User talk:Adam9007/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

REALLY ADAM?

SHOW ME AN ATTACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I quote directly - "you f---ing tyrannical editors". Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a description, not an attack. It's 100% accurate to describe WP editors in this fashion. You're always fighting me despite my constant improvement to the content on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not what you say; it's how you say it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So you are easily offended. Yep, no backbone. I don't care how things are said, I care about the accuracy of what's being said. Clearly that's the difference between us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you throw a wobbler, nobody's going to listen to you. If you say something politely, they will. Your tone makes all the difference. Adam9007 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

i DON'T CARE. I haven't seen any instances of where I've been wrong or made vandalizing edits. that's what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. The essay WP:PRAM explains this far better than I could. How you go about business matters far more than who's right. Adam9007 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And... that's the problem with Wikipedia. You don't actually care about the integrity of the information on the site. You care about honoring your mob mentality. Entrenched editors are always right and always gang up on other people. Again, do you wonder why you have 3% of the editors you had on the site 10 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, we care about integrity a great deal. As for honouring a mob mentality, there is none. Nobody is always right, and we are not ganging up on anyone. Consider that maybe it's your behaviour that's the issue here. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Yeah, I also suggested that he look at his own behaviour and wonder why nobody ELSE gets told to stop making personal attacks - while he gets told it over and over. He's not hearing us. I think it may be time to stop trying. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: He's stopped, touch wood. Adam9007 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoa Whoa Whoa. I'm married. TimothyJosephWood 18:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I don't get it? Adam9007 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume that it was a play on words. When you said "touch 'wood'", he said that he was married as he wanted to state jokingly that you implied MelanieN to touch wood (Timothyjoseph'wood'). Aren't dadjokes fun?! Yash! 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yash!: Ah, I get it. But I wasn't telling MelanieN to actually touch anything. You've heard of the expression touch wood? Adam9007 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Because of the fact that you were not actually telling MelanieN to touch anything, Wood said that not to touch him, and that was the actual joke, the play on words ;) Yash! 21:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Really, I just thought the expression was odd. I've never heard it "touch". Must be from the non-America parts of the world. Here it's "knock on wood", at which point I usually knock on my head, which is another double entendre. When your last name is Wood, you've heard them all. Or...at least I thought I had. TimothyJosephWood 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, you wood have come across quite a few puns about wood throughout your life. Yash! 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Having served in the military, the worst is waking up in a barracks with 50 soldiers and hearing "Morning Wood" fifty times. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, more accusations! I have never disrupted anything. I told an editor he blew an edit, and you two people who aren't involved gang up on me. Yep, Wikipedia editors can't see they are the problem.

Long ago I had to create a huge thread just to get hard-headed editors to correct one statistic. WP editors ignored multiple sources of information and instead they went with what one of their editors "thought" was right because he had the data first.

You people are always wrong. I've done nothing, ever, to hurt the site. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE WHO ARE HELPING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I shall defer to what other editors have since said to you. Adam9007 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to respond. The editor has been blocked for a month for refusing to drop the stick. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Adam9007! I saw your edit to Jungkook; I didn't know anything of the band, but the band does have their own article, it turns out. Thanks for yanking my A7 tag; it was a good call :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nura Woodson Ulreich Comment

Greetings!

I have converted the Speedy Deletion to a Proposed Deletion of the Nura_Woodson_Ulreich article. I suggest the data is either merged with the one book that has a wikipedia entry or the page is deleted. Please feel free to add your comments to the discussion.

Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

actually, the book page should be merged into the author, not the author into the book, because the other books would probably merit discussion also. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sonic 3D Blast may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• new|NA|November 20, 1996|EU|February 13, 1997|JP|October 14, 1998}}<ref>{{cite web|title=セガハード大百科] セガサターン対応ソフトウェア（セガ発売）|url=http://sega.jp/fb/segahard/ss/soft.html|website=Sega|publisher=Sega|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hydra change.

Hey man so if you've been reading the captain America comics he is actually a member of Hydra. This team affiliation is actually true. Ragtagpig (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Credible assertion in speedy deletions

Hello Adam9007. You've twice reverted the A7 tag applied by two editors to Ron Rave, with the edit summary "Article asserts enough significance to survive A7". He's a year nine student who's released some of his own mixtapes. He's not signed to any label.

You also reverted A7 on the autobio RtxHack, with the same edit summary. He claims, with no references, to have "hacked" (vague term) lots of web accounts, and to have defaced some web sites.

The articles assert significance, but how do they credibly assert it? Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

He's not 9; he's 13. Older than Daniel Radcliffe was when he started acting; one doesn't have to be an adult to be significant. The article says he's either signed to, or released stuff under Horus Music (I'm not sure what the difference is). As for RtxHack, hacking so many accounts on such sites could well lead to some sort of notability. i.e. it's a credible claim of significance. The fact that it doesn't in this case changes nothing, and it being unsourced doesn't make it any less credible. Adam9007 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean that Ron Rave is nine years old, I meant Year Nine, which here in the UK (and some other countries) is the ninth year of education - what in the US is called ninth grade. One certainly doesn't need to be an adult to be significant, and if he were signed to a label it would be even more significant that he was a year nine student. But like nearly all young, aspiring musicians, he's clearly just some guy who's put some of his mixtapes online.

By the way, nobody is signed to Horus Music, it's a self-publishing outfit, and indeed his article said (and still says) "Label: Self-Released/Horus Music Distribution". What is it about the Ron Rave article that you believe is a credible claim of significance? Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I misread what you said. But my point about age stands. If anyone can just sign up and distribute music, that's hardly significant, but that's not the impression the article gave. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So would you agree that the article currently makes no credible claim of significance? I would like to restore the A7 tag. OnionRing (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless anyone can find any evidence of notability? Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Secrets of how starting your own business

Sorry, but where is the claim of importance? That it's sold on Amazon, or that it has a Goodreads entry (written by the author)? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This does get into a scope discussion about web content, by the way. There was an RfC a while back that led to no objections to changing web content definition from distribution on internet to access on web browser. I've boldly implemented the change since the RfC ended a while ago and there were no post-close comments, but I wouldn't consider that change exactly policy since there was minimal participation in the overall RfC (in other words, if anyone objects I wouldn't consider the RfC we have now as proving a consensus). Appable (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Appable. BTW, I know, and most people do, what "bold" is--I'd rather you link the RfC. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: It states that Amazon is the publisher. Do Amazon publish books? It might not be credible if they don't. @Appable: Thanks for making the change; I was considering it, but, as with a lot of things, I never got around to it!. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Sorry, I forgot to link to that. I meant to link both terms as I did in my edit summary on the web notability page. Appable (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The link is wrong: this is it. Amazon doesn't really publish books; it sells them. This particular book is self-published--which is an automatic sign of non-notability, pretty much. Goodreads is just a website where people report on the books they're reading. But even a legitimate publisher releasing a book doesn't make it notable: these are not valid claims of importance. And the problem with that is that it clogs up the pipeline, since what you turn down for speedy deletion will need to go to AfD. (BTW, speedy deletion doesn't apply to books, of course, and I'm not going to delete a book even if it's only published electronically.) Drmies (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CSD

I'm thinking your definition of importance is significantly wide of the generally accepted standard here. This decline of speedy seems like a great example. What do you think is asserted? Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Married to and worked with a notable singer. What is this "generally accepted standard" you speak of? I see differing opinions left, right, and centre. Adam9007 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Association with notable people is not importance by any stretch of the imagination. WP:NOTINHERITED makes it clear that WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited. Common sense says importance isn't either. Perhaps it would be best to leave CSD patrols to someone with a bit more experience for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only does NOTINHERITED not apply to A7 (A7 is not about notability), but consensus is that a strong association with something or someone notable is a credible claim of significance. See here. Adam9007 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That RFC says it may be inhereited - not that it is inherited. This guy still fails the two-part test at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, specifically, part b. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If merely working with her is a CCS (I have had people agree with me), then being married to her as well most certainly is. Adam9007 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read part B before continuing CSD patrol. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I assure you, I understand part B perfectly well. I'm wondering if you do. Adam9007 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing CSD deletion tag in Imtiaz najim

I noticed that you removed the CSD tag in Imtiaz najim. Can you tell me why did you do that? :) Thanks Ayub407^talk 18:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an assertion of significance, and the article is clearly being worked on (it was tagged only a minute after the last edit). Adam9007 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The person isn't notable at all. Nor they will be any assertion of significance as this would be an autobiography. So would have been A7 applied. Ayub407^talk 18:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that doesn't necessarily mean A7 applies. It wasn't an A3 either, as an infobox is content. Just because it's an autobio doesn't mean it's bad faith; WP:BITE still applies. Adam9007 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the criteria of WP:A3, articles with only infobox can be tagged along with other criteria such as in this case, A7. Anyways, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imtiaz najim. Ayub407^talk 18:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where in WP:A3 it says infoboxes don't count as content. In fact it explicitly states "Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox". Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. Ayub407^talk 18:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Which it doesn't. Adam9007 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, you win. I leave the decision to the consensus now. Ayub407^talk 18:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion and the AFD was a ridiculous waste of time. Perhaps you'll learn from this experience as you patrol CSD going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BITE means nothing to you then does it? EDIT: I see you've tagged at as G3 hoax, i.e vandalism. Just because we cannot verify something doesn't mean it's a hoax. You're obviously more interested in biting newcomers than in assuming good faith. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You're really not getting it. If he's not signed to those labels, it's a hoax. At the end of the day, there are a ton of reasons that the article shouldn't exist and you have convinced me that you have absolutely no business patrolling new pages or CSD. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hoaxes are vandalism. There is no reason to assume bad faith here. He's not notable, that is all. Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And plus, this ins't biting. The author created an autobiography on himself which is strongly discouraged here and often end up being deleted unless if there is assert of significance supported by reliable source and written in neutral point of view. Ayub407^talk 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, just because it's an autobio doesn't mean bad faith. It's not a good reason for biting; he may simply be unaware of policy. Adam9007 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said it's bad faith. To be honest, I try to save the article before tagging. Sadly it couldn't happen to this one. Yes, he is unaware of the policy, that is why wikipedia have those notices to put in the talk page to let people know. I assume he is aware of it now if he saw my message and another user's message. Ayub407^talk 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but by hastily tagging for CSD, you are in effect telling him he's not wanted. Adam9007 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that he was editing the article when I was looking for the sources. Either ways, users who write writes an autobio of themselves are obvious COI. I hastily added the tag because it didn't serve any importance for it to be here. End of discussion. Ayub407^talk 19:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to ANI. Please join us there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Being dissected at ANI is no fun. I know you have good intentions and do good work. So have a beer (or beverage of your choice) and don't take it personally. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: Thanks! (Although I'm teetotal :)) But I seriously think there's a possibility I might get blocked or topic banned! Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Drat - I almost offered you a cup of tea instead! There is no chance you will be blocked, and I think a topic ban is unlikely too. The worst part is having a group of people pile on and dissect your edits. I think the editors at WT:CSD tend to have a stricter interpretation of those criteria than the community at large. As I said, I think it's healthy to have a range of opinion.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: I think I'm taking this whole thing too seriously, as I said on the ANI. I had a talk with certain people in real life about this and my asperger's, and we all agree I need to take a break. This doesn't mean I retract my views on A7, just that I think I'm taking even those too seriously! Hope to see you soon. Adam9007 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing QUNO from Speedy Oblivion

Thanks Vernon

@Vernon39: Don't thank me yet; there's still a good chance it'll be A7'd despite my legitimate decline. Adam9007 (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black & White (video game) 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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Faiz Syed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faiz Syed 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/Faiz Syed 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. for (;;) (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Welcome back :) Ayub407talk 07:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

The article Black & White (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Black & White (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Article

No, Twitter is not actually listed as a source and even if it was, it's not acceptable at all. There's no biography content listed at that link. Even IMDb would have been accepted before Twitter.... SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD requires no sources whatsoever. It does not mean no reliable sources. It may not be enough to stop a (legitimately) started BLPPROD, but it is enough to stop one from starting in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter never even mentions her career or filmography, all it has are social media messages she herself has put; there's no actual information there. I've alsp, in the paat, simply remoced it altogether and then BLPPROD (Twitter profiles are not welcome anyway). SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It does mention the subject though. which is enough to stop BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'll note Liandika which is (1) not an actual "person" but, worse, it seems to be an actual fabrication, searches easily found nothing and anything claiming to be a "fire sex god" has to be taken carefully. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It was created by an account of the same name, and gods don't come from India (or anywhere else for that matter). It implies it's a person. It's right along the border between A7, G3, and A11 (probably closer to the former 2). Adam9007 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What I'm basically saying is Do Not Remove or revert my changes, I know what I'm doing. The fact you never, again, considered PROD or BLPROD for Guy Hecht is enough by itself. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN Please do not tell me what I can and can't do. Adam9007 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And just to add, I did in fact consider PROD, BLPPROD, and AfD, but decided against it, for I had a better alternative. Adam9007 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There was firm consensus in 2011 that no source meant it literally, with the explanation"Consensus is that only articles including no sources are eligible for BLPPROD, to keep the process as black-and-white as possible" . The current discussions seem to support this view. The argument raised in 2011 was that some Facebook or twitter sources might actually provide information, as people sometimes use them as a principal web site-- & I think such use has increased since then. The only qualification on no source that seems to be accepted is that the source has to relate to the subject, not be a totally general source about,say, the field of work, that does not mention the subject at all.

