|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at
Please read before posting
- Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.
- If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond, it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
- If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
- If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
- If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
- While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
- I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.
Debresser/Jerusalem AE close
Any chance you could clarify that to permit non-substantive changes? It shouldn't affect WP:GNOME work, like fixing a punctuation error or updating a link to a page that moved. Someone cleaning up the same typo in 100 articles might not even notice that one page was under a restriction that peculiar. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that putting something like that directly in the restriction would just result in endless bickering over whether a specific change is "substantive" or not. That article has been like that for years now. Realistically, though, if someone were doing batch minor fixes or the like, and someone were to bring that to AE to complain, it would get quickly closed with no action and possible sanctions on the filer for frivolous complaints. De minimis non curiat lex, and such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
SAP HANA Page Deletions
I tend to agree with the lack of neutral tone in some of the content you've deleted, but you're deleting the majority of the page and turning it into a stub entry. Can we please discuss on the talk page ways to improve the page, and remove any non-neutral tone content as opposed to mass deletion. It is hard to find a database page that is worse off based on the deletion level you just took. q (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, my mistake. :( I am kind of new with Wikipedia edits and started to provide information about this topic as it was almost empty and I know some info. Thanks for your comments in helping me to become a better editor. I will make edits to remove some of the text I added that could be interpreted as promotional or biased. I am going to add more edits to other articles too. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvw80 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Notque: I'll be happy to discuss with you, but the article must not remain an ad while any such discussion takes place, since promotion isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Please ensure not to insert or reinsert promotional material going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: I have not added promotional material, I have undone mass deletions to the content. I do not desire for it to be promotional, but instead to be a reasonable database article. This would be a higher quality database article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Database which has several of the concepts which you are calling advertisement. You've again deleted a features list which is important detail in any technical article. An example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl - the standards you are proposing are not about advertisement, but instead about not listing technical details. I think that's fundamentally flawed. Nothing should be promotional on the page, we are agreed, but there has to be technical content to convey messaging like any other technical article. q (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Example, your edit removing excessive naming, and fluff is a good edit in my view. Deleting all the technical features is a bad edit in my view. It is not an advertisement. If you're problem with it is format, editing the content into a different format is the proper response. Not deleting it. I have no intention of edit warring, so I will not undo the deletion, but we need to come to some sort of consensus on how to include the technical detail. q (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Re expired sanctions
Even though these are closed, I have concerns that this might be counted against me in any future disputes. I don't feel safe editing GG/ZQ articles right now, for example. A sanction being gone via expiration is nice, but not as nice as having it discredited and dismissed for being wrong in the first place.
Would you know if there is anything else to appeal to show that it was never warranted in the first place? Even now I don't think Gamaliel's actions were justified. The content I brought up on the talk page is stuff I think is still justified for article inclusion, but I obviously don't want to discuss adding it again on the talk page if it would just lead to more sanctions. Particularly since if this record is being held against me, people might justify that for filing them for more than a year or an altogether ban.
In this case the issue was that I linked a statement from the article subject about one of her past careers and whether we should include that in her background. This has both primary and secondary support. Instead of just discussing it peacefully on the talk I got sanctioned for even bringing it up which was pretty ridiculous. Ranze (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Gamaliel isn't around at this time, and also is no longer permitted to place sanctions in that topic area. I'd be hesitant to say a sanction was definitely invalid, when the individual who placed it isn't around to explain and defend the decision. Your request didn't really assert that you thought it was never justified, you seemed more to be asking to be given another chance, which was moot since expiration already did that. I think for now, best to drop it, and if you return to that particular topic area (which you need not do, we've got millions of other articles), treat that as a reminder that it's a very sensitive area, and you should be cautious in editing it, especially where living people are concerned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
- Discussion report: Busy month for discussions
- Featured content: A wide variety from the best
- Traffic report: Sports and esports
- Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks