User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, first of all, for the page protection on Super Size Me – I have tired of fighting the (almost certainly orchestrated) campaign of vandalism.

Secondly, thanks for the comment regarding my name. I was named for Bonnie Prince Charlie and had family, both Irish and Scottish, at Culloden. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a collateral descendant of the aid de camp to James II/VII at the Battle of the Boyne. He was forced to flee to France where he died in exile with his King. He received a Viscountcy in the Jacobite Peerage but alas died w/o male issue. My family, mostly of Irish extraction, suffered for their loyalty to the Stuarts and lost most of their land under William & Mary, and later the Hanoverians. Some were among early immigrants to America, where once again they picked the wrong side of a war and ended up being forced to move to Canada. Long live King Francis II! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Blackheartedkid

Last week, you blocked User:Blackheartedkid, but I believe there is a sockpuppet of this account under User:JackHood that edited briefly before Blackheartedkid and then started again less than one day after Blackheartedkid was blocked. Both users edit Heroes articles and upload non-free images mostly to be included in the Sylar article. JackHood's first edit after Blackheartedkid was blocked was to asked to be unblocked even though that account was not blocked. Aspects (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI investigation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Aspects FYI, the SPI investigation has confirmed your suspicions and JackHood has been indefinitely blocked for socking and block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

AIV

You declined a report at AIV as insufficiently warned. However, warnings are not needed in long term abuse and block evasion. This user has their own abuse filter (filter 777) created by MusikAnimal per this request based on prolonged abuse documented at User:EvergreenFir/socks#Southwest. MusikAnimal, JamesBWatson, and Widr have all blocks these IPs, so this amount to block evasion as well. Please block the IP in question. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I stand corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

PS - I realized I was a bit hostile in my tone and felt I should apologize. It seemed from the frustration that I'd reported that IP to AIV before and nothing was done. Your review was the second go. Sorry if I was overly curt or rude. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please restore Shigeru Sugita, Universe Championships

I am unsure of what was on the page, but the reason given for deletion was "Non-notable athlete". It seems that the first Japanese man to win the Mr. Universe competition (amateur) would make him notable. Winning the contest at all should do that, let alone being the first Japanese man to do so. Arnold Schwarzenegger was likewise an amateur title holder of the contest, and it brought him a lot of recognition.

On a related note, if the Universe Championships violated the "WP:Sports event" rules, why not reclassify it? If Miss America is acceptable (originally - and arguably still strongly - based on appearance, rather than accomplishments) can have a page, why not this?

One of my big concerns is that removal of the Shigeru Sugita page appears to minimise the accomplishment of an Asian athlete in a time when representation and diversity are more important than ever. Surely there is a way to get this content to adhere to WP guidelines.

Indigotraveler (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Indigotraveler If I remember correctly this was a different "Mr. Universe" contest than the one normally thought of. I will take another look and ping the Proding editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, First I'm not an expert on this subject but I took a second look and I still think this is a winner of a non-notable contest and the article was very poorly sourced. All of which said I see no evidence of the article meeting any CSD criteria so this is a "soft delete" which makes it reversible on request. Let me know if you want me to restore the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored per your request in the thread title. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping Sportsfan 1234

Deletion Theo Kanter

Dear Ad Orientem, I believe you decided to delete the page with the english translation of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Kanter. I did the translation while updating the content and adding external references and sources. Thus, I am in need of some guidance why this supporting evidence of external source is insufficient for publications. It may be so that I missed things due to unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia editing environment but this was never pointed out on the Swedish page. Please help me by pointing out exactly what is missing, because I have no problem adding sources as long I understand exactly what would be regarded as sufficient. Also, please help me to move back the content once it is acceptable as I put some effort in this and would like to avoid redoing all the work. Yours sincerely Theo Kanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkanter (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Kanter, I just took another look at the article (admins can see deleted material). Unfortunately I am not seeing any credible claim of importance much less passing WP:BASIC which is our guideline to establishing the encyclopedic notability of biographical subjects. If you believe that I and/or the reviewing admin who actually deleted the article were mistaken, you can appeal the deletion at WP:DELREV. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Crystal clear consensus?

Hello, you were kind enough to lift my recent temporary editing ban but in doing so you seemed to raise WP:consensus to a seemingly impossible standard of crystal clear consensus. The involved parties have agreed that consensus is based upon quality of an arguments and common sense WP:EL. The reasoning in the discussion at WP:External_links/Noticeboard#Beacham_Theatre is becoming increasingly subjective. I feel that crystal clear anything is going to be next to impossible. Last, apparent WP:local consensus is not the same as WP:Consensus but it would greatly impact clarity. Crystal clear consensus is an impossible standard. Could you please me offer guidance or point be to a resource to help resolve this dilemma? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4 Apologies, apparently I was unclear. The "crystal clear consensus" was only intended for the duration of what was supposed to be the term of your block, not a permanent editing restriction. It was a condition of your being unblocked and it expired with the original term of your block. Admins usually can't unilaterally impose permanent editing restrictions except in rare cases such as those authorized under WP:ACDS. Even so, I would be very cautions about adding or re-adding controversial material without a strong consensus. That is likely to get you re-blocked rather quickly. Consensus does not require unanimity, but it does mean a clear majority supporting a given position with solid guidelines/policy based arguments. See also WP:CONSENSUS. If in doubt I suggest asking for other opinions, possibly through a WP:RFC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Mr. Universe, et. al.

Greetings! I notice someone PROD'd the Mr. Universe competition, and it managed to go the week. You did, of course, correctly remove it per due process. Unfortunately, I can't see why it managed to get the PROD treatment - this is a world renowned body building competition, where Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Reeves, John Grimek, (and others) came to fame. An international contest with nearly 70 years of history, and subject of a TIME retrospective. What are the chances we could get it restored so any necessary improvements could be made? Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron^IV 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done per WP:REFUND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping Sportsfan 1234

Blocked user Roanisawesome

Hi you recently blocked the above user, I haven't seen an unblock request and the user is continuing to add unsourced and probably false information and has recently created a page that I am sure is a hoax. If he has been blocked how can he continue to edit? thanks Domdeparis (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked Indefinitely per WP:3STRIKES. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. the two previous blocks were temporary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, is there any way of seeing the duration of a block? Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's not posted in the block notice you can see it in the block log which will be visible at the top of their contrib page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Domdeparis (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Just a heads up, a 3-month block on a dynamic IP address isn't going to stop them. Would you be willing to perform a 3 month block on this IPV6 2001:8003:251F:1C00::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Thanks. 172.58.40.31 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In principal I have no objections to a range block. But my tech level is not at a point where I am doing those right now. (See Adminny Things I (probably) Won't Do.) I suggest posting the request at ANI or AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Riachi

Hi, the page Jean-Marie Riachi which you deleted is about a very successful Lebanese composer who composed many hit songs for famous Arab singers like Elissa (Lebanese singer). I kindly ask you to put it back. *https://twitter.com/JeanMarieRiachi

• http://www.timeoutdubai.com/nightlife/features/12625-jean-marie-riachi-interview

--Salah Almhamdi (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry but a review of the article (admins can see deleted material) leaves me convinced that it would have been a solid candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A7. Which is to say that I found no credible claim of importance regarding the subject much less encyclopedic notability. If you believe that I have erred you can request undeletion at WP:REFUND though I must state that I think it unlikely another admin would agree to restore it. You may also recreate the article, however unless much stronger evidence of notability, backed by reliable sources, is presented it is likely to be quickly deleted as well. If you do want to recreate the article I strongly encourage you to read WP:BASIC. WP:CREATIVE and WP:RS before doing so. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Needing a mediator in GregJackP vs. JordanGero?