I agree that the interpretation seems absurd. But there are some reasons for it, and there's been consistent support for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(assuming this is the "article") - I gotta say that this decline of A7 is absurd and problematic . This has been going on for far too long. You really need to stop declining these things and it would be better if you did that voluntarily than by the sanction that will eventually come if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1:Wikipedia_talk:Credible_claim_of_significance#RfC:_Can_SIGNIFICANCE_be_inherited.3F Which part of "There's consensus that a strong association with something notable constitutes a credible claim of significance" do you not understand? CEO is certainly that; they don't come much stronger! It "should" have been a blpprod, but, I was under the impression that merging or redirecting is preferable to deletion anyway? Something that many people here for some reason seem to disagree with. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite true that BLPPROD is void if the article contains any sources whatsoever. Actually "The process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." And again " biographies created after March 18, 2010, that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process." It can't just be a random link, it has to actually have information about the person - information which is included in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You're right; I should have made it clear that by "any source", I meant sources that actually support the article. But I thought that was obvious? Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ThisisDA for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ThisisDA 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/ThisisDA 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. for (;;) (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted CSD tag

Hi! Did you remove the CSD tag from DemExit? The diffs don't show it being removed but it disappeared after your edit. If you did remove it, I'd urge you to look at the nature of sources themselves as well as the COI going on in the history, and reconsider.

Thank you, Jergling (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). The DemExit page is a mess, but, based on the sources, there is enough there that I think the article should be reviewed by the community at AfD rather than via speedy deletion.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the diff does show it being removed. Unreliable sources and WP:COI are not speedy criteria. The article does contain credible claims of significance, so fails A7. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Baba Maharramli

Wow, how did I miss 97 references?! I can't fathom a hunch at my thought process there. I really shouldn't edit when I should be sleeping. Anyways, thanks for fixing that, AfD is much more appropriate. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@Ritchie333: Thanks! Though I'm not sure what makes it the final push? I basically just made a few tweaks to the prose. I also haven't quite finished the essay yet. I've been busy doing other stuff, like article improving. I don't know if you saw on the recent ANI, but the fact I'm even doing an essay has been used against me! It's a lot more than just self-defence. Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it was tweaks I didn't need to do, which is the whole point of collaborative editing (and indeed the reason I get involved with stuff like Wikipedia in the first place, I don't have to do anything more than what I want). I did see the ANI thread, and while I think some of the speedy declines were over-eager, the principles you have are spot on in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

M32 motorway has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Adam9007. M32 motorway, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for M32 motorway

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article M32 motorway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2011, a field of red poppies, cornflowers, and marigolds was planted alongside the M32 motorway in Bristol to improve the view? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/M32 motorway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, M32 motorway), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Larroquette

Question... With Mariana Larroquette... I don't see any "sources". I see an external link... But it isn't references in the article. It is just an external link. My understanding is that external links do not qualify as sources unless cited. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

They do. WP:GENREF. WP:BLPPROD also states no sources in any form. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Retirement consideration - there's a better path

Adam, I see you're considering retirement again. While that seems like a passive-aggressive response to the criticism above, there's probably a better way forward. You have a lot to offer this project and can make a big impact adding a ton of value. However, I think you're continuing to apply yourself to an area (declining speedy deletion nominations) that frankly, you don't seem to have the judgement required for or the ability to constructively receive and act on the guidance you repeatedly get on this subject. May I suggest that you continue to be an active wikipedian but avoid the whole CSD review process? Your participation there is clearly causing you stress and frankly causing a bunch of extra work for others.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It's meant as the most constructive of advice. We all have our limitations - I certainly do too. Sincerely, Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is pretty good advice. There are several areas of Wikipedia that I personally find unpleasant and stressful. So, I have learned to avoid those areas and focus on what I enjoy. After all, nobody is paying us to step on landmines...--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Well, it wasn't really the above, but more you saying things about me without discussing your concerns with me first. Do you not see how annoying that is? Is that's going to be a regular occurrence, I could certainly (as you say) do without the stress. I plan on taking this whole building vs organisation thing to the community, unless you (or anyone else?) can show me some consensus either way? As for avoiding CSD, I can't turn my back on this now, not after an admin awarded me a barnstar for it! Adam9007 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

You declined the speedy deletion nomination of CSI Church Kaliakkavilai with the rationale Outside A7's scope. By this, do you mean that the church is notable enough to escape speedy deletion? (I would disagree with you on that point, obviously, but it is a valid difference of opinions.) Or do you mean that A7 doesn't apply to churches, in which case I'd have to say you are incorrect. It does not apply to educational institutions (for reasons I can't fathom, but that's a different argument), but it most certainly applies to churches as much as any other organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: When I talk of A7's scope, I'm referring to its categories. Are churches organisations? I don't think so; the article goes on about locations and architecture. Organisations don't have locations or an architecture. Geographic features might. Is the article about the building itself or the body that runs it? Definitely more about the building itself. Wikipedia categorises churches under buildings and structures, not organisations. Tesco is an organisation; a Tesco store is not, even if what goes on inside is part of a business. Royal Mail is an organisation; Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre is not. They may be part of an organisation, but they are not the organisations themselves. Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being overly analytic. Articles about churches have been speedily deleted in the past. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been. Not under A7 anyway. Places of worship are classed under Buildings and Structures (I checked the categories). Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about the building or structure, then that's one thing. But this article is about the church as an organization. The fact that the article shows the church's building is no different than if I write an article about Joe's Corner Deli, and include a picture of the building where the deli exists. The article is still about the company and is eligible for speedy deletion. In this case, I've taken the matter to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I plan to take this building vs organisation business to the community. I just the checked the categories again, and it most definitely does come under Buildings and Structures. Adam9007 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam, can you tell me where you are checking this category to ascertain that this topic is covered under "Buildings and Structures"? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: The Churches in category at the bottom. If you keep going up, you'll eventually hit Buildings and Structures. Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages, as you did with IITIIMShaadi.com. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Do not remove without consensus VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: Read WP:CSD again. I am allowed to as I did not create the page. Adam9007 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sonic R

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sonic R 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sonic R

The article Sonic R you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sonic R for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sonic R

The article Sonic R you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sonic R for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I am no longer going to pursue Wikipedia because of your negativity towards me and my works. I would of preferred you to request greater and more useful external links but you did not. Thank you, and farewell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyHartsClub (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@LonelyHartsClub: Huh? I'm not allowed to make good faith deletion nominations? I notice you haven't had a go at others who had also tagged your articles for deletion. Why me? Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

my talk p.

Pls don't help the other party continue this non-productive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: You want it to continue here, if anywhere? Adam9007 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That was just to identify the discussion. Productive discussion on the topic should of course take place at the AfD, and non-productive nowhere. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Coverfox.com

Dear Adam9007,

Can you please help us with the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverfox.com as this page have been nominated for Speed deletion, I think it's a genuine .com companies of India and there is enough evidence and reference given to prove the same, there is continuos effort towards improving the page also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranhota (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kiranhota: Who're "us"? The article was tagged G11 advertising. I have removed the promotional bits, but could still be deleted on other grounds such as WP:Notability., although given the cited sources, it could very well meet that. The prose could be made a little more encyclopaedic though. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello please I need assistance as to how to make an article that was deleted undeleted. Help me make it noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinsage1 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kelvinsage1: Which article are you referring to? Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I am talking about the Oma Akatugba article.Kelvinsage1 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kelvinsage1: I don't see any such article. What is its title? Adam9007 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

the article is in my draft page, when i submitted it, it was rejected.can you help me work on it? Kelvinsage1 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC) the article name is Oma Akatugba

@Kelvinsage1: It was deleted at AfD as non-notable. Unless you can give more reliable secondary sources to prove notability in addition to making the tone more encyclopaedic (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles) it will be deleted again. I suggest you read the links given in the decline template (that's why it was rejected after all); if the article complies with them it may survive. For starters, you should get rid of the unencyclopaedic terminology (fondly, supremos etc) I'm afraid I I'm not familiar with the subject, so am not sure what to suggest beyond that. Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

i have removed those words, if you feel that it still is not neutral enough, can you help to edit it, please,?Kelvinsage1 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kelvinsage1: I see it's up for review again. Wait and see what the next reviewer says. Adam9007 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Eric Greitens

I had provided a reason for removing the information. A few days ago I had moved it to a more appropriate section of the page. It was then re-added to the beginning of the article (but it was already in the section). I therefore removed it. Thank you. 24.107.107.105 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that. But it's extremely difficult to assume good faith when you call people "dirty liberal". Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost my temper. Eric Greitens is the Republican nominee for Governor of Missouri. He is a hero and inspiration to all. His whole life has consisted of helping the less fortunate and needy, whether it was in China, Rhwanda, Bosnia, or his service as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately, a handful of jealous people, mostly left-leaning people, want to do everything to attack Mr Greitens, including adding that information on his page. It's a shame that I can't remove it, so I just moved it out of the lead of the article, because it is so inappropriate to be placed there. 24.107.107.105 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment to 24.107.107.105: Just a note to help you keep your temper AND not make assumptions about why people are editing the way they are: you apparently didn't realize that User:Adam9007 is not an American. I'm sure he has zero interest in who gets elected Governor of Missouri. Most people here make their edits to enforce Wikipedia policies such as verifiability and neutrality, not to promote some kind of partisan agenda. Please keep that in mind next time, OK? --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking a little deeper, I see that this is not the only time you have made this kind of partisan attack. I will explain on your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You are delusional. The people who added the vandalism on Eric's article in the first place are responsible for "partisan attacks". Did I ever say that you had to give two shits about who is elected governor of Missouri? No. But for those who do, they deserve to read articles about the candidates that are without vandalism or bias. How are you even an administrator if you can't grasp this basic point? 24.107.107.105 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

1) No personal attacks 2) There's no need to resort to name-calling or incivility, even when dealing with vandalism or "bias". And, as MelanieN pointed out, not all of us are American, so there isn't necessarily any bias involved. Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! I see that you removed a couple of PA rants from this user's talk page, while they were blocked. Usually it is good and helpful to delete personal attacks. However, while a person is blocked it may be best to leave them, so that administrators can see them and respond appropriately. (In this case, I extended his block.) That's just my opinion; others may say go ahead and delete them as fast as you see them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I've notified MusikAnimal, so the ball's in his court. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record the personal attacks don't hurt me... but that doesn't mean it's OK. Thanks MelanieN for extending the block — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Hamza Tzortzis article

Greetings. I am currently working to improve the quality of the Hamza Tzortzis article on Wikipedia so that it meets several of Wikiepdia's guidelines. Could you please share your thoughts on a topic I opened on the talk page as you have been identified as a user who has edited the article recently? Thank you.Djrun (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Marvellous Spider-Man does not yet have sufficient knowledge/experience to be working in that department. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I couldn't find much either, nor do I see any credible claim of significance, and I seem to have gained a reputation for seeing them where none exist! Complete balderdash of course, but that's another matter. Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not complete balderdash. Not even close. WP:INHERITORG --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: That refers to notability, not significance. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The computer store down the street has a partnership with HP. Doesn't mean that connection makes them significant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what sort of connexion or partnership. The local computer store is highly unlikely to have a strong one. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Another example, some of the fashion stores downtown have arrangements with haute couture companies to exclusively sell their lines. Not a claim of significance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's hardly a strong connexion, is it though? Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. The fashion house's sales for the country go through that store. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at? I'm sure many can make such a claim. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Connection to a notability entity is not an automatic claim of significance. If it were, we'd be going through articles of children of C-list actors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

When I talk of strong connexions, I'm talking about founder, managing director, affiliate and the like. In some cases (such as a notable football team), merely being a member of something is significant. I did not say that any old connexion is significant. Adam9007 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sebastine Ikahihifo

Sebastine Ikahihifo I can't provide a source as such as its jut what myself and friends came up with. there is no official proof of this nickname. Giantdaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantdaz (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Giantdaz: If you cannot provide a source, please don't put it on Wikipedia. See WP:V. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the source ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantdaz (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bell's edit

Hello, I forgot to log in when editing the Bell's page. The short snip-it about the CATO institute, while interesting, wasn't relevant to the availability of Bell's beer. And while it came from a verifiable source, is better served as part of a section about business practices. ComradeScientist (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit concerning Mitch Moreland

I couldn't provide a source because I'm still watching the game in question. I made the edit just minutes after Moreland's ejection. I can put a source when the highlights of the game show up on the MLB app, but I'll tell you those were some pretty blatant bad calls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.132.188 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

All content must be verifiable and cited to a reliable source. Adam9007 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. I'll bring a source as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.132.188 (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Adam9007. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, man! Now help us vandal fight! Oh, and if you need help or have questions about rollback, you know where my talk page is ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Let me add a caution about rollback: it happens instantly, there is no chance to say "oops, I didn't mean to do that" as there is with most other functions. I found this to be a problem when posting from my phone - big fingers, small buttons - and I more than once had to revert a rollback and apologize to the victim. In fact I asked to have it removed after a few months. (Now that I am an admin I am stuck with it. 0;-D ) Just something to be aware of. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks! I do have a question: is there any real difference between this rollback and Twinkle's rollback? I know this rollback is required to use tools such as Huggle, and fighting vandalism the old-fashioned way can be rather tedious as I have to go to the diff and half the time, ClueBot NG or someone else (you a lot of the time! :)) has beaten me to it by the time it loads (a slow internet connexion that frequently and "unexpectedly" commits suicide doesn't help). I see this rollback appears on my watchlist, unlike Twinkle's one, but I normally check edits before reverting them.

@MelanieN: If I accidentally use rollback, or realise I made a mistake, I'll just rollback myself. I know Twinkle's rollback (not the Vandal one; is that the same as this one?) allows an edit summary, so if I need one, I'll use that instead. I find it difficult to edit on a mobile phone, but I do browse Wikipedia using it. My phone normally refuses to follow a link unless I click it 3 or 4 times (that being said, I don't doubt that it will make an exception for rollback, unless of course I actually intend to use it :)), or the page loads in such a way that I appear to click on one link, but it takes me to a another one. But I suppose I shouldn't be using the desktop site on my phone in any case? Adam9007 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it will make an exception for rollback, unless of course I actually intend to use it :)) LOL, you understand Wikipedia well! I know an engineer whose favorite curse is "Oh, the innate perversity of inanimate objects!" There's no reason not to use desktop view on your phone; I always do. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I had always put it down to my phone being what it is: taking forever to load things, always crashing on me, and internet connexions dying seemingly for no reason (sometimes even taking the operating system with it!). Very annoying. Adam9007 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Saving up for a new phone? Just sayin'. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes, I do reckon I need a new phone. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: @MelanieN: Well, I've just used this rollback for the first time, and I've already cocked up the warning part :$. It seems this rollback isn't automated, unlike Twinkle. Maybe if I'm going to be rollbacking "normally" (i.e. not by using any special tool) I should stick to Twinkle? Adam9007 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the "omigod-I-have-a-new-tool-now-what" club. When I first became an admin I was terrified of the tools, and with good reason; my first admin action was to accidentally delete an article I had only meant to tag. All the buttons on Twinkle had changed. Don't give up on the tool until you've gotten familiar with it, and THEN decide which method you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I was expecting this to act like Twinkle's rollback; automatically loading the reverted user's talk page and with the link to the page already in the "warn" dialogue box, which is really handy. This rollback does not (unless I'm missing something?), which is not handy at all, and rather annoying. Adam9007 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007 - I got your pings regarding your questions with rollback. All the rollback user right does is add "[Rollback]" to the end of edits that are live on pages when you view them through the user contributions or page history logs. When you click "[Rollback]", all it does is rollback all of the changes that the user made back to the revision of the page that it was before he made those changes. If he/she made multiple changes in a row and one-after-another, it will roll back all of these changes by that user and to the revision of the page that was made by someone else. It does not warn any users automatically. Once you click the button, it performs the operation, and loads a page that says "Action complete" or "Rollback failed" (depending on the result). Twinkle is an extension that makes the process easier (what you already know); depending on which Twinkle URL you press, it will roll back the changes (either using rollback, or undo) and load the talk page for you to warn (or do so automatically). The rollback user right is good if you need to quickly roll back changes without doing anything else. Please let me know if you have any more questions :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'll need to do a lot of warning when rollbacking, so it's probably best if I use Twinkle to rollback when I'm not using Huggle. Speaking of Huggle, it seems to be a rather interesting program (as you probably already know, I needed this right to be allowed to use it). I notice loading is a lot quicker than patrolling via the Recent Changes feed, I suppose that's because it's not loading all the unneeded stuff (logos, buttons, links etc) with it? I think I'm still getting the hang of it: how am I doing so far? Adam9007 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I use Huggle, Twinkle, and admin rollback interchangeably depending on the situation, the issue, etc. Huggle is a very powerful tool; keep that in mind every time you use it! Haha. The best advice I can give you is to use the buttons on the UI with the mouse and get proficient at it (and used to everything) before you begin using any keyboard shortcuts on Huggle. One accidental press of a key on Huggle will make the change without even telling you that it was done (it'll just flash in the 'Processes' tab very quickly). Other than that, as long as you take it slow and get affiliated with things using the mouse first, you'll do fine :-). If you have more questions about Huggle, you know where to find me. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: One accidental press of a key on Huggle will make the change without even telling you that it was done That's not good news for someone (such as myself) who's always (almost) making typos :). Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I occasionally press a key accidentally. As long as you get used to the interface, what the hotkeys do, and go slow... you'll be fine. If you do make a mistake with a hotkey, just check your contribs and find what it did, fix it, and go from there. It happens; nobody is perfect :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. By the way, I've always wondered why you need permission to use "normal" rollback, but you don't need permission to use Twinkle's rollback? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question! I'll explain everything from the beginning. But to make things easier, lets make an example :-) :

1. You edit a page and make a few changes to it
2. I make one edit to the same page after you and change it, too
3. You make another edit after mine (to that same page) and save it
4. I then make three edits in a row after your edit from #3, and save each one

Lets say those last three edits of mine (#4) are vandalism. If you use the rollback right you were just granted, it will automatically revert the last three changes I made to that page (not including the previous edit I made between yours), and the page will reflect the last change you made (#3). Remember that if you want to undo my changes manually, you can do so simply by going to the history page, clicking on the revision you made in #3, pressing 'Edit', and then just pressing save. Twinkle's "rollback" will do either one of two things: If you don't have rollback rights, it will undo each of my three edits for you in that exact same manner... by finding the revision made on the page before my three edits (so, your edit - #3), editing that revision of the page, and then saving it. It looks like "rollback", but it's just using a different method to accomplish what you want. If you have rollback (which you now do), it just uses rollback if you use Twinkle to revert my vandalism. Huggle is typically allowed to be used on most projects without having rollback, but the developers added a feature to Huggle that (if set on a particular project) will require Rollback in order for you to be able to use it. The English Wikipedia is one project where this is enabled. If you use Huggle on a project without that flag set, I believe it does the same thing as Twinkle if your account doesn't have the user right -- it simply edits the revision made before my three edits, and hits save, which removes my changes. Rollback, in a nutshell, is just a faster way of reverting my current edits to an article compared to editing the revision made before it, and saving it. It just saves button clicks. And it's a common check flag that some anti vandal tools require (like Huggle on en-wiki) before you're allowed to use it. I hope this response wasn't too technical for you, but I wanted to thoroughly answer your question. If you need me to clarify anything, or if you have any more questions, please let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. I've never really thought about how rollback is done (the actual method) until now, but I don't think I've yet noticed any difference in Twinkle. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. You probably won't notice any difference, to be honest. Either method that Twinkle uses really only involves a few more extra steps. The two things that you're going to use rollback for are Huggle, and rolling back individual diffs made by a user across multiple pages. Haha :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Gates

So when I add "Bob" as a nickname, it's reverted because there's no source, but then when I follow your lead and change the one instance where it already says Bob to Robert you reverted that too? That makes sense. 99.253.207.194 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems it was changed to Bob for no reason I can ascertain in this edit. I've changed it back. Adam9007 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why

Why did you update the manor ce academy Wikipedia I updated it so it was up to date and was telling the truth. No vandalism Will graves (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] blatant non-factual information. Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Feruz

Hi!

Thanks for your note. The source for the quote is Lee Clark. I'm a journalist from the north east of England, but live in Scotland, and this is how Lee (who is a friend of mine) described Feruz.

Don't know if that's good enough to merit inclusion but I think the rest of the wiki makes it clear what sort of person Feruz is..!

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.126.253 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Adam - thought I'd pop by (hope you appreciate the British colloquialism) to ask how you were doing? I've seen you around before; I remember we were both impersonated by the same LTA (EU referendum guy). I saw you on Oshwah's talk page today, and I looked at your user page - I too have Asperger Syndrome, there are loads of editors on here like us :-). I've had my user page vandalised a few times also; it is one of the many things one gets used to whilst doing counter-vandalism work. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your evening! Zero^talk 19:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Of course I appreciate the British colloquialism, seeing as I am British :) (you looked at my user page but missed that?). Sometimes I think I'm the most Autistic person here; I've had a lot of hoo-ha regarding CSD A7 in particular (and it's come to the point that I've written an entire essay on the subject!). I am convinced that my actions that led to this silly debate and my total inability to deal with it was me being very autistic indeed. 10 months on and I still can't get it out of my head. Similar incidents happening since then obviously doesn't help. My user page is protected and therefore cannot be vandalised by IPs at least. Whilst we're on the subject on having our pages vandalised, not to WP:CANVASS or anything like that, but can someone look at this edit? I'm convinced it's sheer vandalism (I tagged one of his pages for deletion) rather than good faith, and it so happens that my user page has also been vandalised in retaliation for me tagging a page for deletion. It's annoying not being allowed to deal with it, although I'm considering doing so anyway per WP:IAR. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't miss that at all - I know you are British, that's why I said that :-) Don't feel bad about the A7 thing - I know you did the right thing, and I found your essays useful, so thank you for writing them. Just so you know, you can decline a speedy as long as you didn't create the article yourself - but I do think the tagging was in bad faith, and I wouldn't personally see any issues with its removal. Enjoy the rest of your day, Zero^talk 11:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: I'm the creator of that page, and by invoking WP:IAR I meant remove the tag despite that. But Appable has removed it (thanks Appable!). Unfortunately it's hard not to worry or feel bad about the A7 thing when there's ANI and topic ban threats hanging over me, and the fact I have written an essay has been used against me! In my experience "literals" such as myself are vastly outnumbered by "liberals". Strangely (not to mention sadly), following the advice given in a similar essay, WP:A7M has actually caused a lot of conflict between me and certain editors, as the claims listed there are claims that literals would consider significant, but liberals do not (I touch on these things in my essay). But that's just my experience. The point is that I've seen very liberal interpretations of A7, and very literal ones. Liberals are much more likely to "get away with" their interpretation than literals. Opinions are all over the place, but many act as if there is a WP:CONSENSUS on the subject (that is, a community-wide discussion where there's general agreement). At least, I haven't seen such a discussion (if there is one, it's buried deep within the archives somewhere. Not the sort of place where one is likely to look for information on widely accepted policy is it?). I'm not aware of anyone else who has received as much flak over A7 as I have, and I sometimes think I've been singled out. In fact, in my experience, you are much more likely to get away with doing blatantly invalid A7 taggings than doing even disputable A7 tag removals. I do think that certain misconceptions are now so widespread they are considered de facto correct. I'm gibbering, so I'll shut up now :). Adam9007 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

what is this comment?

Information icon Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Spain women's national football team that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

   If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.65.201 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 

See the edit summary of this edit. Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

Take a look at some of these users' edits. Some edits are very similar.

Diabedia (talk · contribs)

There, I have entered a username (talk · contribs)

Шибуево Жаңшулокикомав (talk · contribs)

The proper way to report it is to launch a SPI. Don't just post this on their talk pages without providing any evidence. It could be considered a personal attack. Adam9007 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Black & White (video game)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Black & White (video game) has been completed.

As a non-gamer, who therefore knows nothing about Black & White, I'm not sure how much help I was in the Gameplay, Creature and Plot sections, but I did what I could. Perhaps you know of a WP gamer/contributor who could have a look over these sections for you?

In any event, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:

Thanks for copy editing that article. Although I'm no expert at copy editing, I'm seeing some issues:

• "another god, Khazar. Khazar reveals" - Not sure why it was necessary to change "He" to "Khazar"? I thought the reader would assume Khazar upon reading the previous "He"?

avoids to "he"s in the same seentence

• "this would later be pushed back" - I'm not sure what the purpose of the word "later" is? "Would be" already implies a future tense, and the converse ""this would earlier be pushed back"" makes no sense.

would is fine i.m.o. - could be changed to was if you wish

• "necessary skills to achieve meet this deadline" - Huh? to achieve meet? Surely either "achieve" or "meet" must go?

my bad - missed that - fixed

• "although this was thought to be impossible" - Not sure what the purpose of "to be" is here? Is this an opportunity for ellipsis?

in or out - your choice

• I more than one place, you put in "the game" in places where I would have thought the subject was obvious?

in or out - your choice

• "A company called M4 were to have co-developed them alongside Lionhead, but Electronic Arts was not interested" - Are companies referred to in the singular or plural? Both are used here (In UK English, I think groups can be referred to in the plural, but I'm not sure about companies).

singular - my bad - fixed

• " The game was originally going to feature battling wizards" Again, I'm not sure what the purpose of "going" is? It seems redundant.

in or out - your choice

• Is "learned" preferred over "learnt"? - no - it's just more common
• "area of influence, which can be extended by expanding" "which can be"? Can we have ellipsis here? I'm not sure...

no - the sentence makes no sense if it's taken out

• " the number of villages owned, or by taking over others" Not sure what "the number of" here means. Expanding villages also expands the player's influence, and by taking over others, you are increasing the number of villages owned.

