![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, you removed a tag which I so placed on an article "Bimbo Oshin" Is it possible you do not understand the implication of your act? By the polices of Wikipedia you ought to have began working on the article as soon as you have removed the tags, please do read on WP:GNG to understand proper notability, and again there is not an importance ascribed to Concept of having her page included in Wikipedia please go and do a thorough job because if article is still as same I would have no option but to move this page to an [articles for deletion] and report you for fraud.
Pay attention and note this, on no account should you take down tags meant for the betterment of the whole Wikipedia group as one community and not start to work on improving the page as soon as can be. If you have any questions I am on stand by anytime. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
tag with the edit summary Subject of article barely passes the WP:GNG, and only three minutes later in this diff you add a
{{
Db-multiple|G11|A7}}
. There was nothing unredeemable G11'ish about the article, and if a biographical subject is notable, a {{
db-person}}
obviously doesn't apply. Adam9007 was fully correct when he removed the tags, and it is you who need to pay attention. Feel free to ask questions on
my talk page, and do allow yourself a lot of time to learn the basics. —
Sam
Sailor
23:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PjdW97 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, why don't you retire. And do it soon. Then you can stop undoing useful edits like my one to William Denny and Son. Just because it is not attributed does NOT make it false. As with English law, the burden of proof lies with you. Besides my mere sentence was not controversial, wrong or even harmful. Why you cut it in a nanosecond is beyond me and reminds me why I no longer contribute my significant skills to Nazipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.135.36 ( talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tired of the CSD/PROD patrolling?
![]() | Please accept this invite to join the
Unreferenced articles WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of July, 2024 there are approximately 87,000
unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply
click here and sign your username to accept! Thanks! ~~~~ |
I find it rewarding to source some of these old articles, you get to read about things you didn't know existed, and you're almost guaranteed nobody complains about what you are doing. — Sam Sailor 13:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Computational_Graph. I have explained the sense in which it is made up on the talk page and again in this nomination for article deletion here. User:Adamnemecek hasn't yet given a proper rebuttal to my argument, but since you removed the tag I would suppose that you read the thread beforehand and disagreed with me. As such, I would be happy to hear your input on the article for deletion discussion page. Thanks. Megajuice ( talk) 14:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Because the page MOS:ARTCON states that one variety of English must be consistent throughout the article, I switched the spelling of "labor" to the American version, given that words such as "recognize" already use a Z instead of an S, and that the article uses American mm/dd/yyyy dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBD2000 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is my page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHoagland ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No reson at all. Just my sloppy attempt at blanking the page and doing the redirect for an even sloppier patroller who couldn't be bothered to do it himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly.. I had moved this article to Draftspace earlier in the day, and removed the A7/G11 tags when I had done that. The user then recreated it in mainspace with a second account, so I tagged it (A7 and G11) and let them know where to look in Draftspace for their previous article. Then someone tagged it G11 in draftspace and someone else deleted it there, and then you untagged the mainspace version and moved it to draftspace again. What a complete mess.
I considered the application of the A7 tag to this article quite carefully, and it was most certainly appropriate in this case. A7 is about credible claims of significance not just a "clear" claim of significance. A claim that a company is "one of the UK's largest accredited domain registrar" (sic) for a brand new company (less than five months old) is not a credible claim of significance, it's a self-promotional claim by the CTO (User:David.harcus and User:Nikkefrend) of the company that is patently false. Nevermind that the statement itself offers no metric, no standard, and no claim that they have been actually been ranked in this manner by anyone. An example of a credible claim would be "Industry Journal Alpha has ranked MonkeyHost as one of the largest..." (then, perhaps, it wouldn't be quite a ludicrous as it seems on it's face). Or perhaps even: "...fastest growing new start-up in the UK, having subscribed 1.5 million users in six months." At least those offer metrics and specifics.
Regarding G11, I continued your process of removing promotional aspects of the draft and I removed the clearly false and promotional "one of the largest" statements. That left pretty much nothing left of the article except the infobox, one bare sentence, and zero sources. You probably should have just let it be deleted. Waggie ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, template:veryshort was deleted, but you are using it in your twinkle settings. could you fix this? thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, I'm missing the claims of significance--can you help? Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 22:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
DZRH is actually an AM station. That seems like an obvious hoax to me. Meters ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
We now have 806 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 reconsider your challenge to the {{ db-advert}} at Fortrade. The article quite simply reads like a glossy handout one would expect from their PR department. It is massively POV, contains links to their various products and has no, zero, independent reliable sources. The article would require a complete re-write to address this even if sourcing were found. On top of that the article was created by one edit as the first edit of an account. This is indicative of an undisclosed paid editor. Thank you. Jbh Talk 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
For your rapid detection and prompt tagging of the G10 page. The vigilance of editors like you helps keep the project running (fairly) smoothly. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an adjunct professor carries a credible assertion of notability - full professor, sure, or maybe an associate prof if they've got something else to support the claim, but adjunct professors with no other claim are one rung up from instructor. In any case, it's at AfD if you'd like to comment. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your edit back to G11, as I feel confident it fits - It's best to wait for an admin (who can approve/remove, as opposed to just removing) to see it. Garchy ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You wrote: > Your recent edit to Al Franken seemed less than > neutral to me, so I removed it for now.
I don't fully remember my added paragraph, and since you removed it, I cannot review. But from memory, the para was not really about Franken - it was about the election. Surrounding paras on Franken's page had info and numbers from 2009. I cited an article from 2012 with updated numbers, that I added. I would think this is a good thing? I am sure better wording than mine can be found, but should you not then improve my "un-neutral" wording instead of deleting the para? For full disclosure: I have nothing against Franken, mainly because of a lack of knowledge about him. But I am not impressed by the quality of eletion processes in the USA. :) See table "Perceptions of Electoral Integrity" on [1]
References
I fixed my article. There is no copyrighted material and full citation. /info/en/?search=The_Morning_of_the_Streltsy_Execution
Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) /info/en/?search=Maverick_Squad
Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please.
So tell me, what's your definition of "credible assertion of notability"? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello there mate. So I have been working on a page (Ravinder Maan), and I was hoping you would let me know how to verify it and fix all the issues with the tags.
Thanks - Tan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Sohal ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you throw in some expamples mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Sohal ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a second junk page from an editor. Does it really need unreviewed? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I'd appreciate advice on deleting drafts. I nominated Draft:Ray Eller and several other drafts for speedy delete but they were reverted. How else do I go about proposing the deletion of these drafts which I believe have been created to promote a non-notable band (see the edit history of the creator). Cheers, Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(In relation to Steve salis) I think you need to be more careful and through in your new page patrolling. This article was obviously incorrectly categorized at creation and as part of patrolling you should have moved it to the correct title (and realised it was salted, then attempting an AFD). Easy to miss I'm sure but make sure to check page capitalisation as part of New Page Patrolling, it is very important. (Only bringing this up because of the DRV concerning the article now...) EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Concerning my restoration of the "Influence" section in the Dungeon Keeper article. I think one of the reasons that the game, or arguably the series it spawned, has notability is the influence it has had on other games and the reviews (which are given references) in the restored segment are of reviewers comparing newer games to Dungeon Keeper.
I do not have any problem with the segment being moved to the "Dungeon Keeper (series)" article if that is deemed more useful.
-- Wowaconia ( talk) 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you could move the section to the article about the series and post on the talk page for the article about the original game that you thought it was more helpful for that segment to be in the series article but that you are willing to revert if there are objections to the move. I don't think anyone will mind as long as the info is preserved somewhere. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 04:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recognize the original failed WP:BIO (I intended to make a short stubby entry in English (2,000-3,000 bytes compared to the Hebrew 29,000) after it settled in Hebrew, but the stubby entry mainly focused on the BLPCRIME - which was a no-no - I read BLP guidelines extensively after the feedback here). I completely re-did it - building it up -only- from pre-crime + civil court proceedings (which have been finalized in the sense of final liquidation orders) - and leaving the crime bit as a one-liner ("As of February 2017, there is an unresolved criminal trial proceeding against Bramly") - which bears mentioning given the civil case coverage there (+ample coverage of Bramly's claims of being a modern day Dreyfus - from NPOV). It is now also amply sourced and should be OK NPOV/tone-wise - and is actually in some areas probably better than the Hebrew (as I did some things from the ground-up) - I will migrate some stuff back to the Hebrew once it sits in the English for a while (and a few more other eyes & edits). Thank you! 07:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz ( talk • contribs)
What is the significance you see asserted? It is literally a company description and listing of products. It doesn't even bother to make claims of of the number of clients it has, etc. Also, just to make it clear here, this has nothing to do with the fact that we disagreed earlier today at an AfD over A7-- I just really am curious on this one as to what you see as the claim. All I can see is an unremarkable tech company written by a likely paid-editting account that didn't even bother to hire a good marketing person to write it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
11:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
23:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Holcombe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Holcombe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Cahk. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Institution of Civil Engineers at UET Peshawar, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Cahk ( talk) 20:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Heartily thanks to you for improving my first article Progressive Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onestar12 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A-Space (community center)? There isn't a single credible statement of importance in there--not one. Please reacquaint yourself with the guidelines. Drmies ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. As an aside, I think your decline of Mila Shak was good on the A7 grounds, though I think AfD is probably better than merge for several reasons. Anyway, despite my being shocked that dog fashion models exist, it has actually helped me formulate my views on what factor connections to people should have in A7. Cheers :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 I removed it because the flight was under "Future Routes" and now that the flight is underway it is irrelevant. It is now the future. I thought I clearly explained that when I said that "the future is now", the line I used when I edited it. Canadian997 ( talk) 14:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if you're so concerned about me making that edit why didn't you just do it yourself? Canadian997 ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how to make Hullabaloo Wolfowitz stop with his constant attacks and vandalism on the Axel Braun page (and others). The reference links he is posting on Braun's page are web archive files, while the current versions of the same pages show different content. Case in point, Braun's real name which is Alessandro Re and not Alessandro Ferro. This is the link to the current version of Vanity Fair's article [1] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz keeps using. [2] Wolfowitz is clearly acting maliciously and only because i pointed out that his references were incorrect. Going back to a previous version of an article from a major publication that has since been amended shows intent to vandalize. Same for the Rhett Pardon article on XBIZ, this is the current version [3] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz is posting. [4] Thank you for your attention. 2605:E000:2D8E:BA00:D86:D2E9:2CE2:630C ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
References
I don't agree that it makes a credible assertion as being essentially an extra in a film is neither notable or significant whatsoever and neither is the claim. Merely being an "actor" is meaningless as well. Additionally, those sources don't support anything in the article. Add to that, I removed several of the hoax claims. Please also see this discussion: User_talk:Ivanvector#SPI CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?I see nothing that plausibly implies he could be notable - merely being an actor is a job, just like being a trash man and when you combine that with the unnamed parts included in the article, it is more an assertion of insignificance. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you have removed my edit on Oysters SF page due to lack of citation. I have made an edit, because I have been following the phone's page on the official site, and it has disappeared. I was a witness. What could I add as a source in that case? A page returning 404? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.206.56 ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no claim to notability at all. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007,
Could you advise why you removed the speedy tag from this article - being a member of staff at a school doesnt confer notability and I cant see where significance could be shown for such a position either so am unsure why the tag was removed. Recreating the article as a redirect to the school after it was A7'd seems strange as I cant see a reason why someone would be searching for that person on Wikipedia so as to be a valid redirect either. Amortias ( T)( C) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States of America is not a significant role? That after he's left office, the only place his name will be found will be in the alumni editions of the White House Magazine? I'm sorry, but your strawman arguments are really starting to fall flat. The headmaster of a school, barring an exceptional tenure, will only be remembered by the school itself. There's a reason little US children learn every President - they have a lasting impact. I'm not sure if you ever had the high ground, but continue on this line of thought and you'll quickly lose it. Primefac ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
it needs to be a connection which exists long after they've moved, retired or died- it was you that then said
By that logic, Donald Trump's presidency.... Clearly being President of a country is a connection that exists long after they've left the office. Primefac ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. how exactly was it unconstructive? all I did was add a part that said comparing editors to serial killers. it said comparing editors to Nazis and dictators could result in you being blocked. but what if someone compares an editor to a serial killer, they'll be let off scott free. I personally think that should be added so no one compares any editor to a serial killer.
