@Panam2014 (and this goes to Fitzcarmalan too): The edit war you just performed was well enough to block you both for a week. I have yet to count hoy many reverts you did in the last 24 hours, and I am still impressed that you took this too far. Another administrator might have surely blocked you without hesitating for that reason only. However, I am not to keen to block right away, and I feel that protecting the page so that none of you can touch it for two weeks is a better response. If you two cannot agree on a content dispute, reverting until the end of time is definitely *not* the solution. If you didn't know, we have the dispute resolution noticeboard, and in case that fails, a request for comment process to sort it out. I'd recommend to spend the next two weeks using them both to solve the problem, because if you resume reverting after the protection expires... → Call meHahc2121:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and i'm willing to stop touching this article for even more than two weeks as a punishment. But i think Panam2014 should be reverted first so he doesn't get encouraged to persist with this uncooperative behavior of reverting then deciding to discuss like i said earlier in the RPP noticeboard, because this is clearly not how Wikipedia works. I have asked them several times to discuss and they ignored me. Once again, i apologize and this is certainly not a habit of mine to edit war. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who does not understand how. This is partly your fault. Finally, there was no consensus and the term revolution is controversial so I moved down. And you want to put it twice. Finally, my version was a compromise because I agreed to put down revolution while it was not planned. This is not your article.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, no blocking for you yet. I think it's better to let you edit and discuss. Blocking would only frustrate both of you even more and bring undesired consequences after the block expires. Also, Fitzcarmalan: I decided not to revert to a previous edit-war-free version because I did not know which version would be, since this back and forth has been going for a bit, I suppose. I will refrain myself from commenting about the substance of the word revolution or not, though. (I am Venezuelan and I am currently living the 2014 Venezuelan protests, so I would not be the best person to give a neutral comment on the matter). → Call meHahc2122:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand that and i'm not asking you to comment on the word revolution. But the part Panam2014 keeps removing was there for more that 2 months before their unilateral decision to eliminate it. [1]
This is my last entry on this page regarding this matter because i might later take Panam2014's case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a previous history of disruptive editing in this user's few contributions on the English Wikipedia by moving titles several times without consensus for example. Like i said, i'm not asking you to give any opinion, i'm simply asking you to revert this user to the default version because this might encourage more disruptiveness and might give the green light for Panam2014 or other users to remove something controversial without discussing per BRD and we both know this is unacceptable. I will not edit war again and i acknowledge it was my fault to revert in the first place, but i will definitely report Panam2014 if they persist with this kind of behavior, especially when they appear to show no sign of regret for having done something wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea if issues persist. There' you will have more eyes evaluate the dispute. → Call meHahc2118:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but i'll have to bite again.
You seem to misunderstand my point Hahc21. The undiscussed version imposed by this user is still there (already provided the diff), and this fact will certainly encourage more disruptiveness to come. This is already an issue as long as it exists and you just said it yourself "if the issues persist". But i don't have to wait for something else to show up and it should be reverted. If you are not interested, do you think i should contact another admin? Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the undiscussed version is still there because it was the last edit when I protected, and reverting to another revision through full protection is something that an administrator should not do unless they want to get slapped or desysopped. I recognize that this is an issue, but I thought you would try DRN. It doesn't matter which version is there, it can always be changed after the protection expires (this is a wiki, anything can be modified). I said "if the issues persist" because I thought that both you and Panam were discussing the issue now that the article was protected, but if this is not the case, use WP:AN/I. → Call meHahc2118:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the wording should be changed puiisque section has been renamed and there is a reason: not neutral. So I just dropped the word revolution down to explain that there was controversy. Should not revert to the version of Fitzcarmalan because it is what caused the renaming. I know the functioning wiki. Filtzcarmalan but I doubt it. I can discuss. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if you click on the link, you'll notice a post-script that's not directly related to you. Never-the-less, if you're in the mood, AND you have an opinion, I would be VERY interested to read your opinion (here, or there, or on my talk page). In the meantime: Thanks!. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was all very weird and crazy. It is the first time that I had to deal with a suspected sockpuppet since passing my RfA two weeks ago, but my previous experiences with socks had prepared my gut to recognize who quacks and who doesn't. In general, I think it was an awkward situation that we all managed to handle pretty well. → Call meHahc2118:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henrique Capriles Radonski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chacao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The deletion of Alexander Kniazev was premature, in my opinion. Speedy was contested on the talk page, since the artist's discography satisfies WP:BAND with thirteen records, four of them on the Warner Classic label. The incoming links to Alexander Kniazev from other Wikipedia articles are another indicator that speedy deletion was inappropriate.