"expanding owned villages" seemed odd to me, but as I said I know nothing about the game

Again, I'm no expert, and this isn't a criticism, but I've been reading User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, especially the bit about redundancy, and such appears to have been introduced into the article. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone else here who knows about the game, so I may end up having to do it myself if I know what's wrong with them? Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Some comments on your comments. Much about writing is a matter of style. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam Thomas Moryto

I see that you removed a BLP PROD on Adam Thomas Moryto because it had a source. Well it did and it didn't. The single source, at that revision, makes passing mention to someone of a similar name in quotations from his father, but there is no way to reasonably connect the content of the Wikipedia article with the (very) little substance provided in the ref. Reddogsix has since tagged it as a speedy A7, and, to be honest, I am not fussed about it whichever way it goes. My reason for posting here is to try and get some clarification about what "unreferenced" means. I had thought that an article needed a sufficient reference to be certain that the person described in the article was somewhat notable and it was reasonable to conclude that s/he had done those things described in the article. If it were not so, It would be possible to pick a name from a minor newspaper report and compile a wholly fictitious persona around that name and claim that it was referenced and immune from BLP PROD. I have only been here 11 years and am still confused. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Velella: I checked the (reliable even) source given at the time of tagging, and the subject does indeed appear to be named (I can't imagine why it's in the article if it's a different person, given that it's an autobio). Per WP:BLPPROD that is enough to render the article immune to it. Unreferenced means exactly that; no references. By the way, did you read the notice at the top of this page? Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did and I read it carefully, hence my slight confusion, and the need to check that the rule was absolute, allowing of no exceptions. This is not really a matter for discussion here, there are better forums, but the rules as they stand appear to allow the creation of a wholly fictitious biography based on a reference that just happens to use that name. I will neither expect a response here nor any action on your part. I will try and crystallise my views and make a suggestion to the appropriate forum in due course. Thanks for your response and your patience.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Velella: Not necessarily. If it can be determined that the person named in the reference is a different person, then the subject has not been named. Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

No hard feelings.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Neera Tanden deletion

My source for her birthdate was a link to a tweet from her posted on her birthday thanking people for wishing her happy birthday. You deleted that as well. If you don't think the woman herself is a valid source for her own birthdate, then I don't know what to tell you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.19.12 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We go by reliable, independent sources, not what someone decided to write one day on Twitter, even if that person is the subject. This is especially crucial for information about living people. EDIT: Hmm... Just looked, and it does say such sources can be used provided the info is strictly about themselves, but I was always under the impression that such sources are never acceptable. But there's got to be better sources out there? Adam9007 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Vain people have been known to lie about their year of birth. I can think of no good reason to lie about the date on a yearly basis on Twitter. I'm not digging up a "better" source just you can satisfy what is apparently a non-existent rule. Do whatever you want, Mr. Editor. I've already spent more time on this than it warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.19.12 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Space Harrier

Hey. Thanks for your edits to the article, especially the addition to the "development" section. Did you already own a copy of that Retro Gamer issue? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beemer69: Yes. I obtained it recently. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Unreal Tournament

Thanks for your edits to the Unreal Tournament article! Hakken (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Music News

You've been mentioned here by the article creator (see "reviewing editor"), so perhaps you would care to weigh in. Thanks. 82.132.224.113 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but feel it's a minefield, given it's beginning to show signs of edit warring... Adam9007 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black & White (video game) 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 Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

The article Black & White (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Black & White (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A7 Mariana Villanueva (illustrator)

The person that is discussed in the article does not represent any encyclopedic value. In es:Wikipedia (es:Mariana Villanueva (Haku)) is currently in debate, given that its creation was motivated by the same Illustrator (So it is considered self-promotion). Facebook Post 1 Facebook Post 2 The author has contributed to only this article (User:Marturo Garcia). Xzit (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A7 is only concerned with whether there's a credible claim of significance or not (and there is), not whether it's promotional or what's happening on another language Wikipedia. Is there a rule that says editors must contribute to multiple articles? If self-promotion or conflict of interest is a concern, you should use PROD or AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theme Hospital

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theme Hospital 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black & White (video game)

The article Black & White (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black & White (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, Adam. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I wasn't expecting it to take months. Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Just to say, you do some great work here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unreal Tournament

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unreal Tournament 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag

Hello, greetings. I do not understand why have you removed the deletion tag to Mecaila Irish May Morada and then placed the notability one. She does not meet WP:GNG. The article is mostly a list. --Osplace 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Osplace: A7 is stricter than merely failing GNG. I recommend you read the essay WP:A7M as well as my own essay I link to at the top of this page. They explain the common misunderstandings regarding this criterion. Adam9007 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I already before your message. Still do not agree. Have a good day. --Osplace 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Deathbychocolate is real

I am sitting by deathby chocolate right now (also known as jermaine). So you saying that I had no reliable source is incorrect. Death by chocolate (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How can we verify that? That's why we need citations to reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What am I suppose to do? Have him weite it out??? Death by chocolate (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Write Death by chocolate (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Page mover

Have you considered obtaining the page mover permission? It would allow you to draftify articles without needing an R2 to remove the redirect (unloading a bit of work from the admins). VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Yes, but I'm not sure I meet the requirements. Adam9007 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure you do. Here you go. *Tosses Adam9007 the user right* ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@KGirlTrucker81: Thanks! Though Mtpaley seems to think it's a normal edit war. Hope we don't get blocked!. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It all looked very messy but the end result seems to be a attack on Balablitz. Clearly attack editing so immune from 3RR. Mtpaley (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mtpaley: I thought the reverting of any obvious vandalism (which this clearly falls under) was exempt from 3RR? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look at WP:3RRNO for that. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you. This is one of the forms of vandalism so reversions are immune from 3RR. Mtpaley (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mtpaley: It's just that saying things like "it is a edit storm between a few users all of which are involved" kind of implies we're all being disruptive, not just the vandalising IP whose damage we're fixing. Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I admit to initially misreading the edits. There was lots going on but 2607:FB90:A02C:9C40:0:49:EC2F:1F01 was the originator of it. In hindsight applying to get this IP blocked would have been better than trying to protect the targets. Mtpaley (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Janney

Hi Could you please tell me which conditions he fills to be considered as a notable athlete. please see WP:NRU for the different criteria. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theme Hospital

The article Theme Hospital you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Theme Hospital for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A Special Award for you!

	A lick from Holly
	For reverting the idiot that vandalized my Talk Page earlier this evening XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthony doerr

He's gay Hw1au (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hw1au: And your source is? Adam9007 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability for Anzor Sitchinava

Hi please give the conditions for notability under these rules WP:NRU and if you find one I will happily concede but if you don't please undo your edit to leave the speedy deletion. Thanks --Domdeparis (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: A7's standard of significance is lower than notability. They claimed to play for notable teams, enough to meet WP:CCS and therefore survive speedy under A7. If you don't think they're notable, you should take them to PROD or AfD instead. Adam9007 (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi There is no claim that they played for a notable team. The team itself has no sources page and on the page itself it is clearly stated that they have never played for their national team. Being selected for a second level national team and never having played is not a WP:CCS.

I reread the CSS guidelines and it states "Credible claim of significance" is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:

a) is this reasonably plausible?

b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

Could you please tell me what in the article you consider as being significant. The team is clearly not notable enough to have an article in Georgian and even less in English, there are no web pages facebook pages titter accounts instagram linking to this team it has never won the georgian championships (it came 2nd twice over 10 years ago and 3rd the year before). The WP:NRU as a rule of thumb would consider an athlete who has played for the Georgian national team only notable if he was selected for a major international competition regardless of the number of times he has been capped. This player has never ever been capped, the team he has played for has never won the Georgian national championships (there are 68 teams in the championship) he has only played 1 season for them. I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination he could be considered significant and the page doesn't claim that he is significant there is nothing that if proved true would make him notable. Unless you can give me a plausible argument I consider that a A7 tag is merited and will put it back again and to the other players in the same situation. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as a reminder here are the criteria for notability for a rugby player

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a "High Performance Union" at any time^{(see Note 1)} or another test nation during an appearance at the men's Rugby World Cup^{(see Note 2)} or,
2. a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
3. a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, IRB Sevens World Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or
4. a women's national team in at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.^{(see Note 3)}

Note 1: "High Performance Unions" for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales. Women do not have this criterion.

Note 2: Non-High Performance Unions nations that have appeared at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999 and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)

Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are: Australia (2010), Canada (1998, 2002, 2006), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994).

The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

@Domdeparis: Am I missing something? Both the articles about the players and the article about the team state they are on its squad. Adam9007 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Domdeparis, you are spending way too much time here. The speedy deletion was removed by an editor in good standing saying they see a claim to significance. You now have two options, take the article to prod or AFD. -- GB fan 19:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC) GB Fair enough I was just trying to understand why the editor "in good standing" took the speedy delete off and why he claims that there is significance. So as I understand when an editor is "in good standing" he doesn't have to justify his decisions and those in are not have to accept it ... ok it's clearer now. --Domdeparis (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: So, if you think I'm wrong, it's not up to you to prove it, but to me to prove I'm right? That sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Besides, if an article is so bad as to need deleting ASAP, chances are it'll clearly fit one of the speedy criteria, as opposed to just arguably. Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand your logic. I have explained why I think that it clearly fits the criteria, you took it off saying that I was wrong because it claimed WP:CCS I have tried to understand why you consider the article claims considerable significance and all I can get as an answer is "because it was taken off by an editor "in good standing" (whatever that means) I have to accept it" I am a relatively new editor I am trying to improve the quality of the entries in a sport that I used to play and i love. Wikipedia is full of spurious articles of little or no value. there are guidelines for including athletes and this chap doesn't even come close to meeting them. I am trying to understand for future reference why you took the tag off and what were your reasons. I get the impression that because I am not "of good standing" my work is considered as automatically flawed hence the removal of the tag without adequate explanation so I don't make the same error again. Domdeparis (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Domdeparis, I do believe you mistook what I said. Just because your speedy deletion tag was removed that doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Every once in a while everyone has a speedy deletion declined that they believe clearly meets the criterion. I had one the other day, I don't think Jakob Abrahamson has a claim to significance, another editor disagreed and said "might be notable: in his language's WP". I accept it and move on. If I decide that I want to pursue it further I take it to PROD or AfD. None of this is because I am some how less a contributor in good standing then the editor that removed the speedy delete tag. He disagreed with my speedy delete tag and I accept that and don't ask him to justify the removal because he doesn't have to. He sees something that I don't, no big deal. In your case Adam sees something that you or I don't. We need to accept the difference of opinion and move on, either forget about it or take other action to have it deleted if you feel strongly about it. But making a big deal about doesn't help anything. -- GB fan 22:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

GB thanks for the headsup. Wasn't making a big deal just trying to understand. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

No-life1231

Maybe instead you could add a source? Sorry, I am new. I don't have time to do all this research myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No-life1231 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't done any research or don't have a source, perhaps you shouldn't add the info to Wikipedia yet?. Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Re OB Macaroni

Hi Adam9007. Almost any firm with a history back to 1899 will have enough sources (not necessarily online) to satisfy the general notability guideline. That should be enough to save it from speedy, in my opinion at least -- though I'm aware that by no means all admins agree. In the case of OBM I found several reliable independent sources in the first few pages of Google results, one of which I added to the article, though I note the article creator appears to have since removed it. Which articles did you get into trouble over removing A7s? If you did it in good faith to articles you have not created, I don't see it can be considered disruptive. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: "Which articles did you get into trouble over removing A7s?" Far too many to list :). And considered disruptive they were :(. You've no idea about the sort of flak I've had for removing A7 tags! The whole thing dates back at least a year, probably longer. I agree with you that any possibility of notability passes significance, but there was no indication of that in the article (as you implied in your edit summary). I've had disputes over A7s where I've said the subject could well be notable, only to be told A7 doesn't care even if the subject is notable! Then there's all this WP:NOTINHERITED applying to A7 business.... argh! Adam9007 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I get flak from time to time, but admins are somewhat insulated. The only thing to do is to continue reading policy and trying to act in accordance with your interpretation of it -- plus a good dash of common sense. (Most main-space speedy criteria come down to "does this article have a cat in hell's chance of surviving AfD?" in the end.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: "continue reading policy and trying to act in accordance with your interpretation of it" - and therein lies the problem. I'm frequently told that my interpretation is "wrong". I've also been told it's not my interpretation that matters; it's the community's. Acting in accordance with my interpretation is what lead to this and this (on reflexion, yes my removals there were probably too eager, but that's beside the point), as well as many others. I have of course asked exactly what the "consensus" version of A7 is and where it was formed, but have yet to get a straight answer. So, it seems I must follow "consensus" without knowing exactly what it is supposed to be. But, in the absence of any firm policy on the matter, that is indeed all I can do. I just have to hope I avoid further conflict, which is the main reason I wrote my essay (not that that hasn't been slammed, because it has). Adam9007 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Jackson William Cowan" I would definitely delete. The kind of "advanced soloist award" a 13-year-old is likely to have won would be unlikely to meet our guidelines. One would need the name of the award or some indication that it was more than a school band prize. "Jennifer Pike is a twelve year old violinist who won the Young Musician of the Year", for example. It might be worth trying the name in Google/Google News just to be 100% certain. Re "GMovies (Get Inside, Not In Line)" you are right that apps as software would not be subject to A7; and, imo, "one of the first online movie ticket reservation app available on iOS and Android in the Philippines" is a claim of notability, though not a particularly strong one and one unlikely to survive AfD.