(~~2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. respond quickly because I want to know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's ok. I just want to keep Wikipedia safe from harassers that would actually have the balls to compare an editor to such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
How is the article not self-promotion? It was created by an editor with a name identical to the article. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Micro Machines (video game) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Theme Hospital you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Destruction Derby 2 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Ortiz (wrestler), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
ThatGirlTayler (
talk)
17:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a note at Diannaa's page about this article. Please add your notes there for her. Thanks for the thanks. Happy editing! Antonioatrylia ( talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. Can you please explain this edit, where you declined a WP:A1 speedy deletion on an article with no content? Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ortiz(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Ortiz(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hyan(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Hyan(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gino(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Gino(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Destruction Derby 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Request that the blocking admin revoke WidrinBaltimore's talk page access. They will do it for this sort of thing. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Too late, the blocking admin revoke 'em! Jim1138 ( talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Re: EFC Ltd
Could you please explain what about any of these sources you found reliable enough to remove a well placed A7 specifically for "Article cites reliable sources"
?
Which leads me to my next question of why you removed a speedy tag on Umeash Sahhaaii - what credible claim of significance? Being CEO of a thus far, non-notable company? Or was it the totally reliable sources?
This isn't even a question of whether it's actually notable or not or significant but the fact that not a single one of those is an RS. Did you read any of them? If you found something else that would support a claim (of which I see none in the first article) why wouldn't you add it to the article itself? I also would like to know what claim EFC has, because I see none. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Someone talking about themselves isn't likely to be subject to editorial oversight or fact checking.Whoa. I have cited interviews with Molyneux and others in Dungeon Keeper, and cited interviews with the developers in Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) (its first FAC says we should do so). Are you really saying they're not reliable because they come from people closely involved? The principle is the same as what we're discussing here. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Chrissymad, I went ahead and took these to AfD. I wouldn't have contested them myself, but I don't think the decline is completely out of left field because I have seen a few keep !votes on similar articles. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a deliberate determination here not to get the point, or if it's something else and we're all just really bad at explaining things in policies and on your talk page, but to repeat and to clarify: The principle is not the same, Adam. I can write my own (auto)biography, it doesn't prove I'm notable. It could be published by a reputable published, but it still doesn't prove I'm notable, though it's a clue that I might be. I can be interviewed, it doesn't prove I'm notable but it is a stronger clue that I could be notable. Interviews are tricky - they're ideal source material when you demonstrate notability, but they're generally useless to actually prove that notability, given there's a difference between an in-depth and brief interviews, and any sort of interview in a specialist publication and any sort of interview in a mainstream title. If there is significant, in-depth coverage about me, which I am not involved with, then we begin to reach the threshold for notability, and when we reach that threshold, we can have an article on me. When we have an article, all sources can come (back) into play, even if they, on their own, do nothing to assert notability. We can use my autobiographies, my interviews and other material to reference the article - indeed, source material doesn't need to be connected to the subject of the article at all, only to be broadly (and ideally, specifically) relevant to the claim(s) being sourced. TL;DR - interviews are fine for sources but not usually able to demonstrate notability on their own. Nick ( talk) 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Are the latter examples significant? If so, wouldn't the case being discussed here also be (it was produced by the newspaper, which appears to be notable (see The Economic Times)? Adam9007 ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're removing all the speedy deletion tags, how do I request for them to be removed? Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Well, one of the issues is that a lot of people (including myself) have no idea what a credible claim of significance is for a YouTuber, and I'd honestly assume that anyone who has more than 100K subscribers might pass that incredibly low bar. I do my best not to get into that type of pop-culture notability debate either because you'll inevitably get into parsing what counts as a reliable and non-trivial source, given that I'm sure most of these people have plenty of links in their articles since their known for being on the internet. If someone wants to delete them, I think AfD is the way to go if you actually believe they aren't notable. As an aside, this user is autopatrolled, which given the number of deletion nominations and the concerns expressed here I find odd. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah balls. I should have checked to see if it was a browser game. I'm a dinosaur and come from the era when most games were too big to download. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
How does PujaShoppe fails A7? Winged Blades Godric 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyway,as always you seem to be in the bubble that you are insanely right!That's fairly constant.Isn't it? Winged Blades Godric 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what CSD does apply...do you know which it is? It should be speedily deleted though. Been unreferenced and non-notable since 2010. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
May you clarify what prompted your removal of a A7 tag at
Jozeff esp. in light of the editors who participated at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jozeff.
Winged Blades
Godric
09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's what it looked like just before deletion.It may be worthy to mention that the closing admin decided to enforce a speedy delete at that precise version which you thought failed the purview of the policy.
Winged Blades
Godric
09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, regarding the above, you removed the prod. The reference is to sound broadcast, which even though it doesn't play, would still be an invalid source, because a sound file, played on a browser is not a reference, as we are not trained forensic sound engineers, hence the prod. scope_creep ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period. Given that blogs are not (99.9% of the time) RS, then adding (or even having) a blog as the sole reference does not count. Primefac ( talk) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). The blog was already linked to and therefore invalidated BLPPROD. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jackgodders/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What claim of significance you continue to find
here? Is it Established in 1994, The Titanic Players is an American improvisational theatre group with presence on six university campuses:
? Or maybe the list of college campuses? Or is it their sponsorship by a non-notable entity?
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
00:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
new page reviewer
from your account, due to your clear lack of understanding of our
WP:CSD policy. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
01:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Being a fellow editor considering retirement, I can understand what you are going through. I can only offer support and say hang in there. You are an excellent editor in my view! Antonioatrylia ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
I'm going to make this suggestion again: When removing an A7, do a WP:BEFORE before. If you find sources indicating the subject could be notable (not that it makes claims of significance) remove the A7. If not, let the A7 tag stay and let an admin decide how to handle it. -- NeilN talk to me 01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
At the same time, I think you should understand that consistently having CSD tags removed that are well within the discretionary zone for CSD can sap people's morale. NPP can be a thankless job and while I agree that some of us who do it can be trigger happy, and I have learned a lot from you, SoWhy, and some others and truly thank you for that growth experience, I very much understand why others might feel frustrated, and their feelings of frustration are just as valid as the feelings of frustration you get. Neil has given you this advice before and I think it is the best practical advice anyone has given you. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
My best friend and I in real life have very different views. He's slightly to the right of Lenin and I'm what you would consider a Blairite. We get along very well because while we disagree, we both understand why the other thinks the way they do and genuinely respect the other's viewpoint. I don't think you disrespect anyone on here, but I also don't think that I have ever seen you say you might be right or something along those lines. Every Wikipedian is a person, and when they feel like they are talking to someone who doesn't listen, it can make them get mad. Neil's advice is so good, because it helps you see what other people might see. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was so eager to rescue that badly written essay of an article that I failed to notice there is already an article on the subject. You are right, A10 is the correct tag for it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious, Adam? I tagged an event with BLPPROD, which accuses a living person of a crime - with no sources, you undid that TWICE, added no sources and then went back and added a "no sources" prod. Why? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This deletion procedure does not apply to such things as lists of people or biographical information contained in other articles.This is not a biography of the perpetrator. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You can just do a little google search about Lol, papua new guinea and you can see some results. Hope this helps :D 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XS2003 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I am writing a second time Page Method of decomposition of the parameters, to explain that it is a page that deserves to be in Wikipedia. The previous page has been deleted, on the grounds that says nothing. Perhaps this new page explains more about the importance of this method, which is applied by many companies. However, it's up to you to decide whether to keep it or not. Thanks for the attention!
