User talk:TonyBallioni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The deceased individual[edit]

Just so you know, I feel a bit unsafe making edits about the recently deceased person we're talking about, because I sometimes do some traveling in the region. (Nervous smile.) - Alternativity (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternativity, thats fine. Never do something on here that makes you feel unsafe. I reached out because I thought someone in the Philippines might have a better ability to find sources confirming death than I would. I'm normally pretty good about turning these types of articles around, but with recent deaths from outside of North America and the UK it is harder to finding obits to confirm death. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Do note my most recent edit in the discussion. I'm now pretty convinced this is a problem of two separate but similarly named individuals. - Alternativity (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I am sure they are distinct. I commented there as well. Its a messy situation in what seems to be a messy region politically. Hopefully BLPN will get more eyes on the issue and we can get things sorted out. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ACC needs help![edit]

Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!

Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Dane. Right now I've been pretty busy with WP:ACTRIAL coming up and also cleaning up after some COI sockfarms. I'll consider it in a few months, but right now my focus is unfortunately on other things. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I completely understand! Offer is on the table for whenever you're ready if you decide it interests you! -- Dane talk 04:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

New discussions on Catholicism and Catholicity[edit]

Hi, I saw that you took part in resolving several issues regarding Catholicism. Recently, some of those issues and discussions have been reopened on the page Talk:Catholicism (term), and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, 1669–70[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Papal conclave, 1669–70 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[edit]

User TonyBallioni,

Please see I hope this clears things up. 63784563583073562973A (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi 63784563583073562973A, I requested another user review the subject as well, and he concurred with my assessment on the notability of this academic. He has listed the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Bashkansky. You are free to comment there about the case for the professor's notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Request of clarification about "Proposed deletion of ZeroTier"[edit]

Hi Tony,
I received your notification the proposed deletion of ZeroTier page. The page was deleted too.
ZeroTier is an app that delivers VPN, SDN, and SD-WAN capabilities for computer networking. It allows users to connect laptops, desktops, phones, embedded devices, cloud resources, and apps (almost any kind of device or application), any way they want anywhere they go. ZeroTier's technology is free and open source.
ZeroTier Inc. is the company that has developed ZeroTier - along with other solutions.
We would like to know if it's possible for us to have a Wikipedia Page - either for the app/software or for the company - or if it is just not allowed at all.
If you can give us your advice or help us with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding our issue it would be great. It will also prevent any other content from being marked for deletion again.
Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldina.scarascia (talkcontribs) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geraldina.scarascia the page was deleted under the speedy deletion criterion for spam by administrator Jimfbleak. Jim made the determination that the article was promotional to the point where it would have to be entirely rewritten to be able to be included in Wikipedia. If you are associated with the company, you should read our guidance at WP:COI. Typically a company or product must meet our sourcing standards as found in this guideline to be included in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for ping, Tony. Geraldina.scarascia, apart from the spamming, you also failed to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to your company, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims. Also read this guidance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network[edit]

Hi Tony, Re: request for deletion of the wiki page for Al-Shabaka Al-Shabaka,_The_Palestinian_Policy_Network. Can you clarify the concern on notability? It seems that the think tank is cited or referenced in numerous media articles, scholarly journals, books, etc. Some of these were referenced in sections that you have deleted. Is it a formatting issue or something problematic with the references themselves? Would like to keep this up, if possible and if its an editing issue. Thanks (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the proposed deletion as a courtesy and listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network to be discussed by the community. My reasoning for deletion is there. Re: the board members, they weren't in the link you provided, and we typically don't list board members in see also. Another editor found a source, and added them to the prose of the article as Wikilinks. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

David Coffey -- Speedy Deletion[edit]

I read your comments and agree that many of the sources were self promotion. However, he is a C-Level Executive at LegalShield and is listen on their Wiki page. His publications are noteworthy including the American Bar Association. I believe with the edits in place now that our guidelines are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Instaslam84, thanks for the message. The article is not up for speedy deletion, I have sent it to be discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Coffey. Re: your claim to notability here, I still don't see it. Being the chief digital marketing officer for an organization does not make one notable, and the independent sourcing that is available on Mr. Coffey is not enough to pass our notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wanna mop?[edit]

