User talk:Agtx/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much appreciated! Agtx (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Agtx (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Agtx. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gordon Dirks seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Agtx (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments are factual and therefore, by definition, neutral. He is the only sitting cabinet minister in Canada to be defeated in two different provinces.

I'll admit that the bit about karma is editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.213.162 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Date changes - Reply

Hi there from Portugal,

sure thing. That is when the last round in La Liga ended, no games were played AFTER 4 May 2015. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip, continue the good work. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Shais Taub

Hi, I edited the Shais Taub page that you reverted. I don't know how to add citations but here are some links that relate to the edits I made:

Shais Taub's birth name is Seth Thompson - http://www.intelius.com/people/Shais-Taub/06ggdjfcm4z - He actually never changed it to Shais Taub, it's just an alias.

His father is Dr. Gershom Taub aka Guy W. Thompson, the husband of Dr. Rivkah Taub aka Rhea S. Thompson - their academic credentials are noted on Heed University's Alumni list here - http://www.heed.edu/alumni_o_z.htm

Heed University, incidentally, is a suspected diploma mill, which is referenced on numerous online articles including these - http://host.madison.com/news/local/education/university/wisconsin-bill-takes-aims-at-phony-academic-degrees/article_59153902-1033-11df-80e6-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/Education_Degree_Scam_list.php

I'd appreciate if you could please make the correct and necessary edits to the page.

Thank you,

Al Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5B5:5190:80A5:40B0:39B9:EE24 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Now's a good time to learn! Have a look at WP:REFB for instructions. Agtx (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ABW

Arthur becker-weidman is an american psychotherapist with 6 books and many peer reviewed professional articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centerforattachment (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. The place to put those comments is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Becker-Weidman. Agtx (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Agtx,

Apologies for contravening the advertising guidelines, please could you advise how we can make any entry for our school that is acceptable.

Thanks in advance

Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONE International School (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

proposed for deletion of high range book of world records

Hi, the proposed article is properly sourced from webiste www.highrangebookofrecords.com, it is my own work and doesnot violate any copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrekanth1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but the reason it's nominated for deletion is Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you have comments, feel free to post them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High range book of world records. Agtx (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be too quick to edit other content. There is no life and death emergency.

Please don't be too quick to edit other content. There is no life and death emergency. Calm down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Weatherspoon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@John Weatherspoon: I'm sorry that you're unhappy about the deletion of your page. A couple things to think about. First: the content doesn't belong to you or me--have a look at WP:OWN for more information about that. Second, Wikipedia pretty strongly discourages creating autobiography pages (WP:AUTO, so when I see an article with one sentence that's clearly an autobiography, it's pretty clear that it's going to be deleted. Finally, Wikipedia does have a mechanism to create draft articles: WP:DRAFTS. It's pretty unlikely that your autobiographical page is going to stick around even if you do use this, but if you really need to try, that will allow to you spend some time on it. As I said though, creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Agtx (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Compulsive overeating

{{Dr. Ted Rothstein DDS PhD}} I'm totally new to editing in Wiki: I CITED 3 Scientific ARTICLES. The refernce to my own work may be viewed as promotional, however it is based on scientific work and deals with a subject that has NO PRECEDENT! I AM ADDRESSSING MY ARTICLE TO DENTAL PROFESSIONALS SOLELY. FINALLY IF YOU CARE TO SEARCH WIKIPEDIA YOU WILL ALREADY FIND REFERENCE TO ojw (ORTHODONTIC JAW WIRING.) My apologies for not adhering to the norms of Wiki. Your objections seem whimsical to me.23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Ted Rothstein DDS PhD: I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say. If you want to discuss this, you can do so on the article's talk page at talk:Compulsive overeating, where I've explained my reasons for reverting your edits. The big problem here is that you continually revert, which is edit warring and not allowed. I would recommend not using all capital letters so that your discussion is more civil. Agtx (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

About Nomination for deletion - Cominform.com

Hi Agtx, Thanks for pointing out the issue of media coverage concerning this article. Actually, I'm still working on that. The company is a German firm. Most of the media coverages are written in German. We're trying to translate and add more citations. Could you please put a "work in progress tag" or any other better tag than the deletion tag? I'll appreciate that.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Again.. I've added some German media coverage. I hope, the article is ok now!Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hilumeoka2000: I appreciate your adding more media articles. I did notice that they seem to be hosted on Cominform's own website, which is a little odd. Are you related to the company? If so, you need to make sure that you're in compliance with WP:COI. In any case, I am going to leave the deletion nomination intact and let folks with better German than me come to a consensus. Agtx (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please review Lenny Stern BLP rework

I've done a major edit. Let me know if it needs more work. Thanks, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog10291971 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

re User:Mohammed Imthiyaz Nadubail

Re your move here on 6 May of user page/s back to User:Imthi nadubail, the second user is actually (now at least) a registered account. Therefore it appears that this was a noob user trying to change username by moving their user page/s.

• But, it seems they have created the new account since then, here on 15 May. I am not 100% certain!
• They do appear to have been editing under both account names since then.

Confusing! :-/ 220 of ^Borg 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Rita M. Johnson

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ageplay

Excuse me but you have no right to accuse me of doing something I haven't it's not my fault your definition of Ageplay is  completely out of date and wrong I'm not the only person that believes that nor am I the only person that's going to try to change the definition until you get it right 

So get your facts straight before accusing me of doing something that I didn't do

Daddy tallica (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

not daddy talica

I understand what you are saying I was trying to add the source material you are requesting to Daddy Talica's info as well as correcting parts of it. I can prove I'm not Daddy talica though I do know him and we both worked on the update for age play. He had coded the whole thing as I do not know how to do so.

The sources are as follows

The big little podcast ( age play podcast that often has expert guests in the many aspects of age play

There's a baby in my bed!: Learning to live happily with the Adult Baby in your relationship.Mar 2, 2012 by Rosalie Bent

The Age Play And Diaper Fetish Handbook Paperback – June 9, 2011 by Penny Barber (Author)

Ageplay: From Diapers to Diplomas Paperback – September 1, 2011 by Paul Rulof (Author)

The Toybag Guide to Age Play (Toybag Guides) Paperback – March 15, 2008 by Lee Harrington (Author)

Patterns of Psychosexual Infantilism Hardcover – June, 1952 by Wilhelm Stekel (Author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winglady 87 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Winglady 87:@Daddy tallica:

Please understand that I always try to assume good faith while editing, but when a new user account shows up and makes nearly exactly the same edits that are already involved in an edit war, there is a reasonable and logical conclusion. Regardless of if you are the same person or not, engaging in an edit war isn't OK. I recommend stepping back, having a look at some other Wikipedia entries, and then adjusting your edits to match the tone and style we're going for. It's especially important to maintain a neutral point of view and to cite sources for your propositions. Your edits put forth opinions, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. Agtx (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Winglady 87 (talk · contribs), in addition to reading WP:Sockpuppetry, read the WP:Meatpuppetry portion of it. Neither is allowed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mountainviews

Hi,

Please explain to me what an 'nn website is'

Thank you

Wildmountainscene (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wildmountainscene: Sure it means the website is "non-notable." That is, that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. Agtx (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You deserve this barnstar for your anti vandalism work. Cheers Supdiop (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review Strong Image Films edit

I have edited the single secondary source cited is a bio of the founder. The source cited now is more about the company and a film they are in production on. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlohaRoadRunner (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@AlohaRoadRunner: I still don't think the topic meets the guidelines at WP:N. We'll wait for the results of the deletion discussion. Agtx (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

response

I'm not sure how [that happened]. That definitely was not what I intended to do. I'm thinking I must have accidentally wrote over an edit conflict or something. Thank you for reverting, I will be more careful. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ok

Sorry Yzreen Hassan (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mountainviews

Hi again,

Could I point out that in Wikipedia itself virtually every mountain or hill in Ireland names Mountainviews as its principal reference source.