Method of Breaking down the Parameters
How to Calculate not directly economic performance of the business, related to ethical issues, moral, social, environmental and cultural, which introduced the modern concept of "corporate social responsibility" and anticipated his more recent developments . It was conceived and proposed by the economist Italian Giancarlo Pallavicini in the 1960s, under the assumption that the business entity, while being oriented to the profit of those who promote it, should not be neglected, but explicitly aware, a number of instances regarding the man and his social environment, cultural and natural [1]. Not as a mere statement of principle, but in a concrete way and be calculated the same way as profit. After a first experimental application at the Cariplo in 1960, aims to assess the contribution of individual bank branches to the development of the "special credit", then delivered mainly through the Mediocredito Lombardo, this method was published by 'Publisher "Giuffre "in 1968 in" integrated structures in the Italian distribution system ". A proposal at the time revolutionary, taken up and developed in its assumptions by other economists, and especially by Robert Edward Freeman, in his essay "Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach", published in London in 1984. Only in recent times is, however, understood in its value as calculation results are not directly economic tool, able to exert its effects on the end result, and to add value to the company. If only for the fact that the internal and external demands to the company, to which the method refers, characterize ' "habitat" in which the company operates and influence the possibilities of life and success of' enterprise itself. In addition, they positively involve stakeholders (stakeholders) internal and external to the company, by bringing value. For this, the growing interest in the "corporate social responsibility", manifested at the beginning of the new millennium and which has received a further boost by the global crisis that began in 2007, first in finance and then the real economy, is emerging so more and more marked the need to consider, and then to evaluate specifically, the degree of affirmation of ethical principles in the economy in general and in particular in the financial asset. Is thus establishing the principle that such an assessment should be resorted to new methods that go beyond the so-called "codes of ethics" and "social audits" and over the same "quality standards", to get closer to the criteria which, in the years in 1960, they inspired the "breakdown of the method parameters." According to the initial setting of Pallavicini, exhibited in the "Preface" to the aforementioned volume, it is to operate "... formulating new hypotheses of setting and interpretation of quantitative determinations of greater and more frequent relief ... ... where the abstractions of their 'survey, which covers the business phenomena in the economic aspect and influences the environment in which the company operates, are quantified so as to put forward a concrete contact with the complex attitudes of the administration. " References to this method, at the time revolutionary, wanted to be, according to its creator, a "contribution ... at the appropriate approach to this and want to be primarily intended to draw the attention of all those men of science and operators economic, follow very carefully this matter. " Originally this method proposed to articulate the final objective of the company in a series of parameters, considered that, in addition to profit, no longer identifiable as the only goal, a series of components having a not directly economic, but not unrelated to 'need to provide an adequate income. Components that can bring value to the company, the positive effects in the projection and consolidation in the enterprise, to improve the perception made of them by internal and external stakeholders to the company and for more harmonious compose in the economic system which the company She participates. According to the parameters of the method, the different directions is necessary to proceed regarding: 1) the objective articulation of economic activity, which is brought into contact with the concrete phenomena of the company and the environment in which it operates, via a subdivision that assigns to each component a clear overall target rate did equal to 100; 2) the analysis of the business, which must take into account the complex process and product function, the individual actions in which it branches, identifying each of the possible effect on one or more components of the overall objective; 3) grouping of individual classes and sub-classes and various actions, making it possible to assess the degree to which they nourish or oppose the pursuit of the different components of the company's goal; 4) the qualitative articulation, which must be reported to the quantitative aspects of each class or sub-class of shares, based on the volumes of business done in order to arrive at a quantification expressing the role played by each of them in the pursuit of 'global objective and articulated, from which to extrapolate useful addresses to direct the choice of the best operating opportunities in their different aspects. This initial articulation, which brought together the headline profit and results are not directly economic, it has subsequently accompanied a different application, designed to overcome the inherent difficulties in admitting in decision-making representatives of categories alien to risk capital. The inventor of the method has developed specific hypotheses accounting for the goals not directly economic, to be placed at the side of the regular accounting in the reporting currency, on profit alone. Experiences of this approach have been initiated abroad, and especially in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, of which Pallavicini was the first Western consultant for the reform of the economy, especially at the time of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. They then suffered a setback with Boris Nikoleevic El'tsin, less sensitive to the consideration of matters not directly cheaper and less inclined to combine profit with social. The method of the decomposition of the parameters was also used for the evaluation of the contribution offered by the individual operating units in companies and uniforms were also held with application in assessing the effectiveness of public investment, according to the settings mentioned in the cited work "integrated structures in the distribution system Italian". Its use is characterized by flexibility in the setting, which is correlated to the ups and downs of the economy, through the reconsideration of the weight of each partial objective of the business, within the more general goal by turns chosen . The global crisis of 2007 and the frequent replacement of private debt with public debt seem to allow a more direct decision-making intervention by representatives of stakeholders also foreign capital and promote the development of forms of assessment are not directly economic activity enterprise, in the same field of measurement of profit, of which the method of decomposition of the parameters is an undisputed anticipation. In fact, the vicissitudes of the economy, caused by the global crisis of the first decade of the third millennium, seem to move towards a recovery of initial setting of this method, in which profit and economic objectives not directly take part in one of the result of processing ' business activities, while the necessary monetary aspect, in its separate accounts, recovers the role that is theirs as a tool aimed at achieving the overall objective of the business. Desiano ( talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Being the child of a notable person is not the sort of strong connection to someone notable that counts for A7. The sort of strong connection that might possibly count is something so close that it might cause a reasonable person to think there should be an article--a president of a notable company, for example. I do not want to add to the somewhat excessive criticism of your speedy removal, but it would be much more productive to try to actually improve Wikipedia than to just make removal of impossibly bad articles more complicated. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007! I ran into your talk page, and I see that you're considering retirement and that your "stress meter" is at the highest level. Looking at your recent messages here, it looks like you've run into a lot of heat lately with speedy deletion tag removal and whether the removals were correct or not. I understand how you feel; getting a lot of heat like this is stressful and I know that you're only trying to help and do the right thing. I see you around and reverting vandalism quite a bit, and I haven't seen any problems at all with your work in this area (at least not any that I can remember). I certainly hate to see someone as useful and committed as you leaving the project - it's very hard to keep good recent changes patrollers around... especially those that do so long-term and without burning out.
My advice to you is this: address the current concerns on your talk page here, take a break for a bit, get your stress under control, come back when you're ready, review the A7 guidelines and what credible claim of significance is (to refresh yourself and make sure that you didn't forget anything), and take things from there.
Like I said, I understand how you feel and how much of a downer and disappointment it is knowing that you're under more heat from other editors over the same area. It's not fun, and it really does take a toll on you... especially with how much time and effort you put into the project. This is where my advice will help you significantly - take a small break for a bit and clear your head. It will make a big difference with how you think and move forward after you return. If you need someone to talk to, my talk page is always open to you. You're welcome to chat with me any time you need to. I hope you take my advice, and I hope you learn, grow, and move forward from this and with a better outlook on everything. I don't want to see you go :-/ ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Adam9007: Hopefully no one minds me adding on to this thread - we've had our run-ins (minor, but usually relating to removals of speedys) - even with that, I would hate to see you go. Take some time, clear your head, and come back re-energized and ready to take on the project! There are plenty of editors here to help you along the way, just ask. Cheers, Garchy ( talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to create a page relating to the aircraft and their history that ARC operate from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. In order to do this I simply dropped some text onto the page which seems to have been taken as the final version but was really meant to just act as a memory jogger for me whilst I built the page. Is it possible to unlock the page whilst I work on the real content much of which will be of historical interest to anyone researching these planes. RoyH ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you reverted my proposed deletion on the ground that "article already includes sources". The bio has only a single references which is unreliable and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Could you please revert your edit or otherwise I will have to nominate the page for deletion. But since this is uncontroversial page (created and expanded by the subject himself as you can see in the history), a proposed deletion will be more sufficient. Initially I marked it for speedy which was a mistake on my part. Thank you. -- Saqib ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I was referencing the episode First Born from the seventh season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, though at the time I couldn't remember the episode's name. I was also, though I did not remember it at the time, partially mistaken in what currency was being dealt with. On that I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.100.194.233 ( talk) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Firstly I apologise for the inappropriate content of the edit I recent put on "female", I was experimenting whether Wikipedia had a security or defensive system in place for wrongful comments, and if it was not taken down in the next 24hours I was going to remove it myself... however my expectations were met and you have taken it down, however I didn't know that there was a sandbox. But thank you for providing my solution, finally I can assure you that this experiment will not take place again. Helpful user ( talk) 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please send me a link to the 'sandbox' for Wikipedia. Helpful user ( talk) 01:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to offer to resurrect this essay, if only to stop you from complaining on every thread related to CSD that you "used to have a personal essay". It's your essay, it's how you feel, and there's zero reason for you to delete it and then complain that you're being stifled. Primefac ( talk) 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted Chrissymad and removed a G12 deletion tag from the Hull Barrett article. Do not do this. If an article has been identified as a copyright violation, it needs to either be deleted under the G12 criteria, or alternatively, you need to request all revisions which contain copyright content be deleted, so either way, the issues are identified in the deletion log. The reason for this is that undeletion requests need to take into account the original deletion reason, and any articles deleted under G12 or with revisions which were deleted due to copyright content would only be undeleted if the copyright issues are resolved (such as the source being made available under a suitable free licence). If an undeletion request was to be received with the log entry being for a G7 deletion for example, the article would likely be restored with little or no fuss, something we wouldn't want. We also like to review deletion logs and deleted contributions of users to review if there is a history of copyright violations which may require remedial action or a block. Nick ( talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You removed my post on the page, Bard college at Simon's Rock, saying that I didn't have a source, I go to the school so I don't know what other kind of source you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelaneyG ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion nomination of Mandini (Singer) based on the fact that the article makes a credible assertion of notability. Can you clarify what assertion of notability is included in the article? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Has a credible association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague (per WP:INVALIDBIO these pages can be redirected instead of deleted). A son is a close relative. SoWhy was talking about starting an RfC to promote that essay. Because of this discussion, I've had to suggest he gets rid of that statement. It's just as well given my frustration over receiving such contradictory information and frequently begin accused of things like "making things up" that I didn't do something really stupid like MfD it. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
shape your own thinking. In other words, follow their advice? How can they "shape my thinking" otherwise? And these A7 essays do have basis in the guidelines: all this WP:ATD stuff is backed up by WP:FAILN, and of course WP:ATD. As for having time to do CSD reviewing but not content creation, I can't write a GA in a matter of minutes, like I can with other stuff. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Chrissymad: I think you missed my point: it doesn't matter whose advice I follow (with all this WP:ATD-R business, it;s SoWhy's and Ritchie333's), because sooner or later someone will come along and say I'm a complete nutter. That's what frustrates me.It just seems like I'm wrong no matter what I do. I do things one way, I'm disruptive. If I do them the opposite way, I'm still disruptive. If I go in-between, I'm still disruptive. I have no idea what the "correct" behaviour is any more. It seems to depend on who's talking to me. So, in response to your question: I don't know. I could stop doing WP:ATD-R, until someone else starts preaching about how I should do it. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007! I was wondering how to get such cool stuff on your page. Hpw do you do it? Crazy229 ( talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting edits. Strifecnd ( talk) 00:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Your disruptive actions are pervasive to the expansion of Wikipedia. Stop reverting edits about topics you are not working on and let the people working on those articles do their thing. Strifecnd ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Primefac ( talk) 01:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't edit warring, I was removing unsourced content. I thought I was supposed to do what per WP:BURDEN? I thought persistent addition of unsourced content was considered disruptive? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yes, addition of unsourced content is disruptive. But so is edit warring. The policy is very simple: you just don't edit war, even if you're right. Max Semenik ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Relax. Take some time off. Read a good book or take a short vacation. We've all been there. A couple years ago (right after my dad died) I got into it with another editor and popped my cork. I took a good six months off and finally came back. Don't quit. But don't let the place control your life. I am thinking of taking the weekend off and heading to the beach (southwest Florida here). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Theme Hospital - the article you nominated for GA status - has been reviewed. The article has been put on hold for seven days. Please read the review at Talk:Theme Hospital/GA2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred von Karma ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The article
Theme Hospital you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Theme Hospital for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Manfred von Karma --
Manfred von Karma (
talk)
09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007,
I see you are having a wikibreak, and that's fine. I don't really know why you would take a break while you still had an outstanding nomination waiting to be reviewed, but nevertheless, Theme Hospital's verdict was that if minor improvements listed were made, the article would be swiftly given GA. From these variables, that will no longer be able to happen. Thus, if there are no changes, I have to deny it. From here, Theme Hospital will most likely sit in a state where only very minor improvements have to be made until re-assessment and given GA status is complete. When/if you come back, and if someone hasn't already (this article gets little attention), please make the minor improvements and re-nominate it for its third assessment.
Best of luck and well-wishes for your vacation, Manfred ( talk) 10:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations! Theme Hospital passed the re-evaluation and is now a Good Article. The GA listing process is still underway, and may take from five to ten minutes.