I read your involvement with the recent dispute between the two editors. Therefore, I wonder whether a non-admin mediator is needed. I may have slightly been acquainted with GregJackP, who is currently "retired" from Wikipedia. I want to speak to GregJackP, but I don't know whether he wants to speak to me because... well, I was horrible poor listener back then and was more interested in winning debates. I don't know whether Greg will see how much I've changed in the last few months. Over recent months, I have grown to listen to others and... accepted the consensus and reluctantly gave people what they want, even when I somewhat disagree. JordanGero? I don't know him much; Jordan and I never interacted for the first time. However, maybe I can speak to him about his behavior. I have been mediating in some disputes before. I wonder whether I'm the right person to mediate. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, someone beat me to it. Rescinding my considerations. --George Ho (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good morning George. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I am on vacation and am online only a briefly every day. Thank you for your offer, it is much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wasn't sure whether to interfere, but I see the dispute is already taken care of. George Ho (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Shall I let this slide? I already collapsed it. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

George Ho Do not respond to this or any further communications from them. I will deal with this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, he came out of his block only to continue ranting at me as well on my talk page even though I had specifically told him not to post there anymore. His sole edits since returning to WP after 8 months have been to post endless rants on users' talk pages. There seems to be a CIR problem here. His edits prior to his break were apparently rants on article talk. (BTW, I pinged Coffee from my talk page but he seems to be on a break.) Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the added background. I have blocked them for 3 days. If this continues the next block is going to be long term if not an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Ad O. (is abbreviating okay? :-)), how about the two-way IBAN instead? As long as JordanGero doesn't come near me or Softlavender, and as long as neither I nor Softlavender comes near Jordan, hopefully, he can concentrate and work on articles. Would that be fine? I hate to see his conflicts with either of us both drag on and on. Also, I hope for IBAN between JordanGero and GregJackP. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind; I don't know how effective it is, given his conduct. George Ho (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi George It appears that another Admin has decided that enough time has been wasted on this. Problem solved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nickusa1

Probably should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and talk page access removed. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam Lach

Hi Ad_Orientem, That seems to have come in from the cold. I see there is still no quality verifiable references for a BLP on it. scope_creep (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google yielded some sources including some photographic work documenting Gypsies in the New Yorker. It may not be enough to pass GNG but it's enough for me to not feel comfortable zapping the article via PROD. This may be a potential candidate for AfD, but I'd definitely suggest due diligence (i.e. WP:BEFORE) which I didn't get a clear sense was done before Proding the article. Of course if you have looked and come up empty then just send it to AfD. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning templates

Hi, Ad Orientem, I see you doing a lot of good work around the place with your new tools. Just one thing: it may be worth adding a few words in humanspeak in a case like this, in preference to an ill-fitting template. (I just did, so no worries.) Bishonen | talk 09:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Love & hip hop

Excuse me, could you protect each of the Love & Hip Hop pages, please?! Vandalizing is out of control!! Zhyboo (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry I'm not seeing any evidence of recent disruptive editing on the linked page. If you think I am missing something please feel free to post diffs here or you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

More Ju English sockpuppetry

Ju Portuguese (talk · contribs · uploads) Added to the SPI case. Note the nonsense userpage edits likely just done to achieve autoconfirmed status and enable uploads. Also note that this account was created well before the block...perhaps CheckUser should be requested to find the rest? — Train2104 (t • c) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed per DUCK. I don't have check user rights but if you want to make that suggestion, I think it's a good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

CU requested. — Train2104 (t • c)

Thanks for Welcoming me ^^

I just want to thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. I have actually considered creating an account over here for quite a some time, but never found enough time to actually get into it. But thanks to you, I might even create the account very soon. ^^

Live Long and Prosper, said Spock and I may say it to you aswell! 88.115.74.89 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)V

Welcome again. I hope you enjoy editing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmett Till

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmett Till. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

186.122.137.141

• 186.122.137.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please revert and revoke talkpage access. Thanks. 172.56.38.75 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks for staying on top this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wei Han's page

Hi there. I was told that you performed the page deletion at Wei Han because it appears to pertain to earlier discussions dated 2005 and 2015. Based on my understanding, the 2005 discussion is irrelevant to the 2015's and probably referred to a different person. Back in 2015, it was more about her notability. I think after the 89th Academy Awards on Feb 26, 2017 her page should definitely be restored to the most recent creation because so many Oscars-nominated/winning movies like Jackie (2016 film), Hacksaw Ridge, Loving (2016 film) would not have been successful, had it not been the efforts of her and her company Bliss Media. With all these piracy going on in the movie business, we need people like her to keep independent film-making going. I hope you could please reverse your deletion. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I am not convinced that her involvement in the success of the films is sufficiently clear to justify overturning the verdict of the most recent AfD discussion. That said if you disagree you are free to appeal at WP:DELREV. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Kilstein

Could you also delete this edit? Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more: Here, here, and here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I also made a post on BLP Notice board about this topic. I do not believe that the Daily Dot is a reliable source.

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jamie_Kilstein

Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off pending a determination at BLPN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear cut. Dailydot is just some internet blog. Ergo not a reliable source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

V. S. Giri

Hey, I saw you declined the BLP PROD here for sources. It had no sources when placed and the only sources placed after were FB and Twitter, which from my understanding don't save you from WP:BLPPROD once it is placed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's going away soon. My guess is that this is going to get recreated. I nominated it for G11 which is more definitive than a Prod. Prods pretty much can be undone merely on request. It will be easier to keep this deleted (assuming it doesn't meet our standards) if it's dispatched via CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that it was G11ed, which I wasn't sure of when I came across it so I went with BLP PROD at the time. I was more curious though why you declined the BLP PROD though. Just asking respectfully because it seems like it would also have qualified under that process since the sources added after the tag was placed were not reliable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly it could have been zapped as a BLP Prod, but I've dealt with this kind of article before and I think there is a strong likelihood that an attempt will be made to recreate it. I was approaching this strategically. A Prod is a form of soft delete. CSD is different and it will be easier to re-delete this if/when it returns, again assuming that it is not vastly improved. If I had deleted this as a Prod all the author would have to do is come up with a single RS source and request recreation per REFUND and I pretty much would have to grant it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, perfect. Makes a lot of sense and I agree that it was probably the right way to do it now. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Thanks as always :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

About the ANI post...

I've done the newbie helping gig before and would be glad to help. Just let me know where to go. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Great! Have a look at Izaiah.morris and if you think you are still interested just drop a note on their talk page. Thanks for your offer of help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. White Arabian Filly let me know if you two are good to go and I will unblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page, so we'll see if they want to work with me...White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi of Lordship of Biscay

Hi, Ad Orientem. You have semiprotected Lordship of Biscay. I rather wish you'd undo that, because I had already blocked the disruptive IP and their range. The other IP is editing constructively AFAICS. Please see this ANI thread and this on my page. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

 Done Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Bishonen | talk 21:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

Texians

Hi Ad Orientem. Texians is correct. I requested the change to "Texians" at the page for reporting errors, and it was duly changed. Please change it back to "Texians", which is the correct contemporary demonym for the time of the Republic of Texas. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure how well this squares with COMMONNAME but I'm not interested in debating the point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AO. While it's not my field, I do actually think it's the common name used in scholarly sources for the Alamo defenders. I could be wrong; I haven't really read them. (For the lurkers, the context is Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 6.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Will I be banned if i swear in wikepida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.108.54 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on the context. Personal attacks are not allowed. See WP:NPA. Also we are expected to be civil in our discourse with each other. See WP:CIVIL. Violating either of those guidelines is generally treated as a specie of disruptive editing and can get you blocked, especially if it's persistent. But just saying "damn!" somewhere is not likely to get you sanctioned. All of which said, polite people understand that salty language should not be a part of everyday conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Deletion

I feel that the page you deleted Matthew Kjellberg wasn't promotion at all, I created that page for my client as I'm his publicist. I think a "Twitter is not a reference" kind of reason shouldn't require a Page Deletion.

