offend against the 3RR rule in restoring the page as it was. Thanks Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you see, I have no opinion on the validity of either version. My objective in blocking was solely to prevent further disruption rather than involve myself in a dispute. For all I know Ring's version may be best (he has demonstrated that he can argue convincingly), but it's up to him to defend it. It would be different if I had protected the page, which would automatically favor one version, but then m:The Wrong Version would likely be protected, depending on one's point of view. I suggest you propose your preferred revision on the talk page and see if anyone bites. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

<Replied on my talk page.> Swarm ^X 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

God, just when you think you've left Wikipedia, it sucks you back in. I would view Kevin's invite to "undo the contested inclusion" as attempting to induce someone into violating 3rr by proxy. It would be even more offensive than making the edit oneself, just sneakier. An edit war is still and edit war even if one tries to stealth the edits in under the radar. As always, A, good response. Cheers,

Abuse resulting fro you doing your job

First, I used to check and see if I'd erred in some way. If the abuse is confined to their talk page, at least they aren't causing other damage. Sometimes it's best to ignore venting on their talk page. If they're attention seeking, you don't want to feed the behavior. Generally, I just let them alone and hoped they would find a more productive way to use their time.

If the abuse becomes especially odious, another admin can be asked to look at it. I see the blockee in question has lost the ability to edit their talk page. It may be that the current admins are less tolerant of this sort of behavior then I would have been and more assertive about encouraging non productive individuals to move along. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave a couple of short-advice replies, which seemed to do nothing more than fan the flames. I decided to ignore him. Personally I didn't think it was so bad that his talk page access needed revoking, but I don't disagree with that call. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not have done so either. Sent you an email reply. Always enjoy reading your posts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

derailment?

poor choice of wording - I offered a valid approach for someone concerned about the issue of the images to pursue. not a huge issue, but still… --Ludwigs2 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The section was started by someone who wanted to propose an alternative image. It was not about the demographics of Wikipedia readers. It was not about a resolution's interpretation that doesn't appear to be shared by others. Yes, it was derailment of that section. But it's a good discussion and should continue; I admit I originally erred in collapsing that bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

eh, I was just sayin'. but it's all good, and no need to quibble about it further. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinnz

Regarding your response on WP:ANI, Chinnz received a copyright warning [27], which is a single-issue warning that most admins block after continued violation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV*.Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be repeat violations after that warning. The user uploaded different versions of the images, claiming they are his own work. Sorry, I don't see a blockable offense here. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Relaxing Terms in Gradual Stages

Greetings,

Now I have other people asking me for advice, yet I'm not able to answer them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryoung122&action=edit&section=4

Are you saying I have to wait until February 2012? It is easy to re-block someone for a re-offense. Part of the problem now is that the "broadly interpreted" argument means that it covers too much.

Ryoung122 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

as an aside

This is not worth pursuing further in talk, but I wanted to point out that my wp:NPA objection was over this phrase: "we are having this discussion because Ludwigs2 wants to hold the images in this article to higher standards." [28] Not a tremendously bad statement in itself, but one in an extended series of comments by multiple editors that try to reduce the problems on this article to "Ludwigs2 is being annoying". It may in fact be that I am being annoying - I'll leave that for others to judge in appropriate venues, if that becomes necessary - but I have raised credible points that ought to be considered (even if they are ultimately dismissed), and I am becoming tired of editors using ad hominem arguments of that sort to avoid discussing them. You are entitled to suggest that I am holding the images to a higher standard (though I'd appreciate it if you would stop ignoring me when I dispute the point, as I have several times). You are not entitled to declaim that I am the sole cause of the conflict. I trust you see the distinction.

WIth respect to your position: You may not be active as a sysop on this page, but you are a sysop - that bit is s symbol of community trust given to you on the assumption that you have experience and knowledge that normal users do not have. Whether you are active or not, you are still held to a higher standard, just the way that cops and politicians and judges are held to higher standards in the real world. You may think that's unfair, and it probably is, but by accepting that bit you committed yourself to setting an example of behavior for the project. Maybe when the project was first starting a sysop could get away with the "hey, I'm just another guy" approach, but the project is too big for that now. --Ludwigs2 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are seeing personal attacks where none exist. But for what it's worth, I apologize if it came across that way; and I guess I can see how it would. If our positions were reversed I wouldn't be bothered in the least (I tend to tolerate personal attacks against me, it goes with the territory). It is undeniable that the current dispute was initiated by you. In that sense, you are the sole cause of the conflict. Nothing wrong with that, disputes must be started by someone, after all. Nowhere did I imply that you are being annoying. Perhaps persistent in the face of disagreement, that's all.