Hi KDS4444, I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to remove permissions. That's too bad, Tony, but it's fixable. You certainly belong to the category "oh I thought he was already an admin". 16k edits, over a year of recent activity, article creation, civility record, policy pages... you're the kind of user that every wiki would like for an admin. What do you say? No such user (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No such user, thank you for your kind words :) My standard excuse of avoiding the crucible is that my focus has been seeing that WP:ACTRIAL is implemented, but as the lovely red timer there shows, I need to find another excuse soon Face-wink.svg. On a more serious note: its something people have approached me about a few times now. Since a few other projects on-wiki and in real life are winding down now, its something I'll think about moving forward. Thanks again for your vote of confidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, if you insist on waiting for the WMF to actually get off their trouser-hams and do something, we'll never see you there :p — fortunavelut luna 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least I don't have an RfA shortcut, WP:ADFIM TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Should I take it as a yes or a no, then? Sounds like a resounding "maybe". No such user (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Heh, I like that turn of phrase, a resounding maybe. Serious answer: it is something I'll consider and am thinking about because I've had a fair amount of people approach me on and off-wiki about it. It isn't something I feel the need to rush towards, however. I wish I could do better than give you the resounding maybe, but that is where I am right now. Nothing ruled out, but nothing set in stone either. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Feel free to drop me a note when you feel ready, and I'm sure there are other talk page stalkers that would be glad to fill the nom. I predict an easy sailing through. No such user (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I am also ready to jump on the bandwagon. Alex ShihTalk 16:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Company notability[edit]

You wrote, "We're actually pretty good at catching corporations at NPP. AfD and PROD are the area where it gets tricky because like I said above, the GNG can be argued on either side for most English-speaking corporations."

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at List of Y Combinator startups. These folks have the art of review down to a science. They know not to include employee counts or VC dollars invested, at least not in the first few days. Then the article is supported by references from the likes of Techcrunch. Eventually it has a WP presence and the standards that would normally be applied at NPP are forgotten. Here is a great example: ReadyForZero. When you look under the covers it was a startup with a $260K investment in 2010. By 2016, a buyer had shut it down completely. I edited to change the voice to past tense. When looked at through the lens of today, it was a failed startup that cost its investors $5 million. Probably not notable at the time or in retrospect. I would lose my hand, though if I pushed it to the center of a deletion discussion.

A more recent example is UpCodes which passed review, and when prodded, whose author claimed that the Y Combinator website (its VC-incubator) was a reliable source. Just as bold, I think, was the claim that Curbed was a reliable source, when it, in turn, scraped its piece from TechCrunch.

