![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi,
It seems like the ACTRIAL discussion is going on at five different locations now. I've drawn together what conclusions I can but information at different locations contradicts or at last predates information at new locations. As you and Kudpung are more in-tune with the whole business, I just thought I'd check if I'd missed anything: my current understanding is that the WMF is doing something Phabricator-related but I'm not sure if that's the latest on the progress.
Thanks,
DrStrauss talk 13:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion template from Gene Freidman. It looks like the article started out as a paid puff piece, but I have improved it since then. Unfortunately for Freidman, almost all of the coverage in reliable sources is negative. I actually left out a fair amount because there seem to be so many lawsuits and complaints against him. Sometimes being neutral means that an article will be negative. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Tony, something to add to your armoury of arguments for G5 and to quote , especially when the tags have been removed by inexperienced users: As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. One doesn't argue lightly with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)
I've replied to World's Lamest Critic's post on my tp. Despite your excellent explanation above, he still just does not appear to get it. I hope he's not going to be so persistent as to train wreck the serious investigations that are on-going. I've suggested he find something simpler to do until he finds his feet proper. I would hate to have to put such a keen new user under sanctions to prevent any disruption. (t.i.c). I'd rather he left the problem to experienced editors than become part of the problem himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever talked directly, but I've always found your commentary on various talk pages or debates to be well-reasoned and helpful. It's nice to know the feeling was reciprocated :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. And a little more independent from the sources we write about. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC) |
I'm taking this here because I don't want to "badger" you in any way, I just wanted a clarification. In your !vote you wrote that you view my answer to your Q18 as an improper weighting of things near the end and an assumption that people who supported at first are incapable of changing their mind
. I don't think that fits my answer really because my example was one in which the supporters were capable of changing their minds but simply unable to do so because they did not get the necessary information that would definitely have changed their minds in time (because they were offline or didn't check the RfA again). Of course a crat shouldn't presume that people able to change their !vote were not capable of doing so but that was not what I thought I was saying and certainly not what I meant to say. I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like a more detailed explanation (if possible) why you think in this extreme example crats shouldn't be allowed to assume that supporters would have switched if they had the chance to do so. Regards
So
Why
18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy seems to assume that all editors who supported early on would change their minds given damaging information and that since they are incapable of doing it because of time, its fine to weight their !vote less on this assumption.If that seems better, I would be more than happy to strike and rephrase. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Just dropping in to say a) thanks for helping kick-start WP:ACTRIAL again; I don't really have much to say other than I hope it all works and b) you and FIM should be admins. If you don't ask for the bit, Mr. Fuzzybottom will come looking and forcibly give it to you ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I couldn't find the template used for the NPP newsletter, but if you have access, could you please change "<hr>" to "<hr />", as the lack of the endtag means that edit coloration continues on. Thanks, ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 11:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi- I just want to make sure I'm not out of line on discussing the Panzer Ace renaming- I actually am working on an edit of the "Dog" page and I don't want trouble. How does this process work? Is the discussion on the page of the "Panzer Ace" article? Thanks for your help- Jeff T. Makumbe ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Also- If I put in * Support can I still make comments or suggestions on the page? Or should I wait? Can I still make suggestions for edits on the page or should I start those in a new section? Thanks, Jeff T Makumbe ( talk) 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help- JT Makumbe ( talk) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Do whatever you think is appropriate as per terms and conditions but just let me know what exactly made you tag this article for deletion ...and then i may contest or do something about it Dashing2002 ( talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, Thanks a lot for the explanation, i think you are right at the moment ....it was due to mere ignorance and nothing else....thus i admit and appreciate the action.......next time i would surely keep in mind both aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashing2002 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tony, thanks for your contribution. I am not paid to edit, I take a interest in lgbt and community work in the United Kingdom and only edit or submit new articles which are able to be accurately sourced and verifiable and also in the public interest of relating to an issue of public discussion . Much appreciation to you! MIRANDAScoCIS ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kudpung, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Doc James, and Rentier: and any others watching who care: We now have edit filter 867 for large initial creations by non-extended confirmed users. We're still trying to define what "large" is. The goal being to catch the most in the filter while not overwhelming it with too many creations. Thoughts on that would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Large_creations_in_single_edit_by_inexperienced_users TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You marked the page we made for our company as a candidate for speedy deletion. We had modeled the page off of other similar companies within our market segment and want to get any advice for making the page a useful part of Wikipedia. Any changes we would have to make to get the article up to the standards for a page we can take care of. We understand the conflict of interest issue, is this unavoidable entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberextruder ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you removed a section of UFO Kidnapped, that I re-added and yet it has been removed again. I think that this section should be included because even though it not have the information is important for the article. There are lots of articles that do not yet quote sources, but still cite their info, so I think it should still be on the page. I am trying to hire someone to make some YouTube videos comparing both YCDTOTV and UFO Kidnapped, that will show scenes from both shows, but I haven't found anyone yet to do it, and I do not yet know how to do it by myself. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I disagree with this RM closure you made at Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)#Requested move 15 April 2017. There seems to be more support votes than opposes and your rationale "!votes supporting moving do not address the stylization points raised by those opposing, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are relatively weak" doesn't seem convincing since the oppose votes are basically calling it stylization but that's obviously not true since the dot is part of the title. Removing the dot changes the title and that's the same as changing " Michael Jackson" to " George Washington" (not the same in significance but the same in policy). — The Magnificentist 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The Magnificentist 12:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and pointing out problems with the article.