Aprilotenberg (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

April, I regret to say that I disagree with you. After taking another look at the article (admins can see deleted material) I have to say that it appears highly promotional to me. Further it is doubtful that the subject meets our standards for encyclopedic notability. See WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. We require citations to reliable sources for any claim of fact that is not completely non-controversial. See WP:V. Yet this article did not cite a single reliable source. And finally you claim it was not promotional, yet you openly state that you created the page as his publicist. See WP:COI. All of which said, if you disagree with my analysis you are free to appeal the deletion at WP:DELREV, though I think it extremely unlikely such an appeal would be successful. Alternatively the article can be recreated. However unless the issues I listed above are corrected, it would almost certainly be quickly re-deleted. Persistently recreating articles that have been repeatedly deleted can result in the article subject being creation protected. See WP:SALT. I hope this explanation was helpful. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ben Garrison

Hi. Hate to bug you, but you were part of an AfD discussion back in 2015 regarding the subject of the above draft. I think the current draft barely passes notability standards, but cannot see the deleted draft. Would you mind having a looksee? The draft has been sitting out there for a few months, and I'd like to respond to the editor. I would have asked the AfD closer, but they haven't been active since the end of January. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The new draft is different in a number of respects from the previous one. But most importantly a number of the sources postdate the old AfD discussion and IMO constitute in depth coverage. The quality of some of the sources may be a fair topic for debate, but I'm satisfied that there is enough difference for me to lift the SALT on this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

109.102.147.31

Can you please revoke talk page access for this IP that you blocked? The IP looks to be cut and pasting content from articles onto the the talk page. Many Thanks. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Reblocked for six months and talk page access revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ad, much appreciated. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

REFUND

Hi Ad Orientem, please could you restore my draft article "The World At Mind's End" (music album) by the band Skywhale. I am trying to improve it along with the article about the band. You deleted on February 13, 2017Thank you, Cjcooper (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done per WP:REFUND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Montanabw

Mentorship doesn't seem to be working...

FYI: That user you set up mentoring for, User:Izaiah.morris, seems to be going on his merry way without seeking or receiving any assistance from designated mentor User:Oshwah. Several problematic edits and a re-creation of Splix.io which was just speedy-deleted for a fourth time. Funcrunch (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed and am concerned. I really don't want to reblock the editor but he needs to slow down. I'm fairly sure this is not a case of malice so much as WP:CIR and overzealous editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I won't edit yet.

Ping Oshwah. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I just responded to a question that he asked on my talk page. Sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone... I've been busy lately. I'm hoping that this will help the user to understand and slow down, as he mentioned his previous habit of copying and pasting content from external sources. I'm hoping he'll respond and ask for more assistance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think he mentioned somewhere that he is not online a lot on weekends. But I'm sure he will be next week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

I wasn't going to bug an admin to block User:RockHarper again just yet for his edits on MasterChef Junior (U.S. season 5), I figured I'd be nice and give him another warning to see if he finally changes his ways. But it is appreciated that you stepped in and took care of it. I'm guessing the details I laid out gave enough of an example as to the disruption he continues to cause to the page. So once again, thanks for stepping in and helping out, it is greatly appreciated. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

When someone comes off block only to immediately resume disruptive behavior we don't typically start up with a new round of warnings. Rock needs to modify his behavior because right now he's in the express lane heading for the exit marked "indefinite block." -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nigerian election articles

Any chance you could do the edit protection asap? The editor is continuing to try and make cut & paste moves. Cheers, Number 57 01:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Number 57 I think/hope this will stop now. But if they start up again let me know, and I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete ALL page Anti-corruption foundation, if there was only 1 paragraph with G12?

Ad Orientem, I admit that in page Anti-corruption foundation there was 1 paragraph that I took from site of that organization.

All other several paragraphs were wrote without copyright infringement.

So why did you delete ALL page instead of only 1 paragraph?

Can you restore this page without that paragraph in order I rewrite it?

p.s. Do you speak Russian?Kap677-2 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the article per your request. Please don't copy and paste material from other sites. When the article is nominated for G12 and the lead is a direct copy/paste most of the time that's going to be the end of it. Regrettably my Russian is limited to a few words and phrases. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Kap677-2 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Pacbradley2

You told me to let you know if he ignored your warning. He did. I reverted his edits so far. TBMNY (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked 72 hrs - If this continues it may be best to take this to ANI and discuss a topic ban. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of article sewage waste energy

You refused my proposed deletion of the article sewage waste energy. You said "names can be changed". What do you mean by that? Did you review the discussion we've had about the article here? The conclusion was clear. Also, the person who started the article never responded to any attempts to discuss this; instead, he/she added a link to this new article in a number of other pages which I found disruptive. If you prefer not to have it deleted then the other option is to place a redirect to sewage sludge treatment.EMsmile (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I did read the discussion but my main concern is the Prod did not cite any valid criteria for deletion. Nor did I see a compelling argument for deletion in the linked discussion. That said, one way to deal with an article of poor quality that doesn't add much not already covered elsewhere is to just turn it into a redirect. (See WP:BLAR and WP:Redirects are cheap.) Just blank the page and redirect it to whatever you think is the best target. Alternatively you can always move the article (i.e. rename it) and then rebuild it. I can't promise no one will object to a bold redirect, but I won't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I had the same thought about the redirect, so I have put that in place now. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor

Would you have a moment to look at the edits of Bloomdoom2? I reported this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar three weeks ago. If this is the same editor, they were a huge time-sink and a very destructive editor. If I go to ANI it will be an hour preparing diffs, but if it's the sock it's very simple. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I will try to take a look when I have some time to sit and take a hard reconnaissance. BUT I am loathe to jump into an already well advanced SPI investigation, so no promises on anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate whatever help you can offer. I also left a message with User talk:Laser brain, one of the two blocking editors of Xboxmanwar. My concern about Bloomdoom2 is the same as it was with Xboxmanwar. The editor is a very frequent editor of rap music articles, and typically sources about two-thirds of their edits. The rest is original research. When the editor is reverted or questioned, they become aggressive and make excuses about how their edits are sourced, or tell you where you can find the source yourself. Several editors work hard to keep these music articles clean and well sourced, while this editor undermines our hard work and disrupts the project. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Process for bringing back List of flags by number of colors?

I saw this too late, and think deleting this article was entirely lame. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done per REFUND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ping Kaldari

P.S. The list looks like an exercise in non-notable trivia and I think it is a good candidate for AfD on the basis of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. But I will leave that for others to work out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As you were the blocking admin

As you were the blocking admin for IP User talk:117.103.88.85 the IP has returned on User talk:117.103.88.77 making the same edits and Vandalizing the same articles. Geolocate​ puts them both at Oceania Country Marshall Islands. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock IP blocked 1 month. Original IP block extended to 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I only reported to you and AIV as I was not sure if you were on presently. Also just for reference they started with this IP before using the other 2. So they most likely with be back. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As I suspected they have returned on another IP. Geolocates to the Marshall Islands just like the others. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've range blocked 117.103.88.64/27. Let's see if that works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If not I'm about to give up, unless you can block the whole Marshall Islands lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's just a handful of articles you can send me a list and I will protect them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Its at least 20 articles which is alot to me,I think its more than a handful. They always hit Music Articles and Wrestling Articles and always geolocate to Marshall Islands. It's probably easier just to do the range. I can go through and get every Article they have hit when I get home tonight since I'm on my mobile right now and make a list but it's alot. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Got home late and have to be in early tomorrow,if you still want the list I will get it to you tomorrow evening. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not pressing. Let's see how the range block works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Re. this, see WP:ATTREQ, and things like this, where the violations were removed but the page was subsequently still deleted under the criteria. Loads more examples in my log, but of course- ironically- I can't see them any more :) Just FYI. Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion per U5. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No probs. Tell me; what would you say the odds are on two separate editors both chosing to move the whole Michael Jackson article to their user pages within a few hours of each other was? How much would you lay out?! :) (not reallly a trick question!) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Evil bullet (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upacking_List