More generally, I've found it helps to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a game, or a set of rules, or a popularity contest. If the subject of the article is encyclopedic, few long-term editors will argue with your saving it by adding notability claims backed up by reliable references. If the subject clearly isn't, many editors would argue that deleting it -- even wrongly -- under A7 is not much of a loss and can be justified under "ignore all rules". I tend not to, but I've learned over the years to pick my battles here. Good luck! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I've seen apps (and certain other types of software) classed as web content, or even organisations! I can only assume that's because the products notability guideline is a sub-guideline of the organisations one. I believe apps are now officially classed as products now; there was a loophole that classed them as web content (how it's distributed determined whether something was web content or a product, not what the subject actually is). For example, Operation: Inner Space would have been classed as web content under the old definition, which I think speaks for itself. As for "invalid" speedies per WP:IAR, I'm not sure that argument holds water, as the speedy criteria are determined by consensus. To do that would be ignoring consensus (which, by the way, is something I'm frequently accused of when removing A7 tags). The snowball clause might be more appropriate though. I suspect a lot of people don't know the difference. Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Woke (band)

You removed my speedy delete of Woke (band), but didn't add any reliable sources to support your edit summary that the band has notable members. Could you please take a moment to add at least one source to support the content of this article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: A7 has nothing to do with lack of sources. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Gronstedt Group

Please help me understand how, "founded by a notable person," meets Wikipedia critera for inclusion into Wikipedia. That individual's notability cannot be inherited by the company. reddogsix (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: But A7 is not about notability. Please read this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite an interesting tome, I disagree, but interesting reading. reddogsix (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I plan to add some stuff to it at some point. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited

[2] --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: A7 is not about notability. Please do read my edit summary, as well as this. Adam9007 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah right. Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I agree you that article could be deleted as an A7, Adam on the other hand sees that something started by a notable person is a credible claim to significance. I do not agree, but we need to respect that until there is a consensus that says otherwise. -- GB fan 15:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I thought I had made this clear in my essay, but evidently not. I can see I have some editing to do there. But A7 is not about notability, so, for its purposes, we can ignore what the notability guidelines say, as they are not relevant. Besides, I thought I had made it clear that an AfD could well result in something other than delete (precisely because of the connexion), and that is indeed the way the AfD is heading right now. The rest I have explained in my essay (especially, the website itself is receiving at least some notice, precisely because of the connexion), so if there's anything you don't understand, by all means ask. Adam9007 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's great, Adam, thanks. And if there's any part of "notability is not inherited" that you are failing to grasp, you know where I am, and you now know where the guideline is. Beyond that, I think we're done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I have not stated anywhere that notability is inherited. Where do you think I said that? Adam9007 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"Founded by a notable person" as a reason for removing speedy tag. Please spare me further explanation. We'll just presume for the sake of a quiet Sunday evening that you're way right & I'm way wrong. I can live with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

""Founded by a notable person" as a reason for removing speedy tag.". Sorry, but I'm beginning to think you haven't paid any attention to anything I've said. Speedy deletion is not about notability. Adam9007 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Gone viral

About this edit -- where is the source that states it has gone viral? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: A9 only requires a credible claim of significance, not a verifiable one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, you have PROD-ed. I was checking for sources at the same time. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rohit Shankawar

I've reinstated the BLP Prod you incorrectly removed, citing that the article already had "sources". Problem is: this WP:BLP article/subject, requires reliable sources — an "originalwiki" source (as is provided) does not cut it. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: BLPPROD requires no sources in order to be placed, not no reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dean Media Group

Heya, thanks for the edit. Still learning here. Just out of curiosity, what was your definition of 'significance' when reviewing? I flagged it because, while not blatant advertising copy, the article was/is an absolute stub, wasn't able to find anything notable on the company in publications, and I saw it indirectly as a marketing vehicle because Wikipedia would rank in search results and function as an authority booster for the company, perhaps artificially? Anyway. LMK what you think. Always curious, always learning. Chitownchic (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)chitownchic

@Chitownchic: Strangely, there's no firm definition of significance, but it is a lower standard than notability (a common confusion, at least in my experience). I can only suggest you read the essays WP:CCS, WP:A7M, as well as my essay I link to at the top of this page. There's no blatant advertising (as you have said), so it's not a G11 either. I don't know if the intention was to boost search results for the company, but the article is written from a fairly neutral point of view. Adam9007 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: No worries, thanks for the resources, I'll have a read. Appreciated. :) Chitownchic (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)chitownchic

Spelling WP:ENGVAR

On Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film), do you think that rather than just blindly running your script you could revert the unconstructive edits? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Wouldn't that would revert everything else too? Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In an attempt to fend off people who innocently change the spelling, I introduced a hidden comment into the article that explains how "instalment" is spelled. The latest edits have simply erased the hidden comment and changed the spelling anyway. Isn't that a little counterproductive? Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elizium23: So I should have restored the comment? You have done that. What is the problem here? Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Adam9007,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the quick revert on my page that was vandalized. I appreciate it! --Ericf505 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 question

I saw the essay you wrote about A7 deletion but still have a question. I tagged the article R. K. Shevgaonkar with A7 but you removed it shortly after. I must say though, the subject of that article does not meet WP:N, please tell me if I am wrong. What would I tag the article with then if A7 would not be appropriate? Why do you think this article should be kept? NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: I haven't checked for notability, so I don't know if you're right about him being non-notable. A7's standard is lower than notability. All that is required is a credible claim of significance, which doesn't even have to be verified to survive speedy deletion. If there is a credible claim of significance and notability is a concern, you should take the article to PROD or AfD instead, or consider merging or redirecting if there is a plausible target. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept (although the cited sources do show some promise), because keeping is above A7's standard. Whether or not I think an article should be kept isn't a factor when I remove a CSD tag (nor should it be, or the purpose of CSD will be defeated). Of course, I'll remove it if I think it should be kept, but I'll still remove it even if I think it should be deleted if it doesn't meet the criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was very helpful. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer

Hello Adam9007. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dungeon Keeper 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 Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theme Park (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theme Park (video game) 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theme Park (video game)

The article Theme Park (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Theme Park (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper

The article Dungeon Keeper you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dungeon Keeper for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper

The article Dungeon Keeper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dungeon Keeper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theme Park (video game)

The article Theme Park (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theme Park (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A. Lightbourne

Hello Adam9007,

This is regarding your this edit. You contested BLPPROD stating that article included a source at the time of tagging. It is perspicuously mentioned on BLPPROD template that All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source. The article had one reference to amazon.com kindle book, I don't think we can consider it reliable. I guess this BLPPROD should have been contested only if this was not a BLP. However, you PRODed it again so it does not matter much now. Hitro talk 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, the BLPPROD tag is a little misleading when compared to the actual policy. The criterion on the template is referring to what must be added for the template to be removed, at least one reliable source. The criterion for the initial placement of the template is a little different. For the template to be added the article must not have a source, in any form, that verifies any information in the article. That means if there is an external link, an inline link or an actual reference, that verifies any piece of information in the article then the template can not be added. -- GB fan 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

GB fan, Thanks, just went through WP:STICKY again, you are right. And yeah it is utterly misleading. Best, Hitro talk 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: @HitroMilanese: In other words, the template assumes its placement was valid? Notice that it says "no references", not "no reliable references", although it has been boldly changed to say the latter before. Adam9007 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adam9007. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Adam9007,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Genesis Mining Ltd

Hi, I placed the A7 tags as this is what the previous Genesis Mining article had. I tried moving from 'Genesis Mining Ltd.' to 'Genesis Mining' and discovered this has long standing promotional/deletion+reappearance issues, the latest incarnation an obvious attempt to get around the restriction on 'Genesis Mining' - I mimicked the tags used previously as feel this is an underhand attempt to defy the consensus that this company does not warrant an article and it is used for promotional purposes by COIs & SPAs. What's your thoughts? Is there a more appropriate tag? should it go to AfD? Rayman60 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rayman60: If you feel it should be deleted, then go ahead in using AfD or PROD. I cannot see the deleted versions, and as such can only judge what I see in the current version. By my judgement, neither A7 or G11 apply, although that does not mean it will survive AfD. I notice the article has existed since April; what and where is the consensus (I don't see any evidence of a WP:SALT EDIT: I've just seen it's been protected on the public log) regarding the previous title? Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I saw a small log on the original title's page. I'm not sure if I'm not privy to all info as a regular user/non-admin or just that I don't know where to look. I CSD'd it as in an earlier near-identical scenario where I AfD'd and brought it to others' attention, I was advised to be bolder. On cursory glance, one may expect it may scrape GNG in the view of some - however these were in place during the last 2 removals, so I think I will AfD and get an updated decision. thanks. Rayman60 (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Randy Hernandez

Just some clarification if you don't mind. You removed the A7 speedy deletion tag noting of "evidence of notability," could you please explain what in particular is notable there? I can't find it.18abruce (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@18abruce: Loads. This, this, this, this, this, and this just from the first 2 pages of a Google search. Adam9007 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeeze, sorry to waste your time. That is embarrassing, I guess I assumed it was another nonsense claim about national team representation equalling notablility and jumped the gun.18abruce (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@18abruce: National team representation certainly equals at least significance (a lower standard than notability), enough to pass A7. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) 18abruce - No worries, my friend. We all learn at some point. Don't beat yourself up for making a mistake and learning from it. It's a normal part of becoming an experienced editor :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Haruka Eigen

Hi Adam

 Thanks for the help. Just wanted to get something on the page since it was blank. Thats why I also went to the talk page & asked for a Wikier to fix it LOL. Did not know a lot of the rules & thanks for the heads up.

 I rarely do an edit as there are way better Wikiers such as yourself. 

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.75.112 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper 2

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dungeon Keeper 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 Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah was unfaithful Bbw23

I disagree with [3] A userpage that labels a number of admins as "bad admins" is indeed "a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject." That's an attack page. Meters (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: But this revision is not strictly speaking an attack. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The page was an attack page. It was blanked by another user, as the template requests be done. That does not make the page any less of an attack page. If you didn't look at the page history then you shouldn't have removed the attack page request. If you did look at the original page then you need to rethink your approach. Please do not do this again. Meters (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: G10 explicitly states that there must be no neutral versions. There was a neutral version. Only the second revision was an attack, and I would have just reverted it rather than tag G10. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Just to add, Oshwah himself deleted it under G3, and as it's gone now, I don't understand what the problem is? Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'll throw in my thoughts here, as I think it will help everyone out :-). Was the page more of a G10 than a G3? Sure. But am I going to chase after someone for tagging the page with the incorrect CSD rationale when the real actual issue is that it's a sockpuppet LTA account that needs to be blocked? Absolutely not. There's no need to be overly picky in situations such as this. Sure, I might say "umm, wat?" if someone tagged the page with a really incorrect CSD rationale, like G11 or A7... lol. The page could of course been seen as pure vandalism, and could have also been seen as an attack page for sure. The point is that it needed to go and the account was an LTA sock puppet that needed to get klunked with the mop... lol. By the way, G5 was the correct answer, everyone. G5. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Adam9007. I had forgotten that there was an initial version of the page prior to the attack. Meters (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

*Pours Adam9007, Meters, and himself a shot of whiskey* - No worries, gentlemen. You're all doing a very fine job here. Just don't let the small stupid details blind you from the elephant in the room, and I'm happy to provide input if situations or suspicions are questionable and you're not sure. Just ask ;-) -- Cheers, everyone. *Clinks shot glasses with everyone, and then downs his shot* ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Meters (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You're now a Pending Changes Reviewer

Hi Adam9007! I noticed just now that you didn't have the "pending changes reviewer" user right on your account. Since you're definitely qualified for the right, and have account flags that require a higher level of experience before being granted them, I went ahead and just enabled it on your account. Basically, this flag allows you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages. If you do not want this user right, let me know and I'll take it off.

See these pages as well:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Anyways, there ya go! Happy editing, dude! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks! I'm pretty sure I've encountered "pending changes" while doing vandalism patrol, and have been able to revert them. Does this simply give me access to the Pending Changes feed? Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It lets you review and either accept or undo changes made by new users/IPs on articles that are under pending changes protection and are pending review. See Special:PendingChanges - you'll know what I'm talking about if you do ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please check what's been removed and added before reverting edits, fwiw your message doesn't make much sense as I didn't add anything. Thanks. :-) 37.123.162.236 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You added "from cokc". What does that mean? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't realize it, but some of your reversions to Oak Creek, Wisconsin actually re-inserted prior vandalisms. I think I've got it under control now. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Which ones? Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revision as of 01:14, 2 December 2016, removed a penis "joke" by restoring the statement that Jeffrey Dahmer is mayor of Oak Creek; that kind of thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I see! So someone added a name to mess around with and I hadn't realised the name shouldn't have been there at all? Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. No biggie. The name Dahmer didn't ring a bell? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Nope, never heard of him. Adam9007 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you've got a strong stomach, read the article. (I used to eat at a Taco Bell near his apartment during his years of activity; I've often wondered whether we dined "together".) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on your WP:ORCP

I thought your talk page should be a better place to follow up with the conversation we began at your Optional RfA poll. Since I am not a specialist, just someone with a close family member with a similar diagnosis, I can only share my thoughts in hopes you would feel encouraged to continue contributing and dig deeper into the ways you could turn autism into an advantage. You are perhaps aware of research (i.e., example) and discussions about the connections between Autism and WP editing (i.e., WP:AUTIST). There should be more and better out there, online and otherwise.

I cannot tell you how to proceed because Aspies are all different. Besides, I have not been in your shoes. What I can say is what I said before, namely, that I have witnessed individuals with similar burdens manage their limitations, inside and outside of WP. Developing such control has enabled them to view situations in a broader way. They have become a gift to their communities principally because they are reliable and consistent. The ones I am familiar with also challenge the status quo with compassion and care.

In the cases of autism that I know, the constraints are not entirely abolished, but rather improved and governed. Perhaps you are already linked to a network of support with people whom you trust, and who are honest in showing you what you cannot see well on your own. Follow their advice often, and when their thoughts fail to convince you, enlarge your network so you could tap on other views. The idea is to move accompanied and rarely on your own.

Please, notice that my intention here is not to condescend. And maybe my comments are not helpful, or this is not the direction you wanted to take your original questions, but I do hope you take them well. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: No, I wasn't aware of any research regarding connexions between Autism and Wikipedia. I actually find that rather surprising. I am hopeless at social interaction, so I don't really have a "network of support", sadly (I wouldn't call it a network at least, assuming that's what you meant?). I have been told I take things to heart, and I can be obsessed with things. I think that's what's causing me problems. I do have specific interests, including things most wouldn't care about (for example, have you noticed anything about the way I write?) Now I come to think of it, maybe my Asperger's has helped me get several significantly upgraded. Not that I won't continue to try, but I don't see how it can be an asset in areas other than that and WikiGnoming. Adam9007 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps knowing yourself as you do should lead you to build a network, bypassing your natural instincts. As this page shows, Wikipedians are grateful for your contributions. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper 2

The article Dungeon Keeper 2 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dungeon Keeper 2 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My KOP mall edit

Plenty of other unsouced items on this page. I will remove those too, just to be fair. --74.103.148.51 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!

