User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

request for clarification involving you

Here [1]. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

DHeyward, thank you for the notification. I have no problem with the committee reviewing my actions, regardless of the outcome. Hope you have a wonderful rest of the weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP stalkers: borderline article

Vladimir_Dilman

Please check, cheers. Edaham (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere RfA

At the candidate pull for Insertcleverphrasehere, you were pinged. What do you think about that user if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Insertcleverphrasehere were to be created? If you wanted to, you may create the RfA sooner or later and that would be your 2nd RfA nomination. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd encourage him to speak to Kudpung about who would be a good nominator and what timing would be best. I've just come off two back-to-back RfAs (Joe Roe, and Cameron11598), and the last one took a lot out of me because I think Cameron would have been a great admin. I'm not really looking to nominate anyone again in the next few months (no matter how close they may be to me), because I hope to get back to focusing on the parts of the project I enjoy the most: text copyright, dealing with spam, and writing articles. The project space politics of the last month or so have been pretty tiring, and I think that anything I wrote as a nom wouldn't be my best work. I don't want to be a sub-par nominator for someone, even if I think they would be a good admin. There are much better nominators than me out there, and I think they'd likely be more useful in an RfA because they could show buy-in form the rest of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I might wait a bit before doing RfA, and am planning on chatting with Kudpung and Richie333 when the time comes (per the poll comments). I feel like I have a few things to learn first (working over at WP:COIN for example) and I don't want to do an RfA during our current backlog drive. I suspect that Tony didn't comment because he and I work together fairly closely over at NPP, though there could be other reasons. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I also typically try to avoid commenting on all ORCPs unless there is something specific that I want to say that I think is best handled on-wiki: I really only visit the page these days to close the discussions after 7 days so they don't become an endless public shaming. I think Kudpung gave you good advice there. He would be the best person to talk to about any RfA attempt in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Oi oi :)

User:MMAandmovies. Bizzarely honest, notwithstanding the u/name vio. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 05:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Honesty or trolling? Time will speak.......!Winged Blades^Godric 06:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The company I represent has many accounts depending on the number of clients that I or the company represent. This, while slightly opaque lingo, is the important bit I think. Pissing over WP:TOU, much?! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex has blocked the acc. but a CU would have been interesting.Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that would have been fishing :-) Alex Shih (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Fishing can be gleeful:) has many accounts fishes ! Winged Blades^Godric 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is a magical place where arbs show up to block spammers. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, thanks a lot. You have no idea how much this means. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Thank you for the note re. COI. I tried to be transparent and non-promotional but appreciate your edits and comments. I will leave that page for someone independent to verify or update. I do have more recent images of Tate galleries which I can upload and add to existing pages. Does that still constitute COI? --Hilaryknight (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Hilaryknight, I know you are acting in good faith, and I appreciate your reaching out here. Before you upload that image, please mage sure it is compatibly license. If it isn't, follow the instructions at this page to see if Tate wants to release it. Uploading an image is fine, and since you are transparent, we should be good. It's just important to be open about what you are doing. Also, to be clear, were you paid as a part of creating that article? If you were, we usually note it on the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-creation

I have re-created 1996 Dausa blast, because the topic ban was removed and policy doesn't stop recreation. There was no dispute over the notability either. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really have any thoughts on that. NeilN might: I’m not quite sure if recreating G5’d articles almost immediately after they are deleted was something he intended when you were conditionally removed from a TBAN. I don’t have a dog in the fight. Just notifying him as the sanctioning admin as he might have thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk)

@Raymond3023: Just be careful your editing isn't seen seen as pushing a particular POV. Concerns about that were also raised during the appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"consensus required"

It is my understanding that you view the "consensus required" DS as similar in nature to WP:ONUS, which says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In that view this and especially this edit by User:TheTimesAreAChanging violate the discretionary sanction as they restore (twice) material which has been challenged. This is particularly true since TTAAC made the second edit AFTER the nature of it was pointed out to them on talk [2] and AFTER discussion indicated there was no consensus for inclusion (with four editors objecting to the text and only TTAAC and Anythingyouwant wanting it in). Can you provide clarification here so we can avoid another WP:AE report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing long-standing material is in itself an edit, which can be challenged under the DS; just ask Coffee. (Are you seriously proposing that I could just arbitrarily "challenge" huge chunks of Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations at whim? Better get on that!) With regard to Volunteer Marek's back-up argument: One day of discussion—with two editors (not including the original author) supporting the text as is, three calling for total deletion, and one wanting to trim/revise it but retain the same meaning—does not a new consensus make.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is my view that the sanction, broadly speaking, is similar in nature to ONUS: restoration of content must achieve consensus, and it is most frequently applied when new content has been removed. This is why I favour it as a sanction in general. At the same time, I think circumstances like this are areas where it could be clarified, and I’d suggest that Coffee do so on his return: the strict wording of the sanction refers to edits which have been challenged via reversion, rather than content.