Manfred ( talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines (video game) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Micro Machines (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The article
Theme Hospital you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Theme Hospital for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
01:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
A beer on me! | |
"Theme Hospital — A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." — Paleo Neonate — 02:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Congratulations custom award "Theme Hospital — A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." — Paleo Neonate — 02:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Congratulations -- after review, Micro Machines (video game) is now a GA article. Have a beer to celebrate! Manfred ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Adam - hope you're doing well. I know that you are on a Wikibreak, although given your recent activity I think you'll probably end up seeing this. I saw your new userpage - I like it, it does look rather nice - but if I were you, I'd get rid of the section starting "Why is this page so gay?". Despite the fact that I know you have used that word to mean "happy", you could end up being accused of homophobia (also the page is rainbow coloured, like the LGBT+ flag). I wouldn't want that to happen to you considering you are under a significant amount of stress at the moment. Would you consider removing that section? Thanks in advance, and have a good day. Patient Zero (Public) talk 11:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
usage: Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men ( lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women. Oxford American Dictionary
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
−
Responding to the ping, Adam, you confused the heck out of me as well [2]. This was in response to "I can't remember when I was last properly gay here." I interpreted that as you were having difficulty with your homosexuality - not something I want to discuss on my user page. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
When stub sorting, make sure you remove {{ stub}}. You didn't do that here. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 23:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Tried to write out the close paraphrase. It's hard with such a tiny sentence. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam, I would like to thank you for making the save and your edits to Too Tight Henry, my article on the little known blues musician. You placed a refimprove box on the article and I believe I have made the necessary improvements. As I created the article, I don't feel in a neutral enough position to make the call to remove the tag. What do you think? Cheers WhiteSGPlayer ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merlin Trebuchet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Trebuchet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
{{{Template:In creation}}} is a good template to apply if you intend to attempt a rescue, in lieu of removing the CSD tag. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 02:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It is time for you to immediately affirm that you will stop untagging CSD's. And to stop doing it. I don't always agree w/ a CSD tagging, but rather than untagging, I leave it alone and allow the next admin to decide. This reduces disruption.
I only detag if I see a chance to rescue based on a WP:Before search. If you intend to attempt a rescue, place the {{{inuse}}} template on the page while you seek to find sourcing and improve the the article. Request time on the talk page to effect a rescue. Do not remove the CSD tag. If the article does not meet CSD, the reviewing admin will detag it. Thanks, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
no matter what I dois a bit hyperbolic, your GA work is pretty stellar. But, as I said before, this is entirely up to you to decide. If you do choose to quit, I wish you well. Primefac ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 I'm going to be frank with you and you're probably not going to like it but I'd encourage you to heed my advice and that of the dozens of editors who have given it before me. Stop reviewing speedy tags. Just stop. This is a clear issue and it is with you. This is not one or two editors picking on you but on this unarchived part of your talk page alone, I count at least six people who have more or less asked you to stop. And what I think frustrates people the most is not just that you are frequently wrong about these tag removals but that you absolutely refuse to deal with the situation and continue to do the same things over and over again. Then there is also this response every time you are confronted about the same issue. It is the equivalent of a temper tantrum and we restart this cycle every few weeks. It would be a shame to lose you as an editor but if you will not change the pattern of disruption, I don't know what to tell you. An inordinate amount of hand-holding and time has been given to you and we are still here, months later and not even a year after your last ANI. The guilt trips are also old - you have a problem that needs to be fixed and it can be done simply: stop doing the controversial thing that is causing you (and many other editors) so much stress. So the ball is in your court now, deal with it or don't. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Then there is also this response- I'm not allowed to adjust the stress and mood meters to reflect my mood?
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 806 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)
Other people have said it. I will say it too. Your work here other than removing speedy deletion tags seems great.
As the old saw says - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is just... crazy. Why do that to yourself and everyone else?
If you need a break, please take it, but please come back and please leave speedy tag patrolling alone, and instead do stuff that brings you wikilove, of which there is plenty available for you. Please. Jytdog ( talk) 03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Goodbye for now! |
I'm sad to see you go! You're a great editor and a great associate. Best of luck with whatever you pursue next. <3 Manfred ( talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC) |
Adam, WP:ITSALLGREY was written for admins, but you may find it useful as WP:CSD activity is an administrative action that does not require additional privileges. As you and I have discussed quite a few times, with the best of intent, navigating the nondeterministic guidelines has been quite difficult for you and many of your fellow editors feel it is well into disruption. The advice in WP:ITSALLGREY is pretty good. In your case, turning in your mop would be to avoid speedy deletions.
However, you've now stated that you've retired. I think that is a good decision. WP:DOSOMETHINGELSE. If at some point you feel like you can come back and edit constructively, the community will welcome you back. However, I'll encourage you to think hard about it and be sure of 2 things if you do come back:
I understand wiki-stress. It's real. It can affect your judgement on-wiki and affect your real-life too. It has for me. Perhaps you can overcome these issues. I hope so.
With sincere best wishes, Toddst1 ( talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
You are here to create an encyclopediaFunny, that's what I thought we were here to do too
Hello again
Adam9007. In case you'll still be reading this despite your decision to leave:
I have first learned of your existence in February, incidentally related to a CSD. Out of curiosity and because my account was very new, I was lurking a lot everywhere to learn whatever I can, and have visited your talk page. Here is what I remember reading: "My reputation will be forever ruined and I can kiss goodbye to whatever chance that I might one day become an admin", followed with an answer to you: "I'm not convinced that your reputation is in much jeopardy, and while helping out as an administrator is a valuable goal it's not the epitome of Wikipedia".
When reading it, this reminded me of the link between ambition and stress. Ambition being a great motivation factor, although only my impression, it may also be partly because you want to work more in administration-related areas to prepare for a possible administrator role.
While administrators are necessary for Wikipedia to function, I agree with Acroterion that it is not the ultimate goal of Wikipedia. For instance, the readability and accuracy of articles is more important, as well as the creation of new content. These are things which you appear to be able to do, qualifying you as a worthy editor.
As for the reputation, we all make mistakes and it so far seems to me that six months is a long time on Wikipedia, long enough that even WP:NOTHERE editors can sometimes be allowed back, decisions at ANI cases can also be surprising to me when the problematic evidence presented is months old. We even have WP:CLEANSTART. At RfAs, it is not rare to see comments about an ANI case being too recent and to come back in six months. All this to suggest that I doubt that you have terminally ruined your reputation.
I think that less stress would be experienced if you remained on comfortable ground as long as necessary, leaving ambitions aside for a moment. When venturing further tentatively, if it does not succeed, why not go back to what works and rethink it? Perhaps that the next attempt will be more successful. Or maybe you'll decide that it's not something worth doing if it's not a source of joy.
Leaving completely is your choice and that's fine because there are so many things in life. However, Wikipedia may also be less of an obstacle to good life when taking in account our individual skills and limits, like for anything else. Another important aspect of life is cooperation, helping others where they need help, but also asking and obtaining help in areas when necessary.
If you're really leaving, hopefully my words can also serve in real life and I wish you farewell. And no, I'm not saying that you're an idiot ("I can take constructive criticism, but more often than not it's a sugar-coated 'you're an idiot'"). Far from it. Well met! —
Paleo
Neonate —
07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Adam9007 tries to be gay but encounters too much Wikistress. |
(oh alright, '''almost''' everyone else: I know there are a few who like me)
I said I'd give an explanation for my departure, and I was going to (and maybe I still will...) write a long post detailing why, I've barely scratched the surface with this post. The problem is finding the time to do so (especially as I have more important things to do in the meantime, hence this late reply), and I'll have to spend ages thinking about exactly what to say, as I can't even be sure it won't make things even worse. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I dint have done vandalism, there is a link or citation added in the article, on the other hand, the user inaki salazar, have done much editing without give references, therefore, he is the vandal, not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.253.9 ( talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your help with the block evading IP socks earlier. Sro23 ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC) |
I've restored your NPR rights, as I feel you have taken all of the past criticisms into consideration and I'm quite frankly impressed with your editing this last week. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we can get to the point where we forget that the last couple months even happened. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Adam9007 tries to be gay but encounters too much Wikistress. |
And perhaps replace the latter with this:
![]() | This user is happy. |
Or maybe my own version with a "synonym selector" (why? because I like having a userbox that's "better" than someone else's "identical" one
).
Adam9007 (
talk)
03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I forgot to translate the article. Thanks for taking care of it. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you removing speedy deletion tags again ? You were told, in no uncertain terms, you either accept a topic ban to voluntarily cease this activity, which you are useless at, or we take you to AN/I and enforce action. You ignored that warning and 'retired' in what was clearly a deceptive attempt to avoid scrutiny. Are you going to voluntarily topic ban yourself, or do we need to go through an AN/I discussion to topic ban you ? Pinging @ Timothyjosephwood: about this too. Nick ( talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.Winged Blades Godric 15:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, this is disappointing. I thought this had been settled. As for your two recent removals, I actually agree that Muhsin ibn Ali and Tommy Dunker do not qualify for A7. However, that's not the point. The point is that you were ordered by Dlohcierekim to stop untagging CSDs. Here's the link: User talk:Adam9007/Archive 3#untagging CSD's. You had been advised to stop it many times before, but Dlohcierekim made it an order. That meant ALL CSDs, even when you are sure you are right. Even when you ARE right. Looking at that discussion now, I do not find that you ever actually agreed to limit yourself in that way, and apparently you didn't. But you need to. You really do. There is plenty of other constructive and helpful work you can do here. You do it well, it is non-controversial, your talk page fills up with thanks or simple questions, instead of stress-producing complaints about speedy tagging. So your choice now is simple: either agree that, yes, you will stop removing speedy tags, and mean it - or have that topic ban imposed on you by the community. Not in anger, not because anyone hates you - just because the virtually universal consensus here is that your untagging is so controversial that you should not do it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Admins do not have "command authority" in the sense that some imagine(
no user is obligated to respect or listen to them
at the end of the day, you know CSD better than many editors. Obviously, not everyone agrees that I'm useless. That said, if a topic ban is where "knowing CSD better than many editors" will lead, then I assure you I will not be doing it. It's not worth it. (If not, then yippee!) I was going to do an article (you may know which if, as I feel like, I'm being "followed"), although I'm sceptical as to whether it'll survive AfD if it goes there (I only have a few sources, but they might (and that is a big might) just be enough), but I suppose there's only one way to find out... I started doing CSD again to give me something to do in the meantime, as I've just "finished" (I don't doubt there's still much to do if there's to be any hope of it being GA) another one. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to treat CSD like I treat ethnic conflicts on Wikipedia: I don't comment on them, I don't edit, I don't go near, in fact, the only time I bring them up is to tell people to stay away from them if they want to be sane. If you think writing an essay will help with the stress, then you can do it and no one here would be mad about it. It just seems to me that the topic brings you a lot of unhappiness, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just not touch it, even with a 39.5 foot pole. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Cheers ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 00:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I've decided to issue you with a discretionary sanction notification because of your bulk BLPPROD removals on articles where the sourcing does not comply with the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy or the BLP proposed deletion policy. Your bulk BLPPROD tag removals are allowing significant numbers of unsourced BLP articles to be incorporated into the encyclopedia. You're more than welcome to continue removing BLPPROD tags if you contribute sourcing to articles in a way that brings them up to an acceptable standard for inclusion in the project, but removing BLPPROD tags and allowing unsourced content to essentially disappear amongst 5.5 million other articles cannot be permitted any longer. Nick ( talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, you removed a tag which I so placed on an article "Bimbo Oshin" Is it possible you do not understand the implication of your act? By the polices of Wikipedia you ought to have began working on the article as soon as you have removed the tags, please do read on WP:GNG to understand proper notability, and again there is not an importance ascribed to Concept of having her page included in Wikipedia please go and do a thorough job because if article is still as same I would have no option but to move this page to an [articles for deletion] and report you for fraud.