Well, the problem is that the article, in the state it was when I deleted it, clearly met A7. It just said Person X is a cellist. He studied and graduated from A. Also studied and graduated from B. In my eyes, it did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Therefore, the speedy deletion was appropriate, since they are applied accoding to the state of the article, and not it's possible notability. However, your comment about WP:BAND is correct (though CSD is not meant to be used to discuss notability), and I will be willing to restore the article if you will work on it so that it no longer meets A7. Cheers. → Call meHahc2103:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you will have to add too that he has released X studio albums, selling more than Y copies in Russia, receiving Z awards or something in the lead too. → Call meHahc2103:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have prompt access to info like that. I started that stub to satisfy the red links I was seeing here and there. Sorry to see it go, but there it went. Regards, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no need for that. I saved a local copy when I saw the speedy tag go on. If I can work it into presentable shape, I will put it back into the main WP space, if that is acceptable under the rules. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I know that Wikipedia can be rude sometimes, though! Feel free to ping me if you ever need something. → Call meHahc2104:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but AfD is binding. I can't unilaterally go against consensus and restore the article just because you ask. Please consider submitting your article at Articles for Creation so that it can be checked before it's moved to mainspace. → Call meHahc2122:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you deleted the page Amaryllis Fleming. I was not aware of any discussion about this. She was a well known cellist and it would have been easy to add extra sources to the page if alerted. Can you reinstate so I can work on it?
--Mervyn (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated for speedy deletion. I will restore on your userspace so that you can calmly work on it without getting another surprise CSD tag. Hold on... → Call meHahc2114:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the article on the forensics of repressed memory, despite their being more votes to keep it than to delete it. I would like to know how you interpreted this as a consensus to delete. Emt mast (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because AfD is not a vote, and the strength of the arguments has more weight than just saying keep. Apart from that, the three IPs that voted keep didn't offer compelling and policy-based reasons as to why it should be kept, unlike the delete votes. → Call meHahc2122:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Seńor, I have moved this message from Mark Arsten's talk page to this since you say that you are the next one available and are also an administrator.
I am the former owner of the "CastellanetaFan" account, Bbb23 has blocked it from editing for being used "only for Sock puppetry" but that isn't true. I owned the account for three whole years and did honest edits with it until abusing the privilege with multiple anonymous accounts, which was only a few months ago. I admit it was reckless, I am deeply ashamed for it and don't believe I entirely deserve the penalty. I am repentant and if I can be forgiven and have the account back, I truly promise to edit only while logged in, if I can just stay a major user. Please tell me that it isn't too late. --2602:306:37EB:49E0:41D0:6A89:C737:2C50 (talk)(CastellanetaFan)[[ 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Since you look that you are sorry, I think it won't harm to take a look. But first, apart from CastellanetaFan, I need you to list here *all* other accounts and IPs you have edited from (apart from this one), so that I can have a proper look. Remember that the only way the community can welcome you back is if you have stayed away from editing during a timespan of at least 4-to-6 months, especially if you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. → Call meHahc2102:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took a look. Yes, your latest edit was made on 28 March 2014 (not counting your edits here but let's say they don't because you're asking for advice). My advice is to stop editing until 1 September 2014 and then come back to my talk page (or to WP:AN/I if I am not around then) and ask for an unblock of your main account under the provisions of WP:OFFER. That's what I'd do. → Call meHahc2103:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got too impatient while working on Infinity Blade, so I ended up finishing it up and sending it to FAC before you could get there- it's just four nominations above yours! I'll try to give you a review, though I'll likely start at the bottom with the VG nominations most likely to get rejected. Thanks for recommending I push it to FAC! --PresN05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Yay. Thanks and don't worry. I was full finishing up Flotilla and making some progress on Ancient Trader (and learning the tools too!). I will be more than glad to give you a review this week, and I'd be very delighted if you do the same for me :) Cheers. → Call meHahc2105:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, congrats on that! Welcome to the delightful world of banning aggravating children and dealing with the murky messes that no one else wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. Let me know if you ever need an uninvolved admin for anything. --PresN05:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I have been able to find so far in random order. You might say that too many of them mention Bushism but how could you write an article about Obamaisms without at the very least mentioning Bushism? They all focus exclusibely about Obamaisms.