Here are a number of examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugnaquilla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caher_(mountain)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenkeragh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slieve_Donard

Mountaineering Ireland is the Governing Body for Mountaineering in Ireland. On its hillwalking page http://mountaineering.ie/hillwalking/default.aspx it mentions no other hillwalking websites in Ireland, but reference MountainViews twice. http://mountaineering.ie/hillwalking/MountainViews/default.aspx http://mountaineering.ie/hillwalking/Challengeyourself-IrishHillwalkingLists/default.aspx

The Ordnance Survey is the National Mapping Agency for the Republic of Ireland - the official Government body for mapping. All of their 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps produced in the last 5 years have used MountainViews data and this is acknowledged on the printed maps. Furthermore, online recognition from OSI includes this: http://www.osi.ie/Products/Adventure-Map-Series.aspx which includes MV logo and mentions Mountain Views in the text.

Mountainviews is the principal information source among the entire hillwalking and mountaineering community in Ireland. If this site is deemed to be 'nn' then I cannot fathom how minor clubs such as the following are deemed sufficiently notable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Mountaineering_Club

Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildmountainscene (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wildmountainscene:I'm going to take this to mean you're contesting the deletion. I'll remove the proposed deletion tag and put it up at Articles for Deletion. I'll reference your comments there, and you're welcome to add your own as well. Agtx (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Best Practices, LLC

hello, thank you for noting the issues with BPLLC wiki page. I am in the process of adding more notable content to the section with verifiable links. I understand the problem you faced with the name of the company Best Practices LLC, but do not confuse it with term "Best Practices" because this company has been into benchmarking business for almost 2 decades and has good name in the industry. It has been serving to almost 90% of top pharma companies. The work & research done by them is highly appreciated and always in news. I am glad you bought the page into notice so, I can now take it forward to edit and add more valuable content about the company into the page. If you find more errors in future please feel free to share. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.59.166 (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Terris

The article in question was deleted based on internet bullying. The original Wikipedia page of the artist was defaced and lies were told to have it deleted. Nobody even bothered to check to see if any of the accusations wee true, they just deleted it. Completely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.228.85 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the outcome of the discussion. However, deleting the discussion itself is both against Wikipedia policy and doesn't solve your problem (i.e. it won't bring back the article). If you think that the page should not have been deleted, you are welcome to request review by following the procedure at WP:DRV. Agtx (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Joachim Holmstoel

Hiya! I'm just curious why you removed the AfD tag from Joachim Holmstoel. Generally these aren't supposed to be removed until the discussion is closed... Linkle (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Linkle:Um so this is embarrassing. My cat stepped on the trackpad while I went to get a glass of water. Thanks for catching it. Agtx (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Linkle: I have informed her that she will be blocked the next time she removes an AfD tag. Agtx (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like your cat needs to be reported to WP:AIV :P Linkle (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother 17

Hello! I'm a regular on the BB17 Wiki page. I think you did make a mistake because Big Brother Buddy said those 4 people were nominated. But if I'm wrong please let me know. Sorry for the trouble.

Bsems (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bsems: I reverted it because it looked like you were just messing with the comment up top (which was probably just an accident). Feel free to put it back. Agtx (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My edit

What I wrote was true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.138.45 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Madison Keys

accidently deleted madison keys page completely, can you undo it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outqujtioweqotjqipweutweqtjw (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Outqujtioweqotjqipweutweqtjw: No problem. Try not to do it again. Agtx (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaya Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Stewart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Why did you remove my edits to external links? Why are they "not appropriate?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EcuaDug (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@EcuaDug: Because you added links to the same external website to many different pages, it appeared as though you were attempting to promote that website here, which is inappropriate. Even if that wasn't your goal, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and the links you were adding are not the types of external links appropriate here. Agtx (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And why do you get to choose what external links there can be on Wikipedia? Who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EcuaDug (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

@EcuaDug: I'm an editor just like you're an editor. The only difference is that I've been knocking around a little bit longer, so I'm decently well-versed in Wikipedia's policies. I'd encourage you to read Help:Getting started so that you can start to get an understanding of how Wikipedia works and make valuable contributions yourself. Agtx (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

APTelecom Page

Hello,

What makes the APTelecom page seem particularly promotional? Can you give me an example of a sentence or section that does?I would like to get this fixed ASAP. I'm also not sure what you mean by secondary sources - I used press releases and news/press articles. Do those not qualify?

Thanks.Jabrams5 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jabrams5: Sure, there are few problems. First, articles about corporations should meet the standards at WP:CORP and WP:GNG. That means we're looking for reliable and independent sources about the topic. The key here is independent. If the article is a press release, or another organization's reprinting of a press release, it's not independent. It might still be OK to use as a source, but it's not good enough to show that the company meets the notability guidelines.

Second, there's the promotional issue. Promotional content is the stuff that sounds like it's there just to sell a product. The "Products and Services" section is written in a way that it doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article about the company, but more like a corporate brochure. Have a look at Google#Products_and_services for an example of how information about a company's products can be written in a descriptive way as opposed to a promotional way. Agtx (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Agtx:Thank you, Agtx for the input/advice. I will look to update. Instead of the press releases, if I use articles that came from the press release, would that work? Also, once I make the changes should I notify you in hopes we can remove the 'nomination for deletion' banner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrams5 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

@Jabrams5: Articles that directly parrot the press release aren't going to be any better. If the article is coverage that's independent from the press release, that's more likely to help you show notability (WP:RS will give you some guidance on what's considered reliable and what's not). Once you've made the changes, the best thing you can do is comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APTelecom to explain why you think the article is notable (with sources). Agtx (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki troll

Hi Agtx,

Thanks for letting me know about the edit to our alumni. There is usually a hand-picked list of notable alumni that each university chooses to profile and he ins't one of them. Any student could add themselves as a notable alumni in that case. Any recommendations?

We also have a documented "troll" who is an expelled student who is being investigated for his social media, email and cyber attacks against the University and staff members who keeps adding in a "Controversy" section about a former President.