At the same time, if there is a talk page consensus against inclusion, or if consensus is not clear, I am of the belief that per ONUS, we should be conservative and remove the challenged content unless consensus exists to include it, especially on controversial BLPs such as Sessions. This is my personal view as an editor, and not a statement as an uninvolved administrator in regards to what is appropriate under the sanctions on that page. I’d welcome Coffee to provide clarification on this point when he returns, but I can see how it could lead to confusion in situations like this where an editor in good faith removed information from a BLP under ONUS, and that edit is challenged.

My final thought, and again, this is as an editor with an eye towards BLPs and not the sanction on Sessions, is that if there is not consensus for text that has been challenged in a BLP, and someone has restored it, they should self-revert until a consensus on inclusion or wording takes place. I think this is the most conservative approach towards dealing with BLP content and a good one. Sorry if I couldn’t be much more help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee was the one who was volunteered to author a page on the Consensus required provision, but his retirement at the time prompted myself to do so. It is located at WP:CRP. El_C 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Editor1 removes longstanding portion of text; Editor2 reverts, re-adding the text; Editor1 now needs to gain consensus on the article talk page for the re-removal of the text."

Get it, Volunteer Marek? You violated the DS, not me! Well, technically, of course, your original bold edit was fine, but Marquardtika violated DS by reinstating it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El C, thank you for that. I agree that is the what the wording of the sanction implies. I support it because typically it forces ONUS, which on BLPs is especially important. In these cases, I think it best as a measure of good faith to self-revert until consensus can be reached, but I do not think the sanction requires it, unfortunately. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is that CRP is as much about addition as it is removal—of course, it can be trumped by BLP, when applicable. El_C 05:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so this means that WP:ONUS is completely unrelated to this provision, which... means we're back to this being a really stupid provision to have (and this discussion again illustrates why). (and Marquardtika is perfectly correct when they said "we judge content based on its adherence to policy, not its longevity").Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the useful script pointer. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyperwar

If it isn’t obvious, I’m the only one currently qualified other than old generals and analysts to talk about hyperwar Abattoir666 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Abattoir666, I'd recommend you take the advice of this essay, you are getting perilously close to blocking territory for disruptive editing (I won't be the one to do it since I sent the article to AfD). Whether or not you are right does not matter: Wikipedia expects you to behave civilly and enter discussions. You are free to give your opinions on the AfD page, but several very experienced editors have looked at Hyperwar and thought that the article probably shouldn't exist. That was enough for me to send it to AfD. Your thoughts are welcome there, but please don't attack other editors. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Then let the editors talk on my chat page and personally tell General/President John Allen that the next iteration of warfare is irrelevant for wikipedia. Just because you and a few other editors who know nothing of the subject, it Doesn’t mean that it is grounds for deletion. Abattoir666 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, this is clearly not an essay. I’d never use such lay language on any essay of mine. Abattoir666 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You are free to engage and discuss with editors at the AfD page for this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer

Tony, this is Regiis Rosis and Rosarum et Veritas. My new account was created with a more straightforward username and Ad Orientem's approval. Would I be a good candidate for pending reviewership? I had wanted to consult with you before requesting permissions. - Conservatrix (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and granted it. We're pretty liberal with it, and you're clearly here to help build the encyclopedia, and haven't had any blocks. The only thing I'd caution you is that if you have any questions if an edit should be accepted or reverted, to just leave it for someone else to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you. Perhaps later we might revisit this discussion with rollback and autopatrolled privileges. - Conservatrix (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

100 Happy Days

Does 100 Happy Days still qualify for G5 (created by a sock and not substantially edited by anyone else) given that it closed as keep at AfD? G5 isn't super clear on what to do in this case. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tagged it. CSD G5 applies so long as the participants weren’t aware of the socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the info, it hasn't come up for me before because I haven't been involved in G5 nominations much until recently. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Algeria–Egypt rivalry article

Did you review the article or decide to straight up delete it because one other user said G5? There were four keep votes and the nominator said he will withdraw the AfD, so when four wikipedia users say keep to improve surely that overrides a G5!!?? Govvy (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, WP:CSD explicitly lists G5 as being applicable regardless of past deletion discussions if the participants were not aware that the article was created by a sock. This came to light after the withdrawal statement, so I deleted the article in line with the CSD policy. As I said when I closed out the AfD, any user is free to recreate the article, but per WP:BMB, it does not matter if this contribution was good or not. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought the article an interesting subject with the rivalry, I read through 2009 Egypt v Algeria football matches also, but because of maybe future updates I was thinking that 2009 article should be renamed to Algeria–Egypt football rivalry or apply a redirect between the two. What do you think know? Govvy (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m not an expert at anything football related. I deleted it per WP:BMB. If you would like to take responsibility for the content created by the banned editor, I can restore it, though I typically think the best way to handle these is to recreate them independently so as not to encourage block evasion. The choice is yours, though. ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