Question

Please, could you provide an information about what I can change in my page to make it appear on Wikipedia? I've added usefull links and deleted every marketing issue from previous version. What can I do more? Thank you & have a good day)Evil bullet (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Evil bullet

Evil bullet could you be a bit more specific. What page are you referring to? I am about to go to bed but I will try and look at this again in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Izaiah.morris again, sigh

That user you've attempted to mentor, User:Izaiah.morris, appears to be ignoring your advice on his talk page, and has gone ahead and recreated that Clay DeBord article both in draft and mainspace. Funcrunch (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. He clearly means well, but just doesn't want to slow down and take advice. Ping Oshwah. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness I'm sorry for the misunderstanding i will ask Ad Orientum before i make that article. But i also need some help with it and wouldn't mind if you cold find some help on that article. I'm sure you can tell i'm not messing around and vandilising. I just want to get this article done before someone else makes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izaiah.morris (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just slow down a bit and talk to Oshwah before creating any new articles in the mainspace. One concern is that I am not sure Clay Debord passes our guidelines for notability. See the list of links I left on your talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Izaiah.morris! It's okay dude; like Ad Orientem said, just talk to one of us and get input and advice -- especially if you plan to do something that you're not sure of. This way we can help you avoid jumping into any pitfalls that could land you into hot water. We both know that you mean well -- that's certainly not a question in our minds. We just want to help you to slow down, show you the guidelines and policies so that you can easily refer to them later, and help you learn and grow so that you can become a long-term editor. Ad Orientem and I aren't here and in this position now because we were both perfect and mastered all of the guidelines without ever making any mistakes -- I can tell you (at least from my perspective) that I've made lots and lots of mistakes over the years I've been here, and I still occasionally do... it happens. It would be unreasonable for us to hold you accountable and in bad faith if you make any at all... that's just stupid :-). What's important is how you learn from them and caution yourself from doing so repeatedly, not the fact that you made mistakes in the first place. This is where our concerns (and those of the community) are centered around, and the fact that we're here to mentor you -- you've been observed and cautioned for proceeding too quickly and for repeatedly making the same mistakes as a result. We're here to help you not to do that and to help show you where to look before crossing; mentoring gives you the power and the additional tools to learn and grow :-). Just make sure to stop and check before you proceed, and to ask one of if you have questions. I've been absent recently from Wikipedia due to real-life picking up pace and keeping me very busy, but things have now slowed down so I'll be active on here as I usually am. My talk page is always open to you (as well as Ad Orientem's). There are no stupid questions; do not hesitate to ask one of us for anything. We'll be happy to help you with any questions or requests for assistance that you have, okay? :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

+1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

JackHood sockpuppet

Thank you for your earlier help with the previous sockpuppet. I wanted to let you know that I started a new investigation into a new editor, User:EthanSylar, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackHood, if you wanted to take a look and provide any other evidence. Aspects (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suspect we are dealing with the same entity. For now though I have posted a final warning on their talk page. If this is the same editor they will ignore it in short order. I am beginning to think JackHood may be a candidate for being put on the WP:LTA list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

WCPW World Championship

I saw the WCPW World Championship article and I think that is notable and as very sources can you remove the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD G5)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProWrestlingLover123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

N Deleted Obviously created by a sock of Dwdpuma. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Carlo M. Croce

A bot removed the protection template from Carlo M. Croce, which you had protected. It needed protection, because it was under constant revision and deletion by SPAs with a declared or undeclared relationship with the subject. I'm not sure what the status is now, but you might want to look at it and see if the bot screwed it up. --Nbauman (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No error. The protection was temporary (as is usually the case). If disruptive editing resumes drop me a line or post another request at RFPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Doesn't look like your final warning had much of an impact. TimothyJosephWood 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they have not uploaded a single item since I posted the warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what I get for being sloppy. Your warning was so far up their talk page I didn't notice the upload times. Just the tagging catching up with the uploads then. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I have been checking periodically to see if they have done anything new. To be honest, I'm a little surprised. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ali Shilatifard

Thank you, Ad Orientem, for posting a warning about having an edit war. I have created and contributed to the Ali Shilatifard page for about three years, simply adding scientific accomplishments. The page has recently come under a barrage of edits including removing awards, making comments about "not necessarily major" discoveries (which have now been completely removed), and insisting on a COI and placing a COI template box over and over again, even though the page is very neutral and sourced. This type of unsubstantiated edits should not be allowed. I have attempted to use the appropriate channels of communication, including "cleaning up" the page, writing polite comments on Talk pages (which are deleted rather than responded to by Natureium and now a number IP address). If you could kindly please help stop these edits and block the placement of the COI template box on the Ali Shilatifard article, it would be greatly appreciated. This page is helpful in bringing attention to the important work that Dr. Shilatifard and his colleagues are doing on childhood leukemia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia007 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. Let's keep the conversation there. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Denis Voronenkov

On 24 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Denis Voronenkov, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Great Depression (Defiance, Ohio album), Midwestern Minutes, and The Fear, the Fear, the Fear

Hello. You deleted Great Depression (Defiance, Ohio album), The Fear, the Fear, the Fear and Midwestern Minutes because Defiance, Ohio (band) was deleted in error. I'm wondering if you could reverse this. --Evanw (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Evanw, I am declining recreation of the latter two albums. After looking at them I can't find any credible claim of importance much less notability. I found no record of Great Depression (Defiance, Ohio album). If it was under a different name let me know and I will take a look. If you feel that the subjects of these articles have a credible claim of importance you can appeal their deletion at WP:DELREV. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it was The Great Depression (Defiance, Ohio album) the albums weren't deleted for lack of notability they were deleted because the page for Defiance, Ohio (band) was deleted for lack of sources. I had the page restored and re wrote it with sources. Defiance, Ohio is one of the most prominent bands in the wave of DIY punk in the mid-late 00s. They had multiple tours of the USA, Canada, Iceland, and Europe. Their albums were reviewed on notable music websites see: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] These albums have had significant impact on punk and are worthy to have an article dedicated to them.

On the recreation page for these articles it says to message the user who deleted them with concerns, let me know if you would rather me direct these concerns to WP:DELREV.

--Evanw (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done There is enough secondary source coverage to establish a credible claim of importance. I'm not sure about passing WP:N, but it's enough to revert a CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sony Franchises

Template:Sony Franchises was deleted by you as "Unused, redundant template", but it has 31 transclusions. Please restore it and send it to WP:TFD if you want to have it deleted. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done File this under WTH was I thinking? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:RockHarper at it again

User:RockHarper went right back to vandalizing the page at MasterChef Junior (U.S. season 5), this time adding junk details to the table. Seems he didn't get your message about behaving better. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

He has been put on notice. Let me know if there is anymore trouble. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Thank you for your action. We'll see if it helps. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Infinite Flight‎ I withdrew the request because I thought it might not be appropriate because of other editors, but if it's ok, then please restore the protection. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an urgent need for it. If there is a resumption of edit warring while this is at ANI let me know and I will put an end to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

since you're around

Would you look over this ANI thread and close it? here The issue of the disruptive closing of the RfC has been sorted and appears past-ready for a close. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Closed Thank you for reminding me why I hate ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I promise not to contribute to the bloat in future. And do keep in an eye on DT. Your insight would be very valuable there, as I value every word of your close. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Das osmnezz

Could I get you to reinstate your block of Das osmnezz? Shortly after you granted their unblock request we this. Calling Ohayon's performance "auspicious" may not be the most egregious NPOV-violation, but shows pretty clearly that they still don't get it. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I dropped a rather strongly worded warning on their talk page. I think this editor has either an inability to refrain from promotional language or there are serious CIR issues here. Either way, I'm about done with them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So if you recall