I'd love any suggestions or guidelines you may have on these issues.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinataylor1979 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC) @Sabrinataylor1979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinataylor1979 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sabrinataylor1979. Before we start, if you work for the university, you have to disclose that when you're working on Wikipedia pages related to your employer. We have a strict paid editing policy that's in our Terms of Use. If you look at that page, it will describe what you have to do when you're editing pages for work.

As far as the questions you've asked me, the university may have a hand-picked list for its promotional materials and that's fine. However, Wikipedia isn't here to promote the university, so that article will likely include anyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Random alumni will get removed pretty quickly if they aren't notable enough to have articles of their own, but otherwise, the university doesn't control who's on that list.

For the student who you say is attacking the university, I'm sorry to hear that. I haven't readded the section you removed because it does look like it was written in a very one-sided way that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. That said, the incident mentioned was well-covered in local press (which we consider a reliable source), so you should not be surprised when reference to it is added back in. Removing it altogether might be seen as slanting the article toward the university's point of view, which we also won't do.

In sum: 1) please don't expect this article to read like a university brochure. It won't, 2) make sure you read the information on conflicts of interest and paid editing, 3) thanks for reaching out to discuss. agtx 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up-much appreciated :) Sabrinataylor1979 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. Thanks for your help with this edit [1]. Please keep checking our bot as we are currently making improvements at Wikimania.--Lucas559 (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Agtx,

I appreciate your neutral stance. I apologize if I got carried away in the article but any frustration stems from mistreatment by the school and the word "expelled" is inaccurate, the student chose to leave. The school would have absolutely no reason to expel the student at the time even if they wanted to. I will take note of that inaccurate label.

Anyways, thanks for not being one-sided yourself. I'll repost a perfectly cited article regarding mistreatment at the school backed up by recognized journalism.

I'd appreciate any further thoughts that you may have.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.matthews2323 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Serena Williams

I have simply being trying to protect the information I added on Sunday referring to the recent events. Someone has being trying to take it down despite the fact that I referenced 7 sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thad caldwell: I think you'll find that the justification you just offered doesn't get you far here. "Protecting" your edits sounds like you're trying to own the article, which is frowned upon. In any case, I have no idea whether your edits should be in the article or not, but what I do know is that edit warring is not an OK way to voice your views. Go to the talk page, explain your view there, and reach a consensus. That's how it's done. Agtx (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to "own" anything. By protect I simply mean that I am reposting what another user is taking down. Have you emailed the same warning to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thad caldwell: I have, but regardless of the other editor's behavior, I would strongly urge you to reconsider how you approached the situation. Read the page about edit warring and understand that regardless of how reasonable your view is, the way you went about handling this dispute isn't going to work here. Agtx (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've posted my concerns via the talk section on the page in question and also on the noticeboard. What is the next step?Thad caldwell (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, is it possible for you to look at the edit I suggested along with the sources that I cited and instruct me on how to make the edit appropriately?Thad caldwell (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thad caldwell: As you can see, you've started a discussion, which you can feel free to continue to add your thoughts to. The comment I made there is intended to help mediate, as well as to try and give you an idea of how your edit might get on the page. Agtx (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm getting the hang of this, so please bear with me. Thad caldwell (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if an agreement cannot be made, what would be the next step? I'm hoping a discourse will resolve it. Thad caldwell (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thad caldwell: Well, to start, there are plenty of people who look at this article, not all of whom are online right now. I'd start by giving it a few days to hash out. If it looks like the consensus is against you, then you may not be able to make the change (happens to us all, believe me). After you've given it some time, one other potential option is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which assigns mediators to handle small disputes. Agtx (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also I just wanted to say thank you for being willing to learn. Your attitude is good and I hope you decide to stick around. Agtx (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I plan on it! Thad caldwell (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have another question for you, are you allowed to revert if you've reach a consensus through the talk feature and someone deletes material that was agreed upon?TJC-tennis-geek 23:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

@Thad caldwell: I'd say that reverting once and asking that person to go to the talk page is a totally reasonable thing to do. If that person keeps reverting but refuses to come talk about it, it's appropriate to warn them about edit warring. You still want to make sure you don't revert more times than you're supposed to (officially 3, but I don't even like to get that far). That way if you have to report them, you walk in with clean hands. agtx 23:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Agtx, thank you. That is exactly what I've done, hopefully he/she we reach out through talk as I've requested. Thanks again.TJC-tennis-geek 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

Flitto

How do you think the article can be changed to not sound like an advertisement?

Cheers.

Whiteiverson (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Whiteiverson: I've readded the advert tag and will explain on talk:Flitto.

Brett favre

The history showed that under the attack page was a valid redirect, so I have restored that and rev-deleted the attack. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohammed Burhanuddin

The entire section on criticism is absolutely incorrect. This has been written by one who envies Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhannuddin.

Kindly delete that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.37.240 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

why

Hi why you delete the article for public figure Ali Adel he have a lmdb link — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHasan222 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@AhmedHasan222: Lots of folks on imdb aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:BIO for an explanation of who is considered notable for inclusion here. agtx 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA discussion

I am sharing this link to an ARCA discussion since i have mentioned you in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion: should I redo my edit?

Hello. I see you contribute to Serena Williams page. Can I ask your opinion about this edit of mine? It's been reverted together with a few other earlier edits by someone else. Do you think I should redo my edit? I don't have great esperience with this kind of situation. Thanks for your suggestions. --Pinakell (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pinakell: Sorry I lost track of this comment. I think this was a good edit. Nobody belongs in that category without a source. agtx 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding paragraph to Horatio (Hamlet)

Adding paragraph to Horatio (Hamlet)

Could you explain please why you do not think the research references are not reliable and what constitutes a reliable reference. I believe what I am trying to include provides valuable insight into Horatio's character. The author is a psychoanalyst and author who has extensive knowledge of the play, and has directed it for the stage. His conclusions were reached after careful analysis of Shakespeare's text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriou (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kyriou: Sure, what we're looking for is reliable sources. That means we're looking for guarantees of reliability in the source, like having been published in an academic journal. Further, we want to avoid sources that represent only one person's view on the topic, since we're obviously not going to have a paragraph on everyone who's ever said anything about Hamlet. What you've added isn't backed up by a reliable source, since from that YouTube video, we have no idea who this person is, why he's talking about Hamlet, or if anyone else believes what he's saying. That's why we want to see academic journals. Even if his ideas are published in academic journals, we'd want to see citations to that work to determine that it's sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, and not just one person's view. agtx 01:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

You claim Wikipedia articles need to maintain a NPOV in every article. So answer me this: When you search "black power" you get a political movement. When you search "white power" you get white supremacy. Why is black power a political movement, but white power is white supremacy? I understand hate groups like the Klan has used "white power" to promote hatred to non-whites, but the new black panther party also uses the phrase "black power" to promote hatred towards non-blacks (specifically hatred toward white people). It is not racist to be proud to be black, and it is not racist to be proud of being white. Please review this and answer. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776: Because, as you'll see if you read the "due and undue weight" section in WP:NPOV, Wikipedia reflects widely held views, not minority views. It's an encyclopedia: it describes how things are, not how you want things to be. Most commonly, "black power" refers to a political movement and "white power" refers to white supremacy, so Wikipedia reflects that reality. Also, when you make a talk page post, you should sign it with four tildes at the end, like ~~~~. agtx 16:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification.. Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776

Greg Ogden?

