User talk:Elahrairah/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A cup of coffee for you!

I'd say we both need one!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to deletion

Why was the page deleted of Sabadell United Bank page? I don't see which information was copyrighted, and from where? I am the holder of the material or it came from 3rd parties that were referenced. If you see the backlog, the only thing that was pending was deletetion of Banco Sabadell having been named.

What are the steps to get the page back?

Thank you,

Mark

Hi there. The article was deleted because it contained a significant copyright infringement from this site. Unfortunately, this means that it cannot be restored. Even if that were not the case, I still wouldn't restore it as the submission has been declined 3 times in the last month because the subject does not demonstrate notability. You also can't use copyrighted material to which you own the copyright 1) because you have no way of proving this, and 2) because the license would not be compatible with Wikipedia's content licenses. We simply cannot use copyrighted information. Hope this answers your question. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How to add new sockpuppets to existing/archived sockpuppet investigations

Hi Basalisk, I filed a sockpuppet investigation a while ago here. User Rodolfootoya12 was submitting bogus info from that account and also from at least one other IP: 201.198.168.150. You blocked him for this behavior. However, it appears the user has circumvented the block and is back as Rodolfootoya30, where he continues to submit bogus information. Should I open up a new sockpuppet investigation for this new user and copy/paste my first report for Rodolfootoya12, or is there a more elegant way to re-open the archived case and add the new sockpuppet? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Just start a new case the same way you started the last one. Just make sure you file it under the same master name, Rodolfootoya12, and it will automatically get tied to the old one. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Hi, I've provided the diffs in the page. Would you mind having another look at it? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuttawat Sockpuppet

Hi Basilisk, I noted your input in the Nuttawat sock puppet debate here. I am wondering whether he is now back as an I.P. here. This is an article Waxthailand fan created and now this IP is in vandalising it and generally being a nuisance. Is it possible for the IP to be blocked for a bit in the hope he will get bored or for the page to be protected? If so, can you do this straight away or do I need to go and register my request somewhere as I have not had to do this before? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, he seems to be back under a different guise [Buriram Futsal Club here] creating fake articles. What is the best way to deal with this, please? Fenix down (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just create another case page under the same master name, and it will re-open the case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offer to help with an RfC

If I had one wish for past RfA discussions (my wish for future RfA discussions is not to have them :), it would have been to break them into sections, and let everyone discuss and vote however they want ... in their own section. The problem is that each position has its adherents ... and the adherents get angry when people talk about anything else as if it might be a solution, so everyone is trying to talk over everyone, and the kind of discussion that produces several coherent, attractive plans doesn't happen. But ... I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we find out what Jimbo is going to be doing about it this month, and I asked on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At WT:RFA#Has anyone suggested this before: moving to a system of regular elections like ArbCom?, did you mean to say "Rfacom(m)", or were you talking about the proposal in that section for the community to elect a pile of admins once per quarter? - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the suggestion in that section. I liked the idea of clerks when it was mooted but I'm pretty much sitting back in this debate and just watching. That said, I don't think the idea of set election periods is a great idea. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll fix it. Rfacom is WT:RFA#Rfacom. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm. Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reblocking sock puppets

Re: User:Freudk's block log, I think it would be best if you were not to change the block settings of an already-blocked account unless it's entirely necessary to do so. I realise you're probably using the SPI script, but there is a "make no blocks" option served by the script for precisely this sort of situation. Thanks, AGK [•] 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sorry for messing that up. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Ocean Drive

Why you deleted Great Ocean Drive article? it is famous scenic drive in Western, Australia. It was not an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightnote21 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your contribution. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia; it is not a magazine or an editorial, and as such articles should be written in an academic, impartial tone. The article as it was when I deleted it was written like an advertisement. It also contained no references and so there was no way for a reader to determine whether the information in the article was true. Please consider these points for your future editing. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Hound

My internet connection failed me while I was blocking him indefinitely without talk page privileges and, when I refreshed the page, I found that you had simply revoked his talk page without lengthening the block. I'll let you decide on the length of the block (i.e. feel free to revert my actions: I'll not consider it wheel warring, because, when I acted, I was unaware you had done so before me). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. Probably should've indeffed myself to be honest. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have informed Media Hound of the block extension, then. Apologies again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN#Need closers for WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC/1