My other question, was it actually created during a ban evasion? I thought it was created way before that, also, it was used in List of association football rivalries ages ago, so I am not sure the G5 should apply. It clearly states A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. I would like it restored and restored to Algeria-Egypt football rivalry. Govvy (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, yes. The user was blocked in 2015. This article was created on 8 January 2018. It unquestionably was eligible for G5. The version at that list was deleted via a consensus at AfD in 2016. This is why I think it would be better to simply recreate it rather than use the work of a sockmaster, but, if you still want it restored, I will. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the 2009 article does the job, maybe I will link the rivalries list page to that for now and leave it at that, I never got a chance to see the history of the deleted article, I thought it had been on wiki a good while. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The initial entry in the deleted history for this creation was:

(diff) 14:12, 8 January 2018 . . MetalHead1878 (talk | contribs | block) (58,318 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox sports rivalry | name = Algeria–Egypt rivalry | other names = North African arch-rivalry | image...')

Before that, the last revision was:

(diff) 18:50, 8 October 2016 . . Hichem algerino (talk | contribs | block) (18,461 bytes), which was from a page deleted in 2016 (AfD linked above).

Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Barrett Hodgson University copyvio

Hi again Tony. There have been some fairly significant additions of copyright material to Barrett Hodgson University, starting with this edit. There have been numerous reverts back and forth, so I wasn't sure whether to request deletion of all revisions since that edit, or try to disentangle those revisions where the copyvio is present form those where it is not. Could you advise? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, we wouldn't delete the entire page since there are good versions. We would revdel all the offending entries. I don't have access to my admin account currently (account security and all), but maybe Diannaa would be able to deal with it when she is on next. If she doesn't, I'll deal with it later. TBallioni (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry: fix ping. TBallioni (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I was working on this and got sidetracked. Back on the case now. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both. To clarify: I wasn't expecting deletion of the entire article, but was wondering whether the "good" revisions inbetween reverts should be kept, or whether everything since the addition of the copyio material should be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

...which I now know the answer to, having seen Primefac's deletions, which preserve the good revisions inbetween copyvios. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the way I always do it too, unless the number of diffs that need to be assessed is too costly manpower-wise (i.e. in the hundreds). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, that's usually when I get pinged... my personal record is something like 789 revisions deleted. I don't mind the gruntwork. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

'Publish changes' button

I believe this is confusing new users who are working on drafts or in their sandboxes or on a Wizard template. Some may believe that this implies saving to mainspace already. If it's technically possible, that button should display 'Save' when in those namespaces. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that this was a Wikipedia-wide change, it would have to be reverted on the dev level, no? Primefac (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

• (edit conflict)(talk page watcher)Phab-T131132 is the ticket that triggered the change and may be of some interest.I glance over some comments which have raised some queries quasi-along the above the line of thought.Winged Blades^Godric 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Phab ticket has been closed and although I'm logged in I can't see how to make a new comment. However, see this week's Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Treeium

If you are going to nominate for speedy deletion can you also close the AfD I opened. It was opened last night before the CheckUser block, but with the new information I think the speedy delete is uncontroversial. You could speedy delete it yourself as an admin, but please remember to close the AfD first. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

SeraphWiki, I prefer other administrators to review my G5 taggings and not to delete unilaterally. Another admin will review, and they typically close the AfD as well if they G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Article deleted, AfD closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft Reviewal

Dear Wiki User,

Can you kindly assist me in the reviewal of the draft article Julie L. Green?

Thank you kindly for your time.

Regards,

Kaitlyn CK KaitlynCK (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) KaitlynCK (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kaitlyn, articles in the AfC queue are reviewed as reviewers come across them and decide to review them. Because this is a volunteer project and reviewers can choose what they want to review, this is done somewhat idiosyncratically. Additionally, they do their best to work on older submissions first. Your draft will be reviewed in time. Please be patient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of other pages

Well, you successfully completed the deletion of the SafeLogic page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SafeLogic I assume you will review every other page in the category for notability as well? 2600:1700:9980:A780:8421:A8F9:95C8:2D7 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No: my focus here is on undeclared paid spammers, like the one who likely created the article on your company. If any of them fall into that category, there is a strong chance I'll deal with them at some point. I also don't look fondly on employees or contractors of companies trying to get their competition deleted: I think it is almost as destructive to Wikipedia as people promoting their own interests. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's a cop out. You assumed paid spam on one page, but won't even look at other pages, where the usernames that published, edited, and maintain the company page match employee names?? That smells like a COI on your part. 2600:1700:9980:A780:8CFA:3E14:468A:8A9C (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm one of the most active administrators in working in the COI/PAID/spam field, so that I would deal with your company's article is really not that strange. I also don't want to be used by someone who clearly has a COI to try to harm their competition: I'm sure that there are paid advocacy pieces among your competitors as well, but I and other admins will get to them when we do. There is so much of this stuff to deal with and we are all volunteers. I did not seek out your company to delete. I reviewed it, saw that it fit the profile for paid advocacy, saw that the sourcing did not meet our standards, and nominated it for deletion through the articles for deletion process, which allows for community review before an article is deleted. Sandstein was the administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SafeLogic. If you want him to reconsider his close, you can talk to him on his talk page.