Trowdad ( talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we both managed to file an SPI report on the same person at the same time! [2] My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tony, Regarding the move of the article "Lawrence of Rome" to "Saint Lawrence", I certainly agree with all the reasoning, regarding
But please also consider this: Similarly to what you said: "moving this title to Lawrence would be out of the question", I also find the move to "Saint Lawrence" very unfortunate. The problem is that there are so many other Saint Lawrences, that I can guarantee you total chaos will follow. People will attribute everything "Lawrence" to this "Saint Lawrence" without checking if this actually the right saint. You might be able to oversee what gets written in the saint's article, but I wouldn't want to check for every link created to it. This is where "Lawrence of Rome" is clearly superior: It makes people stop and think about it.
I see it much in the same way as the many, many other lemmas that do not reflect the wording most readers will be looking for, but a scientifically correct wording or the legally correct name of a person.
And all this reasoning goes doubly for the Category: It will become useless as people will most certainly throw everything "Lawrence" into it without thinking twice.
Best Regards --
BjKa (
talk)
09:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the help--this is really an interpersonal quarrel between the 2 editors involved, quite apart from their diametrically opposed view on all aspects of notability. There is I think already an interaction ban, &, as frequently occurs with such bans, they both try to circumvent it by doing things they know will upset the other party. I cannot take direct action, except to try to keep them from snother ani where they will very likely both be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I was digging into your contributions and logs for a while, and I really feel we need admins like you. Would you accept a nomination? -- Kostas20142 ( talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See
Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From
WP:NPPAFC.
Opt-out. Sent by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
.
Hello Tony, I am responding to your request for speedy deletion as I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh in your judgement. As a student, and a new member of the Wikipedia community, my only intention with creating the page was to spread knowledge about an Information and Access Management software, I study these types of software in depth at my university in the Masters level and was surprised to find that a software that has received many patents and works with some of the most well established telecommunications operators in the world was not listed on the Wikipedia space. I am asking that in good faith you please remove this request, and rather mark it for clean up, and allow me to review what you believe to be promotional. On the premise of sharing knowledge, I would like to know what you believe to be promotional or inflammatory, and adjust the work rather than just scrapping it and having it deleted. As a new user, and this being my first contribution to the community, I would like to have a learning opportunity rather than just be told what I was done is wrong. Please allow me to make adjusts me to the page in a clean up manner, rather than just telling me it is simply not good enough to meet your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvedd-paddick ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Jim, I think you missed my strike above: the IP has a consistent but odd contribution history of making both necessary and unnecessary changes to wikilinks, so it might not be a sock. When I first pinged you I was on mobile so I didn't notice. The odd cosmetic editing could be considered disruptive in some circumstances, though. Re: the block of the account and the deletion: the editor is likely NOTHERE and I agree with G11, but thought I should point out oddities with that IP, though. Thanks for all your help on this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I hope this ends up in the right place. I am not very technology minded, with a paint brush I have confidence but with a computer not so much. I was contacted by a writer about 6 months ago, he was writing an article about me and needed information and asked if he could use some of my work. I said yes, and I thought that was that. Later, he said I needed to personally join wiki and add my pictures and give my consent to usage. I did and I thought that that was that. Then I got another message that they were being deleted and I had to prove that my paintings were mine so i spoke with someone from wiki online and they told me it would be better to send them from the email address on my website along with pictures of myself that also appeared in the mass media at the same time to prove that I was in fact Adam Cooley. Everything was fine until, Then I got another message that they were up for deletion, again. I just finished contacting wiki on live chat and they sent me a link to a program which would generate the copyright license agreement. They told me everything should be fine...but i dont want to have to do this again. This is like reverse catfish. So if you have any suggestions as to how i can prove that i am Adam Cooley, and that I did paint all of my paintings please let me know.