It's been quiet for awhile but the IP range block you placed on the IP vandal in Oceania is back Geolocate matches as does the vandalizing edits from before.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked 117.103.88.96/32. I viscerally dislike this @$$. In no small part because I hate doing range blocks. But I see no alternative in this case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree Annoying on alot of different levels. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You are not going to flipping believe this they're back. Same edits, same geo, same everything, ugh. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not sure what more can be done. Sometimes all that can be done is to treat this person as a WP:LTA and when ever they show up just RBI. Hopefully they will eventually get tired. At this point range blocks don't seem to be working and in any case I would be uncomfortable adding more. The collateral damage would be too great. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of S. N. Sadasivan

Hello, I guess you deleted S. N. Sadasivan on the grounds that it was a direct copy of the biographical article present elsewhere in the internet. It was tagged with speedy deletion and I was notified of it. But I had thoroughly rewritten the article, expanded and augmented it with references. I had contested the deletion request but couldnt see any replies to it. I would like to know if you could throw some light on the issue. thanks in advance. --Challiyan (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I was just about to have a look when I noticed that you have already recreated the article. You should probably take a look here. The article has already been deleted once before via AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Current vs. incumbent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm probably going to do an RFC soon, asking whether people support your proposed lead paragraph, and not mentioning the other options, except maybe the present version. Good job on your version, BTW. Anyway, I am coming here merely to ask whether you have thought of any improvements since proposing it. If so, then I would do the RFC on the improved version. One qualm I have is the word "current", per WP:Current, but I can support the word "current" if you don't have any problem with it. Seems to me the word "incumbent" connotes more permanence than the word "current", but it's not a big deal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Either word works for me. This all seems rather bizarre. It shouldn't require an act of Congress to be able to tweak the lead two sentences of an article. This isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is kind of bizarre, though I sympathize with the desire for stability at such a BLP as this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That's absolutely a fair point. This is an article that is going to be HOT for at least the next four years. But my proposal is not exactly radical. In fact it doesn't add or remove anything from the lead. It just smooths it out and rearranges the order in which things are mentioned to conform with LEAD and ensuring that his being president isn't left at the tail end. If I were trying to make serious subtantive changes to the lead, or introduce highly controversial material that the much cited RfC had rejected that would be different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but all's well if we can get it to end well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

e/c@Anythingyouwant: Ad Orientem's proposed sentence is gaining consensus. Your proposal for another RfC with sentences you select seeks to overturn that. Once again, you are rushing in to over turn a gathering consensus just as you did earlier with the RfC you have running now. That RfC solves nothing. All it did was stop the consensus. And here you are straight out saying you're going to do it again. No, I oppose this continuing disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the admonition at WP:TALKDONTREVERT about editors' stonewalling of discussions, I'd like to promptly restore your edit, but with the needed correction (as mentioned in the Discussion) and with a simultaneous change to the hat (as also discussed). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This conversation needs to be moved to the article talk page. It's not helpful running a diuscussion across multiple pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Only you can help at Donald Trump

Since apparently only you can change the lead sentence of Donald Trump away from the current version which no longer has anyone arguing for it, could you please do so as soon as possible? I don't mind if it's your version or this one [11] which is a less radical change. Siuenti (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not the only one who can edit the article. But there was an RfC that made it clear the lead sentence was not to be altered w/o consensus. There is nothing urgent here so taking some time to make sure that no one can say this was a rushed action doesn't strike me as a bad idea. As of right now there is no real opposition to the proposed revision of the lead paragraph. If that remains the case I think we can go ahead and make the edit tomorrow or Monday at the latest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been talking about moving "incumbent" out of the hatnote into the lead since 24 March. There is now consensus to do that. Siuenti (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There are more issues here than incumbent. If we have been talking about it for a week, another day or two at the most won't hurt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What issues? Siuenti (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I.e. what issues are there that prevent the conservative improvement to: [onald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States. Siuenti (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the main issue from my perspective is to put Trump being President as the first item in the lead sentence per WP:LEAD which calls for naming what the subject is most notable for first. All of this including the incumbent will be done in one shot. But I would rather not have anyone saying we acted without giving possible objections enough time to registered. What do you see as the difference between today and tomorrow? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That objection doesn't apply to the conservative improvement. I don't think we need to wait to see if there are objections to a bigger change before we make a smaller improvement which does have consensus. But ok let's wait. Siuenti (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

not quite

I did not change his edit. He changed mine here. I had already closed it. He could have added the bits about the #17 consensus without wiping out my close. So please, I was restoring my edit as he's not my Daddy. He's another editor who should respect my close. Please go and undo your edit. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops! I will revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Aye, thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

today

Isn't this [12] edit warring too? I've made 944 edits to that article and the images of the paintings need to be seen; this is an article about visual art - and its a long standing issue that visual art needs to be seen. This editor wolfowitz misinterprets the imagery rules constantly and consistently; removing images from this encyclopedia to suit his whim, with extremely dubious rationales...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been discussed on the talk page for years; I just added another thread, for what its worth...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear - I created that article and that gallery years ago - Wolfowitz deleted it (with a dubious, arguable rationale) - I put it back - he deleted it again - I put it back - he deleted it a third time...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting involved in your dispute. The bottom line is that you are both edit warring and it needs to stop. If you aren't getting anywhere in a talk page discussion there are other options. See WP:DR. Also please be aware that creating articles or adding material does not confer any degree of ownership. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, although for those of us who have created these articles a little appreciation helps...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for cutting a stubborn knot with a great edit. Well done. Please stick around over there. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Bolden

Hi, Ad Orientem. I saw the comments regarding Abraham Bolden you made in FTN a few months back. You may recall that Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy once existed separate from Abraham Bolden. The story that there was a Chicago plot originates from Bolden, so I agree with whomever made the decision to redirect the former to the later. I think having the redirect work the other way gives undue credence to Bolden's fabricated story. (See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_42#Chicago_plot_to_assassinate_President_John_F._Kennedy.) I also think this is an article that needs to be watched very closely, especially since various mainstream news sources who are ignorant of the full history frequently reiterate Bolden's claims as fact. For example, here is one by Ebony that has popped up since I began my Wikibreak: [13]. Anyway, hope you are well! - Location (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Location. I think your analysis is pretty much spot on. Both articles are dreadfully PROFRINGE but of the two, the Chicago Plot article was the worst. It presents the so called plot as a fact and relies overwhelmingly on non RS/Fringe sources. I'd just leave it as a redirect. And yes I am well, if busy. Since I got suckered, er talked into this job my edit count has jumped from around 12k accumulated mostly over a three year period, to 17k in just over three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent update to Christian Orthodox wiki page...

To whom it may concern:

Please do not get offended but I am currently pursuing my Master and Doctoral Degrees in Theology.

Accordingly, the Catholic and Christian Orthodox faith were united as one until the great schism.

My recent edit was only meet to draw distinction between the Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches.

I pray that one day these two Christian Churches can set aside their differences and be reunited once again.

In the true spirit of humanity we need dialogue first before summarily dismissing ones opinion.

Take the utmost care, Giorgos Trifon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Trifon (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Murphy entry

The assertion about "conspiracy theories" in the Bill Murphy entry is disparaging and unsourced. It should be removed. Besides, there's no "theory" when government officials meet in secret to develop and implement courses of action. In many respects government is OFTEN "conspiracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CXPowell (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Please feel free to join that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi,

This user that you blocked for 24 hours is an obvious sock of LTA User:Catcreekcitycouncil. For the record, even if this isn't this sockmaster, they've created another account here. Thank you. 212.199.114.161 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also this account might be them too, which was blocked by Amortias. 212.199.114.161 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the block to indeff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

your sock block of User:Hmonglames

Wack-a-mole time. See [14] by User:Sunuprugs Meters (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and article protection upped to ECP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was Cat Creek Council until you tagged the first one. Meters (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That attack page

Well, I'm sorry I missed the fun - would be curious to know what was at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Jeh . Jeh (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Fleming (American politician). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

TaraSpan

Dear Ad Orientem:

I have just today noticed that you deleted the article about the Canadian company Taraspan. The reason given by the PRODing editor, SwisterTwister was that the article had been created in contravention of the paid editing policy, that the article was promotional, and that the references were mainly warmed-over press releases. It's true that the original draft article was very promotional, and was created by an intern working at the company. It had been previously deleted twice for this reason. However, it was created a year before the paid editing policy was created, and it was properly posted in WP:AFC, where COI material is allowed until reviewed and de-fluffed. Accordingly, I rewrote the text to include just facts, and added multiple references to articles in mainstream Canadian newspapers. While some of the ones I added do include quotes from the company's founders, this is because they were interviewed by journalists, and none of the interviewee's words were used to support the text, only those of the journalists. I moved the draft to mainspace when I felt that it was adequately supported.