As for having a COI: I couldn't list any of your competitors, much less figure out how to defend them. If you have actual evidence that I have actually abused my position as an administrator to further the cause of a for-profit entity (or even a non-profit entity), you are free to contact the Arbitration Committee, but as I'm unaware of any COI in your field, and as no editor is forced to do anything they don't have time to do (such as go through your competition to delete ones you think are less notable than you), I doubt much would come of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Claiming ignorance on the topic is just more reason that you should refrain from disputing notability. This seems to be a systemic issue among Wikipedia editors... Actual experts are supposed to stay on the sidelines, because they may have a COI, so the only folks who are supposed to participate are newbies in the field. Makes me shake my head. Further, by punishing one vendor alone, the others are essentially promoted. Want to be good at your job? Take some time and focus on a topic. 2600:1700:9980:A780:B8FF:B237:CEF6:AB78 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply considers important what intellectually independent, reliable, secondary sources consider important, and publishes those things which both are important according to the sources are not outside our scope. The whole point of Wikipedia is that someone who knows nothing about a topic can write a reasonable article on it or determine whether it should be included: we are simply a summary of the sources written by experts. That is where our value is. Your firm was not considered important by intellectually independent, reliable, secondary sources, and it was written as an advertisement. It was thus excluded from Wikipedia for both reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise and further, I believe there is a failure to apply the philosophy across the board equally, yielding significant issues, but I do appreciate the dialogue. 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's value is as a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, not as a reliable secondary source written by experts. If you don't think that is valuable, it is likely that Wikipedia is not the best place for you to contribute (and I say that as someone who has a reputation for being very welcoming of IP contributors). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I do, in fact, think there is value in Wikipedia being a tertiary source. Don't put words in my mouth. I do not agree with your above statement: "The whole point of Wikipedia is that someone who knows nothing about a topic can write a reasonable article on it or determine whether it should be included". That is NOT the whole point. The point is to provide factual information, not to enable uninformed people to complete tasks. FWIW, I also do not think Wikipedia is particularly good about remaining a tertiary source. If it was, there wouldn't be a single sentence or statement that was not footnoted. 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the ideal on sourcing, yes. If you look at my GAs on conclaves, you’ll see that (we typically cite to the paragraph). It sounds like what you are arguing for is Citizendum, which didn’t work. Wikipedia’s premise is essentially that writing a report on the sources isn’t hard and that anyone can do it. We do have a place for experts, though, as they know what the best coverage in a field is, and can most readily produce and summarize it. At the same time if it can’t be demonstrated to a lay person through sourcing as to why something is important enough to be in Wikipedia, we don’t want it. That is, unfortunately, where your firm falls. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Citizendum is neither here nor there. I don't think we lack other outlets to publish expert articles. Really, I'm arguing that if an article doesn't meet a particular editor's standards, it should be flagged and revised, not deleted. The existence of an article represents the work of another editor who considered it notable enough to create. Wikipedia doesn't have a finite number of articles available, so the existence of one particular article doesn't have an opportunity cost associated with it. It rubs me the wrong way that energy is expended to eliminate something that has already been created. It comes across as egocentric instead of working towards the common goal of a comprehensive knowledge hub. In the world of startups and technology, most companies begin with little notability, from Apple and Amazon to Uber and Zendesk. An editor who recognizes and creates an article for one of these companies shouldn't have their work eliminated. Rather, the article should evolve along with the company. 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither I nor the English Wikipedia community agrees with you. If you wish to find an outlet to promote your company, I am sure there are plenty of others available. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy states first and foremost that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." You have chosen to ignore this based on your accusation (without evidence) of spamming. 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing to be done to make your article compatible with Wikipedia. I'm sorry. It was both spam and not notable. The community agreed with me, and not you. There isn't really much else to say. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't my article. I never touched the page, as I've said. And repeatedly calling it spam doesn't actually make it so. I'm not sure how many more Fortune 100 customers a company needs to be considered notable, but I suppose I can request restoration after each and every customer win until recognized as notable. Thanks again for your attention and contribution (or the reverse, in this case). 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)This whole conversation boils down to the IP not understanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each case is examined in isolation, and Toni is under no obligation to do anything with similar articles until we wants to. He is a WP:VOLUNTEER. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation. Looks like you have some catching up to do, though, as we'd turned to more philosophical topics. (And yes, I'm aware that Tony is a volunteer. I'm also aware that this is the internet, and nobody does anything unless they want to. Unfortunately, most folks don't want to do much.) 2600:1700:9980:A780:51D0:A4CE:4F18:3DF5 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your attention is requested.