In the absolute horseshit pile is Immunity Project which should be categorized as CRIME. It's not clear quite who these people are. It claims to be a non-profit, but it is relying on an existing charity's IRS registration. Forty one percent of its spending is on salaries. It took in $861K in 2015, while spending only $292K. It put a cool half million in the bank. Some charity. The article says the organization is doing HIV/AIDS research. The for-profit research company says it experimented on a hundred mice. To be clear, it was experimentation on adjuvants used with microsphere vaccine delivery, not work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine per se. Even if it were, to provide a free HIV vaccine will take another billion or so to carry it though human trials. We WP editors sure got suckered on this one, letting a SPA publish a promo piece for a charity that isn't very charitable. We shoulda known. The initial article described Phase 1 Clinical Trials.[1] That means tests on healthy test subjects. Rhadow (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, thanks for this message. As a general trend, Wikipedia's standards have been increasing over time and you've come along to Wikipedia where there is a lot of discussion in the community about this very subject and how we balance our priorities of aiming to be the sum of human knowledge while also not being an advertising platform. We have work to do in that realm, and I've advocated for a move towards using SNGs (subject notability guidelines) as a way to both include everything we should include, while excluding that which we shouldn't. Its a controversial position on both sides of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, but I think it is the best way forward if we want to work through these tensions as a project.
As for how to handle these cases now while we are seeing a surge in advertising on en.Wiki because of its prominence? There's no simple solution, part of it is discussing with the community how to handle it. Part of it is educating new page patrollers on notability standards and what promotion looks like. Part of it is working through old articles that are notable and bringing them up to current standards in terms of content. I do think NPP is doing a much better job at working through the feed and finding content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia than we were doing even a year ago, but there are certainly ways we can improve. I'd be interested if any talk page stalkers wanted to join the conversation as to if they had thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni -- We need to accept three things first, then we can solve the remainder of WP's challenges. (1) Most people would rather fight or complain than make whoopee or be productive. (2) Given that, crowdsourcing WP will always be inefficient, with people arguing over stuff then redoing it out of spite, and (3) Editors want every cricket player, dart thrower, and discovered galaxy in the book. Just accept all that. Then worry about making life better for the reader of the encyclopedia. More to follow ... eventually. Rhadow (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) While reviewing I see many articles about award-winning online marketplaces, business process management solutions, proprietary frameworks and whatever else startups call themselves. They're invariably referenced to routine announcements in industry publications and given awards by connected industry groups. They're created by users who got autoconfirmed by making a few inconspicuous minor edits to a few random pages. Of course these are throwaway accounts from paid editors. They'll write something seemingly neutral and insert the real pitch later, once the article has passed review. The patterns of undisclosed paid editing are pretty easy to detect. It's not that we don't see them; we don't know how to stop them. What's missing is a comprehensive set of tools, policies and guidelines to deal with the abuse of Wikipedia as a PR tool. The WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are woefully inadequate, as is WP:G11. In fact, I suspect the GNG may be at the root of the problem. With an effective PR team, anyone and anything can get enough coverage in the mainstream media to pass the GNG. Avoiding G12 by not explicitly writing "buy my stuff" is a piece of cake. Only the most unsophisticated spammers can't do that. Writing a piece of neutral-sounding, verifiable advertising is very doable, and it's what PR professionals know how to do better than anyone. It's still advertising, and volunteer editors should not be coerced to fix it for the advertisers. My hope is that the discussions at AfD will gradually become more perceptive and less tolerant of advertising and that guidelines will develop from the emerging consensus at AfD. If I can't get toxic industrial waste deleted at Afd, then I haven't made a convincing case. It's up to me to do better. If people are interested in a few post-mortems on failed nominations for deletion to learn how to present our arguments better, I'd be up for that. Mduvekot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I started a discussion about raising standards at NCORP here that has kind of petered out but should be revived. I was waiting more more input from people of High Standing here who have argued against other efforts to deal with spammy editing by saying "Raise NCORP standards" before pushing forward, but none of them have chimed in, which is ... eyebrow raising for me. But we should pick that thread up and drive it home. There is actually a pretty clear path to get consensus there in my view. I am going to leave notes in a couple of places and then pick up that thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, I actually think waiting to see how the current discussion at WT:PROF turns out would be ideal. PROF is generally agreed to be the gold standard of a good SNG, and if consensus at that page is that we can make SNGs better than the GNG or the less respected SNGs such as NSPORT or NMUSIC, it could be a starting point for future discussions on making a clearer and more objective notability system. I'm pinging DGG on this as well: he really is the intellectual heavyweight behind improving SNGs, and I value his thoughts here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I see very little chance of changing NPROF, ever; in my view the current RfC was doomed to fail and is failing now to gain consensus. In my view there are a bunch of academics in WP who want it to be very easy to create fake WP articles that are just proxies for a faculty webpage, and see no problem with that (!) and have even thrown in my face, my effort to fix NPROF in the past. It is typical academic arrogance and myopia but what can you do. However most everyone (including those academics) don't like the notion of a fake WP article that is a proxy for a company webpage so there is a good chance of raising NCORP.
DGG already gave a long "oppose" !vote at the NPROF RfC here.
But anyway I think we can actually get consensus to raise NCORP - it is there now, just waiting to be gathered up. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, its going to fail and DGG and I have roughly the same position on it. The advantage I see to letting it play out before trying to raise NCORP is that if it plays out like we both suspect it will, it will show that the idea that the community has rejected SNGs as alternatives to the GNG is simply false. It is a case-by-case basis. My ping to DGG was more on getting his thoughts on the idea of reforming NCORP and how he thinks it should play out. I do think it'd be a good idea to work towards a draft of standards for what a new NCORP could like, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