You're more than welcome to sign up for this one, you offered to close earlier this month. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Glad to see you're back. I supported you in your RFA and you are a great contribution to Wikipedia. Once again, glad to have you back! Vacation9 03:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

I think you forgot to leave Apteva a notice of the block on his talk page (and how to ask for an unblock). Thanks for blocking him. A month would have been better, but two weeks should make the point. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately I was called away from the computer suddenly last night due to a family emergency; I can't be sat with my laptop 24/7. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear; I hope all is OK. Thanks for your service. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• When you rev del for deny, you might want to ensure you grab everything, there are several revisions and reverts that you missed on AN. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Just a FYI - usually another admin should be the one to decline an unblock request. --Rschen7754 23:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• After the 3 things above, I'm taking a break for a few days. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope everything is okay. Some quick feedback at User talk:Seraphimblade would be nice, but I can see you're busy and I'll proceed if you don't have a chance to respond. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, we haven't heard from you, Ed and Seraphimblade are going to go ahead with the first closing statement, and I'll be helping with the second round. (Not a problem, no one has registered any disapproval of me as a closer for the next step, so we're probably in the clear.) Thanks for offering, and I hope everything is okay. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eternal links

I too find them an everlasting pain (from your user page). Hohenloh ⁺ 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain I know what you mean... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eternal links

I too find them an everlasting pain (from your user page). Hohenloh ⁺ 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain I know what you mean... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for you

I neither like nor respect you, Basalisk. So knowing that, you should also know that snide comments from you to my attention, won't be perceived kindly, and will in fact be perceived the way you intend them to be perceived, as trying to get into verbal fisticuffs with me and stir up trouble. So if you could just pretend I don't exist and go on your merry way and leave me alone for the rest of my life, it would surely be appreciated. Because I don't want anything to do with you, for that long. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. You contribute to the divide between content contributors, and Admins. (Happy about that? Please don't answer.)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion: Felix Kjellberg

Hello :-)

I came to ask why the page Felix Kjellberg was deleted?

I can't see anything wrong with it. I've been talking to another user after (s)he informed me of some things that needed to be included, and we seemed to have everything sorted.

I'm actually a little insulted, even though I suppose you did not mean it in a harmful way, I did spend quite a long time on that article.

Is there any chance we could improve and bring back this article?

Many thanks! Weir NI (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Please don't take the deletion personally, it is not meant to be a comment on your ability as a writer. I deleted the article as it has already been previously deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. The article you created has a different title but it's about the same subject. The content of the article you created does nothing to demonstrate that the concerns raised in the original deletion discussion have been addressed, as evidenced by the references, which are almost all to inappropriate, self-published sources. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm afraid Felix Kjellberg is a complicated source to find references on, as he's Swedish and hasn't done interviews with English/American newspapers or telegraphs. The best I was able to find was an expressen.se article. I had talked this over with another user and he said that it was "probably reliable (not 100%)", but I can't manage to find any other links. I included the links to his YouTube channel as it includes the date he joined and has videos relating to the text in the article. Is there any possible chance we could fix this article and bring it back? Thank you. Weir NI (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockmaster at it again

Hi Basalisk. As the admin who took action on this SPI case, I thought I would bring it to your attention that this guy is back with new accounts and IP's, still editing disruptively and completely ignoring all efforts at communication. You can add User:天才冒险家, User:Bedco Chan, User:118.88.229.122 and User:119.118.160.137 to the list of socks/known IP's (seen here), though as I've said before, I think these are probably just the tip of the iceberg. I thought I might expedite things by bringing the matter directly to you, but if you'd just as soon I resubmit the case on SPI, I'm more than happy to oblige -- just let me know. I'm already thinking about returning the issue to ANI, as I'm beginning to wonder if protection for the page might be in order, though I've been trying to avoid it, since the nature of the article means that IP involvement in filling in details is usually quite helpful and welcome and in any event I'm not sure it will stop this guy since he'll just register a new account. I'm just about out of ideas on how to stop this obnoxiousness, frankly. I've dealt with some persistently disruptive users before, but this one is a bit outside my experience. What is the usual course of action with a sockmaster with unending IPs like this? Protect the page and then whack'a mole the socks? No better option? Well, in any account, thank you for any action you can take or advice you can provide on the matter. Snow (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Nae Worries

Thanks for fixing it. An obvious mistake, don't sweat it.