Hey! TonyBallioni, thanks for trusting me with PC reviewer responsibility. I wanted to have a word with you regarding how I feel these days while working on Wikipedia.

I recently applied for New Page Reviewer permission but was suggested to spend some more time with AfC process. I understand your concern that NPR is one of the main responsibilities on Wikipedia and it should be vested in the hands of experienced and sensible editors. However, I wanted to expand my horizon and contribute in every possible way. I enjoy spending my time on Wiki as it gives me plenty of information about different things. I like contributing here and interacting with the community members and learn from them. While I will continue to do my work in the capacity of PC reviewer and AfC reviewer, I genuinely would like to be granted NPR as sometimes, I feel like doing something else. Besides, I know I am honest and dedicated enough to exercise my full potential on Wiki.

I know I have been once reminded of not using all capital words as it seems to be rude to new editors. I have fully understood it and will never ever do that again. I learn, I evolve. Also, 2 of my created articles are nominated for AfD discussion. It has been more than 15 days since one of the editors nominated them. I am pretty sure they will survive AfD as they are supplemented by sources as per the encyclopedia. Ofcourse, they need substantial improvements like every other article needs. But that is why we have Stub-class articles. Even Wiki says that stub is like an ugly duckling that is yet to be transformed into Swan. However, it is their (other editor's) right to express their disagreement and I shall respect the consensus of the community.

Anyways, if you think I am experienced and sensible enough to contribute here as a New Page Reviewer on English Wikipedia, do the needful. I just wanted to put my say forward. That is it. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it! Dial911 (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Dial911: You sound very genuine, and that was the reason why I thought you could try AfC. I had to be shouted at by Primefac because of that :-) I do want to note that persistence is not the best quality; experience that comes with time do matter sometimes. Bring several articles to better quality and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia namespace more. Always try to ask more questions. As you enjoy writing and contributing more, the user rights will come naturally. You never want to be accused of hat collecting. Alex Shih (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha Ha! Sorry about the fuss I indirectly created :) I will keep contributing with whatever I can. Will apply after some time. I must admit, spending time on Wikipedia is way better than spending time on social media platforms. Dial911 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Along the same vain was what Alex is suggesting, but with a more concrete suggestion: something I enjoy doing in AfC is finding the notable topics written by good faith contributors and bringing them to publishable status. George Baldanzi was one I did like this: major American labour unionist who had been declined or deleted multiple times. I think it is actually one of the more fun parts of AfC and really helps you to understand our policies and guidelines. I would recommend doing something other than a BLP or business article, and help improve it before publishing it to mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hey - for full disclosure I wanted to let you know I !voted on this AfD which was in reference to an AfC I approved. I wasn't sure if, moving forward, we're not supposed to register !votes on AfCs at all, or it it was only in regard to articles proposed by COIs. I wanted to give you a heads-up so you didn't think I was trying to be evasive and am happy to strike my !vote here. Thanks, sorry for any confusion. Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, that’s fine: policy clearly allows !voting even by the article creator, so it definitely does allow it by the AfC reviewer. As I said at the other AfD, you just had the misfortune of being the first person I brought up my musings on the intersection of AfC and AfD with. Most closers do take into account the independence of the commentators but for some reason AfC reviewers (who almost always defend even their bad calls), are treated as independent. I was raising the point, as I often do at AfDs, in part to see how people react to what I had been thinking about for a while. You have no need to explain yourself to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for the clarification! If you had thirty seconds, would you mind taking a look at my rationale to see if it's ... rational? I'm relatively new to AfC; I think you raise a valid point and, hopefully, I can arrest any unconstructive habits. Chetsford (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WMF staff changes

Dany Horn's employment has been given a new name: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyH_(WMF)&diff=next&oldid=17560047 How does this affect the fact that he clearly stated some while ago that he is not responsible for addressing the requested tweaks to Curation and all the Phab tickets? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DannyH (WMF), could probably tell us what his new title means :) TonyBallioni (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony and Kudpung, I'm now a Director of Product Management, responsible for the Contributors teams -- VisualEditor, Global Collaboration, Community Tech and the Anti-Harassment Tools team. I'm working with all the Product Managers, developers and designers on those teams to help all of the teams reach their goals. Is there a specific question I can answer? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion then :). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Lots of new things to do. :) DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Danny's jpb decscription has been changed agin and this has been dropped: ' supporting the most active Wikimedia contributors with the features and fixes that they need' , so we still have to find out now who is responsible for addressing this. Perhaps he has an answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article Elliot Bostwick Davis

I am dismayed that there was "speedy deletion" of this article, which was accurate, well sourced, and in my opinion entirely appropriate. The action did not appear to me to meet any of the criteria specified for "speedy deletion." The closest criteria is one that refers to articles that are "unambigiously" promotional, which I assume is the reason that 333-blue gave for tagging this for speedy deletion. The article, however, is similar to dozens -- if not nearly all -- articles for notable art museum directors and curators all over the world.