in reality,decisions at WP:PROF are much more restrictive than in many other fields of endeavor--our tolerance for articles on minor figures in sport or entertainment is much greater. This essentially reflects the community interests. I and the others supporting the WP:PROF guideline interpret it rather strictly--the minor academics who get in do so because there is enough foolish publicity about their minor accomplishments, especially for young people who are not yet in any sense professional researchers-- and that, of course, is the fault of the GNG,which is designed to accept even a very low level of press coverage. There is less promotional activity in this area, though there is some, but it is only rarely from editing rings. If it is not outrageous and the notability is clear, I generally rewrite. It's actually a much easier field to work in, because it has a formal heretical structure of its own and clear internal standards. And there is little need for a person in this field to use WP to help their career.
WP:CORP is just the opposite in every respect. Decisions at AfD are erratic. It tends to be interpreted very loosely--even I did in my first few years here, but it has changed with the rise in promotionalism. There tends to be a great deal of unsubstantial press coverage, most of it not truly independent, so the GNG can be very permissive unless interpreted strictly. Community interest varies with the specific business. There is immense promotional activity in this area, and a fertile field for undeclared paid editors, because success as a business is very dependent upon advertising, and Google et al use WP results. There are few objective standards for importance, and possible numerical criteria need to vary by industry. It's a very unattractive field to work in -- except for paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll be glad to work with you on standards, but the most likely ones are for the GNG to become more restrictive about what counts as a RS for notability, and then for us to start using it to delete articles, against the expected opposition of those few but very determined editors who consider promotionalism irrelevant. If we do have a notability standard, it would have to be explicitly worded as an additional restriction on the GNG, which I think would be a good idea, but goes against recent trends. Unless it is worded as an explicit limitation and accepted as such, it will be useless, DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned there are some good proposals in the conversation there - I hope you check it out. They need to be gathered up and shaped at this point... Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure if your reply was to DGG or myself so I'm pinging him in case it was for him. I agree we need to move forward on this and collect them into a feasible proposal. Whatever happens, I hope it can truly be a consensus proposal so it gets broad support and not just the standard 66-70% supermajority that often defines "consensus" here. The proposals at WT:NCORP do have a lot of good ideas. Figuring out how to synthesize them into something people can get behind is the hard part, but I hope we can do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your Big Bag of Tools[edit]

Sorry, I'm crap at formatting so you may want to move it around. Or, indeed, get rid of it, and I apologise for touchig your page. — fortunavelut luna 09:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for putting it on there. Though it's one less reason to go to WP:FIM WP:THEOTHERFIM ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
You did such valuable work helping get ACTRIAL get off the ground. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll second this, Tony. Although late to the party, your work and persuasion were key factors in finally getting this thing launched after all these years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • For those following at home, from what I can tell, the last article created by a non-AC user before ACTRIAL was rolled out was Delhi Public School Numaligarh. It is a G12 piece. For some reason this does not surprise me. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
And G11. Gone nearly as quickly as it arrived. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Very apt. On the nose, in fact! — fortunavelut luna 08:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Really appreciate all the leadership shown on ACTRIAL. A major step forward in ensuring this project is more reliable. Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A page that sneaked under the wire was The Line Madder and it was quickly tagged for COI, Notability, Copyvio investigation and sent to AfD. Ya, this will take a load off our NPP team. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

- and SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Hi. On this IP's talk page you posted: "Make sure you've examined this IP's edits and edit summaries carefully before templating." Can you elaborate on this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sure. They're a good faith contributor with a static IP that contributes steadily to Christianity articles in a good faith manner. I copied the template from one NeilN posted on another one of our regular IPs talk pages. That IP had been getting mindless vandalism templates for good faith edits that actually improved Christian cleric articles a few months back to the point where I think they even received a "final warning" one. It was just a message to let the vandal patrollers know to look carefully. Are there currently any issues going on? I hadn't noticed them being active recently, but I'm also working less with clerics these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a serious issue, just a disagreement about formatting of reference sections, nothing that we can;t work out, I'm sure. I took a look at their contribs and they seemed good to me, so I was curious which way your notice was intended to be read. Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It was not a negative. Simply a reminder to think first before adding a template. I'll also leave them a note. I saw your disagreement and while I don't always agree with them on things, I think we have a decent working relationship. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello, your picture from the Alambric palace is beautiful. BTW, I'm FIM's missus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:101D:639:1:2:2964:B058 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