@HansBarack: Okay, I will do a detailed source-per-source analysis:
The first source mentions a bunch of obamaisms, but doesn't discuss any of them. Is more of a collectino than an analysis, so it doesn't count.
Source #2 is not bad. But it doesn't go into detail. It mixed Bushisms with Obamaisms, so it has half the value.
I can't read Source #3. Paywall!
Mumbai Mirror is a carbon copy of Hindustan Times.
Ranker is, like About.com, just mentioning obamaisms without discussing them.
The Daily Mail one is incidental news. It's not strong enough to bring notability up, specially because it talks about an specific event instead of the actual thing.
The Commentary magazine one happens to be of the same type than the Daily Mail one.
In general, they are not enough to meet GNG, because they used the word obamaism but they don't really go into detail about the term, but about a highlighted instance of it. You need sources discussing the term, its existence, why it is important, etc. You need more sources like the Hindustan Times one. → Call meHahc2119:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Also, thank you for your follow-up comments elsewhere in the process. I felt really stifled after you recommended I not reply to so many opposes, but I understood why you were making that suggestion, even though I think such a bias is absurd. Anyhow, thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, Cyphoidbomb. I'm a bit sad that you didn't make it, but I'm sure that in no more than a year you will do it in a landslide. I agree that it's a bit absurd, but many users are uneasy about candidates doing that (wonder why). I would be glad to serve as your nom of you ever feel like putting yourself up for the mop again. Happy editing! → Call meHahc2107:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that Mark got burnt out and is taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia. It is uncertain if he will be back or not. I hope he does, but you know that the dramaz can be extremely frustrating sometimes. → Call meHahc2102:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. I have been a close friend to Mark for the past two years and I'm a bit sad that he decided to distance himself away from the project. → Call meHahc2103:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark. You declined semi-protection on the above named article in the beginning of January. Can you take another look. Both myself and Iryna Harpy have been reverting. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering if you could help me figure out what's going on with my GAN for this page. The first GA review was abandoned. The second GA review was a pass, but the editor never did the formalities of adding the GA icon, etc.. A second editor who had read it a couple times said he would be willing to promote it, but then a third editor completely deleted the entire GA review page. It looks like it's in the GAN queue again - do I just need to wait for a third review? CorporateM (Talk) 04:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: I think I will review it for you. It's short and looks quite ready. No idea why the second GA review was deleted, but anyways. → Call meHahc2119:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! They deleted it saying it needed a "real" GA review. To be honest I was just happy to get two editors saying it was GA-ready and one actually using a check-list, rather than a drive-by review.