Hello, I've never edited "Greg Ogden's wikipedia", — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.2.130 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Cedar Article Submission

• Mccollumbrett (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Cedar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Agtx,

I just saw your feedback on the Andrew Cedar page I created and submitted. He obviously exists and is notable (see the credits in See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song), G.D.F.R. (song) as well as his bio on http://artistpublishinggroup.com/producers#andrew-cedar) so I am just curious if the submission was declined for how it was written? I can definitely re-write the article and take more of a neutral tone. However, I was using other record prodcuers' pages as baselines and points of inspiration...and they all seem to be written more like advertisements than neutral pages. They tend to note the producer's successes and talents and leave out shortcomings. See DJ Frank E, Dr Luke, Max Martin and others.

If you can give me some guidelines or tips, I will gladly implement them into my article creation style.

Thanks!

-Brett

Mccollumbrett (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Mccollumbrett (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mccollumbrett: It's not that the article has to include shortcomings and more that it needs to avoid a super promotional tone. The phrases I listed in my comment on the page are examples of the kinds of things I found problematic. The articles you cited aren't necessarily the best examples. Have a look at Katy Perry to get an idea of how to write about an artist's accomplishments in a non-promotional way. agtx 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Older version

Hi I was editing this article "History of Islam".For this I was restoring an older version of the article.Can you tell me is there any problem doing that? Arman ad60 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arman ad60: Yes, it's a problem because in doing so, you removed a significant amount of material from the article. If you want to delete a huge chunk of the article and start over from an older version, you have to discuss the change on the article's talk page first. I should also warn you that you've reverted this change 3 times. Reverting an additional time today would be a violation of the three revert rule, which could get you blocked. agtx 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Professor Neil Greenberg draft article

Many thanks for your comments on the article I'm trying to create. I have added some more sources and changed some of the wording and would be grateful if you could let me know if you think this is acceptable. Thank you, Kirstin Kirstinhay (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing a version

Hello mister Agtx .Yes I understand that there are some rules about changing a version.But this article should be changed.If you look at the article properly you will find out that it is so awkward that it should not have a place in here.So the article should be changed.The article was actually always not like this.At first it was a good one.But then some one has changed it.What I am trying to say is that in many cases the articles are originally good ones but then somebody ruins it.In that case can't the newer version of the article be replaced by the older one?Arman ad60 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arman ad60: You're making this argument in the wrong place. I would recommend reading WP:BRD to get an idea of how you gain consensus to make a change like that. Then, go to talk:History of Islam and explain there why you want to go back to an old version. agtx 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Page modification

Hi M. AGTX, I would like to thank you for your suggestion about modifying the Desoutter page as a less advertising one and more neutral. I'm currently working on it, I'm a beginner in Wikipedia. Please, would you want to check it again tomorrow? Have a great day, Best regards.Adrien at Desoutter (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Medford knife And tool

Hello, I made a completely new article replaces the old one, if you will reconsider your position with regard to delete article? Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medford_knife_and_tool Eytankey (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability, Trachette Jackson

You flagged a page I created as possibly not meeting notability guidelines for academics.

I'd like to contest that the page, as it stands, does establish that its subject meets notability guidelines. One of the criteria listed in the notability guidelines for academics reads, "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level," the guidelines state that only one of these criteria need be filled. Do you contest that Alfred P. Sloan Research Award in Mathematics is a highly prestigious academic award (this may be a fair objection, I may have overestimated the prestige of the award while looking into it), or only the source I used as evidence that she received the award (an announcement for a talk, I admit that I can probably find something better)? I should also probably add more citations to the more notable of her papere, textbooks/journals she has edited, etc.

ProboscideaRubber15 (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Bashinelli

Hi, I'm not trying to be unresponsive (just couldn't figure out how to respond). I'm just trying to undo whatever I did that wasn't allowed. I don't work for the speakers bureau links that I deleted, but I did copy info off their sites. I'm new - My apologies! Let me know what I need to do to resolve. Thank you!! KBHunter (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) KBHunter

@KBHunter: Just to make sure, you're stating categorically that you don't work for See Agency or Washington Speakers Bureau? If you do, you need to disclose before we go any further. agtx 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I do not have any affiliation with Washington Speakers' Bureau. Full disclosure, I do some contract work for See Agency, which is how I know of Chris Bashinelli. However, they have not asked me to make the edits and I am not being compensated in any way. I was purely acting as volunteer & trying to add helpful and updated info. If I need to remove anything I will be glad to. Will you consider removing the flag? Thanks - my apologies for any trouble. KBHunter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@KBHunter: OK, that may still be a conflict, but I'll trust your judgment that you can edit neutrally and remove the flag for now. Please read WP:NPOV and try to keep your edits neutral. agtx 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@KBHunter: And I should add that you're definitely encouraged to edit in other areas that you're maybe not so close to personally/professionally. We always need folks who are willing to volunteer their time to help out. agtx 22:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@AGTX: Thank you! I do appreciate the guidance. I will leave the speaking stuff off and be extra careful of the tone. To be above board I won't make any more edits for the time being. Would you be willing the remove the mark for deletion as well? KBHunter (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@KBHunter: No, I still don't think that he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so I'm going to let the deletion discussion continue (it lasts for a week). If you have comments, you're welcome to add them to the discussion by following the link in the banner. agtx 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@AGTX: Would it be okay for me to edit the tone a bit and send it to you for further review? KBHunter (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@KBHunter: Best thing to do is to put your suggested edits on the talk page (talk:Chris Bashinelli)). That's the best place to keep discussion about the article. I'll have a look there, and anyone else interested can as well. agtx 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Typos

Hi! Remember me? I hope you are a bit less busy nowadays... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: User talk:68.9.73.243

Regarding the changes referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.9.73.243&redirect=no I am curious how long ago the changes from this IP were made? It is currently my home IP, however I only ever make small, grammatical changes and even then only when logged-in to my account. I am wondering if the change was made before my ISP leased me this particular IP. My IP is not static, and so does change from time to time. Marcberm (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Agtx!

Happy New Year!

Agtx,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

David R. Beittel

Hi, I have restored an article David R. Beittel you added a prod tag to. There was a WP:REFUND request. However this should not have been prod'd this way, as a prod had been rejected earlier. So you should have used a WP:AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Undoing changes in Deflation Article.

Few things 1. Removal of "speculation" tag. Why? Paragraph is clearly a speculative statement and original research:

• Economists generally believe that deflation is a problem in a modern economy because...*

No sources that support that statement. Link is bogus - and doesn't confirm statement.

2. Removal of

• Opposing opinion is also widespread among economists:*

which is immediately supported by link to opinion of economist, Philipp Bagus. Who wrote a book and papers on subject.