Pay attention and note this, on no account should you take down tags meant for the betterment of the whole Wikipedia group as one community and not start to work on improving the page as soon as can be. If you have any questions I am on stand by anytime. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
tag with the edit summary Subject of article barely passes the WP:GNG, and only three minutes later in this diff you add a
{{
Db-multiple|G11|A7}}
. There was nothing unredeemable G11'ish about the article, and if a biographical subject is notable, a {{
db-person}}
obviously doesn't apply. Adam9007 was fully correct when he removed the tags, and it is you who need to pay attention. Feel free to ask questions on
my talk page, and do allow yourself a lot of time to learn the basics. —
Sam
Sailor
23:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PjdW97 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please, why don't you retire. And do it soon. Then you can stop undoing useful edits like my one to William Denny and Son. Just because it is not attributed does NOT make it false. As with English law, the burden of proof lies with you. Besides my mere sentence was not controversial, wrong or even harmful. Why you cut it in a nanosecond is beyond me and reminds me why I no longer contribute my significant skills to Nazipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.135.36 ( talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tired of the CSD/PROD patrolling?
![]() | Please accept this invite to join the
Unreferenced articles WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of July, 2024 there are approximately 87,000
unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply
click here and sign your username to accept! Thanks! ~~~~ |
I find it rewarding to source some of these old articles, you get to read about things you didn't know existed, and you're almost guaranteed nobody complains about what you are doing. — Sam Sailor 13:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Computational_Graph. I have explained the sense in which it is made up on the talk page and again in this nomination for article deletion here. User:Adamnemecek hasn't yet given a proper rebuttal to my argument, but since you removed the tag I would suppose that you read the thread beforehand and disagreed with me. As such, I would be happy to hear your input on the article for deletion discussion page. Thanks. Megajuice ( talk) 14:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Because the page MOS:ARTCON states that one variety of English must be consistent throughout the article, I switched the spelling of "labor" to the American version, given that words such as "recognize" already use a Z instead of an S, and that the article uses American mm/dd/yyyy dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBD2000 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is my page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHoagland ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No reson at all. Just my sloppy attempt at blanking the page and doing the redirect for an even sloppier patroller who couldn't be bothered to do it himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly.. I had moved this article to Draftspace earlier in the day, and removed the A7/G11 tags when I had done that. The user then recreated it in mainspace with a second account, so I tagged it (A7 and G11) and let them know where to look in Draftspace for their previous article. Then someone tagged it G11 in draftspace and someone else deleted it there, and then you untagged the mainspace version and moved it to draftspace again. What a complete mess.
I considered the application of the A7 tag to this article quite carefully, and it was most certainly appropriate in this case. A7 is about credible claims of significance not just a "clear" claim of significance. A claim that a company is "one of the UK's largest accredited domain registrar" (sic) for a brand new company (less than five months old) is not a credible claim of significance, it's a self-promotional claim by the CTO (User:David.harcus and User:Nikkefrend) of the company that is patently false. Nevermind that the statement itself offers no metric, no standard, and no claim that they have been actually been ranked in this manner by anyone. An example of a credible claim would be "Industry Journal Alpha has ranked MonkeyHost as one of the largest..." (then, perhaps, it wouldn't be quite a ludicrous as it seems on it's face). Or perhaps even: "...fastest growing new start-up in the UK, having subscribed 1.5 million users in six months." At least those offer metrics and specifics.
Regarding G11, I continued your process of removing promotional aspects of the draft and I removed the clearly false and promotional "one of the largest" statements. That left pretty much nothing left of the article except the infobox, one bare sentence, and zero sources. You probably should have just let it be deleted. Waggie ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, template:veryshort was deleted, but you are using it in your twinkle settings. could you fix this? thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, I'm missing the claims of significance--can you help? Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 22:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
DZRH is actually an AM station. That seems like an obvious hoax to me. Meters ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
We now have 806 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 reconsider your challenge to the {{ db-advert}} at Fortrade. The article quite simply reads like a glossy handout one would expect from their PR department. It is massively POV, contains links to their various products and has no, zero, independent reliable sources. The article would require a complete re-write to address this even if sourcing were found. On top of that the article was created by one edit as the first edit of an account. This is indicative of an undisclosed paid editor. Thank you. Jbh Talk 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
For your rapid detection and prompt tagging of the G10 page. The vigilance of editors like you helps keep the project running (fairly) smoothly. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an adjunct professor carries a credible assertion of notability - full professor, sure, or maybe an associate prof if they've got something else to support the claim, but adjunct professors with no other claim are one rung up from instructor. In any case, it's at AfD if you'd like to comment. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your edit back to G11, as I feel confident it fits - It's best to wait for an admin (who can approve/remove, as opposed to just removing) to see it. Garchy ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You wrote: > Your recent edit to Al Franken seemed less than > neutral to me, so I removed it for now.
I don't fully remember my added paragraph, and since you removed it, I cannot review. But from memory, the para was not really about Franken - it was about the election. Surrounding paras on Franken's page had info and numbers from 2009. I cited an article from 2012 with updated numbers, that I added. I would think this is a good thing? I am sure better wording than mine can be found, but should you not then improve my "un-neutral" wording instead of deleting the para? For full disclosure: I have nothing against Franken, mainly because of a lack of knowledge about him. But I am not impressed by the quality of eletion processes in the USA. :) See table "Perceptions of Electoral Integrity" on [1]
References
I fixed my article. There is no copyrighted material and full citation. /info/en/?search=The_Morning_of_the_Streltsy_Execution
Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) /info/en/?search=Maverick_Squad
Hi, on behalf of my idiotic teammates I would like too apologise too you and your wasted efforts and on behalf of leinster. I do play with their development teams however i dont deserve a wiki page and only found out recently they made it and didnt get it on merit. if you would like identity verification please feel free to email me at: (Redacted) //mu mail is maynooth university. I dislike the majority of comments made against me by people who dont play or follow rugby as it is hurtful and damaging so i hope you will not revert my post. I just want all of this finished and deleted please.
So tell me, what's your definition of "credible assertion of notability"? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello there mate. So I have been working on a page (Ravinder Maan), and I was hoping you would let me know how to verify it and fix all the issues with the tags.
Thanks - Tan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Sohal ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you throw in some expamples mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Sohal ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a second junk page from an editor. Does it really need unreviewed? — C.Fred ( talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I'd appreciate advice on deleting drafts. I nominated Draft:Ray Eller and several other drafts for speedy delete but they were reverted. How else do I go about proposing the deletion of these drafts which I believe have been created to promote a non-notable band (see the edit history of the creator). Cheers, Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(In relation to Steve salis) I think you need to be more careful and through in your new page patrolling. This article was obviously incorrectly categorized at creation and as part of patrolling you should have moved it to the correct title (and realised it was salted, then attempting an AFD). Easy to miss I'm sure but make sure to check page capitalisation as part of New Page Patrolling, it is very important. (Only bringing this up because of the DRV concerning the article now...) EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Concerning my restoration of the "Influence" section in the Dungeon Keeper article. I think one of the reasons that the game, or arguably the series it spawned, has notability is the influence it has had on other games and the reviews (which are given references) in the restored segment are of reviewers comparing newer games to Dungeon Keeper.
I do not have any problem with the segment being moved to the "Dungeon Keeper (series)" article if that is deemed more useful.
-- Wowaconia ( talk) 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you could move the section to the article about the series and post on the talk page for the article about the original game that you thought it was more helpful for that segment to be in the series article but that you are willing to revert if there are objections to the move. I don't think anyone will mind as long as the info is preserved somewhere. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 04:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recognize the original failed WP:BIO (I intended to make a short stubby entry in English (2,000-3,000 bytes compared to the Hebrew 29,000) after it settled in Hebrew, but the stubby entry mainly focused on the BLPCRIME - which was a no-no - I read BLP guidelines extensively after the feedback here). I completely re-did it - building it up -only- from pre-crime + civil court proceedings (which have been finalized in the sense of final liquidation orders) - and leaving the crime bit as a one-liner ("As of February 2017, there is an unresolved criminal trial proceeding against Bramly") - which bears mentioning given the civil case coverage there (+ample coverage of Bramly's claims of being a modern day Dreyfus - from NPOV). It is now also amply sourced and should be OK NPOV/tone-wise - and is actually in some areas probably better than the Hebrew (as I did some things from the ground-up) - I will migrate some stuff back to the Hebrew once it sits in the English for a while (and a few more other eyes & edits). Thank you! 07:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz ( talk • contribs)
What is the significance you see asserted? It is literally a company description and listing of products. It doesn't even bother to make claims of of the number of clients it has, etc. Also, just to make it clear here, this has nothing to do with the fact that we disagreed earlier today at an AfD over A7-- I just really am curious on this one as to what you see as the claim. All I can see is an unremarkable tech company written by a likely paid-editting account that didn't even bother to hire a good marketing person to write it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
11:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
23:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Holcombe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Holcombe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Cahk. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Institution of Civil Engineers at UET Peshawar, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Cahk ( talk) 20:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Heartily thanks to you for improving my first article Progressive Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onestar12 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A-Space (community center)? There isn't a single credible statement of importance in there--not one. Please reacquaint yourself with the guidelines. Drmies ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. As an aside, I think your decline of Mila Shak was good on the A7 grounds, though I think AfD is probably better than merge for several reasons. Anyway, despite my being shocked that dog fashion models exist, it has actually helped me formulate my views on what factor connections to people should have in A7. Cheers :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 I removed it because the flight was under "Future Routes" and now that the flight is underway it is irrelevant. It is now the future. I thought I clearly explained that when I said that "the future is now", the line I used when I edited it. Canadian997 ( talk) 14:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if you're so concerned about me making that edit why didn't you just do it yourself? Canadian997 ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how to make Hullabaloo Wolfowitz stop with his constant attacks and vandalism on the Axel Braun page (and others). The reference links he is posting on Braun's page are web archive files, while the current versions of the same pages show different content. Case in point, Braun's real name which is Alessandro Re and not Alessandro Ferro. This is the link to the current version of Vanity Fair's article [1] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz keeps using. [2] Wolfowitz is clearly acting maliciously and only because i pointed out that his references were incorrect. Going back to a previous version of an article from a major publication that has since been amended shows intent to vandalize. Same for the Rhett Pardon article on XBIZ, this is the current version [3] and this is the web archive file that Wolfowitz is posting. [4] Thank you for your attention. 2605:E000:2D8E:BA00:D86:D2E9:2CE2:630C ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
References
I don't agree that it makes a credible assertion as being essentially an extra in a film is neither notable or significant whatsoever and neither is the claim. Merely being an "actor" is meaningless as well. Additionally, those sources don't support anything in the article. Add to that, I removed several of the hoax claims. Please also see this discussion: User_talk:Ivanvector#SPI CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?I see nothing that plausibly implies he could be notable - merely being an actor is a job, just like being a trash man and when you combine that with the unnamed parts included in the article, it is more an assertion of insignificance. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you have removed my edit on Oysters SF page due to lack of citation. I have made an edit, because I have been following the phone's page on the official site, and it has disappeared. I was a witness. What could I add as a source in that case? A page returning 404? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.206.56 ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no claim to notability at all. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007,
Could you advise why you removed the speedy tag from this article - being a member of staff at a school doesnt confer notability and I cant see where significance could be shown for such a position either so am unsure why the tag was removed. Recreating the article as a redirect to the school after it was A7'd seems strange as I cant see a reason why someone would be searching for that person on Wikipedia so as to be a valid redirect either. Amortias ( T)( C) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States of America is not a significant role? That after he's left office, the only place his name will be found will be in the alumni editions of the White House Magazine? I'm sorry, but your strawman arguments are really starting to fall flat. The headmaster of a school, barring an exceptional tenure, will only be remembered by the school itself. There's a reason little US children learn every President - they have a lasting impact. I'm not sure if you ever had the high ground, but continue on this line of thought and you'll quickly lose it. Primefac ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
it needs to be a connection which exists long after they've moved, retired or died- it was you that then said
By that logic, Donald Trump's presidency.... Clearly being President of a country is a connection that exists long after they've left the office. Primefac ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. how exactly was it unconstructive? all I did was add a part that said comparing editors to serial killers. it said comparing editors to Nazis and dictators could result in you being blocked. but what if someone compares an editor to a serial killer, they'll be let off scott free. I personally think that should be added so no one compares any editor to a serial killer.