If I am not being too much of a burden, I would also love your input on the Hubspot article (maybe later, whenever you have time). It's a marketing software company best-known for the marketing they do for themselves and their advocacy for inbound marketing (very well-known in marketing circles)
I routinely go back to my older (crappier) COI works and clean them up and this is one of those. The reviewer said it was still a promotional puff piece and that non-COI editors should take over further improvement, but realistically nobody else besides myself is ever going to bring it up to GA. And it is always hard to tell when there is so much emphasis on my COI whether the article is actually promotional or if it is a response to my COI disclosure. I asked Edge3 (a very good GA reviewer) but he was unavailable. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But NFOOTY is a rule of thumb, "met" in this case by literally 10 minutes of game time. It seems like you just counted votes. Please correct me if wrong. Will take to DRV. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. I did not count votes. I read it all and reached the conclusion that the point made about it meeting WP:NFOOTBALL had consensus. Feel free to take it to DRV if you disagree. I certainly don't see myself closing it any other way. → Call meHahc2102:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing articles on XBLA games for several years now, and I've been getting better it over time. I've recently brought Blood Knights up to GA level, and it's the first article I've done that I feel might been a viable candidate for Featured Article. Before I move forward with that, however, I wanted to ask you and a few other people that are involved in video game FACs what their thoughts are on the matter. In short, does the article have a realistic chance of going through FAC successfully? How much work would it take to be at that level? Your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Sven ManguardWha?22:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sven Manguard: Happy to take a look. I did a fast glimpse and noted something: Put the gameplay section before the plot one. I think it's fairly standard practice for video game featured articles. → Call meHahc2122:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously agree with the close but I think this one would benefit from a rationale for the close. You do know you will get pushback from the pro-porn crown don't you? SpartazHumbug!22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: Yes. I was starting to craft a rationale and then work pushed me out of the computer. I still have the tab opened, so I might get my closing comment ready before they realize it was closed. As a side note, I must admit that, in general, I always laugh a bit when people say zOMG she's a very well-known porn star!. → Call meHahc2122:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for delete, half of users support arguments of leaving and vote for keep. I know that AfD is not a voting/poll but also result of vote is 5:5. So, your bug. Correct description is "The result was no consensus". Besides, why AfD was closed? Last three votes were yesterday (two users) and the day before (one users), discussion was still active. You closed active discussion and also no consensus transform to consensus for delete. I know, 1 April - April Fool's day, ok, but today is 2 April, please fix own bug or joke. If you want to delete the article must to be consensus. Any consensus not exist. Please return the article. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)13:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the delete arguments were far more stronger, and none of the keep votes successfully addressed the argument that this BLP met the revised notability criteria for porn artists. → Call meHahc2116:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hahc21. I am contacting you because Mark Arsten is not available. He deleted the above article last year, and it has been deleted several times before. Now, though, the Wikiproject Professional Wrestling people have indicated that Ms. Eagles is now notable and the draft is okay to be added to the encyclopedia. I am not an admin, so I can't see what condition the page was in when it was deleted before. Also, I am not a wrestling fan, just a person who likes to improve old drafts, so since this title has a bad reputation I thought that I should ask someone to make sure that it is substantially improved before I move it to mainspace. Would you mind taking a look? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne Delong:This is how it was right before being deleted a year ago. I see some substantial differences, but I know nothing of wrestling either. Hope this helps! → Call meHahc2123:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that helps. I wanted to make sure that I was not recreating content that had been deleted for cause. I am going to move the article to mainspace and see what happens.... —Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you deleted my article called "Anti-Nazi Propaganda". The discussion was far from closed, and by deleting it you violated Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article (it's not yours) because it was listed at AfD and consensus was to delete it. The discussion lasted for seven days, and I saw a clear consensus there, so no reason to keep it opened for longer. However, I'm puzzled as to why you believe that my deletion (or my close, not sure) violated WP:NPOV. Such policy applies for article content, not articles or administrative actions. And additionally, NPOV is not a leeway to get any article kept "just because the opposite topic has an article". → Call meHahc2114:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you read the whole discussion or not, but it was far from a four-gone conclusion. I believe you violated WP:NPOV by deleting the article, which was in favor of some users point of view in the discussion, which again, was not finished. It really seems like such a waste. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ancient Trader you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Status -- Status(talk)00:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hahc21. Congratulations on being given the administrative tools. I know it's a tad late, but I'm glad you got such an overwhelming amount of support. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk06:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hahc21: I see that you closed the Afd on Madison Eagles. On the talk page there is a template notification about the decision, but it points to the 2009 discussion instead of to the most recent one. Can you help with this? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this AfD prematurely. Whilst it may have looked like a strong consensus existed, there were many problems with the information given in the discussion that I have been prevented from addressing. The most important being the sheer weight being placed on her SHIMMER work. The only promotion that I know of where someone can be notable through that promotion alone is WWE - and maybe TNA and ROH. None of the other SHIMMER champions have such a limitation, which is why they have had articles for some time (indeed Cheerleader Melissa has worked substantively for TNA as Raeisha Saed). The length of the title reign is misleading, given that sometimes title reigns of lesser promotions can be just as long or even longer - and that's still not enough to make a person notable. As for the #1 position on the PWI Top 50 females, I fail to see how that stands up given her lack of work outside of SHIMMER. It's a suspicious result if I may say that really has no real explanation - especially as she was injured for most of the year that she won (this is actually mentioned in the article). I ask that the closure be reviewed in order for me to correct these errors made by the contributors so a fuller discussion can be undertaken. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert my close, sorry. It looked pretty clear that it was going to be kept, and that's why I went ahead of time and close it. Nobody except you has argued against it, and that gives me the impression that you have something against that article that goes beyond my understanding. So does the fact that you took it to AfD barely 24 hours after it was created but maybe I'm just failing to assume good faith. Anyways. Take it to DRV if you wish, that's the place you already know is for this kind of things. → Call meHahc2101:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD's aren't decided on number of votes. I went straight to AfD because it had been salted and the issues the previous AfD's showed had not been resolved. She is not notable. DRV is for reviews of deletions, not keeps, and that's why I came to your talk page to start with. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but DRV is not for deletions. DRV is to discuss AfD closes, regardless of if they were closed as keep or delete. However, I understand and appreciate that you came to my talk page first (it shows decency and courtesy), but I am still unwilling to change my close. I know that AfD is not decided on number of votes, but if six users vote keep in less than 24 hours, it is usally a good indicator that the article is not going to get deleted (of course, unless we have sockpuppets, which is not the case here, or we are talking about those infamous lame dissapearance of/murder of/controversy of AfDs, which is not the case either). Given that, the burden is now on you to convince the community that she's still not notable, and not on the community to prove otherwise. The content of the new version of the article is indeed quite significant from when it was last deleted. → Call meHahc2104:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hahc21. Just wanted to let you know I (and two others) made a few adjustments to your close.
For consistency, I restored an oppose !vote made prior to your close. (The candidate restored a support !vote, also made before your close, but did not restore the oppose !vote). I think it could have been either way (the !votes included or not included) since the candidate had withdrawn. It seemed a bit dubious for the candidate to choose which !votes were kept and not so some times it's worth looking out for that before closing.
I adjusted the closing numbers to reflect the final count in a few places as such.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent is generally kept at the last 7 most recent RFA/RFB as indicted in its editing instructions. I removed one entry after you added TheGeneralUser's RFA.
@Mkdw: I see. Looks like I was omitting a couple steps, lol. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I will make sure I read this section everytime I decided to close an RfA :) → Call meHahc2117:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: There really wasn't anything dubious that I did there. I had withdrawn my nomination at 00:38 and Dennis made the support !vote at 00:41, so it is very likely that when Dennis was writing the comment I had not already withdrawn as the gap was only of about 3 minutes, so I restored it as it was no big deal (see the page history). Whereas the oppose !vote was made at 1:31, almost an hour later when I had already withdrawn, so didn't see much point in restoring it. But since it was restored for consistency, it's no big deal either. Anyways thanks to you and other users for properly formatting and carrying out the necessary procedures. -TheGeneralUser(talk)10:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGeneralUser: I'm going to have to disagree. I realize you had no ill intentions but I firmly believe any candidate should not involve themselves in the !vote tally of their own RFA. As the candidate yourself it should not be at your discretion which !votes are kept and not during a close. Not only does that invite criticism but represents a very large conflict of interest. I certainly understand your reasoning, and if it were my RfA I probably would have wanted the same, but you had plenty of other options such as contacting Dennis or notified the closer following the procedural close and thus leaving it in the hands of someone else. If you're interested in becoming a sysop, it will be extremely important to avoid conflicts of interest (of any size) as any indications of cutting even the smallest of corners will be received poorly when assessing the candidate for the tools. What may seem like a small deal to you, and maybe to the majority of others, may end up being a big deal for someone else, and it's important to factor that in. Please don't take