So I do not see why it was appropriate for "speedy deletion." If there were aspects of the article that crossed a line into promotional, I would have been happy to edit it to conform. But none of this was ever brought to my attention. Accordingly, I request that the article either be reinstated, or that I be advised of which aspects of it are promotional and offered an opportunity to edit. As I said, there is absolutely no possibility of harm to any person or entity by having that article available while edits are being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshnaider (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dshnaider, yep, I deleted it for being unambiguously promotional: the tone of the entire article was promoting the subject. If you want, I can email you the text, but I don’t typically restore articles I delete as G11, because they would be eligible for deletion as drafts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Yes, I would appreciate it if you would email the text to me. If the article is rewritten, what is the best way to know before it goes live whether the tone is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshnaider (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dshnaider, I'll email it over now. The best way to deal with it would be through the Articles for Creation process in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Swister

I'm shocked to see SwisterTwister was blocked as a sockpuppet. He was an excellent reviewer at AFC and probably was the most active one in recent years. — Zawl 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indeed. A certain candidate for an asap-WP:SO, I magine, but, yes, twas a shame. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the appeal this case would likely involve ArbCom since it is both a CheckUser block and involved the interactions that ST had with an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Tony, Can you protect the Chris Beath page?. -KH-1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

High Watch Recovery Center

Hi Tony,

I've been working to produce a quality page about High Watch Recovery Center. I received some solid feedback from editors and I've made changes consistent with their recommendations. Their input was helpful. Then you deleted it stating it was advertising.

I've been researching High Watch extensively (including reviewing hand-written documents in Marty Mann's collection at Syracuse). High Watch has a significant place in the history of Alcoholics Anonymous and addiction recovery. It was founded by Bill Wilson, the co-founder of AA.

I admit I'm not a researcher by trade, but I'm doing the best I can here. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated. High Watch is extremely important in the history of addiction recovery on par with Betty Ford and Hazelden. Please help.

Jasonperillo (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jasonperollo, if you want the content of the article back, I can email it to you if you enable. For instructions on how to do that, you can see Wikipedia:Emailing users. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, yes that would be helpful. It is now enabled. If you have thoughts on how I can make this less like an advertisement, please let me know. I tried to keep everything factual with clear references.

Jasonperillo (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jasonperillo, I've emailed it to you. I would stick to describing the location factually and a neutral tone. Rewrite it off Wikipedia first, and then when someone unrelated to you thinks it read neutrally, you should submit it through the Articles for Creation process. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

comments

Regarding this edit: I presume you meant something like the oppose arguments were not so strong as to outweigh the supports? isaacl (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Isaacl, yes, thank you for the note. Corrected now. The meaning was as you guessed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

I would ask that you reconsider your decision to file an RM. A consensus has already been formed to split the article, and therefore to rename the article. If not, I'm considering to post a notice of an AN and ask another administrator's opinion on the topic to move the article. -- Alex^TW 04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, there was a consensus to split on a different page: you are free to make the split, but deciding on the title of a featured list that is move protected should take place in the form of an RM on the talk page of the list itself, not the form of a informal discussion on the talk page of another article. The RM process advertises the page for uninvolved editors to review as well to make sure that the naming policies and guidelines are followed. This allows for a clearer and wider consensus than would occur at the talk page of different article.

In terms of review, AN probably wouldn't be the best place as I haven't used any tools here, and RMs are a relatively specialized field: I simply requested that a clear consensus on the question of the title itself form rather than a discussion on a split on a different page. WT:RM would likely be the best place if you want a quick review, as a formal move review at WP:MR lasts a week.

I'd also be fine moving if @SMcCandlish and Amakuru: think that it should go ahead without an RM on the topic itself (and Amakuru is free to move without consulting me if they think I was wrong). I trust both of their judgements on RM procedure, and will defer to them for a second opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The serials page has already been updated with the 2005–present content, so I cannot complete the split without moving the article. Unless I move my userspace draft to the new title, and simply redirect the serials article - is that acceptable? I think all of this is unnecessary, I haven't seen any policies that state what you've given. -- Alex^TW 04:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian: done, and thanks for making it clearer that you had already implemented part of the consensus by creating a new page from the split . I was focused on the discussion you had on the other talk page, which I don't think was a strong consensus for any title, to be honest, and wasn't advertised for larger community participation, which we typically expect from RMs. Since you've already done a split with a new article, though, I went ahead and made the move because it makes no sense to have one page in one format, and another claiming to be the main page. Anyone being free to start an RM if they think serials vs. episodes is better. Thanks again for making it clear that this was part two of an already in progress implementation. I was so focused on the RM part that I missed the in progress split had already occurred (also sorry to SMcC and Amakuru for the pings now that this has been resolved). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for that. I did advertise it on the WikiProject Doctor Who talk page here. Now that the split is complete, I am happy for anyone to come forward with any contests and file an RM.