3. Currently "Deflationary spiral" chapter is misleading. I changed it to: *A deflationary spiral is an imaginable situation*

I added relevant RS link to study done by economists Atkeson and Kehoe.

• According to economic study done by Atkeson and Kehoe there is no statistically significant connection between depression and deflation*

Can you please elaborate on why you twice undid those edits? Hamdui24 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hamdui24: 1) The statement is not speculative, although I'll admit that it could use a better citation. I've added a citation to The Economist that does a better job.

2) Note that the both cites to the sentence you say is speculative are to articles that discuss the opinion of economists. Your link is the opinion of a specific economist. Those are different. One is your extrapolation from a primary source, and the other is reporting from a secondary source.

3) As I said on the talk page, reporting what this article says might be ok, as long as you don't try to characterize it. That said, I don't know enough about the topic to know if it's sufficiently mainstream research to be included. agtx 04:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Economist citation doesn't say anything about opinion of "economists". Neither about opinion of single economist. That is editorial from "Economists" - one source. It also doesn't contain claim about what "Economists generally believe". I would agree if you put quotes around "Economist".

Not to mention that summary of "Economist" article is some original research on on top of journal article. I will put tag dubious there, until it sufficiently clarified. Hamdui24 (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hamdui24: I'm not sure what you mean by put quotes around economist? Are they scare quotes? Do you mean that you do not consider the people who think that to be economists? If that's the case, that's not really how Wikipedia articles are written. The topic of the cited article is—and I'm quoting—"Why do economists so dread falling prices?" It then proceeds to talk about a "common explanation." In other words, the article describes what economists generally believe. That's not to say there aren't economists who disagree, but perhaps having a look at WP:DUE will help clarify why the sentence is still appropriate. agtx 02:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

IP fringe edits

Thanks for the note. Given that the IP editor is new, I likely should have used the undo function rather than rollback — I did leave a note on the IP editor's talk page, however. Best wishes --Neutrality^talk 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Largest Banks

I ask for a consensus of the Wikipedia Administrators (including Jimbo Wales) regarding my edits. All I am doing is taking the figures given in Chinese Yuan, and using an online currency converter that has the current currency rate to convert that figure to U.S. Dollars. 75.187.180.89 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Studio 71 edit

It isn't Libel... it's true. They have filed many false claims. Just because the truth hurts doesn't mean that they should be protected from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesterKing (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@JesterKing: I don't know if it's true or not. What I do know is 1) a YouTube video is not a reliable source and 2) you can't accuse someone of committing a felony (which, frankly, what you're accusing them of likely is not) on Wikipedia without a really reliable source. agtx 05:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Endorsements

My being included in this seems rather unfair. I stopped once I received a notice, while the IP user continued to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus.savage.0 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It does look like you may have gotten the notice around the same time as you did the last revert. I'll add that to the discussion, but nevertheless, you did violate the rule. agtx 19:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I had no intent of engaging in a so-called "edit war". If I did clearly violate the rule, I apologize. Still, my actions were without malice.

Re: revert of profanity

Hello, I am aware of WP:BOWDLERIZE. There was a conflict between to Wiki rules - the one you have mentioned and WP:GRATUITOUS. It states that "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.". In my opinion the entire exact quotation, as used in the article, is not necessary to make it revelant and informative. I have considered WP:AGF, but finally I have decided to revert changes of that IP user and change the content of the section to make it clear without unnecessary occurrence of direct speech. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tymon.r: I appreciate your looking into it further. In any event, I do not think it was an appropriate use of standard rollback with only a template message to the IP. I understand tools like Huggle make it possible to go very fast when reverting, so I might suggest taking a little more time when looking at edits. agtx 21:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree I could use other, custom message to the user as situation was not the standard rollback case by WP:ROLLBACK. While making quick decision in Huggle I had to distinguish if it is done in good faith or appears just to make the site's content more offensive. Taking into account WP:AGF, I reached the conclusion it should be reverted as it doesn't improve the article in anyway. I have fixed that in my recent edit. Thank you message, I appreciate your tips. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

W. T. Wallace

Hey, I have to disagree with you about declining CSD of this redirect. The same author has created three more - W T Wallace, W.T. Wallace and WT Wallace. You have called WP:CHEAP rule arguing the page should not be removed. However, remember redirects are sometimes costly, especially when they cause a mess or are just obviously not needed. In my opinion the name of subject is so popular and the subject itself is so not significant, that keeping redirects to the article could be a reason for the problems with creation of a new page and the general downgrade of order on Wikipedia - for me that justifies using WP:SPEEDY and asking for immediate, stressing that regardless of that what I said before - these redirects are just not useful at all. I have started RFD. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tymon.r: It appears from the sources cited that the subject actually did go by "W.T. Wallace." In that case, all of those redirects make perfect sense, and I see no reason not to have them. I'll post the same at the RFD. agtx 22:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Winery link edit, addition, accidental removal.

I think you may have accidentally removed the entire section for wineries. I reverted your action on this. All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:8100:4A:F041:FF99:52CE:2181 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Red Shirts (Southern United States)

The entry incorrectly calls the Red Shirts "white supremacist" paramilitary groups. This is incorrect however, due to the fact that there were blacks in many of the Red Shirt groups. Here is just one account: <Drago, Edmund L. (1998). Hurrah for Hampton!: Black Red Shirts in South Carolina during Reconstruction. University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-541-1.>

A more historically accurate qualifier would be "Democrat" paramilitary groups, as these organizations were formed to insure the election of Democratic candidates in local and state elections.

KAvin (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@KAvin: I've responded on the article's talk page. agtx 18:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As have I. So, the incorrect label of "white supremacist" stays because you did a review on a piece of a book, and that agrees with what another guy, who admitedly hasn't read the book either, says, so that is your basis for leaving incorrect information on this page?? That and maybe it doesn't fit nicely with how YOU believe groups in the Post WBTS South should be catergorized and labled??? The fact is alot of blacks in different Red Shirt groups across the South were "card carrying" members with equal member rights, same as white members. That one fact in itself should be enough to leave my edit alone, as it is incorrect and is not needed in the definition of what the Red Shirts were.