2A01:4C8:101D:639:1:2:2964:B058: Ah, lovely to meet you. He's quite a treat. It is actually from the Saint Petersburg Mosque. I found it randomly on Commons and thought it would be good to add some colour. I'm a huge fan of Islamic architecture, and this one was quite colourful and has a distinctly Russia flair to it, which I thought was nice. Anyway, hope you all enjoy your holiday. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting[edit]

Hello TonyBallioni,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi I dream of horses, thanks for the work you do stub sorting. Like I said the last time we had this conversation, I will continue to use the default {{stub}} template placed by page curation if it is not obvious which of the stubs on this list it belongs to. If I understood PamD correctly at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#22._Adding_stub_tags, this is preferable to my guessing which semi-specific stub it would belong to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree with PamD. (I won't ping her again since you did already.) It's probably better to use the semi-specific stub templates over {{stub}}. Even the semi-specific stub templates help Wikiprojects find articles they need to expand.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Explanation[edit]

Hi Tony, Thank-you for the message you left on my user page regarding copyright issues on the St Peters Catholic College Wikipedia page. Whilst I'm new to Wikipedia I have taken the time to ensure that all of my article was produced and referenced correctly and without it being in breach of any copyright. Please can you be specific on what you feel was a copy right breach in my article? In addition to this you may like to also take a look at several other College's that could potentially have the same copy right issue. One in particular is Marist Brothers College that has very limited references under their Alumni but it has not been deleted. The history material is what is listed on their College website under history and again has not been deleted. Below is a link to this College. I did follow the College Please be very specific in your response as to what you feel was copyrighted and how that differs to other Colleges who have created article's that have not been deleted yet created under the same Guidelines and in the same format. Thank-you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leathom (talkcontribs) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leathom, thanks for the note. Several sections of the article (I believe about the logo/motto/seal if I recall correctlly) were copied directly from this website which has a copyright symbol on the bottom, which means it is unambiguously not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know about the other article. I will have a look at it when I'm not on mobile. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Leathom, I did an automated and manual search of the page you linked to and could not find any copyright violations that were not Wikipedia mirrors. If you could provide a link for me to check it against, I could do a further check on that article. Regardless of the shape of other articles, however, the text that you introduced into Wikipedia was copyrighted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni Thank-you for your note, I will fix the issue with the logo however why did you delete the Alumni that were referenced correctly? Regarding the Marist Wikipedia page, please view the references that are citied that are no longer linked to referenced material including numbers 4 through to 7. Additionally their history is taken from their website In addition to this most of their Alumni are not citied in any referenced material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethom (talkcontribs) 00:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Leathom, the link you provided from that website is not turning yo any material in the article according to this tool. I removed the alumni listing from your article because it was excessively long and not a summary. To be blunt: it was bad writing. If there are a few very notable alumni it might be appropriate to include them there. The list I removed is in the article's history, so you can go there to see them and add a few back if need be. Also, as an FYI, please sign your post with four tildes like this ~~~~ Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Unverifiable claim in Jennifer Palmieri wiki page[edit]

Hey Tony,

I received your message concerning my removal of a portion of the Jennifer Palmieri wiki page: the questionable content I removed bolded below.

Palmieri attracted controversy when an email chain allegedly showing Clinton aides joking about Catholics and evangelicals in 2011 was released by Wikileaks[4] after individuals with connections to the Russian government conducted a spear-phishing attack against Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies later concluded,[5] as part of an operation to prevent Hillary Clinton[6] from winning the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[7]'Bold text'

No this was not a mistake. The spear phishing attack was investigated, and found that while phisher emails in fact existed, there is no evidence that one was opened, and a subsequent breach occurred (from opening a phishing email). On the contrary the intelligence group VIPS helped surface cyber forensic data which makes the claim of a remote hack virtually impossible (due to data transfer rates), and more importantly proved, the original hacked files did not contain Russian meta data, which was added weeks later before the release of the claimed source Guccifer 2.

Because of the frenzy of positions and news stories claiming all of the above and more, and the lack of any published evidence of Russia's involvement, I thought it in the better interest of the wiki, to remove the claims rather than add additional ones. Of course, if we do learn with certainty one way or the other, it would be sensible that those findings are added to the the page at that time.