I do have a new question now, though - now that the serials article has been split into the 1963–1989 and 2005–present episode articles, should the move-protection be applied to both new articles, removed from both, or remain not applied to the former but applied to the latter? And what of the featured list status of the original serials article? -- Alex^TW 05:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No clue on the featured list status change: I've never really done one of those (my content work is basically early modern papal conclaves and dead Canadians).

Amakuru would also likely have a good idea re: move protection (see, my pinging you pays off after all!). I also can't find a reason for move protecting, and it looks like it was applied in 2009 when someone asked for a removal of semi-protection. I'd be open to removing it all together at this point if you doubt move-warring would be a problem (and again, if Amakuru agrees with me before commenting, they can do it). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see where I can take it to get reviewed. I see no requirement for the full protection either. -- Alex^TW 06:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I seem late to the party, and things appear to be well in hand, and I'm too full of an over-large Cajun dinner to think very clearly. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: @AlexTheWhovian: I'm also extremely late to the party, apologies, have a lot going on in real life at the moment. But as SMcCandlish says, it looks like the issues have all been resolved, and kudos to both of you for sorting it out. Removing a 2009 move protection seems fine to me too, whatever problem there was that led to that is likely long gone now, and you can keep it on your watchlist just in case something else comes up. Re the FL status, maybe put a comment on the relevant project page to ask the regulars there what should be done about it. They may suggest a review process to make sure the criteria are still met by the new aritcle. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why use Wikipedia

Hi tony, I am not sure who to go to as the creator for this page was not active (the creator last talk message was 2007), and maybe you could help. I think this page need to relook at/ reword as some of the content seems not fit together or should not be here as many editors have edited it. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CASSIOPEIA, thanks for coming to my talk page! I'm not much of an essay writer (though anyone who has seen me in a policy discussion might disagree...), so I don't think I'd be much use to you here. Sorry I can't be of much help! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony, Ok thank for the reply and appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KDS4444

We need to keep an eye on all the accounts that the CU diodn't find conclusive. There's certainly something quite odd about so many accounts editing such an obscure article. I trust the Levenson author to be discovering other workarounds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility and style matters

While we're on that topic, things like this are a consistent pattern with SchroCat (and especially silly in response to mandatory template notices like {{3RR}}). It's raw hostility, sustained over years, any time the editor is challenged on something within the WP:ARBATC or WP:ARBINFOBOX scope. See also previous messages (mostly 2016) by this user and Cassianto, his frequent WP:TAGTEAM partner (according to other admins [4], plus the enormous pile of WP:DRAMA these two editors caused at WT:FAC back in August 2016 (they both "quit Wikipedia" over MoS disputes, with a firehose of incivility, right before an RFARB about their behavior, and were gone just long enough to make it stale). Just now, Cassianto fired up the tagteam again to play a pointless tit-for-tat leaving me a duplicate template of the one I left for SchroCat, but which doesn't actually apply to me [5].

This dual pattern of uncivil behavior has been going on a long time, against numerous editors; just a handful of examples from my diff pile [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Note the pattern of hostility escalation after being called out for incivility. There's also a habit of projecting tendentiousness onto others while begin tendentious [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

This pair have a shared WP:BATTLEGROUND language of calling infoboxes "idiotboxes" to insult editors who prefer them and readers who use them [21] [22], and malign those readers as "lazy" (and have been doing so since at least 2013 [23]). This pattern continues to the present [24].

I was going to just let this lie, but SchoCat is revertwarring at WP:MOS to suit what seems to be an anti-serial-comma prejudice (shortly after berating at least four others for what he thinks is editwarring [25], [26], [27], [28]), and the disruptive incivility I was diffing for ArbCom in 2016 has not stopped. E.g. battlegroundy mischaracterization of a neutral RfC as "crusading", "pointless", and "knee-jerk" [29], ingrained snideness [30], unsupported aspersions and accusations [31], then when asked to back it up or retract, just responded with more hostility and dismissal [32]. I only looked for a couple of minutes, but I'd bet all my BitCoins that the pattern is unbroken from when I stopped bothering to diff this stuff in 2016 when both editors took their wikibreaks. I started looking into Cassianto's recent diffs, and find him still hounding Gerda Arendt (he and SchroCat have been devoting especial hostility to her for many years at her talk page and in article talk, e.g. at Laurence Olivier, Cary Grant, Josephine Butler, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Pierre Boulez, etc., and it most often is about infoboxes, despite the fact that Arendt is 1RR on infoboxes). I think this post sums it up really well, as to Cassianto's attitude [33]: He self-declares as someone who likes to "start shit" in person with people he thinks have crossed him, and is carrying this "throw your weight around threateningly" behavior into Wikipedia. See also [34] and [35], further battleground and WP:OWN / WP:VESTED thinking.