File:AnimalJam 1.jpg	Alert Guy
	Please forgive me for doing a bad thing. It will not happen again!😢 Kaydiddlediddle (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucki Starr

I saw that you twice removed SD tags from this, which I'd already speedied once. Just to remind you that notability is not transferable, and working as backing to famous people doesn't make her notable. She obviously isn't notable in her own right. Your edits were in good faith, so I won't revert them or speedy yet, but perhaps you could consider restoring the SD tags? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: You seem to be forgetting that significance is lower than notability. The article plausibly made claims of working with notable people and on a notable show. Whether that actually does make her notable is (for A7) irrelevant. She meets WP:CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dungeon Keeper 2

The article Dungeon Keeper 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dungeon Keeper 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

==User Sorry for the mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.54.92.176 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Adam9007,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

MarioRichie1912's Article

For your talk to me about the Garden Grove Unified School District, I think you made a mistake for me because I felt that when only one of the school had a description in the list didn't make sense, so I copied the exact same words from the description, made a new page, and deleted the one on the GGUSD one. Don't worry, I plan to improve the page so everything will be equal.

                                            Best regards,
                                                     Mario 

@MarioRichie1912: You should have said that in your edit summary. If you remove content without an explanation, it'll be reverted because it's not usually clear why it's been removed. Adam9007 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll keep that in mind. -Mario

Your GA nomination of Unreal Tournament

The article Unreal Tournament you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unreal Tournament for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

article tagging

Hello Adam9007,

Thanks for the advice on article tagging. It will help improve my article tagging. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited

Re your removal of {{db-person}} on Robert Siegel (virologist). For future reference, "teaches at a notable university" does not make the person notable. For a person to be notable and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article, the person must be notable as an individual - a link with some other notable entity is not sufficient. — Smjg (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smjg: Please read WP:A7. Significance is lower than notability. Nor does the claim need to meet any notability guideline. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Although you know A7, your practical understanding of it seems to be at odds with consensus and it just gives the rest of us more work. Another of your A7 removals (for the same reason), Ivan Vladimirovich Gorokhov, is at AfD and the cleanup crew is also capable of evaluating CSD tags. Notability is not inherited, and neither is significance; although you're correct that the standard is lower, a standard still exists. Miniapolis 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: What policy or guideline says significance cannot be inherited? This says it can be. Adam9007 (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis didn't say significance cannot be inherited. I take it as meaning that significance isn't automatically inherited. Back to the original one we were talking about, I'm still not convinced that somebody working at a notable university is a credible claim of significance, even on the basis of point 6 on WP:CCS. A large university is likely to have hundreds of lecturers; only a few are likely to be famous for something. — Smjg (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's no policy or guideline saying that significance cannot be inherited; I think this is hair-splitting, however, and kicking the can down the road (to AfD) takes time away from improving existing articles. COI editing (paid editing and "vanity" articles) is a great danger to WP's credibility as an encyclopedia. Miniapolis 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: On the other hand, speedily deleting articles that could well have potential doesn't do the project any good whatsoever, and can even drive editors away. Take Joe (website). What would have happened if I had not declined the A7? Adam9007 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Wikipedia is built on consensus. Deleting articles speedily bypasses that consensus-based decision process, and therefore (in my view) should only be used in the most obvious of cases. I personally think many articles written by COI contributors should be kept, though perhaps cut down to only a few sentences: I do decline G11 quite often as well when it appears that the article is notable and can be cut to a stub. Appable (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Joe (website) is a difficult one. But there's a difference in that famous entrepreneurs, musical artists, novelists, etc. are often famous for their works, whereas universities aren't typically famous for their individual lecturers. Moreover, as I said, a large university is likely to have hundreds of lecturers, so one picked at random is unlikely to be notable in the absence of some other statement that may be considered a CCS. Any fool (I'm not calling the user who created this article a fool!) could start an article on WP about his/her personal favourite teacher.... — Smjg (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh wonder

I'm working on it mate. Bemypaperplane (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thank you sir for editing Lifoti and remove from WP:CSD please help again for removing WP:AfD Jerrysoko (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Trader Vic's" edit

Hi. I added a citation for the lyrics to "Werewolves of London" to the "In popular culture" section of the "Trader Vic's" page, as you suggested. My first time adding a citation this way, so you might want to check it. (It's a link to a Google Play lyrics page.)

Thanks HankStamper

HankStamper (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Janusz Cedro

Dude, you removed a blp-prod from the above article, citing the fact that it has a reference. Where is the reference?

@Scope creep: The links in the external links section. A rubbish source, but enough to void BLPPROD if the source was already there. Adam9007 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Kirby

Actually, BLPRPOD does require sources. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people And to remove it, "BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." I suggest you revert. Othewise, I'll just have to AFD it. AndroidCat (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@AndroidCat: WP:BLPPROD also states: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". There were already sources on the page, so it was not eligible for BLPPROD. I'm afraid you'll have to use AfD or normal PROD for this. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You chopped it ", which support any statements made about the person in the biography." There are two dead links, and a personal website. None that support the article. AndroidCat (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the subject was covered in several of them. Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they weren't when I checked carefully and removed them. I gave my reason for each removal. If you feel any was incorrect, you're welcome to put them back, hopefully with a justification on the talk page. AndroidCat (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

diff There are several sources about a Robert Kirby. Are you saying they're about some other person of the same name? Adam9007 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a BLP article. Those links are unacceptable for this type of article. (One of the the links was for another Robert Kirby. The Salt Lake Tribune one.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, BLPPROD did not apply, because the sources were already there. It really is only for articles with no sources at all. Adam9007 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's inherent in a BLP article that the sources have to be WP:RS. Non-Reliable Sources are unable to "support any statements made about the person", and WP:BLP calls for non-RS refs to be immediately deleted in the strongest possible terms. AndroidCat (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

blp prods

Greetings. And Merry Christmas. Thanks for catching those prod mistakes. I saw your edit summary and was surprised, went and looked at the articles, and sure enough, I missed the website in the infobox. Honestly, I wasn't even looking there. I also looked at some of the discussions above, and while I may personally agree that the blp prod should read at least one reliable source, it doesn't currently, just any source. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Transmed holding

Hi Adam9007! It was an honest mistake :) I am currently editing the article "Transmed Holding" in order for it not to be deleted... your input and guidance is very valuable! Please can you check it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmed_holding

@Transmedlb: For starters, can you provide any reliable (known for fact-checking and editorial oversight) third-party sources to demonstrate that the subject may meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Adam9007 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Senna Matsuda article re BLPPROD

Hello, I did know that IMDB was listed as a source, but it is my understanding that because it is user-editable that it is not a reliable source, which the BLPPROD requires. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: You're right, but, in order to be placed, BLPPROD requires no sources whatsoever, not just no reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is that? That seems to be an easy way to game the system to prevent BLPPRODs. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for disturbing you; I have read your suggested passage above. Thank you 331dot (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Deprod of Sony Xperia T3.

In this edit [4], you removed a proposed deletion tag and suggested a merge. Merge what? There's less info in that article than in the table in Sony Xperia that covers all the Xperia variants. It has only one line of copy. Would you object to simply redirecting Sony Xperia T3 to Sony Xperia? John Nagle (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nagle: No. Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Re:Declined speedy deletion nomination of To the Wind and On To Heaven

Dear User:Adam9007, I appreciate the message and will instead retag it for "notability" concerns. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Tai

Hi Why did you decline the blp-prod. He has zero reliable sources. Classic user page by the way. scope_creep (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Because, in order to place a BLPPROD tag, the article must have no sources, not just no reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Luca Padovan

My PROD was not invalid. As the BLPPRODs state; All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. (bolding mine). A single reference to someone's Instragram account, that incidentally verified nothing said on the article, is not a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: I'm sorry, but it was invalid. WP:BLPPROD also states "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You missed a bit; which support any statements made about the person in the biography. The cite to someone's Instagram supported nothing said on the article. It just contained photos of someone who had something to do with an unspecified production of a musical. Now I've gone looking for it, The guy's website would have actually been far better a cite, although a primary source. No matter, it appears to have been speedy deleted now.

However, we have two problems here that need addressing;

• The PROD BLP template says something different from WP:BLPPROD.
• Biographies, which above all others should have exemplary reliable sources, are permitted to remain on Wikipedia (until such time as an AFD may run its course) supported by nothing other than any old webpage that could be knocked up in five minutes by anyone. Any un-notable person can create a free blog about themselves, filled with fanciful fiction, and five minutes later create a autobio about themselves on Wikipedia, supported by nothing but that blog. And WP:BLPPROD is fine with that. Worse, they could create it about someone else, and as long as it's not wholly negative, it can contain any lie or libel they like. I see that as a problem.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: If I recall correctly, the subject was named clearly (BLPPROD requires that there be no sources that even name the subject). WP:BLPPROD is policy: if something contradicts it, we should defer to policy (also note that the template says "appears to have no references", not "appears to have no reliable references", so it doesn't actually contradict the policy. The stuff about requiring a reliable source is simply a statement; it doesn't actually say that is what BLPPROD means, because it isn't.). As for the lies/libel, that can be dealt with by the other deletion processes. BLPPROD is meant to supplement them, not replace them. BLPPROD has a strictly-defined purpose; it is not a catch-all for every questionable BLP. Adam9007 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The Instagram cite did little other than verify that there was indeed someone with this name. Nothing to verify notability or anything claimed about them. Is this really all that is required to support a biography?

Please see the text above in italics in my first post of this section. That is exactly what the BLP Proposed Deletion template says.; must have at least one reference to a reliable source. If the policy says otherwise the template should be altered.

For other deletion processes to handle lies/libel, how are they to do that if it is unknown whether they are lies/libel or not? If a page is created about an otherwise total unknown, with nothing other than some dubious, decidedly unreliable source as a reference, How is anyone to know what the facts are? How can it be verified? The only course of action would be to remove the reference as an unreliable source, which would of course then leave the article totally unreferenced and we are back where we started. Bottom line is that a single unreliable source on a BLP is no better than no reference at all. It may well actually be worse.

But are you really saying that WP:BLPPROD trumps WP:V and the need for reliable sources? Despite what it says quite specifically at the start of WP:BLP?

Frankly I'm mystified to why a core policy can be circumvented so easily in such a critical area. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: You seem to be forgetting that sourced BLPs can be deleted, just not by BLPPROD. Although if sources can be removed and potentially make BLPs BLPPROD-eligible, that defeats the whole purpose of the no sources placement requirement. If, as you are implying, WP:V and WP:BLP trump and override the placement requirement of WP:BLPPROD, then BLPPROD needs to be changed. Adam9007 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not "implying" anything. I am saying, as plainly as I can;

• the BLPPROD template contradicts what WP:BLPPROD says about sources.
• WP:BLPPROD contradicts what WP:V and WP:BLP says about sources.
• every time you enforce what WP:BLPPROD says about unreliable sources, you breach WP:V and WP:BLP policy

No wonder then that editors (myself particularly) are confused. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit:

• "the BLPPROD template contradicts what WP:BLPPROD says about sources."

• No it doesn't. The fact that BLPs require reliable sources (don't all articles require reliable sources?) does not mean BLPPROD means "no reliable sources".

• "WP:BLPPROD contradicts what WP:V and WP:BLP says about sources."

• No it doesn't. WP:BLPPROD is a separate deletion process for unsourced BLP articles. BLPs do not have to be deleted via BLPPROD. Nowhere in WP:BLPPROD does it say that WP:V or WP:BLP are in any way irrelevant.

• "every time you enforce what WP:BLPPROD says about unreliable sources, you breach WP:V and WP:BLP policy"

• There. You've just said it: in other words, WP:V and WP:BLP override the placement requirement of BLPPROD. As it is therefore meaningless, maybe it's time BLPPROD was scrapped? Besides, I don't see what BLPPROD can do that cannot be done by AfD (and perhaps AfD can enforce WP:BLP better, as more people will keep an eye on the article, and of course no-one can remove AfD tags until the issue is settled). BLPPROD certainly seems to be causing more problems that it's solving these days. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Adam9007

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Adam9007. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

fair enough

csd's correctness is important - thanks for that - cheers - HNY JarrahTree 02:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Remember that something being available on or via the web doesn't necessarily mean it's web content. Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Link for BLProd?