this as a judgement on yourself but as advice. Mkdwtalk16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahc21, recently IndianBio got frustrated with me transferring material to this article apparently sooner than ideal and just completely snapped. He's indicated that he refuses to even converse with me even after I gave an apology, telling me to "fuck the hell out" of his sandbox even though he had previously linked it to me for us to work. It was extremely rude of him. I don't know whether or not this simply a "heat of anger" type of moment, but either way he was quite rude. I advise against pinging him into this conversation as I don't want to risk any further anger lashing. Hoping this is just temporary, though it's still worrisome. I would post on his page myself to try and reconcile but right now chances are he'd quickly dismiss it. Please help? Seems to be going against WP:COOL even though there weren't content disputes or anything. If you post on his talk page about this, take caution- especially if reminding him to AGF as he seems convinced I'm a bad faith editor :/. If anything, it would be good to point out WP:BREATHER, WP:COOL, and WP:NPA. I'm no goody-two-shoes and don't pretend as though I am, but what he said was over the top. I'm frankly quite offended by it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Turns out his snapping was in fact heat of the moment, though still doesn't wish to interact with me. On the plus side, he apologized for lashing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I saw. I've known IndianBio for a while, and I recommend to let him alone for a while and then leave a friendly note on his talk page. He is not the kind of user who stops talking to people forever, and giving some room for him to breather is always good. → Call meHahc2116:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do plan to give space for a while, though am not sure how long it will be for. It might even be best to wait until he talks to me himself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pusher Love Girl".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk09:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in all honesty, I am not the best person to ask if the article is ready and will survive a random AfD, since I don't know much about how and under which circumstances terms are notable. I will unprotect the page but beware that it can be taken to AfD as soon as immediately! → Call meHahc2113:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware. Thanks for the restore! I believe the NY Times citation stating it is a major issue in a large industry should be enough to survive AfD, but only time will tell. Valoemtalkcontrib13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Solar 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sven Manguard -- Sven Manguard (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you remained silent after my last message on your talk page regarding the deletion of an article I created, I assume you realized you made a blunder. Jonas Vinther (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The fact that you disagree with my close doesn't make it inappropriate at all. Again: the you violated WP:NPOV claim is nonsense. NPOV is for writing article content, not taking administrative actions. There's a big difference. However, the fact that I'm not willing to overturn my close doesn't mean either that you can't contest it. You can feel free to file a deletion review of my close, and if it's overturned, I won't have problem with that. → Call meHahc2114:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to go that far, because everything single edit I do on Wikipedia is in the belief it's good faith edits. I have my mind and heart in the right place and I know I make a difference to Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Razr Nation/2014. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I sent it again. And, like last time, I'm not getting a copy of it (though the copy option is marked)...which suggests to me that you didn't receive it. How about you email me, and I'll reply to you that way? Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief reasoning. Though mostly I closed it as delete because the keep votes held no substantial weight against those commenting that the list was not notable. → Call meHahc2102:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you made a significant contribution to Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Any suggestions or advice is much appreciated. Thank you in advance! 66.215.147.124 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. Well, I don't know if the Czech Wikipedia has a BLP policy like us but thanks for dealing with this anf roe letting me know. Looks like your latest edits stodd in the article, and I hope it stays that way. However, feel free to contact me if problems arise again and I will make my way to contact a Czech administrator. Cheers. → Call meHahc2101:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi you deleted this article but thee is no evidence of a discussion. please clarify why several in line references to suport the man as the father of choral music in Sri lanka in mainstream newspapers writing full articles about him are insufficient assertions? Is it a matter of style? Could we please discuss86.129.87.210 (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you could review your decision to delete Roy Bowyer-Yin. He was a notable person, notable for his services to introducing choral music and various religious festivals to Sri Lanka. My understanding from A7 is that "it is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." It seems to have been deleted without even considering anything said in support or in discussion. I would be grateful if the discussion in its talk page could be considered and your decision to delete reviewed. Above all if the assertions are not strong enough should you not try to be constructive and look at the citations to help another wikipedian improve the article about a truly notable person? Fattutor (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you going to assess consensus for a ban -- which was obviously a snow close for a ban -- it's expected you state the terms of the ban on each editor's talk page. NE Ent02:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