If you have a problem with my ethics or behavior, please take it up on WP:ANI, keeping in mind that experienced editors in a dispute are simply experienced editors in a dispute, regardless of any toggles that are set on their account. The same standards are applicable to new users, editors with rollback rights, editors with oversight, editors with reviewer rights, and editors who have rights to protect pages and block vandals. Being a sysop simply means the community trusts you with the tools, and trusts you not to abuse them. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to have been resolved now. I'm fine either way. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic: to be continued

I also think it makes more sense to focus on the Wine Dispenser Innovation. Here is a try, let me know what you think of it. Thank you so much for your time. Arseguet (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, I've asked other people opinion, hope to publish it by the end of the day. Let me know if there is anything wrong. I'll do the changes. Cheers. Arseguet (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted refspam

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! jcgoble3 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was doing that as I was removing blacklisted links from various articles. Looks like I missed one. Thanks for catching it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ID

Pls. explain your edit summary "Revert - doesn't belong in lead because not expanded in article, Dawkins quote seems out of context, and second source cited appears self-published" Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I posted my fuller explanation on Talk:Intelligent Design#New atheism. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"This is cited later"

Pls. identify where it is cited that "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." Thanx in advacne.--Stephfo (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. That sentence is a summary, as appropriate for a lead section, of the entire section called "theistic science". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have not managed to find the source of given claim, isn't it just synthesis WP:SYNTH of various sources and WP:OR if none of sources is identified to make such claim? --Stephfo (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again I must ask you to read the section on theistic science in the ID article. The sources are in the first sentence. Also, read the article on theistic science. The claim you are questioning is not considered controversial by anyone, as far as I know. ID supporters claim that this is what they are trying to do, scientists agree this is what they are trying to do, and this was a finding also in the Kitzmiller trial.

Please also review WP:LEAD. The purpose of the lead section is to provide a brief overview of the remainder of the article. The sentence you are questioning does exactly that, for one section. If you can come up with a more succinct or accurate statement summarizing the theistic science section, feel free to propose it on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Question RE CSD

Hi Amatulic. Thanks for looking over the CSD of Wilhelm Busch (priest). You declined CSD A7 as "article makes a claim of notability". For my own information, what was the claim of notability? The only one I could see is ""Jesus Our Destiny"... is the most well known of his works", but even that doesn't claim the work is actually well known, or that he's well known for it. Is there another claim in the article that indicates asserted notability that I've missed? I took the article to AfD instead, but I'd just like to know for future reference. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Even a weak claim of notability is sufficient to kill CSD A7. In this case, it wasn't just that small item that convinced me to decline, but the fact that the subject appears to have coverage in multiple sources provided in the bibliography. That is also a claim of notability, possibly meeting WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so generally speaking, minimal or indirect claims, such as if a bio claims that one of the subject's works is "more well known" than another, or if a bio contains a bibliography which may discuss the subject, are sufficient to fail A7. Got it. Thanks! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding User:Stephfo

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection of retired user talk pages

In re to User talk:YellowMonkey, I do not see that there was activity on the page such that full protection would be warranted (see Wikipedia:PP#Retired users). The full protection has prevented the proper application of the WP:INACTIVITY process decided in June (since the bot was unable to notify the inactive administrator). –xeno^talk 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember the details that led to that, maybe YellowMonkey requested it by email (I don't recall), or maybe I meant to do semi-protection. In any case, it's semi now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice regarding DJ Food

Hi there, Thanks for reinstating the page. I was merely trying to flesh it out a bit and its been there for years so I don't know why it was deleted. Will it be removed from the 'swift deletion' list?

Many thanks, (Colorfulthrowup (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

It is not currently up for speedy deletion. It is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Food, where the discussion will last for 7 days. If nobody contributes to the discussion, it will get re-listed to generate more discussion. Then consensus will determine whether it should be kept or deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:77.79.7.63

This banned user has been messing around like that for a long time. It's not worth answering the unblock requests ([29]).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Videolog.tv

Why the article Videolog.tv was deleted? There is a portuguese mirror as you can see here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videolog.tv And the article itself complies with all Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Can you revert this? Perene (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Please continue this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Videolog.tv I have explained more thoroughly why this should be kept in the Wikipedia. Perene (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded there, as did another administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just added more sources (links to large portals/websites from the major media companies in Brazil) that validate the claim I made in that area. I have posted sources citing this Videolog portal, most of them well-recognized in the country (UOL, Globo, iG), nationwide. I have told you/the other admins that if the article is moved to my userspace (it would help me since I don't remember some words I used in it to write again), I can edit the rest of it and add this quick note about the "Samba Tech" deal. I think that was the only thing left from qualifying the article to be posted here, besides the R7 partnership. Perene (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Hi I got a message from you about deleting paragraphs criticism of Islam,((without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive))

First I'm sorry about not noting about it but I'm not very familiar with wikipedia & tried to put a note or even messaging the supervisor but couldn't....