I didn't see the PROD at the time. If I had, I would have removed it and added more references, such as this one from the national newspaper The Globe and Mail and this one from the National Post.

Unless you object, I plan to reinstate the article and add the two extra references. If SwisterTwister still thinks that the article can't be made acceptable through editing, he can always take it to WP:AFD.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No objections. Ping SwisterTwister -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of James Rajasekar

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the page on James Rajasekar— your deletion logs cut out part of your explanation with ellipses. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterEditor500 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The PROD was a little wordy but the bottomline is that it states the subject fails WP:PROF. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User account "Hassane" is not registered

The "Hassane" page you deleted was linking to me "Hazzane" as there was no such user as "Hassane" and couldn't create/register my account with the user "Hassane". I'm Hassane ^{Let's Talk!} 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you requesting that I restore the page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

NFCC enforcement

With regard to this discussion [15]: This is by no means the first time the issue has come up, and it's pretty clearly a settled one by now. See, for example, Talk:List of 20th-century women artists#Deleting valid and important images, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_24#Frank_Auerbach, Talk:Kay Sage#Images and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_31#File:Untitled_painting_by_Larry_Poons.2C_ca.1964.jpg. Modernist doesn't accept fundamental elements of NFC use policy (and says as much here Talk:Abstract_expressionism/Archive#Images_2), but has had no success in changing it (and it is basically WMF policy, not merely local policy). Basic NFC enforcement is exempt from edit warring limits, for good reason; and when matters are as clearly settled as this one there's no need for repeating the same discussions ad nauseam -- especially when Modernist trots out bad faith claims of vandalism and all-caps edit summaries like "YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG" rather than arguments rooted in policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

'MOAB'

IMO, continuing to omit 2017 Nangarhar airstrike from ITN is not reasonable when it remains a prominent topic on mainstream news outlets and the death toll, according to Afghani officials, has risen to more than 90. Suggest reopen. Sca (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sca (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting talk page protection and user page just in case.

Hello, I already put in a request for talk page protection but I figured it might be wise to add protection to my user page as well, at least temporarily. I would also appreciate a longer block on the talk page . Thanks ahead of time ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 15:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page for 2 days. Indefinite protection is extremely rare. Ping me if the problem returns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN

Hi. The article Kulbhushan Yadav was moved to its current title Kulbhushan Jadhav. Since you posted his news on ITN, would you be able to correct his spelling there? Thanks in advance. Mar4d (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Gameshakers71

Hi Ad Orientem! I was reviewing this user's contributions for repeated COPYVIO edits, but I can't find which edits (other than maybe the first one) that introduced them. Am I missing something? Can you list these edits so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I was just about to drop you a line on this subject. I took a look their contrib log and it looks like most of their edits have been reverted as copyvios. See here. Let me know if you think those were bad reverts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am actually having 2nd thoughts here, mostly because they look like a new editor. I may lift the block. and post a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think they're just new too. Plus, looking at each diff in their contribs, I don't see edits that blatantly paste text in that's clearly taken from an external source without attribution... they all seemed pretty small (in fact, they remove more content than add), which is what made me hesitate to block when I was looking through it at AIV. Let me know what you find and decide; I just didn't find any edits that made me think, "AHA! Yup! For sure...", and I thought maybe you did, which is why I asked you here. Wanted to see what the heck I missed ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already unblocked them. And I agree this looks fairly small potatoes. Frankly I think I am guilty of leaping w/o adequately looking here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Meh, It happens; nobody is perfect. Hell, I've certainly made my fair share of mistakes :-). To me, you're not learning or growing if you're not making mistakes... it's a normal part of getting experience and wisdom under your belt ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:RockHarper at it again

Hey Ad, I know you were tracking the constant disruptive editing of RockHarper (talk · contribs), well he is doing the same type of disruptive edits as before, mostly again on MasterChef Junior (U.S. season 5). I tried giving him one last final warning with no luck. What's your call on this? - SanAnMan (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to take this to ANI. Their refusal to discuss or respond to all of the warnings and blocks is troubling. It doesn't look like all of their edits are disruptive but enough appear to be that something needs to change. But I would be more comfortable if the community weighed in on this. And in any case I can't unilaterally impose a TBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me, the AIV report has just been Twinkled. Thanks for your help and all you do. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Gameshakers71

They've gone and made another copyright violation, so they still don't get it. Regards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amaury. Can you provide the diff and a link to the source of the copyrighted material? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Diff. Material. Changing a few words around does not make it any less of a violation. Also, just for reference, the previous violations involved summaries for future episodes, so those were pretty clearly copyright violations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 12 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With the 1RR on DT, does that mean that if you revise content, and that gets reverted, and you then come back and revise the same content again less than 24 hours later, is that a 1RR violation? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think merely revising content is necessarily a revert if it hasn't been the subject of any recent discussion or editing. I can get some links on that if you would like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually here looking for Ad Orientem's opinion. Revision is often the same as a revert. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR means that you don't reinsert material or edits that have been challenged by reversion. If the edit in question is substantially the same as one that was reverted then you are violating 1RR. I would also point out that people should be seeking talk page consensus before making major changes to the article. Discretionary Sanctions is not limited to 1RR. The bottom line is that we need to show respect for other editors and the broader community when editing articles about controversial figures. If someone is habitually not doing that then they can be sanctioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

{e/c] I'm not all that familiar with the sanctioning on ArbCom pages. but these edits seem to me to be violating 1RR imposed on DT, and there are more like them.

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• It was reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then revised again by the same editor here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit at 02:38 was not a revert that anyone should be blocked for, if indeed it was technically a revert, because that material had not recently been the subject of any discussion or editing, so there was not remotely anything like a revert-war going on (also note that the edit of 02:38 basically added info rather than removing any info). Moreover, FYI, there was a lot of discussion here about what constitutes a revert, and the purported difference between a "revert" and a "revert that you should be blocked for". As far as editing the Trump article recently, I've been bold and substantially upgraded the article recently. I would like to keep going to make it ready to be a "good article". If there is consensus that I have not been doing this properly, then I'll go away from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a conversation that needs to be held on the article talk page. IMO this discussion should be moved there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Will you be commenting on the article talk page? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly if I have time. I'm in the middle of some stuff right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

.Has he violated the 1RR? It appears to me he has, and he has done this many times before. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If the edit at 02:38 was a revert subject to 1RR then so was this. Right SW3? Anyway, please move this discussion per request above. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I didn't know you wanted a copy here. I've seen admins move discussions from their page to article/user talk pages without leaving a copy. Also, can you please comment on the article talk page now? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another article move incident