Just keepin it real :)

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, this seems to be in your realm of the wiki. Would you mind taking a look at that page. I reverted an unexplained removal of content by the above IP. Its on my watchlist because their was some particularly nasty BLP violations there during the election. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Tony. I checked out the article and you were right to restore this material. Its sourcing was weak (one reference was to a Wikipedia article) but I have added several references and it is now well sourced. I also rewrote the run-on sentence for clarity. There is a claim going around that "It wasn't really Russia", but the evidence that it was is still accepted by most Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Melanie. I have no idea what the current Russia consensus is on Wikipedia, but figured you would know. @, see MelanieN's note above in reference to your question here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Now that ACTRIAL is up and running, do you fancy giving this a go? It would be good to see two RfAs running at the same time; it may motivate more to come forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've sent you an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello TonyBallioni, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Need your expertise[edit]

Hi, here is what I've discoverd: M.U.R. has been in the NPP queue since July 2008. It should probably be merged along with another article into an existing main article. The other 2 involved articles are: Mouvements Unis de la Résistance and National Council of the Resistance, the latter being the obvious choice as the main article to merge everything. Then, when some enterprising editors decide to spin-off the other two from the main article, let's hope they'll take the time to expand them into real articles with citations to RS. Where I need help is knowing the best way and/or proper steps to making this 3 article merge happen. Atsme📞📧 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I haven't had much time to look at the specifics, but the reason that article was put into the new pages feed today was because RA0808 redirected it to an existing article before reverting themselves. This triggered it to be marked as unreviewed. I'd suggest working with them to figure out what the best merge target would be if there is one, and what to include in it.
In terms of attribution, its pretty simple: you perform an edit summary attribution of the text and redirect the article to the new target. Placing Template:Copied on the talk page isn't required but would likely be wise in this instance to make sure someone in the future doesn't delete the redirects that contain the page history. The normal way for doing this attribution would be something like: Content copied from [[Foo]], see that page's history for attribution. . For more information you can see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:FMERGE. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello all (pinging Atsme), just responding to the tag here. I originally came across the issue at Mouvements Unis de la Résistance and M.U.R. while beginning some cleanup for a newly translated article on French Resistance member Claude Rodier (its still early stages). When I searched Mouvements Unis de la Résistance (the WWII French Resistance group, which is linked from multiple resistance-related pages such as Women in the French Resistance) the page was entirely about M.U.R. (the 1990s Lebanese resistance group). This was because another user, Elias.nadim, had overwritten the previous content at Mouvements Unis de la Résistance by copying the M.U.R. article. I neglected to delve deeper into the page history at the time and initially thought this was a mistaken duplication by an editor who didn't know about the Page Move process... so I redirected to M.U.R. After noticing that Mouvements Unis de la Résistance was not linked from any Lebanese articles, I took a closer look at the page history and realized my mistake hence the self-revert.
It should also be noted that M.U.R. has no relation whatsoever to the French group besides having the same full name. The former was a WWII era French organization and the latter a 1990s anti-Syrian Lebanese militant group. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
RA0808, I've fixed the attribution for that page. Anthony Appleyard, this is an odd situation because it was only one or two edits with a revert. I'm pretty confident this is a parallel histories situation, but if you wouldn't mind confirming, I'd appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)@RA0808: just fixing the ping TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Hey, got your message. Did I miscount? It seems like I've restored tags twice and then made a compromise change. All my edits are backed by policy and t he relevant guidelines are far as I can tell. Let me know if you see something I don't. In the meantime I'm working on getting more eyes on the article. Thanks. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, you did full revert twice [2] [3]. You then partial reverted Nick-D with this edit, and restored part of your tagging [4]. WP:3RR includes partial reverts. That's 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. The warning just lets you know you've hit the line. I'd also caution you that while 3RR is a bright line, slow edit warring and gaming the 3RR by reverting just outside the 24 hour period are still considered edit warring. I don't have any intent to get involved with the content dispute on that page, but I wanted to let you know where you were. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. Thanks ofr th ehead's up. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi Tony, thank you for all your comments and kind words at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)