KAvin (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know I turned this over to dispute resolution, as I am required to do. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Red_Shirts_.2528Southern_United_States.2529.23Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29

KAvin (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Scholar of Record

Hello, Agtx. I am new to Wikipedia, and have read the guidelines you sent, thank you. In including the name you deleted in, for example, the entry for well-known Iowans, I am submitting a purely factual statement. Please let me know if you need additional citations, referrals, or third-party documentation. Thanks. Scholar of Record (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scholar of Record: I understand that you're new, and I'm glad you read the guidelines. However, just because a statement happens to be true doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. Every single one of your edits has added a book or article by the same person, often in places where it's only tangentially related. If your goal here is to promote that author, then it's not going to work out. If you're interested in adding meaningful content, then I suggest that you start by making some edits that don't have to do with Mr. Jack. agtx 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If one is an author or scholar of record or a leading authority on the subjects one is editing, what is the best way to reference one's work without seeming promotional? A Further Readings section or footnote including bibliographic data? Scholar of Record (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scholar of Record: The best way is not to do it. Otherwise, you can have a look at WP:SELFCITE. You are allowed to cite yourself, but not in a manner that is excessive or promotional. Going through articles and looking for ways that you can stretch the subject in order to be able to cite your work would be considered excessive. Mentioning the name of the author of a book in the text of an article when the identity of the author has no relevance to the subject would be promotional. Adding an Amazon link where one can purchase the book is definitely promotional. As I said, if you're only here to look for ways to promote a certain author's books, then that's not going to work out. agtx 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scholar of Record: I should add that if you are indeed such an authority, then you likely to know of many other sources you can cite for the same propositions. I'd recommend citing those other sources, and letting other people cite you. agtx 03:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Agtx. You have new messages at Merinakutas's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merinakutas (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Return

Pardon if I offended anyone, I was just saying that a vote was marked by a personal subject's posture (saying this as a way to alert the community and think about the mentality of those who do this type of claim). Att. 177.182.217.143 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agtx,

Morla Gorrondona

I have added a source for the tidbit of info I have on this actress, hopefully enough to have the deletion box taken down? Deicey (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Deicey

@Deicey: Sorry no. Have a look at WP:UGC. IMDB isn't a reliable source. agtx 16:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Agtx: Alright, I have removed the IMDb link and replaced it with her official site. Deicey (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Deicey

Scholar of Record

I understand your position, though I'm beginning to feel as if Wikipedia, and its editors, don't have much appreciation or respect for local knowledge or fame. For example, I list my great-grandfather as a well-known person from the home township because he wrote a nationally known book. To an anonymous content editor sitting somewhere in Texas or New York, this may seem like only so much promoting of a family or a family name. But what if your family *is* one of a handful of pioneering families, and deserving of mention in their little corner of the world and beyond it? And who will promote our own forgotten history here if not we, its citizens? When I enter my grandfather's name as a literary figure from our township, with citation, it hurts to see his name removed by an anonymous editor. Don't grandparents who achieved great things deserve mention, if accompanied by proper documentation,Scholar of Record (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC) in the Wikipedia page devoted to their township..their six mile by six mile corner of the earth? I certainly think so.

@Scholar of Record: I'm not unsympathetic to your stated desire, but let's look at how your edits appear to the rest of the world. This one doesn't contain anyone's great-grandfather. Neither does this one. Nor this one nor this one nor this one nor this one. What it looks like is that you are making edits that all promote Zachary Jack. Even the ones that do reference someone's great-grandfather somehow end up focusing on Zachary Jack. If you've got independent, reliable sources that demonstrate that a great-grandfather is relevant to an article's topic, then it may well make sense to add them. However, if your goal is to promote Zachary Jack's work, then you can't do that here. agtx 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Scholar of Record (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Ag tx,

Several of the edits I made try to include great-grandfather and grandson, as you see. Both are included in the Authors Collection and Special Collections at their state university; both are documented. It is not uncommon for their work to be viewed side by side by scholars in the field. If I include one without the other, I am doing a disservice to both of them, who come from the same county and township. If the great-grandfather were alive, he would include the great-grandson, I am certain. We stand side by side in our successes and our failures in this part of the world. I understand your position, but I would hope you would reconsider the removal, at least, of our names from our town and our township history. I would also ask, out of respect, that you remove specific names from your public posts. It is important to me to respect your anonymity in this way, using only your chosen screen name to address you and to refer to your edits, and I hope you will do the same for those you edit and remove mention of proper names in our discussion.

Thanking you.

If you'll note, I very carefully did not write or imply that you are and I don't know (or care) if you are. I commented on the topics of your edits to Wikipedia, which is, in fact, Zachary Jack. agtx 15:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scholar of Record: I did make one edit above to remove something that could have so implied. agtx 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agtx,

I appreciate your vigilance, but I don't feel as if in responding you've honored the spirt of the admin guidelines and talk user guidelines. If I erred in my edits on the very first day I joined, it was because I made them before I was able to read the relevant guidelines, as you would be able to see from the relevant posting times compared to message opening times.Scholar of Record (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Before I read your guidelines and understood how things worked another editor wrote me conveying the same but in a way that I felt was much more in keeping with behavior expected of admins. Is there anywhere I can go to further raise concerns?Thanks

@Scholar of Record:I've moved your post up here, and it would help if you would stay in this section when you make future comments. Just post right below mine. I should note that I am not an administrator. I am an editor, just as you are—I've just been around a little longer. If you feel I've wronged you personally in some way, I'm happy to discuss it. If you want someone to review my actions, you can open up a thread at WP:ANI or comment in the one that I already made about your edits. I will say, however, that I have tried hard to be patient here. What I'm understanding, though, is that you don't really like what I'm saying. I hope that you stay here and edit productively, I really do. But I think you need to consider why you're here. The goal of WIkipedia is to build an encyclopedia. If your goal is different from that (say, to memorialize/honor your relatives or to increase the exposure and citation of a certain author's books), then this isn't the right place for you. agtx 22:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Scholar of Record (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Agtx, I definitely feel wronged by you. You mention in your bio that you help guide new users, but it feels like you are punitive, harsh, and bullying to people who are learning how and what to post. I feel as if you have violated privacy in the needless posting of proper names on a public talk forums and made potentially libelous statements about respected and long-established periodicals. It is enough for you to make your points and have them honored (which they have been). It it not at all okay to disrespect privacy by needlessly repeating a proper name in a public context over and over, violate confidentiality, or make potentially libelous statements. Your also violate the "assume good faith policy--reacting the way you did to someone who made their initial edits in their first and second day, before being sent the pertinent guidelines, is antithetical to the principles outlined in WIkipedia. If you would like to fix these issues, I'm wiling to try, but otherwise I will need to file a dispute, and I'm too new to even know how to begin that process.

You are welcome to go to WP:ANI, create a new section, and ask for my actions to be reviewed. If you feel bullied, I apologize. That was not my intention. I do not believe that I have violated your privacy or libeled you in anyway, and I would caution that making such charges at ANI without being able to back them up could result in WP:BOOMERANG. And while I do like to help new users, I think that based on our interactions so far, you would be better off working with someone else. agtx 15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting

Who are you and why are you deleting a page I am trying to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acadianrobotics (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acadianrobotics: I'm an editor just like you are. The reason I've flagged your page for deletion is that it reads like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia entry. WP:PROMO explains this policy well. agtx 17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acadianrobotics: I should have added, you can use the process at WP:AFC if you want to edit a draft without anyone bugging you. Then, you can submit it for consideration when you're ready. agtx 17:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting

I understand but give me time. I am just trying to start a page. Don't be a wiki Nazi. Give noobs a chance to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acadianrobotics (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Larry David is Jewish

How do you consider it vandalism if i am merely stating a fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.232.163.242 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As should be clear, going through articles and changing the first sentence to read that the subject is Jewish (instead of that the subject is an actor or whatever he or she happens to be) is not constructive editing. agtx 23:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

???????????????????

what are you my edit was simply spelling and was very constructive. You should go construct yourself into a tree and stay there i think

love, a devoted fan 00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Ompompom (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Mike Perry Deletion

Yes hello i read over your proposal for deletion, I understand you believe that i am Mike Perry himself and i would like too clarify i am not, im a simply a fan or should i say we are a bunch of fans on a website called sherdog who support this fighter and resepect him as a rising you star. proof here - http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/official-platinum-mike-perry-warwagon.3369189/

Please be advised that i am not the only editing the page but multiple of use who have been following Mike Perrys fighting career are editing and supporting this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinummikeperrybless (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps ....

what spelling did you correct

and then

where is my original edit?