Second, The changes I made was necessary because the content had wrong information, I'm an Egyptian & Muslim too.... I know those facts more than anyone here & unfortunately people will put in their mind false information about Islam Laws & unfortunately I read them on facebook which were referred by that page.... So I put the facts & removed opinions....

I'm doing Masters in History in addition to reporting to some newspapers & I know what's the differences between facts & opinions....

I wanted to put some Arabic pages as a reference but what it'd be for if it's in Arabic.... For Example & not as Exclusively:

(Apostasy) ON that article, it divided between man & woman which is wrong because the rules are for both of them.... Also Apostasy for The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence doesn't say of apostate killing except he fights the Muslims, The issue is simple, the blood of the Muslim is forbidden for the Muslims so how about a person apostates Even though he is still considered a Muslim, they all agreed if he's only fighting the Muslims with a gun then he is considered officially not a Muslim....

That was one fact that article didn't show right, so I edited some & may removed some which I don't remember any of them now (editing & removing) but didn't betray the Scientific integrity....

Hope you understand.... --elbarck (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your comments. Please put comments on other people's talk pages at the bottom to maintain proper chronology. I have done this with your comment above.

The article is about criticism of Islam. Therefore, the article should describe criticisms of Islam. Whether such criticisms are factual, or not, isn't relevant to that article, because the point of that article is to present the various criticisms rather than argue with them.

Also, see WP:NOTTRUTH. When you attempt to put facts into an article, they need to be referenced to reliable, independent sources. It is not enough, for example, to present your interpretation of a passage in the Quran as a fact. You must show reliable sources that hold this view.

Also, if someone reverts an edit you made on an article, it is a good idea to discuss your proposed change on the article talk page to try to gain consensus for your change. Good luck! ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply I appreciate your patience on my mistakes I did here & I'm on way to understand the full features of the wikipedia.... Yes, I'm with you about your point, But if you checked the article you'd find it shows something as a fact then put the opinions argue about it.... So if we're going to put a fact as a headline then we should put it right then we can put the opinions or criticisms about it.... I think to put something as a criticism it should be a reliable thing, it's like to say the chicken gives a birth, it's wrong from the first place.... The headline even differentiated in punishment between man & woman which is odd because the Islam laws are the same for both.... Check these links from a reliable English sources from a famous web-site owned by Al-Azhar scholars & supported by the president of the Muslims scholars Union Yusuf ElQaradawy.... in 2007 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/166989.html in 2009 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/crimes-and-penalties/apostasy/172501.html in 2009 http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/muslim-creed/177956 in 2006 http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/contemporary-issues/islamic-themes/432346

They all say obviously there's no punishment for apostasy.... --elbarck (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know why you didn't reply for almost 10days, I hope your fine.... I put the same issue on the page discussion but no one replied yet.... I want to explain what I said before if it wasn't explained well.... The issue is simple, put the fact then put your opinions as you want, but to put something wrong as a fact isn't right, you're (wikipedia stuff) the ones who said that the four Sunni schools said so while they didn't also you're the ones (wikipedia stuff) who separated the punishment between men & women not me, I just ask to fix those information nothing more....--elbarck (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is currently holiday season and I am not spending much time on Wikipedia. If you put your arguments on the article talk page, then more people will see what you wrote than on my own talk page. But don't expect a response until the holidays are over, starting 3 January. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I already did long time ago but no one replied yet for three weeks I think but I can't fix it as you said.... So it seems that the wrong information will be there for long time.... Happy Holidays :)--elbarck (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sipet College

I think this mostly informative, and not entirely promotional, so I ask you to undelete it. It needs some editing, but I'll do that. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I was about to go through the process but got an emergency call... bye for the day. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(next day) OK, it's restored and renamed with proper caps. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

caps

Hi, I have stopped, but before you revert, please do check the sources. WP already has an awful lot of "index" pages in lower case, I think because WP:MOSCAPS frowns on "unnecessary capitalisation". For example,

• "The average directional index (ADX) is something that can have a tremendous impact on the success of your trading or investing. ... The average directional index rating is displayed in the form of the single black line that moves between a range of 0 to 100, though you will rarely see readings of exactly 0 or 100.", here. and ...
• "Average directional index is calculated using directional indicators: (positive directional indicator (DI+) and negative directional indicator (DI-)) and formula of exponential moving average (EMA)." here, although inconsistently. and ...
• "The average directional index, or ADX, was developed by J. Welles Wilder as a measure of a current market trend's strength. The ADX is derived from two directional indicators, known as DI+ and DI-, which are in turn derived from the directional movement index (DMI)."here, which looks pretty reliable to me.
• "The average directional index (ADX) measures the strength of a prevailing trend and whether movement exists in the market." here.

I could go on collecting more. Needs discussion. Tony (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)