Hi, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought on a questionable BLP, especially an autobio, that the subject's Facebook/YouTube/other social media (single link) didn't count as a reference? That's why I tagged Ankit Shah the way I did. I could be mistaken, wanted to check.  :-) Thanks. JamesG5 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesG5: WP:BLPPROD states: "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject", and does not say anywhere that certain types are excluded. Adam9007 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mirella Santos

Adam9007, I have restored the CSD to Mirella Santos. Your description for the removal was that the individual was the ex-spouse of a notable person. As you are aware, notability is not inherited. If there was another reason for the removal, please feel free to remove it, but please be specific in the description . Thanks...reddogsix (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: And as you are aware, significance is not the same thing as notability, and WP:NOTINHERITED is about notability, not significance. Your argument for it being A7 is therefore invalid. Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007:Yes, I am more than aware of that, but when you make the statement, "Ex-spouse of a notable person." It implies an inherited notability is the reason for the removal. Being married to someone is far from significant in the case. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: I fail to see how such a statement implies inherited notability: saying the person to whom the subject is/was connected with doesn't bring notability into it any more than saying "the grass is green" brings the colour green into it. It's simply a statement of fact: I'm not talking about the colour green, but simply mentioning the grass is of that colour. I am, therefore, saying that such a connexion with a notable person is significant. As for it not being significant, not if there's the possibility of coverage in reliable sources. Subjects with strong connexions with already notable ones have a fair chance of having at least some coverage somewhere (whether it passes notability is another matter). That some sort of connexion is involved changes nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Same BS, different day. Adam, do you realize how many folks have been frustrated by your overzealous interpretation of "assertion of importance?" Toddst1 (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Are you talking specifically about this, or my comments in general? Adam9007 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Adam, I'm talking about your general approach to CSD patrol. It's significantly outside of the general consensus of how to apply the rules. You're an otherwise very good editor, but this continues to be problematic, IMHO and many others'. Please consider lightening up on this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Can you give any examples? What is this consensus and where was it formed? Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at all the dozens of seasoned editors who have complained on this talk page. Then there was the ANI disucssion where lots of folks expressed concern. No admin action was taken but quite a few folks thought your actions were beyond the standard.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you're consistently pissing folks off and you don't seem to be changing your approach, despite all this feedback. I mean if you're consistently pissing good editors off, you're probably doing something wrong. I've been in that situation myself (pissing folks off and having to change). Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Then I have no choice. It would seem that I cannot follow reasonable guidance without incurring the wrath of the community (or at least without "ignoring" other guidance). I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. It will take a while, and I'm doing something else at the moment. Bear with me... unless I've misunderstood it entirely? Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: On second thoughts, I'm not going to take such a drastic action yet (mainly because I don't want to!), but there is something very wrong here and it needs sorting fast. Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I know you remove speedy tags that should be removed but you also remove tags for bogus reasons. The one that started this is one, saying that formerly being married to a notable person is a credible claim to significance is nonsense. Another one that you removed that was complete nonsense was the removal of an A7 tag from a college basketball player with the edit summary that he plays for a notable college team. Just playing for a notable college team is not a credible claim to significance. - GB fan 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: I thought the point of CSD was to quickly get rid of articles if an AfD obviously has no chance of resulting in anything other than delete? Per WP:FAILN, non-notable articles with a closely related notable one usually result in something other than delete. As for being married to a notable person, even WP:INVALIDBIO concurs with that. I am puzzled by your assertion of "bogus" reasoning. Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Marian L. Thomas

Could you tell me what reference you are referring to here [5]? Swear I'm not asking passive aggressively :) I BLP PROD patrol myself relatively frequently, and am normally a stickler for the policy, so I'm trying to see what I missed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: You missed the link to his website in the infobox. Adam9007 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That would do it. Thanks for catching it. Don't know why I didn't see it (twice!?). Now off for me to patrol the BLP PRODs as penance. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Megan Ryte

That was fast! I spotted her own website in the infobox just after I'd BLPPRODded, went back into the article to DePROD, weirdly couldn't find the PROD to remove it ... and found that you'd already done so. But have PROdded anyway, as no evidence of notability. PamD 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Mirella Santos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Instead of going WP:TANTRUM, why don't you just revert your edit and let someone else patrol the damn CSD tag? Toddst1 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1:Because this nonsense keeps happening again and again and again and I simply do not know how much more I can take. I fear the worst every single time something likes this happens. Adam9007 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see how WP:REHASH could be tiring. I agree that WP:ANIISLOUSY which is why I've been trying to talk you through this issue. Look, you mentioned you had aspergers in a previous conversation and that that affected your behavior on this issue. I'm only bringing this up because maybe WP:CSD patrol isn't your thing. Perhaps you could cut yourself a little slack on this and maybe take some constructive feedback - Maybe avoid CSD patrol in favor of some other activity like WP:RCP or WP:NPP? Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Like I said before, I cannot turn my back on this now. Adam9007 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

CSD and deletion policy is literally that anyone except the creator can remove a speedy tag if they disagree in good faith. Claims that she regularly appeared in multiple Brazilian TV programs, won Brazilian modelling competitions including one by the national branch of Playboy, and was married to a blue-linked entertainer; plus the existence of the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia and many Portuguese Google hits would be enough to pass the A7 threshold in my opinion. AFD is thataway.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem with applying policies like WP:BRD to this are that they centered around creating constructive discussion during content disputes. This is about deletion, not content. Furthermore, CSD is a type of uncontroversial deletion where no editor should be able to challenge a CSD nomination under the good-faith belief that it does not fit under the criterion listed - and few have seriously challenges that any uninvolved editor can remove a speedy deletion tag. We wouldn't revert editors who removed PROD tags either, and it certainly wouldn't be edit-warring to decline an already-declined PROD. Of course we need to make sure we aren't stepping too far out of consensus (good-faith declining of almost every CSD would be an example of something that would actually be a problem).

As mentioned above, Toddst1, I would have declined that speedy deletion under the same rationale and I think it was a bit strange that you requested speedy deletion on it again without any further explanation - perhaps you didn't notice it had been nominated for speedy deletion already? The article's subject had coverage in reliable sources, meaning that it instantly fails A7 - and this has been a general agreement, though I can't find an official RfC and it was never officially added to the page because it's difficult to define "reliable" in the context of CSD. Furthermore, the subject is associated with a notable person: it's easy to argue that this is a close association and thus per this RfC significance is inherited. And finally, I would only say that there's a 50% chance this article would be deleted in AfD. A merge or redirect seems like a likely outcome as well, which would indicate A7 was never the correct policy - perhaps a AfD nomination or WP:BOLD redirect would be more appropriate.

Since nobody else seemed interested in nominating for AfD once it was declined for A7 (a bit odd), I've opened an AfD for the article as a procedural nomination with no personal thoughts on whether the subject is notable or not. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Appable: Oh, he knew it had already been nominated, and is still insisting it's an A7 (and that significance is not inherited; he seems to have just ignored everything you said) despite 3 people (me, you, and Patar Knight) now saying it's not. I think people like you and me are fighting an uphill battle despite that RfC. The essay WP:A7M appears to be encouraging it, so no wonder I'm talking about nominating it for deletion, and I think I may have to do just that (even though I really don't want to), or at least raise the issue at WT:CSD (I know it's a user essay, but it deals directly with the application of policy; if it's too far outside consensus then there's a problem. I don't believe it is, but it's not what I think that matters). I'm not sure what else to do... Adam9007 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think what really needs to happen is some actual consensus on whether CSDs can be contested by any uninvolved editor in good faith. This clause could be something stating (roughly) "any uninvolved editor or administrator may remove a speedy deletion nomination; speedy deletions may be considered by an administrator at any time, who may delete it or may remove the CSD tag" [adapted from WP:PROD]. Perhaps there could be an exception for vandalism, hoax, copyvio, or attack/negative unsourced BLP - which can be libel or cause other legal issues. Previous discussions seem to indicate rough consensus for that, though of course there are user-specific issues with editors removing every PROD. The effect of such a proposal would be to establish speedy deletion as a special-case PROD where the article may be deleted more quickly due to a specific, common concern. Appable (talk | contributions) 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

removal of my revision in Richard Fung

1)anyone with a smidget of medical knowledge should know that HIV/AIDS is caused by a VIRUS and not by a bacteria as stated in the article 2)thalassemia is an inherited blood disorder, not an infectious disease

206.210.118.233 (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC) 206.210.118.233 (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)tkjho

Yeah, I had a brain fart. Sorry about that. Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Golaghat Gymkhana

Hi Adam9007,

Thanks for reverting the proposed speedy deletion of the Golaghat Gymkhana which is currently under AfD discussion. My understanding is sources are relevant, including articles on national newspapers and additional sources cited on the page to support its entry in Wikipedia, and not advertising as a few North American editors seem to have indicated just purely based on initial nomination. I would really appreciate if you could review and provide your objective facts on the proposed deletion of the Gymkhana article to enable to reach a consensus. AnjanBorah (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@AnjanBorah: A quick Google search reveals little, so unless you have print sources, it is likely it will be deleted even if it is not promotional. I'm afraid the current sourcing is not enough to satisfy our notability guidelines, as they need to go beyond a trivial mention of the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for your response. I understand the rationale behind the proposed deletion however, I still feel that the page shouldn't be scrapped as it about a historic building estd. in 1910, that is commemorated as a heritage site by the citizens of that region. Similar articles on other Gymkhanas are in Wikipedia with a few to no newspaper sources had passed WP:GNG and WP:NCORP norms in the past, thus, Golaghat Gymkhana doesn't seem to be an exception. E.g., Karachi Gymkhana (with just one source, the official website), Bengal Club (no reference at all), Lahore Gymkhana Club (with 1 newspaper source, and the reference to the official website), Bangalore Club (with no newspaper sources, just includes the official website, in addition to a book reference), Calcutta Club (with 1 newspaper source and the reference to the official website), Madras Club (with 2 book references), Hindu Gymkhana Karachi (with 2 book references), Gymkhana Club, Chennai (with 1 newspaper source and 2 references to the websites, one being the official website of the club), Jamalpur Gymkhana (with no newspaper sources, and only references are the club's 2 official websites along with another supporting website) to name a few...

The page was initially tagged as a promotional material without proper due diligence, that was wrong to begin with, and then was reverted as I had revised the content and cited sources where possible. Later, the speedy deletion tag was again reinstated by another admin without any rationale just because he noticed that the page had "speedy deletion" tagged initially, so it was a wrong review again. Now that the promotion can't be reinforced, the original reviewer who tagged the page for "speedy deletion" at the first place, comes back (which seems like a targeted approach) stating it as a non-notable topic, which isn't justified as when compared to a few other Gymkhana pages, Karachi Gymkhana in particular, Golaghat Gymkhana lists this The Telegraph article (a national broadsheet newspaper with a daily circulation of 4 million plus, much higher than the most of the Pakistani newspaper sources), sufficiently affirming that the place is notable, even though it is not located in a major metropolitan region of India; in addition to a book source. Another thing to be noted here is that the topics related to bigger cities or metropolitan regions would always have more print or electronic media coverage, so to expect premier newspapers to cover Golaghat (Assam) topics isn't fully justified, esp., in a developing economy where the medium is still evolving and struggling to cover a broad spectrum of India topics, and has a long way to go. If Karachi being the biggest business centre and an important metropolitan region in Pakistan hasn't been able to attract newspaper houses to write about Karachi Gymkhana (which is historic place), let alone Golaghat. Thus, the article should qualify to be included in Wikipedia based on the above reasons. AnjanBorah (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@AnjanBorah: What Wikipedia means by "notable" is the existence of reliable (known for accuracy or editorial oversight) independent sources covering the subject beyond a simple mention. The fact those articles exist does not necessarily mean they meet our guidelines; it could be that nobody has done anything about it yet (in fact, Bengal Club has been tagged with {{notability}} for nearly 7 years now). The state of sourcing in those articles is poor, although that does not necessarily mean they fail the notability guidelines, as the sources only have to exist, not actually be used on the article for the subject to qualify as notable. If it's over 100 years old, there could well be print sources that we don't know about, but if there are not, then the subject does not qualify for a standalone article per our notability guidelines, and the content may have to be merged into, for example, Golaghat, the town where the club is located. BTW, neither editor who tagged the page for G11 are admins as far as I'm aware, just normal editors. Adam9007 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

G10?

Hi, Adam9007, why did you tag the pages Billy and Zorba and The Lives of the Saints as G10? Neither article appears to be attacking anything, and while they can both probably be safely deleted, G10 isn't the criterion I'd use. This kind of mixup is not the biggest of deals, but G10 is a different level of speedy deletion than the other criteria, as evidenced by the instructions to blank the page, and I'm probably not the only one who gives that category special attention; nominating pages that don't really fit it dilutes that urgency a little bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: The Lives of the Saints was described as "poo", and "pants" (Billy and Zorba) is a British slang term meaning rubbish or worthless (I'm British so I understood what it meant). So they seemed to be attack pages. Adam9007 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that they're insults, but they're not actually insulting anyone; Billy and Zorba is a movie, and The Lives of the Saints is a book. They're not people, or groups of people, so there's nothing really to be attacked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I thought G10 applied to any subject, not just people? "This is a pants film" is saying "This is a rubbish film". It's disparaging the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the wording of the criterion itself is ambiguous, but the elaboration on the criterion is written entirely on the assumption that the subject is a person, for example: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. None of which, of course, make sense if the subject is not a person or organization. More importantly, though, the spirit of the criterion, particularly the blanking clause, is intended to mitigate the possibility of someone coming across something unpleasant in an article about themselves or someone else (notice that WP:Attack page was created in December 2005, the time of the Seigenthaler incident). These special concerns, which are what cause G10 to be treated differently from other CSD, don't apply to books or movies, where there's no such risk.

Again, this isn't to say that you were wrong to tag the articles, just that I at least wouldn't consider them to qualify under G10, and that tagging things that don't really qualify as G10 is detrimental to an extent unlike the other CSD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I think it's best if I ask the community for clarification, although this discussion and this discussion seem to imply that G10 is supposed to cover all subjects. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

But I am not new to the block - thank you for your concerns, but please do not template me. Garchy (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pedantic removal of csd notices

Why do you not consider a business venture to be an organization??.TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Pedant. The article was a clear csd candidate. I do not consider your action to be constructive.TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help if I were to know which article you are referring to. Is it Pars Aqua Village? Tourist attractions are categorised under places, not organisations. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed my legal threat

So why the 2nd revert? Explain.4.34.62.251 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Because your edit summary gave the impression you simply reverted me. I have reverted myself and I think I will let MelanieN handle this one. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A random anon IP -- most likely the indeffed user I'm trying to report -- is now stalking me now and reverting every edit I make. [6] Some assistance?