(~~2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. respond quickly because I want to know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's ok. I just want to keep Wikipedia safe from harassers that would actually have the balls to compare an editor to such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C600:B855:2CDD:C7A3:7717:D79 ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
How is the article not self-promotion? It was created by an editor with a name identical to the article. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Micro Machines (video game) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Theme Hospital you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Destruction Derby 2 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Ortiz (wrestler), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
ThatGirlTayler (
talk)
17:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a note at Diannaa's page about this article. Please add your notes there for her. Thanks for the thanks. Happy editing! Antonioatrylia ( talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. Can you please explain this edit, where you declined a WP:A1 speedy deletion on an article with no content? Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ortiz(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Ortiz(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hyan(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Hyan(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gino(wrestler). Since you had some involvement with the Gino(wrestler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The article
Destruction Derby 2 you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Destruction Derby 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Request that the blocking admin revoke WidrinBaltimore's talk page access. They will do it for this sort of thing. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Too late, the blocking admin revoke 'em! Jim1138 ( talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Re: EFC Ltd
Could you please explain what about any of these sources you found reliable enough to remove a well placed A7 specifically for "Article cites reliable sources"
?
Which leads me to my next question of why you removed a speedy tag on Umeash Sahhaaii - what credible claim of significance? Being CEO of a thus far, non-notable company? Or was it the totally reliable sources?
This isn't even a question of whether it's actually notable or not or significant but the fact that not a single one of those is an RS. Did you read any of them? If you found something else that would support a claim (of which I see none in the first article) why wouldn't you add it to the article itself? I also would like to know what claim EFC has, because I see none. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Someone talking about themselves isn't likely to be subject to editorial oversight or fact checking.Whoa. I have cited interviews with Molyneux and others in Dungeon Keeper, and cited interviews with the developers in Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) (its first FAC says we should do so). Are you really saying they're not reliable because they come from people closely involved? The principle is the same as what we're discussing here. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Chrissymad, I went ahead and took these to AfD. I wouldn't have contested them myself, but I don't think the decline is completely out of left field because I have seen a few keep !votes on similar articles. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a deliberate determination here not to get the point, or if it's something else and we're all just really bad at explaining things in policies and on your talk page, but to repeat and to clarify: The principle is not the same, Adam. I can write my own (auto)biography, it doesn't prove I'm notable. It could be published by a reputable published, but it still doesn't prove I'm notable, though it's a clue that I might be. I can be interviewed, it doesn't prove I'm notable but it is a stronger clue that I could be notable. Interviews are tricky - they're ideal source material when you demonstrate notability, but they're generally useless to actually prove that notability, given there's a difference between an in-depth and brief interviews, and any sort of interview in a specialist publication and any sort of interview in a mainstream title. If there is significant, in-depth coverage about me, which I am not involved with, then we begin to reach the threshold for notability, and when we reach that threshold, we can have an article on me. When we have an article, all sources can come (back) into play, even if they, on their own, do nothing to assert notability. We can use my autobiographies, my interviews and other material to reference the article - indeed, source material doesn't need to be connected to the subject of the article at all, only to be broadly (and ideally, specifically) relevant to the claim(s) being sourced. TL;DR - interviews are fine for sources but not usually able to demonstrate notability on their own. Nick ( talk) 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Are the latter examples significant? If so, wouldn't the case being discussed here also be (it was produced by the newspaper, which appears to be notable (see The Economic Times)? Adam9007 ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're removing all the speedy deletion tags, how do I request for them to be removed? Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Well, one of the issues is that a lot of people (including myself) have no idea what a credible claim of significance is for a YouTuber, and I'd honestly assume that anyone who has more than 100K subscribers might pass that incredibly low bar. I do my best not to get into that type of pop-culture notability debate either because you'll inevitably get into parsing what counts as a reliable and non-trivial source, given that I'm sure most of these people have plenty of links in their articles since their known for being on the internet. If someone wants to delete them, I think AfD is the way to go if you actually believe they aren't notable. As an aside, this user is autopatrolled, which given the number of deletion nominations and the concerns expressed here I find odd. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah balls. I should have checked to see if it was a browser game. I'm a dinosaur and come from the era when most games were too big to download. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
How does PujaShoppe fails A7? Winged Blades Godric 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyway,as always you seem to be in the bubble that you are insanely right!That's fairly constant.Isn't it? Winged Blades Godric 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what CSD does apply...do you know which it is? It should be speedily deleted though. Been unreferenced and non-notable since 2010. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
May you clarify what prompted your removal of a A7 tag at
Jozeff esp. in light of the editors who participated at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jozeff.
Winged Blades
Godric
09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's what it looked like just before deletion.It may be worthy to mention that the closing admin decided to enforce a speedy delete at that precise version which you thought failed the purview of the policy.
Winged Blades
Godric
09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007, regarding the above, you removed the prod. The reference is to sound broadcast, which even though it doesn't play, would still be an invalid source, because a sound file, played on a browser is not a reference, as we are not trained forensic sound engineers, hence the prod. scope_creep ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period. Given that blogs are not (99.9% of the time) RS, then adding (or even having) a blog as the sole reference does not count. Primefac ( talk) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). The blog was already linked to and therefore invalidated BLPPROD. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jackgodders/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What claim of significance you continue to find
here? Is it Established in 1994, The Titanic Players is an American improvisational theatre group with presence on six university campuses:
? Or maybe the list of college campuses? Or is it their sponsorship by a non-notable entity?
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
00:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
new page reviewer
from your account, due to your clear lack of understanding of our
WP:CSD policy. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
01:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Being a fellow editor considering retirement, I can understand what you are going through. I can only offer support and say hang in there. You are an excellent editor in my view! Antonioatrylia ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
I'm going to make this suggestion again: When removing an A7, do a WP:BEFORE before. If you find sources indicating the subject could be notable (not that it makes claims of significance) remove the A7. If not, let the A7 tag stay and let an admin decide how to handle it. -- NeilN talk to me 01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
At the same time, I think you should understand that consistently having CSD tags removed that are well within the discretionary zone for CSD can sap people's morale. NPP can be a thankless job and while I agree that some of us who do it can be trigger happy, and I have learned a lot from you, SoWhy, and some others and truly thank you for that growth experience, I very much understand why others might feel frustrated, and their feelings of frustration are just as valid as the feelings of frustration you get. Neil has given you this advice before and I think it is the best practical advice anyone has given you. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
My best friend and I in real life have very different views. He's slightly to the right of Lenin and I'm what you would consider a Blairite. We get along very well because while we disagree, we both understand why the other thinks the way they do and genuinely respect the other's viewpoint. I don't think you disrespect anyone on here, but I also don't think that I have ever seen you say you might be right or something along those lines. Every Wikipedian is a person, and when they feel like they are talking to someone who doesn't listen, it can make them get mad. Neil's advice is so good, because it helps you see what other people might see. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was so eager to rescue that badly written essay of an article that I failed to notice there is already an article on the subject. You are right, A10 is the correct tag for it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious, Adam? I tagged an event with BLPPROD, which accuses a living person of a crime - with no sources, you undid that TWICE, added no sources and then went back and added a "no sources" prod. Why? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This deletion procedure does not apply to such things as lists of people or biographical information contained in other articles.This is not a biography of the perpetrator. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You can just do a little google search about Lol, papua new guinea and you can see some results. Hope this helps :D 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XS2003 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I am writing a second time Page Method of decomposition of the parameters, to explain that it is a page that deserves to be in Wikipedia. The previous page has been deleted, on the grounds that says nothing. Perhaps this new page explains more about the importance of this method, which is applied by many companies. However, it's up to you to decide whether to keep it or not. Thanks for the attention!