As far as I know, neither of them have received {{Ds/alert}} for either of the ARBATC or ARBINFOBOX ArbCom cases since 2016, and I'm wary of leaving them myself since it just inspires more hostility; I think these should probably be delivered by admins. SchroCat shows up in somewhere around 800 infobox-related discussions, as a participant or a behavior subject [36], indicating a non-constructive focus on hunting down these templates. For Cassianto, it's around 700 [37]. Schrocat treats ARBINFOBOX as some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part [38], so he doesn't seem to think it applies. Cassianto mirrors this view [39] in a post suggesting that civility isn't important or is just some game being played on the basis of ArbCom's "error" (his dim view of civility is apparent in the rest of that discussion).

If I were to pursue an ArbCom or ANI or AE case myself (SchroCat likes to dare people to do it [40],[41] – a "you can't stop me" attitude that is a problem in and of itself), I have about 50K of diffs and quotes to sort through, but I might just have to start over with 2017–2018 stuff, other than retaining the parts of it that demonstrate long-term patterns of tagteaming, style and infobox editwarring, OWN behavior, and singling out editors to verbally abuse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I was about to begin replying, but this appears to now be before the Committee itself as a case request. Given that, I think the best course of action at this time would be for you to comment there. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd timing, given how long this has been going on. Thanks for the note. I will proceed to the more formal venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RM quibble

Talk:Pomeranian (dog)#Requested move 8 January 2018 – This close strikes me as questionable (more as a matter of being mislead than having made an error), because:

• The discussion never referenced one single previous RM in the years of consistent RMs away from parenthetic to natural disambiguation. The very recently closed RM at Talk:Campine chicken which had just moved that page from Pomeranian (dog) to Pomeranian dog, was also never mentioned, and probably grounds for speedily closing this new RM anyway. The entire thing was a sham, and a patently WP:FALSECONSENSUS, a bloc vote by dog fanciers.
• The facts claimed are false; "Pomeranian dog" in in fact quite common (over 1mil google hits) [42]
• A key issue raised in numerous previous RMs is that a name like "Pomeranian (dog)" strongly implies an individual dog named "Pomeranian". That's what this naming pattern means all throughout the animal breed articles, including Category:Individual dogs. Even if there were actually a case for parenthetic disambiguation, the multiple editors who suggested Pomeranian (dog breed) were on the right track (Pomeranian (breed) being a disambiguation section redirect for four species).

Not a big deal, and it can be fixed later, but please just be aware of the years of tendentiousness about breed names; any RM about them that doesn't reference previous discussions is misleading. The genesis of the problem is that, say, dog people when talking to or writing for other dog people just use "a Pomeranian" or "the Pomeranian". Some of them like to pretend it's just "wrong" to ever use "Pomeranian dog", but in reality if anyone asks "Pomeranian what?", they'll answer "Pomeranian dog", and there are shiploads of sources doing it, more frequently the more general-audience (like Wikipedia) they are. This fighting against natural disambiguation is all a silly waste of time, and a lost cause due to WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NATURALDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-correction: A commenter did eventually mention the previous RM, but also mentioned the quasi-RfC at WT:WikiProject Dogs#Domestic animal breed page names (concluded against parenthetic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, thanks for the note. Yes, I was aware of the previous RM, but went ahead and closed this one because while I agree everything you said was correct, I'm generally of the view that RMs on individual subjects can explore things on articles that mass RMs cannot (while also keeping CONSISTENCY in mind). At the same time, look back, I probably should have relisted and notified the participants in the larger discussion. If you want, I can do that now (and you can obviously open a new RM). All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be too stale to re-open it. Perhaps better to just include it in the next round. There are only a handful left of parenthetically disambiguated breed pages. I nominate them in small batches, and not too rapid-fire, to manage the drama level. Already have two breed RMs open, so that's probably enough for now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, re: relisting, but I always like to give people the option. Anyway, always nice to see you on my talk page . TonyBallioni (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for handling our sock friend. I know that whatever guidance I offered him would have been taken the wrong way and enraged him further. I'm grateful you were there over the long haul to handle him firmly yet diplomatically and kindly. Cabayi (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi, not a problem, and thanks for the kind words. It's unfortunate that things devolved the way they did. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)