Hello. Before I screw up another article move, a few editors moved this article to the Venezuelan economic crisis of 2013–17 article without discussion. They did the "2-title move", where you cannot revert the moves and need an administrator to make edits. I originally made the article since there is an Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government article. The move was unnecessary since there is already a Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela article. Your help would be greatly appreciated!--ZiaLater (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A 2 title move? Are you talking about the redirect? I ask because I've never understood when we need an admin. I hardly ever make page moves, so not an expert. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideally article moves should be discussed on the talk page first. Obvious exceptions for moves that are obviously non-controversial. If there is a concern about this move the talk page is where that discussion belongs. Unless there is some reason to view this as deliberate disruptive editing there is no need for an admin to jump in here right off the bat. 90% of these kinds of situations are best handled with a little talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So what is a 2 title move? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: It is when a user moves an article to a new name and then quickly moves it to another name. It prevents the revert of the moves and the original article title can no longer be used, so any efforts by non-adminstrative users are futile. It's frustrating when articles are moved without discussion like this.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

page moderator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider spending some time as a page moderator on DT. You are very good at sorting things. I think the other editors would appreciate it as much as I would. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but unfortunately my recent rather significant edit to the lead makes me an INVOLVED editor so I would be very reluctant to try and take on that role. If I can avoid editing the article in any meaningful way for a month or two I could probably put my admin hat back on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please keep it to a month. (See below) So let's say May 22nd you can become our moderator. Yay. Thanks so much. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

SW3, I have not tried to complain to this admin about you. I don't like drama, and I don't like antagonizing other editors by making complaints about them, even if the complaints are entirely justified. Please keep in mind that if I continue to be on the receiving end of your endless complaints, then I will certainly start responding in kind. Tiny though it may be, this edit of yours which was in response to mine says just about everything that needs to be said here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite like that. Always give the full picture with all the diffs. I opened the section here. Then you came along and changed it even though you had to know it wasn't really needed here since we all know what TOC means. But you complained about it here.and now on this page here. Do stop manipulating situations to always make yourself appear the victim like you're doing here and also here. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You never cease to amaze me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

response to your comment

I did reply to your comment on Anything's talk but he reverted it so here it is: I understand completely, and I see that you are involved. Your warning to him is the first refreshing thing I've seen in a bit. And yes, I too must dial that back, but I am fully prepared to defend it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clarification_request_on_1RR --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Are you talking about bringing this to the ANI thread? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: No. As Ad Orientem's comments with respect to 1RR were brought up at ANI, they should be given a heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes, and I thought i pinged him on ANI and he noted that. I believe he then pinged MelanieN, as you know she's on and off the article. In thinking about it, I should have come to your page first as you also watch over the DT page. That way you could have let me know if there was an issue and directed me to AE. That board would not have come to mind. If you like, you can close the ANI thread. I don't see a need to respond again. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WesCrusher

FYI, probable WP:EVASION: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlind0. Murph9000 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am content to let the SPI investigation do its thing as long as he does not try to re-post that silliness at the VP. If he does... let's just say my finger is hovering over the block button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Signature needed

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AEladio_del_Valle&type=revision&diff=777003803&oldid=777001943. -Location (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ss112

They must've seen you're not interested in fighting it and have tried to get someone else involved here: on Jim1138's page

Love.Live.Life

Hey Jim, I see you've reverted the user Masheenya on Cover Drive. Can you also revert them on Love.Live.Life? I've gone up to my three-revert limit there, but they have added unsourced content there as well and used a dead link to attempt to cover it up. Ss112 20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you try and sort something out please? Masheenya (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Declined Sorry I have a full plate right now. If you need help settling this I suggest you take a look at WP:DR. If either of you are convinced that there is bad faith or disruptive editing going on take it to WP:ANI. But I would try to settle this civilly first. ANI can be a bit rough for people looking for dispute resolution who go there right off the bat or who are seen as wasting the community's time.

Deletion of Page 'Rubique'

Would like to understand why Rubique company page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal mayekar (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It was naked advertising/promotion. We do not allow Wikipedia to be used for advertising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nubyen deletion

Would be grateful if you could supply me with a copy of the content of the Nubyen page you recently deleted so I can make amendments towards Wikipedia compliance. Much thanks. Finn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfinn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Drfinn I have sent the text to a subpage of your user page User:Drfinn/Nubyen. You can work on the draft there. DO NOT recreate the article in its current form. The article makes no clear claim of notability, is clearly promotional in its tone, and is entirely unsourced. Please read WP:NCORP and WP:V for more helpful information. If the article is recreated in anything close to its current form it will be quickly deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of Bea Priestley's article deletion

Hello Ad

I'm coming here to tell you on why you deleted that why?

Because she is not notable because she doesn't have a "reliable source" or because I'm not good making articles and they are all bad? or just because I'm not welcome here in Wikipedia, when I just want help and let the readers know about British Wrestling, tell me why? Why?

Why could you not ask at least for someone to improve it?

Thanks for your time

TheBuilder456 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

P.s: I prefer a hard and rough truth than a delusional lie, also if it is to undelete how can I do that or what should I do? Because listen I just want to know the basic of Wikipedia and what I have to do to retain my articles and where I can find reliable sources about professional wrestling.

Hi TheBuilder456. The article was deleted as a result of this discussion at WP:AFD where the community determined that the subject does not meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. Recreating articles deleted via AFD is strongly discouraged unless the issues identified have been addressed and corrected. While there are many issues which can be fixed, sadly notability really isn't one of them. It's either there or it isn't. And the community determined in this case that it was not. Since the AfD discussion was quite recent and I saw no evidence in the article indicating notability I deleted the recreated article. If you believe that this deletion was in error you may appeal it at WP:DRV. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Chumlee

(Comment moved from the top of the talk page)

Why di dyou dlete my wikiepdia entry? He told me peronally via instagram his ethnioc background!!! that is the source -(unsigned comment from Nicholas20177‬)

Personal knowledge is a form of Original Research which is not allowed. Also Instagram is not a reliable source. Please do not reinsert the material w/o a reliable secondary source. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me but as i mentioned before, HE TOLD ME PERSONALLY. You cna't get more reliable than that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas20177 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:OR. You are relating personal knowledge, and yes we do require a reliable source for that. I'm not trying to be rude here, but for obvious reasons we can't take very editor at their word when it comes to material and claims of fact. This is especially true in BLPs. (Side note: Please remember to sign your name using four tildes. Thanks.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nicholas20177

Ad orientem, I don't think he's listening. So far he's added in ancestral backgrounds for Linda McMahon, Chumlee, Paul Teutul Sr and Logan Sama only one of them had a source, (Paul Teutul Sr ) but it was a user-supplied resource and therefore fails WP:RS.

As you can see I've spoken to him about this, with a non-template message and his reply was fairly dismissive, and you've spoken to him and his response was to edit Paul Sr's article. He may need a more serious attention getter.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran-Israel proxy conflict article sanctions

Hello, it came to my attention that you have recently tagged the Iran–Israel proxy conflict as "ARBPIA" article, which is an apparent mistake and contrary to the WP:GS/SCW general sanctions, which were installed in order to cover Syrian Civil War-related articles and topics (see 2013 motion for more details). I assume your action was good faith and possibly motivated by erroneous talk page ARBPIA tagging on 9 February 2017 by user:Shrike (notified), who must have not been aware that WP:GS/SCW general sanctions supersede ARBPIA in relevance to Syrian Civil War since the 2013 motion. The Iran–Israel proxy conflict has been tagged on talk page as WP:GS/SCW since February 2014 and should include Template:Editnotice SCW 1RR (not ARBPIA). Logically, you can also notice that Iran is not an Arab country, and hence Israeli-Iranian tensions are not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, though are indeed relevant to the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If any corrective action is required let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the edit notice on Iran-Israel proxy conflict article should be changed from ARBPIA notice to GS/SCW notice (Template:Editnotice SCW 1RR). Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!GreyShark (dibra) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i found more Syrian Civil War-related articles which were marked ARBPIA instead of SCW&ISIL sanctions. Could you change the 1RR notice as well at Hezbollah, January 2015 Shebaa farms incident, Imad Mughniyah?GreyShark (dibra) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply

What's wrong with ethnic celebs? I used a source for Paul Sr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas20177 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for citing a source there. Unfortunately it does not meet our guidelines for reliability. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS for a more detailed explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a book source for Rick Harrison. It's called: 'License to Pawn: Deals, Steals, and My Life at the Gold & Silver'. It says he is of Irish descent in the book so can i use the book as a reference? Do i just type in the name of the book when adding a reference i.e ?