Method of Breaking down the Parameters
How to Calculate not directly economic performance of the business, related to ethical issues, moral, social, environmental and cultural, which introduced the modern concept of "corporate social responsibility" and anticipated his more recent developments . It was conceived and proposed by the economist Italian Giancarlo Pallavicini in the 1960s, under the assumption that the business entity, while being oriented to the profit of those who promote it, should not be neglected, but explicitly aware, a number of instances regarding the man and his social environment, cultural and natural [1]. Not as a mere statement of principle, but in a concrete way and be calculated the same way as profit. After a first experimental application at the Cariplo in 1960, aims to assess the contribution of individual bank branches to the development of the "special credit", then delivered mainly through the Mediocredito Lombardo, this method was published by 'Publisher "Giuffre "in 1968 in" integrated structures in the Italian distribution system ". A proposal at the time revolutionary, taken up and developed in its assumptions by other economists, and especially by Robert Edward Freeman, in his essay "Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach", published in London in 1984. Only in recent times is, however, understood in its value as calculation results are not directly economic tool, able to exert its effects on the end result, and to add value to the company. If only for the fact that the internal and external demands to the company, to which the method refers, characterize ' "habitat" in which the company operates and influence the possibilities of life and success of' enterprise itself. In addition, they positively involve stakeholders (stakeholders) internal and external to the company, by bringing value. For this, the growing interest in the "corporate social responsibility", manifested at the beginning of the new millennium and which has received a further boost by the global crisis that began in 2007, first in finance and then the real economy, is emerging so more and more marked the need to consider, and then to evaluate specifically, the degree of affirmation of ethical principles in the economy in general and in particular in the financial asset. Is thus establishing the principle that such an assessment should be resorted to new methods that go beyond the so-called "codes of ethics" and "social audits" and over the same "quality standards", to get closer to the criteria which, in the years in 1960, they inspired the "breakdown of the method parameters." According to the initial setting of Pallavicini, exhibited in the "Preface" to the aforementioned volume, it is to operate "... formulating new hypotheses of setting and interpretation of quantitative determinations of greater and more frequent relief ... ... where the abstractions of their 'survey, which covers the business phenomena in the economic aspect and influences the environment in which the company operates, are quantified so as to put forward a concrete contact with the complex attitudes of the administration. " References to this method, at the time revolutionary, wanted to be, according to its creator, a "contribution ... at the appropriate approach to this and want to be primarily intended to draw the attention of all those men of science and operators economic, follow very carefully this matter. " Originally this method proposed to articulate the final objective of the company in a series of parameters, considered that, in addition to profit, no longer identifiable as the only goal, a series of components having a not directly economic, but not unrelated to 'need to provide an adequate income. Components that can bring value to the company, the positive effects in the projection and consolidation in the enterprise, to improve the perception made of them by internal and external stakeholders to the company and for more harmonious compose in the economic system which the company She participates. According to the parameters of the method, the different directions is necessary to proceed regarding: 1) the objective articulation of economic activity, which is brought into contact with the concrete phenomena of the company and the environment in which it operates, via a subdivision that assigns to each component a clear overall target rate did equal to 100; 2) the analysis of the business, which must take into account the complex process and product function, the individual actions in which it branches, identifying each of the possible effect on one or more components of the overall objective; 3) grouping of individual classes and sub-classes and various actions, making it possible to assess the degree to which they nourish or oppose the pursuit of the different components of the company's goal; 4) the qualitative articulation, which must be reported to the quantitative aspects of each class or sub-class of shares, based on the volumes of business done in order to arrive at a quantification expressing the role played by each of them in the pursuit of 'global objective and articulated, from which to extrapolate useful addresses to direct the choice of the best operating opportunities in their different aspects. This initial articulation, which brought together the headline profit and results are not directly economic, it has subsequently accompanied a different application, designed to overcome the inherent difficulties in admitting in decision-making representatives of categories alien to risk capital. The inventor of the method has developed specific hypotheses accounting for the goals not directly economic, to be placed at the side of the regular accounting in the reporting currency, on profit alone. Experiences of this approach have been initiated abroad, and especially in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, of which Pallavicini was the first Western consultant for the reform of the economy, especially at the time of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. They then suffered a setback with Boris Nikoleevic El'tsin, less sensitive to the consideration of matters not directly cheaper and less inclined to combine profit with social. The method of the decomposition of the parameters was also used for the evaluation of the contribution offered by the individual operating units in companies and uniforms were also held with application in assessing the effectiveness of public investment, according to the settings mentioned in the cited work "integrated structures in the distribution system Italian". Its use is characterized by flexibility in the setting, which is correlated to the ups and downs of the economy, through the reconsideration of the weight of each partial objective of the business, within the more general goal by turns chosen . The global crisis of 2007 and the frequent replacement of private debt with public debt seem to allow a more direct decision-making intervention by representatives of stakeholders also foreign capital and promote the development of forms of assessment are not directly economic activity enterprise, in the same field of measurement of profit, of which the method of decomposition of the parameters is an undisputed anticipation. In fact, the vicissitudes of the economy, caused by the global crisis of the first decade of the third millennium, seem to move towards a recovery of initial setting of this method, in which profit and economic objectives not directly take part in one of the result of processing ' business activities, while the necessary monetary aspect, in its separate accounts, recovers the role that is theirs as a tool aimed at achieving the overall objective of the business. Desiano ( talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Being the child of a notable person is not the sort of strong connection to someone notable that counts for A7. The sort of strong connection that might possibly count is something so close that it might cause a reasonable person to think there should be an article--a president of a notable company, for example. I do not want to add to the somewhat excessive criticism of your speedy removal, but it would be much more productive to try to actually improve Wikipedia than to just make removal of impossibly bad articles more complicated. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007! I ran into your talk page, and I see that you're considering retirement and that your "stress meter" is at the highest level. Looking at your recent messages here, it looks like you've run into a lot of heat lately with speedy deletion tag removal and whether the removals were correct or not. I understand how you feel; getting a lot of heat like this is stressful and I know that you're only trying to help and do the right thing. I see you around and reverting vandalism quite a bit, and I haven't seen any problems at all with your work in this area (at least not any that I can remember). I certainly hate to see someone as useful and committed as you leaving the project - it's very hard to keep good recent changes patrollers around... especially those that do so long-term and without burning out.
My advice to you is this: address the current concerns on your talk page here, take a break for a bit, get your stress under control, come back when you're ready, review the A7 guidelines and what credible claim of significance is (to refresh yourself and make sure that you didn't forget anything), and take things from there.
Like I said, I understand how you feel and how much of a downer and disappointment it is knowing that you're under more heat from other editors over the same area. It's not fun, and it really does take a toll on you... especially with how much time and effort you put into the project. This is where my advice will help you significantly - take a small break for a bit and clear your head. It will make a big difference with how you think and move forward after you return. If you need someone to talk to, my talk page is always open to you. You're welcome to chat with me any time you need to. I hope you take my advice, and I hope you learn, grow, and move forward from this and with a better outlook on everything. I don't want to see you go :-/ ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Adam9007: Hopefully no one minds me adding on to this thread - we've had our run-ins (minor, but usually relating to removals of speedys) - even with that, I would hate to see you go. Take some time, clear your head, and come back re-energized and ready to take on the project! There are plenty of editors here to help you along the way, just ask. Cheers, Garchy ( talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to create a page relating to the aircraft and their history that ARC operate from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. In order to do this I simply dropped some text onto the page which seems to have been taken as the final version but was really meant to just act as a memory jogger for me whilst I built the page. Is it possible to unlock the page whilst I work on the real content much of which will be of historical interest to anyone researching these planes. RoyH ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you reverted my proposed deletion on the ground that "article already includes sources". The bio has only a single references which is unreliable and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Could you please revert your edit or otherwise I will have to nominate the page for deletion. But since this is uncontroversial page (created and expanded by the subject himself as you can see in the history), a proposed deletion will be more sufficient. Initially I marked it for speedy which was a mistake on my part. Thank you. -- Saqib ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I was referencing the episode First Born from the seventh season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, though at the time I couldn't remember the episode's name. I was also, though I did not remember it at the time, partially mistaken in what currency was being dealt with. On that I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.100.194.233 ( talk) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Firstly I apologise for the inappropriate content of the edit I recent put on "female", I was experimenting whether Wikipedia had a security or defensive system in place for wrongful comments, and if it was not taken down in the next 24hours I was going to remove it myself... however my expectations were met and you have taken it down, however I didn't know that there was a sandbox. But thank you for providing my solution, finally I can assure you that this experiment will not take place again. Helpful user ( talk) 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please send me a link to the 'sandbox' for Wikipedia. Helpful user ( talk) 01:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to offer to resurrect this essay, if only to stop you from complaining on every thread related to CSD that you "used to have a personal essay". It's your essay, it's how you feel, and there's zero reason for you to delete it and then complain that you're being stifled. Primefac ( talk) 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted Chrissymad and removed a G12 deletion tag from the Hull Barrett article. Do not do this. If an article has been identified as a copyright violation, it needs to either be deleted under the G12 criteria, or alternatively, you need to request all revisions which contain copyright content be deleted, so either way, the issues are identified in the deletion log. The reason for this is that undeletion requests need to take into account the original deletion reason, and any articles deleted under G12 or with revisions which were deleted due to copyright content would only be undeleted if the copyright issues are resolved (such as the source being made available under a suitable free licence). If an undeletion request was to be received with the log entry being for a G7 deletion for example, the article would likely be restored with little or no fuss, something we wouldn't want. We also like to review deletion logs and deleted contributions of users to review if there is a history of copyright violations which may require remedial action or a block. Nick ( talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You removed my post on the page, Bard college at Simon's Rock, saying that I didn't have a source, I go to the school so I don't know what other kind of source you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelaneyG ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion nomination of Mandini (Singer) based on the fact that the article makes a credible assertion of notability. Can you clarify what assertion of notability is included in the article? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Has a credible association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague (per WP:INVALIDBIO these pages can be redirected instead of deleted). A son is a close relative. SoWhy was talking about starting an RfC to promote that essay. Because of this discussion, I've had to suggest he gets rid of that statement. It's just as well given my frustration over receiving such contradictory information and frequently begin accused of things like "making things up" that I didn't do something really stupid like MfD it. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
shape your own thinking. In other words, follow their advice? How can they "shape my thinking" otherwise? And these A7 essays do have basis in the guidelines: all this WP:ATD stuff is backed up by WP:FAILN, and of course WP:ATD. As for having time to do CSD reviewing but not content creation, I can't write a GA in a matter of minutes, like I can with other stuff. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Chrissymad: I think you missed my point: it doesn't matter whose advice I follow (with all this WP:ATD-R business, it;s SoWhy's and Ritchie333's), because sooner or later someone will come along and say I'm a complete nutter. That's what frustrates me.It just seems like I'm wrong no matter what I do. I do things one way, I'm disruptive. If I do them the opposite way, I'm still disruptive. If I go in-between, I'm still disruptive. I have no idea what the "correct" behaviour is any more. It seems to depend on who's talking to me. So, in response to your question: I don't know. I could stop doing WP:ATD-R, until someone else starts preaching about how I should do it. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam9007! I was wondering how to get such cool stuff on your page. Hpw do you do it? Crazy229 ( talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting edits. Strifecnd ( talk) 00:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Your disruptive actions are pervasive to the expansion of Wikipedia. Stop reverting edits about topics you are not working on and let the people working on those articles do their thing. Strifecnd ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Primefac ( talk) 01:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't edit warring, I was removing unsourced content. I thought I was supposed to do what per WP:BURDEN? I thought persistent addition of unsourced content was considered disruptive? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yes, addition of unsourced content is disruptive. But so is edit warring. The policy is very simple: you just don't edit war, even if you're right. Max Semenik ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Relax. Take some time off. Read a good book or take a short vacation. We've all been there. A couple years ago (right after my dad died) I got into it with another editor and popped my cork. I took a good six months off and finally came back. Don't quit. But don't let the place control your life. I am thinking of taking the weekend off and heading to the beach (southwest Florida here). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Theme Hospital - the article you nominated for GA status - has been reviewed. The article has been put on hold for seven days. Please read the review at Talk:Theme Hospital/GA2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred von Karma ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The article
Theme Hospital you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Theme Hospital for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Manfred von Karma --
Manfred von Karma (
talk)
09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007,
I see you are having a wikibreak, and that's fine. I don't really know why you would take a break while you still had an outstanding nomination waiting to be reviewed, but nevertheless, Theme Hospital's verdict was that if minor improvements listed were made, the article would be swiftly given GA. From these variables, that will no longer be able to happen. Thus, if there are no changes, I have to deny it. From here, Theme Hospital will most likely sit in a state where only very minor improvements have to be made until re-assessment and given GA status is complete. When/if you come back, and if someone hasn't already (this article gets little attention), please make the minor improvements and re-nominate it for its third assessment.
Best of luck and well-wishes for your vacation, Manfred ( talk) 10:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations! Theme Hospital passed the re-evaluation and is now a Good Article. The GA listing process is still underway, and may take from five to ten minutes.