Wee Curry Monster talk 01:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for writing. I want to take the time to clear the air and work with you one and one. I responded at my talk page. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Halo multiplayer maps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Halo multiplayer maps 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 Halo multiplayer maps (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. James086^Talk 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee's talk page

Basalik, I only post on Wee's talk page if it is extremely necessary. In this case I was forced to comment over there after he made this childish comment on the talk page of the article. Had I answered him on the article's talk page it would only have meant more disruption to the content discussion at hand. If you can honestly say that comment warranted an answer in place, then we have very different views on what kind of comments are acceptable in an article's talk page. Last time I conducted the whole conversation in my talk page after he deleted my original message, just to avoid this. Trust me, I don't enjoy being abused by him whenever I end up forcibly commenting in his talk page. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not being forced to his talk page at all. The best kind of response to such comments is to ignore them, but if you don't have the capacity to be the bigger man and feel that such comments require a response, you can do so at the article talk page. There is no need to let it spill over onto his talk page. That just stokes the fire. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, next time I'll let these kind of comments by Wee slide (even though the optimal solution would be for him not to make such unhelpful comments in the first place...). I'll just note that it makes it very hard to establish a collaborative environment in an article when one of the editors downright bans another from contacting him in a civil and friendly way, even for trivial matters like making a childish comment that disrupts a discussion and should be removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just remembered this other rather unhelpful and disruptive comment made also today by Wee in another article's talk page. Note that I abstained from responding to that one either in place or in his own talk page. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Belchfire block extension request

Hello. Belchfire is still evading his block, this time as 174.21.89.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what you have to do to confirm this but since you extended his last block for socking, I thought I would let you know that he's still doing it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Add it to the SPI case and someone will see to it ASAP. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was taken care of by other users/admins. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Polllilur

This character has reemerged as Seringapatam. Given that you expressed interest in reopening the SPI in the case that he tried anything new, I thought I'd let you know. dci | TALK 22:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do? Yes that is the problem!

An extremely difficult situation has arisen, stalemate, where a possible precedent may be set in connection to media journalism and media speculation as main sources. The outcome is very important and will set the tempo for similar events in future. We need as many sharp pencils we have in the box to answer this question. The subject is not so much at issue more the use of journalistic prognosis or even just speculation in a subject that cannot be really verified. Come and help! --JamboQueen (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Basalik, I don't quite understand the reasoning behind your deletion of an Argentinian claim added by Andrés. Your summary says "not neutral source for this claim" but the source (http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history) is the official Argentinian recollection of the dispute and the sovereignty issue. What source could be better to get the Argentinian claims from than Argentina's own official article stating those claims? Just in case, I checked and here's the paragraph that supports that claim Andrés added:

“ In 1984, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 39/6, in which it recalled the previous ones related to the Malvinas Question and noted “that, in spite of the time which has elapsed since the adoption of resolution 2065 (XX), the prolonged dispute has not yet been resolved”. In 1985, through Resolution 40/21, the Assembly again urged the parties to settle the pending dispute through negotiations, rejecting the two amendment proposals through which the United Kingdom sought to introduce, in the preambular section and in the operative section the principle of self-determination, the inapplicability of which in the Malvinas Question was thus ratified. ”

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall self-revert. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Note on Wee Curry Monsters' behavoir

I just want to let you know that the first thing Wee Curry Monster did just now upon returning from a brief period of no editing was to remove twice[1][2] content agreed in the talk page in a discussion that involved 7 editors. This is text book edit-warring. Since I am not allowed to leave him a message in his talk page asking him to stop this and I've already stated clearly in the talk page why his edit was reverted (and I'm really not interested in engaging in an edit war with him) what should I do? If I revert him again there's no doubt he'll just revert a third time and he is without a doubt fully aware that his behavior is edit-warring. He is also fully aware of WP:BRD and clearly knows he should try to get consensus in the talk page after having an edit reverted, as I did after he reverted me for the first time[3] more than a week ago. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm bored of this dispute. Maybe you need a new hobby. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia needs to place a sign on the Falklands/Malvinas articles, letting readers know that valuable editors are motivated to leave by subjecting them to filibustering and etc. Basalisk, these articles are very tendentious and that's harmful. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On rv of edit

Hi Basalik, I've opened a new section regarding your reversion of my edit in the talk page of the article. I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Basalik. Could I bother you with a self rv? Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Surasaman

Hi. Added some evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Surasaman, just not sure how well it works. I can look for more or figure out how to do it. There is this strange issue of what I believe to be socking going on on Wikipedia to avoid a global block, but most of the evidence being on another project and IRC, which complicates the matter. :/ Not entirely certain how to deal with it. --LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It might only be petty....