(Talk page stalker-like reply) Nicholas20177, please sign your posts with ~~~~ . As to your question, please read WP:CITE, it will explain that to you. In fact , right at the top is an example that you can follow, so it would be a quick read for you.

As to the book, I checked it, it appears reliable, my only concern is it's about Rick Harrison, the son and not the older Rick Harrison, so the information may not be accurate for Rick Harrison Sr. Other than that, the book appears to be reliable.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

50.93.144.6

50.93.144.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hey,

It looks like you and User:Materialscientist conflicted different block durations for this IP. Just passing this along. Thanks. 59.166.130.102 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Lana Zakocela

Hi Ad Orientem, could you help out at this BLP? I've requested a user block and page protection--persistent addition of poorly sourced personal gossip. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, the gossip by the blocked account is locked in, but one can only ask for so much. Fashion model bios seem to be magnets for this sort of stuff. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I saw. Double thanks, and have a great weekend. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on sources

I'm working through some of the early modern papal conclaves ( Papal conclave, 1724 was the first I started on, and now just expandedPapal conclave, May 1605 for DYK). I've noticed in some of the others that the sourcing is in my mind pretty bad. Namely, they rely on what I can tell are self-published sources this source typically for lists of electors and ones from this series for describing factions. The latter one appears to be by a classics professor, but have not gone through peer review. This also makes a lot of appearances in some of the articles. Doesn't look self-published, but I'm also not quite sure if the original publication would be RS.

The main reason I am asking is that there are several GAs from about 10 years ago that seem to be built on this sourcing (ex. Papal conclave, 1769). I'd personally feel very uncomfortable expanding any of the early modern stubs with the information, and have been removing the lists and expanding based on current scholarship. Just wanted to pick someone elses brain on for thoughts on the sourcing for the larger articles in the series. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I haven't had a chance to go through all of what you posted and linked yet, but in general I think your concerns are probably justified. I will try to get you a more detailed response once I have a chance to look more closely. This is going to be one of those topics where reliable secondary or tertiary sources may be thin and I'm not really sure where to point you. For some information the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911-13 edition) which is in the public domain may be helpful, but I am not sure how much detail they go into with respect to all of the papal conclaves. You could also post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics requesting help with sources. I know some people off wiki who have strong academic backgrounds in Catholic Church history and I will see if they can offer any pointers. Beyond that I'd suggest asking for input at WP:RSN. It's quite late here and I need some sleep but I will try to add more tomorrow once I have had a chance to wade a bit deeper into this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Very familiar with Catholic Encyclopedia. I tend to try to avoid it for more recent sources where possible for a variety of reasons, but it was useful in the May 1605 conclave on background. My larger concern is that the current early modern era conclaves tend to be focused on cardinal lists and separating the lists out into factions. That seems bad prose and also bad for Wikipedia if those lists are based on self-published sources. I have access to recent secondary/tertiary sourcing, but none of them confirm the listings. Anyway, if you could take a look tomorrow and provide a second opinion, it would be appreciated. Some content work to get over the humdrum of the mop :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for page

Dear Ad Orientem,

As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources:

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia. Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker-like note). Ad Orientem, I've replied to them on their talk page already, essentially, telling them to create their own draft ( with a link to wp:draft) and a link to "Your first article" and "WP:PAID" with advise to read them carefully. I won't spam the rest of it here, but it's a fairly long ( but not TL:DR  :) ) reply.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I fundamentally disagree with MOS:GENDERID and don't think I could constructively contribute to the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

SNL

The Saturday Night Live troll that you blocked a few weeks ago struck again. Thanks for your help. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they have edited since you posted your warning on their talk page. Let me know if they do anything disruptive in the near future and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Here's the problem. It's slow motion trolling that has gone on for four years. There no doubt that it's the same person because almost all of their edits follow the same pattern. They will wait another month, maybe two months. My warnings don't stop it. I think a longer term block might get their attention. But, as I said when I first reported this at ANI, maybe I'm overreacting to an annoyance that doesn't cause any immediate harm since they always immediately revert. And I respect that you have to be judicious in handing out blocks. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose. Sorry I am a bit slow in getting back to people. I've been buried in the real world. My suggestion for this would be ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister

After he was reported and then blocked at Commons, he sent me a self-reverted FU message at English Wikipedia: [16]. He's done this before back in December 2016. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked 24 hrs per WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinged you in four sections

Hi, a few minutes ago, I pinged you in four separate sections on Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I am posting this message here so that you would not get the impression that wikipedia mistakenly pinged you multiple times. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look at any requests for comment, but I am not comfortable closing any contentious discussions since I am heavily INVOLVED with the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your comment in the talkpage of the article. I thought it was the discussion itself that the closer needs to be uninvolved. On the other hand, whats your opinion? I mean, is the source good enough to close the discussion? Thanks for the reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User reported at ANV

Hi Ad Orientem. I saw you blocked the user Whippyice will for adding unsourced content after they were reported at ANV. I have reported the user Tjdrum2000 twice now at ANV for adding unsourced content and making disruptive edits in much the same vein as Whippyice will. They have been warned by various users for adding unsourced content across music and film articles and they are still doing it and refusing to explain these unsourced additions, provide any edit summaries, or change their behaviour. They have previously been blocked for disruptive editing. I don't think this fits something to be reported at ANI as that is a last resort and there's no back-and-forth edit warring, just the same disruption. Can you please take a look at this user and block if necessary? I don't think what else will get them to stop. Thank you. Ss112 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked 72 hrs -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

This editor, User:RoyGoldsmith, made an interesting, and very accurate assessment on trying to get things done on the DT article. here. I think it speaks to precisely why we need a moderator there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you but I said "I don't know anyway of fixing this..." A moderator would only increase the "noise": the ratio of main article contributions to talk. As long as we have consensus as our primary rule of resolving debates, we'll have to let the TALKers calm down. And that takes time. But we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to get it "right" till at least a year goes by. IMHO. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: Well, Ad Orientem actually solved a very knotty problem with one sentence, really. That's why I brought your comment here. I think he could help fix the very problem you spoke about. You really nailed it on what goes sideways in these RfC/Survey sections. If you change your mind, and want to come back, your opinion is always welcome there. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not prepared to act as an article moderator here primarily for two reasons. First I have edited the article recently enough that I must be considered INVOLVED which means I can't act as an admin unless dealing with something fairly uncontroversial like naked vandalism. And secondly I am not on here enough to properly monitor that article which is an incredible time sink. If there is a sense among multiple editors that the article needs an admin to keep an eye on it regularly that should be raised at WP:AN, AFTER it is discussed on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa please undel

Hi, I intend to run Mireille Issa through Afd to see what happens, it might squeak through or not. Please undelete it and maybe encourage whoever prodded it to Afd it instead of me. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done per WP:REFUND. Ping HyperGaruda. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: be my guest. In its current incarnation, I still think the article is more of a résumé than an encyclopedic entry, where the really biographical section completely lacks sources needed to satisfy WP:BLPPROD. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:199.189.81.54 Level 4 warning

Hi, AO, while I agree that a level 4 is appropriate when there is a hint of substantive editing, or when an IP editor is clearly not a SPA whose purpose is to vandalize. That isn't the case with this vandal. Look at the IP's edits since 2013 - not even one edit has been anything but vandalism. They've had ample warnings, but the vandalism continues. See these diffs and what was edited. It's garbage, and it's harmful to WP. Please block. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at their contrib log before posting the warning and noticed a couple issues. First this IP belongs to a school district and secondly there have only been a handful of edits since 2015. Of those few all have occurred within the last week. While it is possible that this may be the same person it is also quite possible that it is not. In any case with a gap of near two years I don't think I can count disruptive edits from all the way back in 2015. If this is a persistent vandal they will be back and no further warnings will be forthcoming (as long as they don't wait another 2 years). The next time they vandalize I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)