Maybe you can help me find my way with WIKIPEDIA

Greg Salyards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorysalyards (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to TWA Flight 800, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. agtx 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to TWA Flight 800, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. agtx 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

TWA 800

The speed with which you commented upon my recent edit tells me that you did not carefully investigate what I posted.

'combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say' might be your concern, but that is merely a guess on my part!

the NTSB FINAL REPORT is extremely explicit as I cited in my edit. And there are two radar returns common to both of those radar tracks (indentified and plotted by the NTSB itself) as I stated in my edit. I pointed out the contradiction in that information which the NTSB researched, plotted, and characterized.

no original research was required on my part!

When you have done an actual, detailed analysis of my edit please notify me at wwwqwww@yahoo.com and I will then have some specifics as to why you have rejected the detailed edit that I just did.

Regards,

Greg Salyards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorysalyards (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to TWA Flight 800, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. agtx 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to TWA Flight 800, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. agtx 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Gregorysalyards (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gregorysalyards: I did, in fact, look at your edits in detail. What you've done is point out a discrepancy that you think you've found in a government report. That's original research. You can have a look at WP:OR and particularly the WP:SYNTH of that page for a detailed explanation as to why that is. agtx 22:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Racism in Israel, which is about an internal matter, is not subject to WP:ARBPIA, which applies to articles/pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Just saying. Of course, WP:EW applies to all pages. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I suppose that's up for interpretation. You're welcome to take your chances. 02:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to "take my chances". As a long-time editor in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I know where ARBPIA applies and where it doesn't. I also know who has violated 1RR today, and who hasn't. And who has been edit-warring, and who hasn't. And who has explained his objections to the content, and who has been engaging in name-calling. But if you want to play your silly games of false equivalence, go ahead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PS -- Any editor can add any template she or he wishes to the talk page of any article. The regulars at WP:AE can assure you that it means nothing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I'm sorry that I seem to have upset you. Here's my logic: the arbitration sanctions in this area are regarding "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted." This entire article is, in fact, about the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. It is true that it is internal to Israel (whatever that means), but it nevertheless does fall within that subject area. Frankly, I don't want to fight with you about this. Reverting isn't productive—just talk it out. agtx 02:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely what I've tried to do. The other editor in this dispute is the one who has reverted four times today in little more than two hours, and who has responded to my good-faith messages with personal attacks. So why are you plastering my talk page with messages? I'm very much aware of the rules around here, although I sometimes fall short of them. I'm not revert-warring. On the other hand, I'm dealing with somebody who, based on his actions and comments, doesn't give a damn about our policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Red Shirts Compromise

Okay, this has become ridiculous. I think I have come up with a solution. Just remove ANY qualifier before the term "paramilitary" in the lede sentance. That way, there shouldn't be any confusion on anyone reading the opening paragraph of the article. There really doesn't need to be an adjective of "Democratic" or "white supremacist" in the opening anyways, since both subjects are covered in the article itself. Is this acceptable to you?KAvin (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. It's the original edit that I disagreed with. Any further discussion about this should go in the RFC, not my talk page. agtx 15:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Harry E Hull

The Wiki for Harry E Hull says that his wife died from mistaking poison tablets for headache remedy. Well, he had three children, one of which is my 95-year old grandmother, Georgia Hull. She came to dinner tonight and said her mother died in a retirement home. That's as close to a reference as you get. There's no citation for that.

Emily Leonard (She's my fathers mothers mother.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyleonard (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Emilyleonard: You're right, there's no citation for that, and unfortunately that's the problem. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is that information is verifiable. I'm sure that both you and your grandmother are telling the truth, but without a way to prove it, it's not verifiable and can't be added to Wikipedia. Remember this New Yorker cartoon? The same general principle applies here. agtx 02:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I'm working on finding a source on the internet. Emilyleonard (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Genuine question though: The current recount of her death has no proof because she citation links back to Harry Hull's page. And searching for the written citation leads you back there too. So how is that kept in? Truly, I'm asking because I'm confused. Emilyleonard (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the citation is to an Iowa City Citizen article from 1917. I don't believe there is a free version of that newspaper's archives available, but it does exist on at least one pay site. That is a verifiable citation because it's to a reliable printed source that can be accessed (even if not by me at this moment). agtx 15:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That edit of mine was an accident.

My apologies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Some friendly advice: The ones you're doing on purpose aren't a good idea. You know they're just going to block you for it. I think the first block was bad too, but people aren't going to take this response well. agtx 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't do anything deserving of a block. The disgraceful block and the actions of some, Drmies is just one, are disgusting and reprehensible. No User has to take crap around here and I am not going to ever and I'm not going to let other editors get crapped on either. You don't know the editors I have fought or stood up for against abuse around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Erling Moldrup death

Hello, here is my source of information. I know little of editing practices, hence my poor effort. make of this as you wish.

http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=107744 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.7.146 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

COI

Dear agtx I have added citation and will add more kindly consider approving my page Khurshidkamraan (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Dear Agtx,

thanks for your note! My name is Alexander Gorlach, as such I have a conflict of interest with regards to all articles concerning myself and related subjects. Before your message it was not clear to me how to contact someone at Wikipedia in regard to full discolosure. So thanks a lot for reaching out.

I earlier today and some day prior updated the article about me. I did not create the article in the first place, this happened, as it seems by the tag above it, in 2011. So I added a lot of credential sources from indepdenent third parties.

I truly hope this disclosure is helpful and the sources placed in the article legite to keep the post as it is.

Many thanks and all best

Alexander Görlach AlexanderGoerlach2 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cinchona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cinchona. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Park Yoochun's Sex Assault tab on his page

Requesting for the removal of a section on Park Yoochun's Wikipedia page because:

a. First comparing it to other Wikipedia page of Korean celebrities who had/have equally controversial issues, the label of the tab, more so having a separate tab for that is very maligning.

B. The sources cited in the tab are not credible sources. Those "blogs" have had their fair share of incidents wherein they produced baseless, malicious and destructive articles.