It might only be petty because Wikipedia has this bizarre culture where personal attacks are freely allowed. If Wikipedia was a real company/organization, this type of treatment would never be accepted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I respect your frustration, but I can assure you that Wikipedia is a "real organisation". I can also confirm that these kind of minor degrading comments aimed at one's integrity are commonplace in "real" places of work (which is what I assume you meant). If you want to enjoy your time on this project your best bet is to develop a little thicker skin and try to let things slide a little more. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I have no idea where you work at, but in the places where I've work at, this would not be allowed. Please, be part of the solution, not part of the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing an archived discussion

Sorry, it wasn't intentional. I didn't even get an edit conflict, and then, when I hit Save, the thread had been archived.[4][5] Bishonen | talk 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

It's a good job you made me laugh, or I'd have been straight to the bottom of the page to open up a new discussion about insulting ANI behaviour by administrator Bishonen. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't mind being a martyr to the cause! We're bleeding policy pages, from weatherbeaten oldies to freshfaced young guidelines, all most likely driven off the project by MF or some other rude fellow! Got to take a stand! Support the Policy Defense League! Bishonen | talk 01:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Is that the new "cool", pseudo-fascist name for ArbCom? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an alternative name for the Civility Police. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Hi how are you? Re: User:Ihardlythinkso.

I noticed that you also have been on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse due to an unpleasant interaction with User:Ihardlythinkso. This user has been poking fun at me and following me around the site for months insulting me at every turn. I was wondering perhaps if I opened a "Request for Comment" on this user would you second it? Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't really like escalating conflicts of this type but I do think some sort of direction is required for this user, and if you initiate an RfC I will make a brief comment. I'm not really inclined to help construct one though. Just let me know what you decide to do. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and I just remembered this rude and profane comment from User:Ihardlythinkso. Maybe some anger management would be in order. He seems stressed, that's a shame. Thank you and I hope you are having a good evening. OGBranniff (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, interesting little note there. In any case, hate to bother you, but I just posted this on a fellow-administrator's talk page User_talk:Drmies#Quick_question about "Ihardlythinkso" if you care to check it out. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at CorporateM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• FYI -- OGB and been blocked indef. Here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, how are you? Are you around for a quick question? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What's up? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for getting back to me. For ease of presentation, I'll just link to what I previously stated (tonight) about User:Ihardlythinkso, here on Toddst1's page. Would you mind taking a look at my outline and diffs and please advise me of what I should do, if anything? Thank you for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Like I said before, I'm not going to get involved in constructing an RfC. It's not my style. If someone runs one for whatever reason then I'll probably comment, briefly, but the rest is up to you. Sorry. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and thank you for the advice. OGBranniff (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the bottom line question is, if I post an RFC would you "second" it? I notice you had some involvement concerning "Ihardlythinkso" concerning his "uneducated" comment about me recently. All I really am asking you for is a "second" IF I should draft a succinct Request for Comment. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As an update, the good news is that Ihardlythinkso and I have worked out our differences and are getting along fine now; I expect to be getting along well with him from now on as well. Thanks for your time. OGBranniff (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• FYI --as an update, OGBranniff has been blocked indefinitely.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I have a suspicion that User:Paramsinghantaal, whom you blocked recently, may be evading at Banda Singh Bahadur. They were very insistent on removing the content that has been removed twice by IPs since their block, and despite me opening a talk page thread prior to the block in an attempt to invite discussion. Would it be worthwhile semi-protecting in an attempt to force the issue on to the talk page? - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 3 months first-as-last. Let me know if there are further problems. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm hoping that some people will start talking because I have the feeling that a lot of the sources will not be written in English and thus my ability to sift through them will be practically zero. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many rights?