Protected

I have semiprotected your talk page. You shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks. I think I handled it rather badly though. They were both being rather disruptive weren't they? As you may or may not know, my mind's been elsewhere today, and that will have affected my judgement. Adam9007 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I was AFK (away from keyboard) all afternoon and missed the whole party. Looks like you and several others were busy defending my talk page and several other people's. Thanks for all your help, and no apology; you handled it just fine. The usual approach to this kind of stuff is WP:RBI: revert, block, ignore. You couldn't do the "block" part but you were very helpful with the reverting. --MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's good to know: I think I managed to convince myself I'd cocked it up just like I do nearly everything else on Wikipedia (except perhaps making myself look like a complete muppet; I think most editors would agree that's something I've become rather good at lately) because I've become a total disgrace. You know you said I don't have the temperament to be an admin at this time? You were right. Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is stop kicking yourself. You are a valuable editor here and don't forget it. Besides, we all make mistakes. Would you like to know what was the first thing I did with my new admin tools after passing RFA? I deleted a page - BY MISTAKE! --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You only meant to tag it didn't you? But some mistakes are so big I take a long time to recover from them. I still haven't forgotten this, for instance. Monday was just one embarrassment after another for me. A total waste of time too: I had actually planned to get this article up to standards (I even spent much of the previous day tracking down sources), but for some reason I instead chose to go on a wild goose chase and cause myself lots of stress, practically all but destroy my reputation in the process (nobody's said that outright, but I can feel it). Clever.

I often only realise something's a stupid thing to do after I've done it and the damage is done. Unfortunately, they often seem like good ideas at the time. I need to learn to recognise when to quit and make my Asperger's not get in the way. My failure to do that has been almost lethal to my standing. Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the details of Monday; I wasn't following whatever you were up to and haven't looked. I think you do realize that your Asperger's sometimes causes you to be overly stubborn - simply because it is clear to you that you are right and other people are wrong, and it's too hard for you to drop it and move on. I think another is a tendency to take small things as very large and personal; to obsess over setbacks and not see a way to move on. I don't know what you can do about this, except to recognize the warning signs and know when to take a deep breath and step back. I know you can learn this. We have many Asperberg's editors here, including I'm sure some admins. We really ought to get up a support group so that you all can help each other out here. In fact that gives me an idea. I'm not going to say what, in case it doesn't pan out, but don't give up - and don't think you are alone. --MelanieN (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Just so you're aware Adam, I've emailed you. Best, Patient Zero^talk 10:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's just piqued my curiosity . Quickly going back to the original topic, someone has just vandalised my talk page on commons. As I hardly ever edit commons (or any other wikimedia project for that matter), I can only assume it's because this talk page is protected and that it has something to do with something I've done here on English Wikipedia. The IP hasn't edited here since New Year's Eve, and I don't appear to have had any recent interaction with it. Is it probably a sock or using a proxy? Or could someone be picking on me for no reason? Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adam, I can't imagine. That user has made only three recent edits here at enwiki, and none of them seem to involve you. At Commons a nice commons admin reverted the vandalism and blocked the user. Sometimes you never do know why these things happen or who the users are. As long as it's a one-time thing - and now several weeks old - it's best to just forget about it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Thanks. I'd rather not reply to emails as doing so will reveal my surname, which is something I decided when I joined would not be a good idea. I know, get another email address, but I'm no good at making things up (which is actually rather ironic, as will shortly become apparent). You said Stonehenge is not an organisation, but someone said on the thread you refer to that it is. You see my confusion? I for one did not think it unreasonable in such cases to check what it's listed under by the categorisation system and go by what I found there. We really need a policy or guideline page for A7. We have one for G10, one that applies to A11, one that applies to G3, one that applies to G1, one that is somewhat related to G11, and at least one related to G12. Why not one for A7? Is an essay (which people are perfectly free to ignore) really the best we can do? Okay, there's my essay (I realise a lot of what I've said are generalisations), and this essay too, but if these constitute (or are even remotely related to) "making up my own criteria and demanding the community complies with them" (and I really am quoting), then, well...., I don't know what to do. If I am guilty of that, then the author of the other essay (SoWhy) most probably is too. Even if that is just by writing a "Common indicators of significance" list without obtaining consensus, and then citing the essay or otherwise directing users to it (as I have also done with my essay). No wonder I've recently been talking about nominating it for deletion (even though I'm well aware the policy/guideline says user pages about Wikipedia related topics usually are not eligible), but I though that was another "autistic outburst", for want of a better term. As for MelanieN's idea, I don't know if that is indeed what she meant, but I too think it will be a good idea. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's alright, I understand why you'd want to respond here instead. I can see why you're confused; Stonehenge is a prehistoric monument, and therefore couldn't possibly be an organisation - it would be illogical to call it one. It is clear to me that you're not creating new criteria; rather, it's clear that you take the criteria literally, which I understand due to the fact that I am on the spectrum myself. I quite like your A7 essay, and it would be a shame to see it go, but if that's what you want to do, I think U1 would be right as the essay is still in userspace. I'd carefully consider it first, though; at the moment, you say that you are frustrated and that your mind is elsewhere at the moment, so now may not be the best time to make a decision on that - you can always come back to it whenever you want to. Which brings me onto my next point; why not get into a bit of anti-vandalism work to take your mind off CSD for a bit? You have already installed Huggle according to your userpage, so you could always resume your work on there. I haven't been on there at all this year, as I've been using school computers a lot recently - I need to get back into it myself :-) Just an idea, of course. Let me know what you think. Take care, and enjoy your day. Patient Zero^talk 10:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: I think StoneHenge is considered an organisation because you have to pay to get in. As far as I'm (now) aware, "consensus" is that most things that involve some sort of business are organisations. But I agree with you; it is illogical because once you're actually in, it's just a monument. As for U1ing my essay, I was actually considering taking both A7 essays to MfD, and after what I've seen today, I may well have to do just that (though I have absolutely no desire to do anything of the sort): now I'm being accused of not understanding or being unwilling to follow consensus regarding A7, and that admin has made what I suppose could be considered a personal attack against me on an AfD (I actually had to refrain from suggesting that he take my essay to MfD, as it's clearly part of my making things up). I can only assume I've yet again made up my own criteria and demanded that everyone follows them. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Wikipedia is no place for autistic people, because we will come into frequent conflict with neurotypicals (who are the vast majority in Wikipedia as well as in real life). Let's face it: autistics naturally take things literally, most others take them liberally. Thus, many would say that the liberal interpretation is the consensus interpretation, and therefore it is in the nature of autistics to violate consensus. That much is very clear to me now. It's just as well I'm not massively active in other areas and are thus more likely to get away with things there. I reckon it's only a matter of time before something like this happens with my BLPPROD reviewing, even though policy is clearly on my side there. I've already seen danger signs. But it's good to know that someone likes my essay, though I think you, Ritchie333, and Appable are the only ones that do. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it speaks volumes. I could start focusing on anti-vandalism, but I don't think I can take this off my mind. Adam9007 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course editors come into conflict with one another from time to time - this can be between NT editors and ASD editors, sometimes even between editors on the spectrum. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia is no place for those of us who are autistic. I think a lot of the people who commented on the CSD talk page re. your proposal could've been a bit more understanding (we have the ASD/NT interaction pact, which I've signed, but that clearly isn't enough, as not many people have actually signed it). Have a go at anti-vandalism. It might not take your mind off CSD fully, but at least your focus will be on something else. Patient Zero^talk 09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Well, as I said, I'll be doing this article over the weekend, circumstances permitting (I still have the sources: I didn't get rid of them out of frustration ). I've decided not to take any A7 essay to MfD yet, because I don't want to (although of course I might change my mind if I encounter further problems as a result of following them, although probably out of frustration). Just did some anti-vandalism stuff and it was a distraction from A7, but of course I quickly remembered it again afterwards. Adam9007 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of Line

You appear to hate yoghurt. Regards Please tell me you did not vote for Trump. You hate yoghurt and you hate America if you did...

I didn't vote Trump because I'm English. Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Credera

You said that you don't see an advert, but in the lead there is a sentence saying "Credera has been included in 'best companies to work for' lists from numerous sources such as Fortune Magazine and various business journals and news publications," then proceeds to list four sources that accredit it as such. GabetheEditor ^(talk_cont) 18:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not really an advert, just a statement. It could probably be reworded. Adam9007 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

PROD BLP for Monica Cirinnà

Hello, Adam9007. I would like to understand why you removed the {{PROD BLP}} from Monica Cirinnà. Your edit comment was "Invalid BLPPROD; article already includes a source." But the only thing is a link to the subject's personal website in the Infobox, which falls well short of being a reliable source. The policy for removing a PROD BLP says "this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement" (my emphasis), which is not the case here. So would you mind indicating why you thought there was enough support to remove the PROD? --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: WP:BLPPROD also says: "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". That link was already present in the article and therefore rendered it BLPPROD-ineligible. Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, Adam9007. That leaves me very confused (as is so often the case with Wikipedia policies) particularly because the policy goes on to say that "if no such source [i.e. reliable] has been provided, the tag may be re-added." It sounds terribly self-contradictory. Anyway, I have added a couple of references now so I think this particular matter is settled now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Look at it like this: if the removal requirement overrides not meeting the placement requirement, it would make the placement requirement entirely redundant and pointless, wouldn't it? For what it's worth, you may want to read my essay on the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Your article does help, thanks. The policies don't make it clear (to the dummies like me, at least) that the criteria for initial placement of the tag are different from the requirements to remove it or replace it. I'm still not sure whether I like that approach, but at least I understand it now so I will try not to make that same mistake again. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Policy does make it clear (to me at least :)). Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating says: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag." It actually states that it is a different criterion. Step 1 of "Nomination" says: "Make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person." The stuff about objecting assumes all BLPPROD tag placements are valid, because it is made clear beforehand that the process requires the total absence of sources altogether. I think the problem is that people don't read the policy thoroughly. I was recently criticised over my application of BLPPROD despite policy making the "no sources whatsoever" requirement clear. Another possibility is that, for some users, the template gives the impression that BLPPROD means no reliable sources (it says all BLPs created after March 2010 require a reliable source, and I think a lot of people think that comes from BLPPROD, not just BLP policy in general), rather than no sources whatsoever. But I think the second paragraph of WP:BLPPROD sums it up nicely. Adam9007 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we have people like you, who can guide dummies like me through the labrynth of Wikipedia's policies. Thanks, Adam9007. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Adam9007,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

paul whelan (rugby player) does not exist, nor does he play for the leinster first team. Delete this page please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyrugbychange (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rugbyrugbychange: What is your evidence? Discuss you concerns on the AfD page you created please. Adam9007 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Whelan (rugby player)

Sorry for this, the AFD page redirects to Peadar Timmins.

My evidence is: 1. Google Paul Whelan rugby. 2. It was a prank amongst friends, if you check the references they dont mention him. 3. There has been alot of vandalism on the page recently.

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/teams/academy/ does not list him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyrugbychange (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rugbyrugbychange: The subject does appear to exist, but I can't find any evidence he ever played for Leinster. As far as I can tell, he playes for Wanderers FC, and is also most probably not notable. Adam9007 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: the subject does exist however he doesnt play for the leinster first team. Wanderers FC are a recreational amateur club in Ireland from what ive gathered. The page should be deleted in my view

Please do not falsely accuse others of non-constructive

You are being non-constructive. Please be nice. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If unhappy, you may appeal the decision but my decision is sound. I suspect that anything related to Donald Trump will be controversial but my decision is based solely on logic and convenience to Wikipedia users, not to the man. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chris H of New York:The discussion's result was no consensus. Please start a new discussion with your reasoning. Adam9007 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been more than one RM. I closed the most recent one. Just because there was one does not preclude a future one as subsequent ones showed. If you do not want to appeal, wait at least 6 weeks then make a new RM. Also do not confuse support or opposition to very controversial man, Donald Trump, in this RM. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You cannot override consensus just because you disagree with it. There was no consensus to redirect the page, so it was left as it is. Please do not redirect the page until a consensus to do so is reached. Adam9007 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You should Familiarize Yourself with Wikipedia Guidelines

Studying your talk page so far, Your supposed aforementioned "Experience" is non-existent seeing as it is filled up with people who have complaints about your style and methods, I put a speedy delete tag on a "Bimbo Oshin" Article and you removed it, Go and take a look at that article now, you would notice a far more experienced editor has put a similar tag on it showing he/she supports and backs my stand. Go and study more and you would know the article doesn't deserve inclusion to Wikipedia, could it be that you and the subject are related in any form in real life ? In that case you should perharps refrain from editing that article as personal emotions may impair with good judgment. Celestina007 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Celestina007, I'm going to say this bluntly. Stop lecturing other editors on processes you obviously know nothing about. WP:AFD is a completely different process than WP:CSD and I see that right now, two editors support keeping the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hello

If I was being radical and rude to you, I apologize, perharps you are Nigerian and may have understanding of how high the corruption is down here, or perharps you aren't Nigerian and the concept of grand corruption is alien to you, let me explain, some non-notable persons may pay a Wikipedia editor good money in exchange for creating Wikipedia pages for them, you grasp how wrong that is right? "Bimbo Oshin" article struck me as such, as subject lacks good coverage WP:GNG sir, if you must keep the page here, could you improve the article? You would notice I haven't voted, this is because I try my best to stay neutral, once more don't be offended by my previous tone. Women are easily emotional. Don't mind us. Haha Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't know anything about the subject, so it would be rather difficult for me to improve the article besides obvious maintenance, and I can't see any that needs to be done. Editors (usually, but not just, admins) routinely patrol pages tagged for CSD, and it is not uncommon for the CSD to simply be declined. Much of the time I don't know what should be done, but do know (or believe) that it did not meet the criteria it was tagged for. By the way, if you are withdrawing a comment that has been replied to, you should strike it rather than delete it, as removing it may confuse readers as it removes context. Adam9007 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)