C. The case is on-going. Given the nature the situation, it is a must the ONLY CREDIBLE SOURCES should be cited. Any kind, on any platform of false information is a grave disservice and is a violation of rights of the person/s involved. Dhangmadam (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dhangmadam: The talk page of the article is the best place to discuss this, since the folks watching that page will know more about this than I do. I will say that your first argument probably won't get you very far. If it's true that the sources are unreliable, then the section should be removed. However, they looked to me to have references to Korean-language articles from reliable sources. You need to discuss that first though. agtx 15:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:California

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Agtx,

Breaking the back of the backlog

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

File:NPP_backlog_01_October_2016.png|thumb|250px|right|Mid July to 01 Oct 2016]]

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

Second set of eyes

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

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

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

. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

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

Hello, Agtx. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Afro engineering

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afro engineering. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Agtx,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

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

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

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

---

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

NPR

Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it is a recreation by the same author of a previously deleted page, please notify an administrator who will salt the article and consider blocking the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or post a question at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: And how quickly it happens. I think KAP03 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) falls under that category. Counterwave Inc. should probably be salted. agtx 18:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have salted Counterwave, and JamesBWatson has already issued an informal but clear warning to the author. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

MKK AS

Just a heads up, if you see a promotional article written in the plural, (what we do, our vision, etc.), it's usually a good idea to run a quick google search in quotes, because it will often end up being a copyright violation of the official website, which this article was. No big deal. It definitely is promotional, and deletion is deletion, but WP:COPYVIO does end up being a bit bigger deal, especially if there is a repeat offender. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually do in cases where there is even a slight doubt that G11 might apply, but this one was so blatantly promotional that I didn't think it mattered too much. agtx 21:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

LeBron James articleSpaceGuy623 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC) SpaceGuy623 edit.

I think that this is a neutral comment i made on LeBron James, because many sports and analysts have said the same thing too, so you should put the edit I made back. Thanks for understanding.SpaceGuy623 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@SpaceGuy623: The issue is, you stated it as a fact without any kind of citation to any analyst. That made it look like your own personal opinion, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you can cite to a reliable source and write the sentence in a neutral way, it might be acceptable. agtx 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I get your issue. Thanks for telling me about this issue, I'll try to find a source.Please reply to this comment, I just want to know if you got it. Thank you for understanding.SpaceGuy623 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood. agtx 22:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Agtx, thanks for adding me to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled.

Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scare-line

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Agtx,

A HUGE backlog

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

Hitting 17,000 soon

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

Second set of eyes

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

Abuse

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

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

Coordinator election

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

---

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

Please comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al-Raqqah. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Agtx,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appalachian English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appalachian English. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tiffany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tiffany. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hapeles

Hello! You have added tag to the article listed above. An explaining reference has been added. (Ref. no. 2) StanleyMor (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@StanleyMor: I appreciate the addition of the citation, but the article still has some pretty serious problems. For example, the sentence you added it to says that the paper is "persecuted by israeli government" but the article doesn't say that. That may be your view of what the government's actions described in the article are, but that's WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend reading WP:NPOV for general guidance on how the article could be improved. agtx 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Agtx,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Agtx, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comma

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Comma. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whataboutism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Whataboutism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Agtx, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jenna Rose Simon

Just a friendly heads up. I declined your speedy request on Jenna Rose Simon and took it to AfD instead. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: Thanks for the heads up. I have a strong feeling that the page was created by a sock of a blocked user and will end up deleted regardless. agtx 21:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Agtx, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

Thanks!

Hi Agtx, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious

welcome to Wikipedia

Thank you for articles such as Jayson Blair, Joe Dassin and King of Hearts (1966 film), for fighting vandalism, for many messages to users, both welcoming and warning, for redirects and page moves, for support, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on "American Football"

You got to that revert REALLY quickly. Congratulations. I thought I got there quick, but I was surprised to see the words red when I clicked revert. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adotchar: Ha thanks. Just happened to be at the top of the RC page. agtx 22:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Agtx, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metric

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metric. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions regarding changed guideline WikiProject Days of the year

Hello Agtx,

After much discussion on 16 October 2017 a guideline was 'adopted' that requires an inline citation to be added to an entry in a list. I still have some questions and issue with this new guideline. Since you are the one who decided to close the discussion based on your arguments I address my concerns to you.

1. First: I am very surprised that the discussion was closed at all since it is clear that there is no consensus whatsoever. What was the reason to close it?
2. You state that The main arguments against (the new guideline) are that this change would create work without providing benefit. I disagree with that. Some other very good arguments were given. Have you read Mufka's arguments for instance (which was cleverly collapsed by toddst1?)
3. If there apparently is consensus, why isn't the guideline being enforced? Since October 16 a lot of 'unsourced' entries have been added to the DOY-pages (to the Births- and Deaths sections especially). I see little to no action against these additions; only three additions have been reversed because of the new rule (1, 2 and 3), accompanied by a warning on the user page of the perpetrator.
4. If this guideline is that vital to the verifiability of links, why are current unsourced links allowed to exist? Why isn't a project team formed to add inline citations to all 125,000 entries that make DOY? Why should only new entries have to adhere to the new rule?
5. On that topic: our sister project WikiProject Days of the year does not demand inline citations for their list entries. Moreover; it doesn't even state exemption from WP:V on their project page since it is implied. Why hasn't anyone started a similar the discussion if it is such a gross violation?
6. The are many, many lists that do not 'source' their links to articles. Why is no action taken here? Why should only WP:DAYS be subject to this guideline?
7. Has anyone in support of this guideline thought of the practicalities regarding this new rule? In practice if an editor wants to add an entry he/she will not first studie the DOY guidelines before commencing. He/she will open the editor and add an edit using existing entries as an example. Do you agree?
8. Wikipedia is all about consensus. Therefor I do not understand that one person (you) gets to decide that the Support-arguments 'are the most convincing' and subsequently close a discussion. How does that work?

As you may have gathered I am not a great supporter of this new guideline. If project DOY wouldn't have defined the 'reference exemption' in the past than the whole discussion wouldn't have been started in the first place. I feel this new guideline is (among others) biassed, impossible to enforce and inconsistent with other list pages. I have decided not to comply with it and I accept any consequences. Looking forward to you reply.
Kind regards Mill 1 (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mill 1: I understand that you disagree with the way the discussion went. However, I think you may misunderstand how closing a discussion works. I did not close the discussion based on my arguments, because I didn't make any arguments of my own. When closing a discussion, an uninvolved editor (me, in this case) considers the strength of the arguments made in the discussion by reference to the policies at issue in order to interpret the consensus. I read all of the comments (collapsed ones included) and all of the policies at issue. As I said in my closing statement, I determined that your view conflicted with Wikipedia's guidelines and core content policies, particularly WP:SOURCELIST, which requires list items to have inline references project-wide. If you disagree with the way I did that, you can ask for my close to be reviewed at WP:AN. I'd encourage you to read Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures first.

I am concerned by your statement that you have "decided not to comply" with the consensus. That's not how this works, and saying something like that is likely to be considered disruptive and not advance your cause.

Consensus, of course, can change. If there are new things that have come up since the change that merit revisiting the issue, then there's nothing stopping you from having that discussion. agtx 13:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for swift reply and information. Mill 1 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Agtx. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hair's breadth

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hair's breadth. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)