Hey there Basalisk. Been a while since we last chatted. Just wondering... I happened to notice all the rights you gave your alt account. No objections there (I did the same thing to my own alt on Wikidata, in fact), but I'm a bit concerned about your assignment of EFM rights: As I'm sure you know, they're far and away the most dangerous sub-admin rights available (and, in fact, arguably more dangerous in themselves than admin rights), and seeing as you plan on using the account on public computers, if access were to fall into the wrong hands I'd hate to see the middle part of your signature coming true and landing you here. Anyways, just thought I'd bring that up. The only other flag I could see being an issue is account creator, since it can bypass certain restrictions that would make some lucky library vandal very very happy to discover.... but that's a lot less serious than blocking every single edit, so if you really want to keep that one, I suppose that's your prerogative. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had a little think about this and decided you're right about EFM. I'm never going to be messing around with the edit filter on a public computer and so I've removed the flag from my alt. Thanks for approaching me about this. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Basalisk. Take it from an expert on the subject, you're better off without the temptation. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am, referring you for review over your editing of the Falkland Islands

The material I added was already in other articles. Your reversion shows you have not read these other articles or know much about the subject. It clearly demonstrates you have WP:POV issues. Have a nice day explaining your actions. 86.176.8.94 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have no affiliation on this matter, i'm just doing what the IP failed to do. here's the discussion, go do some administrator justice! MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of my Sandbox

Hi,

I been an editor here for a long time, and have a few thousand edits, hold Reviewer and Rollbacker. I started staging a new article in my sandbox and spend the entire weekend gathering data for it , links bits and pieces as I have done sine 2008. In 5 hours that I was asleep, everything got deleted. The reference within the article was from a peer reviewed technical journal. Another was from a Middle Eastern Thesis that took me 2 hours to find. Please tell me how I can recover this information that took me the whole weekend to gather so I can place it back into my sandbox and continue working on my next new article. Thanks, Meishern (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. I just reread all the rules about sandbox use, and realize that my understanding of what a sandbox is deviated from those rules. I previously looked at a sandbox as my private space not visible to search engines where i can paste parts of articles , links, etc and then slowly go over them to shape them there and not on public display in the name space of the real article.

It was just very convenient. Now I have no idea what the purpose of the sandbox even is besides letting new editors practice. I will offer a suggestion to keep search engines out of the sandbox and thus give editors a place to organize references. But I am rambling. In any case please accept my apology and I can see now see how a heap of links, and quotes from news releases can look like a spam page if looked through the eyes of someone aware that the sandbox section is not blocked to web crawlers. Thanks, Meishern (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Burnpur Cement

The page on Burnpur Cement was speedily deleted under A7, though the deletion was contested at the talk page. The company is a BSE and NSE listed company (two major stock exchanges in India)[6], and have significant coverage in WP:RS Google News. I think this should not have been deleted under A7, please undelete the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I read your comment on the talk page. The thing is, WP:NCORP stipulates that listing on a major stock exchange does not infer inherent notability so it doesn't really matter where it's listed. I also read the bit where you said you'd found sources, but you didn't supply them in the article or even on the talk page, and so I had nothing to go on. If you can actually show me the sources, I'll undelete the article. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources are www.burnpurcement.com and the image is from www.in.com Kindly undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Why has the page not been undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The source you supplied is self-published, and therefore not appropriate for use. I don't know where on that website the image is located, and I'm not a file copyright expert, but I imagine it's not in the free domain either and so can't be used. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The image is perhaps copyrighted Proper source for article - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/burnpur-cement-ltd/infocompanyhistory/companyid-18756.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good. One more source like that is enough. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

http://profit.ndtv.com/stock/burnpur-cement-ltd_burnpur/reports And http://www.indiamart.com/burnpur-cement/ Kindly undelete the page now. Thank u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I've copied the article into your userspace, you can find it at User:Rishabhgutgutia/Burnpur Cement. Once you've added the sources, move the page to the original title (if you don't know how to do this, I can do it for you). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kindly do it for me as im new to wikipedia and dont have much idea about how to do it. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it after you've added the sources to it. Not before. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ive added the sources to it. Now kindly undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

A discussion which involves some of your actions is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#User:KumiokoCleanStart. Fram (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In this connection, please restore 19th Colors Screen Awards, I would normally simply revert as an obvious error, but considering the ANB, I'll probably take it to deletion review. It is a short article, but it says explicitly in the infobox what the event is. The question might be of whether it qualifies for A7 as an event with no indication of importance, but asserting it's the 19th of its kind is an indication of possible importance enough to be worth a search; additionally I do not think there is agreement that television programs count in this. Prod shold work easily enough, and it'll give a chance for someone to source it. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fram's edits

I saw your comments on Fram's talk page but I don't want to comment there. Fram basically said it but his problems aren't the edits, its me. He doesn't really care about these articles or the actions he's just looking for a venue to attack me. If it wouldn't have been this it would have been something else. This just gave him an opportunity because the process of submitting CSD's criteria is somewhat subjective. Kumioko (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Pestcamel44

Hi. I've been looking over the unblock requests at User talk:Pestcamel44, and I'm minded to give them another chance - there were a lot of socks, but I think it is plausible that they were originally intended to be throwaway accounts for different contents and/or forgotten passwords etc, although there was some prohibited overlap use. With the large number of accounts, I confess I am still a bit uneasy, but it's easy to block again if we find more socking. Would you mind having a look over the talk page discussion and letting me know what you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've replied there. I don't see why we can't give this guy another chance, despite my reservations. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page ZippCast

Dear Basalisk, Yesterday I created a page for the video sharing website ZippCast.com by Yesterday evening the page had already been deleted with claims claiming that it violated Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7. However this is incorrect and I would like you to review your decision on the subject.

ZippCast is not just another video sharing site made using a video sharing script available on the web, it is completely originally coded and includes many many features which no other video sharing site offers or has ever offered. (For example it offers much more channel customization options than any other site.) It was voted #3 in an online vote for top ten video sharing sites (http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/top-video-sharing-websites.asp ) It is (proportionally)the fastest growing video sharing sites on the web and is frequently refereed to without explanation on sites such YouTube meaning users ( such as me i did) will attempt to look it up on Wikipedia.

Now without turning this into a long ZippCast add I will keep it short but I can name much more if you like. Refusing to recognize ZippCast but recognizing other competing sites is just promotional, bias and potentially commercially damaging for a site with much more features than ones which are listed. Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted the article because it provided no explanation of why the subject was significant. The sources included don't indicate notability either, and so the article qualifies for A7. Frankly I don't really care what commercial damage might be done to a video hosting website by not having a wikipedia article as wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a free advertising service. The fact that it is "originally coded" has no bearing on its significance. A few distinct playback features don't have any impact on its encyclopaedic value either. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Basalisk, It appears that you have ignored one of my claims of encyclopedic value. ZippCast is frequently referenced without explanations on forums and sites such as YouTube meaning that users including myself look it up Wikipedia I know I am not alone in this. This was my motivation of getting it on Wikipedia. If you could please explain why 56.com, MaYoMo, Crackle, ExpoTV, Viddler, Mobento and Vzaar are of encyclopedic value and not ZippCast I have never heard of any of those sites, have you? ZippCast can not refer to anything else anyway. I would also like to point out that I am not part of or affiliated with ZippCast I am just a user of the site, the page was written unbiasedly and contained information on problems with the site. I still believe ZippCast metas all rules for inclusion in the site but it doesn't look like your going to review your decision. Regards, Mainline421 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Also I would like to add that it is recognized by Urban Dictionary a site people use look up what stuff is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zippcast

The fact that this site is talked about in comment columns is irrelevant. Lots of people talk about their girlfriends on internet forums too, but that doesn't make them significant. As for the other articles you mentioned, I have no comment on them, but simply quoting other crappy articles isn't a good argument for inclusion. I don't really have anything more to say on this matter, but I'm not the final authority on deletion. If you wish to pursue this further, you can use the process at deletion review. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was already aware of the deletion review process that page recoemnds I discuss it with the admin that deleted it so I did. Thanks anyway despite your slightly rude manor and our disagreement youve been quite helpful and knew and linked to Wikipedia rules which is always good (there are loads of them!) regards, Mainline421 (talk

I'm sorry you found my manner rude, it was not intentional. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page semi?