Manfred ( talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The article
Micro Machines (video game) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Micro Machines (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The article
Theme Hospital you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Theme Hospital for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Indrian --
Indrian (
talk)
01:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
A beer on me! | |
"Theme Hospital — A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." — Paleo Neonate — 02:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Congratulations custom award "Theme Hospital — A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." — Paleo Neonate — 02:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Congratulations -- after review, Micro Machines (video game) is now a GA article. Have a beer to celebrate! Manfred ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Adam - hope you're doing well. I know that you are on a Wikibreak, although given your recent activity I think you'll probably end up seeing this. I saw your new userpage - I like it, it does look rather nice - but if I were you, I'd get rid of the section starting "Why is this page so gay?". Despite the fact that I know you have used that word to mean "happy", you could end up being accused of homophobia (also the page is rainbow coloured, like the LGBT+ flag). I wouldn't want that to happen to you considering you are under a significant amount of stress at the moment. Would you consider removing that section? Thanks in advance, and have a good day. Patient Zero (Public) talk 11:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
usage: Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men ( lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women. Oxford American Dictionary
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
−
Responding to the ping, Adam, you confused the heck out of me as well [2]. This was in response to "I can't remember when I was last properly gay here." I interpreted that as you were having difficulty with your homosexuality - not something I want to discuss on my user page. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
When stub sorting, make sure you remove {{ stub}}. You didn't do that here. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 23:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Tried to write out the close paraphrase. It's hard with such a tiny sentence. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam, I would like to thank you for making the save and your edits to Too Tight Henry, my article on the little known blues musician. You placed a refimprove box on the article and I believe I have made the necessary improvements. As I created the article, I don't feel in a neutral enough position to make the call to remove the tag. What do you think? Cheers WhiteSGPlayer ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merlin Trebuchet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Trebuchet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
{{{Template:In creation}}} is a good template to apply if you intend to attempt a rescue, in lieu of removing the CSD tag. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 02:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It is time for you to immediately affirm that you will stop untagging CSD's. And to stop doing it. I don't always agree w/ a CSD tagging, but rather than untagging, I leave it alone and allow the next admin to decide. This reduces disruption.
I only detag if I see a chance to rescue based on a WP:Before search. If you intend to attempt a rescue, place the {{{inuse}}} template on the page while you seek to find sourcing and improve the the article. Request time on the talk page to effect a rescue. Do not remove the CSD tag. If the article does not meet CSD, the reviewing admin will detag it. Thanks, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
no matter what I dois a bit hyperbolic, your GA work is pretty stellar. But, as I said before, this is entirely up to you to decide. If you do choose to quit, I wish you well. Primefac ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 I'm going to be frank with you and you're probably not going to like it but I'd encourage you to heed my advice and that of the dozens of editors who have given it before me. Stop reviewing speedy tags. Just stop. This is a clear issue and it is with you. This is not one or two editors picking on you but on this unarchived part of your talk page alone, I count at least six people who have more or less asked you to stop. And what I think frustrates people the most is not just that you are frequently wrong about these tag removals but that you absolutely refuse to deal with the situation and continue to do the same things over and over again. Then there is also this response every time you are confronted about the same issue. It is the equivalent of a temper tantrum and we restart this cycle every few weeks. It would be a shame to lose you as an editor but if you will not change the pattern of disruption, I don't know what to tell you. An inordinate amount of hand-holding and time has been given to you and we are still here, months later and not even a year after your last ANI. The guilt trips are also old - you have a problem that needs to be fixed and it can be done simply: stop doing the controversial thing that is causing you (and many other editors) so much stress. So the ball is in your court now, deal with it or don't. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Then there is also this response- I'm not allowed to adjust the stress and mood meters to reflect my mood?
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 806 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)
Other people have said it. I will say it too. Your work here other than removing speedy deletion tags seems great.
As the old saw says - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is just... crazy. Why do that to yourself and everyone else?
If you need a break, please take it, but please come back and please leave speedy tag patrolling alone, and instead do stuff that brings you wikilove, of which there is plenty available for you. Please. Jytdog ( talk) 03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Goodbye for now! |
I'm sad to see you go! You're a great editor and a great associate. Best of luck with whatever you pursue next. <3 Manfred ( talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC) |
Adam, WP:ITSALLGREY was written for admins, but you may find it useful as WP:CSD activity is an administrative action that does not require additional privileges. As you and I have discussed quite a few times, with the best of intent, navigating the nondeterministic guidelines has been quite difficult for you and many of your fellow editors feel it is well into disruption. The advice in WP:ITSALLGREY is pretty good. In your case, turning in your mop would be to avoid speedy deletions.
However, you've now stated that you've retired. I think that is a good decision. WP:DOSOMETHINGELSE. If at some point you feel like you can come back and edit constructively, the community will welcome you back. However, I'll encourage you to think hard about it and be sure of 2 things if you do come back:
I understand wiki-stress. It's real. It can affect your judgement on-wiki and affect your real-life too. It has for me. Perhaps you can overcome these issues. I hope so.
With sincere best wishes, Toddst1 ( talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
You are here to create an encyclopediaFunny, that's what I thought we were here to do too
Hello again
Adam9007. In case you'll still be reading this despite your decision to leave:
I have first learned of your existence in February, incidentally related to a CSD. Out of curiosity and because my account was very new, I was lurking a lot everywhere to learn whatever I can, and have visited your talk page. Here is what I remember reading: "My reputation will be forever ruined and I can kiss goodbye to whatever chance that I might one day become an admin", followed with an answer to you: "I'm not convinced that your reputation is in much jeopardy, and while helping out as an administrator is a valuable goal it's not the epitome of Wikipedia".
When reading it, this reminded me of the link between ambition and stress. Ambition being a great motivation factor, although only my impression, it may also be partly because you want to work more in administration-related areas to prepare for a possible administrator role.
While administrators are necessary for Wikipedia to function, I agree with Acroterion that it is not the ultimate goal of Wikipedia. For instance, the readability and accuracy of articles is more important, as well as the creation of new content. These are things which you appear to be able to do, qualifying you as a worthy editor.
As for the reputation, we all make mistakes and it so far seems to me that six months is a long time on Wikipedia, long enough that even WP:NOTHERE editors can sometimes be allowed back, decisions at ANI cases can also be surprising to me when the problematic evidence presented is months old. We even have WP:CLEANSTART. At RfAs, it is not rare to see comments about an ANI case being too recent and to come back in six months. All this to suggest that I doubt that you have terminally ruined your reputation.
I think that less stress would be experienced if you remained on comfortable ground as long as necessary, leaving ambitions aside for a moment. When venturing further tentatively, if it does not succeed, why not go back to what works and rethink it? Perhaps that the next attempt will be more successful. Or maybe you'll decide that it's not something worth doing if it's not a source of joy.
Leaving completely is your choice and that's fine because there are so many things in life. However, Wikipedia may also be less of an obstacle to good life when taking in account our individual skills and limits, like for anything else. Another important aspect of life is cooperation, helping others where they need help, but also asking and obtaining help in areas when necessary.
If you're really leaving, hopefully my words can also serve in real life and I wish you farewell. And no, I'm not saying that you're an idiot ("I can take constructive criticism, but more often than not it's a sugar-coated 'you're an idiot'"). Far from it. Well met! —
Paleo
Neonate —
07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Adam9007 tries to be gay but encounters too much Wikistress. |
(oh alright, '''almost''' everyone else: I know there are a few who like me)
I said I'd give an explanation for my departure, and I was going to (and maybe I still will...) write a long post detailing why, I've barely scratched the surface with this post. The problem is finding the time to do so (especially as I have more important things to do in the meantime, hence this late reply), and I'll have to spend ages thinking about exactly what to say, as I can't even be sure it won't make things even worse. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I dint have done vandalism, there is a link or citation added in the article, on the other hand, the user inaki salazar, have done much editing without give references, therefore, he is the vandal, not me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.253.9 ( talk) 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your help with the block evading IP socks earlier. Sro23 ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC) |
I've restored your NPR rights, as I feel you have taken all of the past criticisms into consideration and I'm quite frankly impressed with your editing this last week. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we can get to the point where we forget that the last couple months even happened. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Adam9007 tries to be gay but encounters too much Wikistress. |
And perhaps replace the latter with this:
![]() | This user is happy. |
Or maybe my own version with a "synonym selector" (why? because I like having a userbox that's "better" than someone else's "identical" one
).
Adam9007 (
talk)
03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I forgot to translate the article. Thanks for taking care of it. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you removing speedy deletion tags again ? You were told, in no uncertain terms, you either accept a topic ban to voluntarily cease this activity, which you are useless at, or we take you to AN/I and enforce action. You ignored that warning and 'retired' in what was clearly a deceptive attempt to avoid scrutiny. Are you going to voluntarily topic ban yourself, or do we need to go through an AN/I discussion to topic ban you ? Pinging @ Timothyjosephwood: about this too. Nick ( talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.Winged Blades Godric 15:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, this is disappointing. I thought this had been settled. As for your two recent removals, I actually agree that Muhsin ibn Ali and Tommy Dunker do not qualify for A7. However, that's not the point. The point is that you were ordered by Dlohcierekim to stop untagging CSDs. Here's the link: User talk:Adam9007/Archive 3#untagging CSD's. You had been advised to stop it many times before, but Dlohcierekim made it an order. That meant ALL CSDs, even when you are sure you are right. Even when you ARE right. Looking at that discussion now, I do not find that you ever actually agreed to limit yourself in that way, and apparently you didn't. But you need to. You really do. There is plenty of other constructive and helpful work you can do here. You do it well, it is non-controversial, your talk page fills up with thanks or simple questions, instead of stress-producing complaints about speedy tagging. So your choice now is simple: either agree that, yes, you will stop removing speedy tags, and mean it - or have that topic ban imposed on you by the community. Not in anger, not because anyone hates you - just because the virtually universal consensus here is that your untagging is so controversial that you should not do it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Admins do not have "command authority" in the sense that some imagine(
no user is obligated to respect or listen to them
at the end of the day, you know CSD better than many editors. Obviously, not everyone agrees that I'm useless. That said, if a topic ban is where "knowing CSD better than many editors" will lead, then I assure you I will not be doing it. It's not worth it. (If not, then yippee!) I was going to do an article (you may know which if, as I feel like, I'm being "followed"), although I'm sceptical as to whether it'll survive AfD if it goes there (I only have a few sources, but they might (and that is a big might) just be enough), but I suppose there's only one way to find out... I started doing CSD again to give me something to do in the meantime, as I've just "finished" (I don't doubt there's still much to do if there's to be any hope of it being GA) another one. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to treat CSD like I treat ethnic conflicts on Wikipedia: I don't comment on them, I don't edit, I don't go near, in fact, the only time I bring them up is to tell people to stay away from them if they want to be sane. If you think writing an essay will help with the stress, then you can do it and no one here would be mad about it. It just seems to me that the topic brings you a lot of unhappiness, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just not touch it, even with a 39.5 foot pole. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Cheers ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 00:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I've decided to issue you with a discretionary sanction notification because of your bulk BLPPROD removals on articles where the sourcing does not comply with the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy or the BLP proposed deletion policy. Your bulk BLPPROD tag removals are allowing significant numbers of unsourced BLP articles to be incorporated into the encyclopedia. You're more than welcome to continue removing BLPPROD tags if you contribute sourcing to articles in a way that brings them up to an acceptable standard for inclusion in the project, but removing BLPPROD tags and allowing unsourced content to essentially disappear amongst 5.5 million other articles cannot be permitted any longer. Nick ( talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)