Are we at the point where semi-protection of Talk:Banda Singh Bahadur may be worth trying for a brief period of, say, a week? I realise that it is uncommon for both an article and its talk page to be semi'd but it is not unknown and there is still a process for anons to get their comments on to such a page. I am trying to resolve the underlying issue but it is taking time due to various sourcing problems. My suspicion is that the block evader is correct ... but in many ways for the wrong reasons! - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking this the other day. I don't usually like the idea of semi-ing article talk pages. If you're getting to the bottom of the fundamental question then I guess we could do it for a week or something, but ultimately I can't see what damage the spamming is really doing. If he were disrupting ongoing discussion on the talk page that would be another thing, but there's no discussion there at present. Overall I'm not opposed to a temporary semi. I'll ask Drmies what he thinks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, for three months. This is ridiculix. Thanks for letting me know, Basalisk. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

3 months might be a tad too much but it can always be reduced if/when someone gets to the bottom of the core issue. I'm still reading. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

note

you got to 115/117 before I could .. I'm slowing down in my old age. :) — Ched :  ?  12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Old age? Possibly. The more likely reason is that I am swift like a leopard. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: edit warring

Hey...I'd like to clarify. I've given the page a brief read, and I don't believe my edits warrant the definition of 3RR / edit warring; I'm just encountering a /lot/ of edit conflicts. Thanks... Sonoma's bridge (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly was my page Chunqiu Institute deleted?

G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion

I have fundamentally rephrased my entry after first deletion, all the language I used was from a neutral POV. At least I think I have stated facts instead of opinions, and all my references were checked. The thing I don't get here, is that what makes it neutral to you? If I add a paragraph on 'criticism' or 'controversy' does that makes it neutral? Looking forward to your advices, thanks. Liebeistkaelteralsdertod (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Talking about mission statements and services offered is promotional. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service or a way to raise publicity for an organisation, for-profit or otherwise. Even if this article were not promotional in tone, it would still be deleted as it is not significant enough to warrant an article. Please do not recreate it again. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is for real.

It is for real.Cblambert (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SweetBabyGirl06

Hi! There's been some additional comments here - would you mind taking a look? --Rschen7754 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Grey Technology (Gtech) deletion

Hi Basalisk,

You recently deleted a page I created - Grey Technology (Gtech) - citing A7 (no indication of importance). May I ask if you read through the talk page of the article before deleting? I had made numerous edits that others had flagged as 'promotional', which involved taking out a lot of information related to the company's importance - such as: 22million+ sales for its debut product; availability of products in the UK and US; product reviews in high-circulation newspapers; media coverage for Gtech and its founder Nick Grey.

I believe this company is important enough to warrant inclusion, and I would be grateful if you could provide me with some pointers in regards to information I can include that is considered to display importance, without being promotional.

Thanks and kind regards,

--Opyper (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Though the article had previously been deleted per G11 as advertising, I deleted it as A7 as it made no assertion of importance. The company isn't notable enough for an article and so I can't see how changing the style to make it less promotional would make any difference. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guidelines put a lot of weight on coverage from third party sources. I have citations from the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Good Housekeeping Institute. These cover product sales (including the 22m+ sales of the SW01 floor sweeper, as mentioned above), interest in company founder Nick Grey's work as an entrepreneur and inventor, and product reviews. Surely these are evidence of notability? Or do the personal opinions of editors play a large part in weighing up an articles notability? Regards, Opyper (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, personal opinion doesn't have any bearing on notability. The Sunday Times article you supplied isn't about the business, it's about its owner. The Telegraph source is good but you need several good sources to confer notability. Are you in any way associated with this company or its employees? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Basalisk - no connection to the company other than appreciating their products, and coming from roughly the same part of the world. The Sunday Times article is indeed about Nick Grey but it covers Gtech-related stuff too - the whole article swings upon the success of his company. I have two Telegraph sources - one covering the problems with bringing UK manufacturing operations to the UK, and the other covering Gtech's flagship product. I also have product reviews from the Sunday Times, and the Daily Mail, and a press release proving Gtech is endorsed by the Good Housekeeping institution. Naturally, many of these will focus on products, but due to the nature of Gtech's business, that's to be expected. What I was getting at in my first post is that I believe these sources prove that Gtech is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but I was told to remove them as they were seen as being promotional - do you believe I should reinstate this information? Opyper (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

More... Gtech wins trade award in US (Worcester News); more product coverage from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Which?; Gtech endorsement information from Good Housekeeping itself; more Nick Grey/Gtech coverage from Telegraph and Sunday Times...Opyper (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great, you can re-make the article with those sources, but avoid a promotional tone. You can include a sentence or something for their products, but don't spend too much time talking about how good they are or awards they've received. The article you write shouldn't sound like it's trying to make the company look good or improve perception of their products. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks very much for your advice. Opyper (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)