here are my contributions:
File:The Suckling Pig by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:The Dream Machine by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Banana hands by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 1 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Masa and the Horse by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 2 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Cooking Dinner for the Little Lady by artist Adam Cooley.jpg
they are all on my website, in my book, on my facebook, instagram, gallery listings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aciam888 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, I'm not sure what the talk conversation about this refers to. Could you link that to the right page? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Checklist. I messed up the ping --
There'sNoTime (
to explain)
09:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Tony,
Jytdog has suggested via my talk page that I am unsuitable to continue patrolling new pages. Although I do not understand the logic behind his reasoning for this, I am not interested in questioning it either. It was a great learning experience being a group member, and was glad to volunteer my time to help keep that backlog down. But unsuitable is unsuitable. I doubt I shall ever use the right again at this point, even if I am not formally dropped from the group, so maybe this is just as well? "Not even the appearance of impropriety." I am doing the best I can, and it seems this is part of it. Cheers! KDS4444 ( talk) Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
What does this edit-history tell us? — fortuna velut luna 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I feel a bit unsafe making edits about the recently deceased person we're talking about, because I sometimes do some traveling in the region. (Nervous smile.) - Alternativity ( talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!
Ideal users are:
We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you took part in resolving several issues regarding Catholicism. Recently, some of those issues and discussions have been reopened on the page Talk:Catholicism (term), and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino ( talk) 14:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Papal conclave, 1669–70 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
Display name 99 --
Display name 99 (
talk)
21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
User TonyBallioni,
Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Emil_Bashkansky. I hope this clears things up. 63784563583073562973A ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony,
I received your notification the proposed deletion of ZeroTier page. The page was deleted too.
ZeroTier is an app that delivers VPN, SDN, and SD-WAN capabilities for computer networking. It allows users to connect laptops, desktops, phones, embedded devices, cloud resources, and apps (almost any kind of device or application), any way they want anywhere they go. ZeroTier's technology is free and open source.
ZeroTier Inc. is the company that has developed ZeroTier - along with other solutions.
We would like to know if it's possible for us to have a Wikipedia Page - either for the app/software or for the company - or if it is just not allowed at all.
If you can give us your advice or help us with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding our issue it would be great. It will also prevent any other content from being marked for deletion again.
Thank you for your help.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Geraldina.scarascia (
talk •
contribs)
00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Re: request for deletion of the wiki page for Al-Shabaka Al-Shabaka,_The_Palestinian_Policy_Network. Can you clarify the concern on notability? It seems that the think tank is cited or referenced in numerous media articles, scholarly journals, books, etc. Some of these were referenced in sections that you have deleted. Is it a formatting issue or something problematic with the references themselves? Would like to keep this up, if possible and if its an editing issue. Thanks 12.130.117.108 ( talk) 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I read your comments and agree that many of the sources were self promotion. However, he is a C-Level Executive at LegalShield and is listen on their Wiki page. His publications are noteworthy including the American Bar Association. I believe with the edits in place now that our guidelines are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi KDS4444, I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to remove permissions.
That's too bad, Tony, but it's
fixable. You certainly belong to the category "oh I thought he was already an admin". 16k edits, over a year of recent activity, article creation, civility record, policy pages... you're the
kind of user that every wiki would like for an admin. What do you say?
No such user (
talk)
12:22, 11 September 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi,
It seems like the ACTRIAL discussion is going on at five different locations now. I've drawn together what conclusions I can but information at different locations contradicts or at last predates information at new locations. As you and Kudpung are more in-tune with the whole business, I just thought I'd check if I'd missed anything: my current understanding is that the WMF is doing something Phabricator-related but I'm not sure if that's the latest on the progress.
Thanks,
DrStrauss talk 13:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion template from Gene Freidman. It looks like the article started out as a paid puff piece, but I have improved it since then. Unfortunately for Freidman, almost all of the coverage in reliable sources is negative. I actually left out a fair amount because there seem to be so many lawsuits and complaints against him. Sometimes being neutral means that an article will be negative. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Tony, something to add to your armoury of arguments for G5 and to quote , especially when the tags have been removed by inexperienced users: As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. One doesn't argue lightly with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)
I've replied to World's Lamest Critic's post on my tp. Despite your excellent explanation above, he still just does not appear to get it. I hope he's not going to be so persistent as to train wreck the serious investigations that are on-going. I've suggested he find something simpler to do until he finds his feet proper. I would hate to have to put such a keen new user under sanctions to prevent any disruption. (t.i.c). I'd rather he left the problem to experienced editors than become part of the problem himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever talked directly, but I've always found your commentary on various talk pages or debates to be well-reasoned and helpful. It's nice to know the feeling was reciprocated :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. And a little more independent from the sources we write about. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC) |
I'm taking this here because I don't want to "badger" you in any way, I just wanted a clarification. In your !vote you wrote that you view my answer to your Q18 as an improper weighting of things near the end and an assumption that people who supported at first are incapable of changing their mind
. I don't think that fits my answer really because my example was one in which the supporters were capable of changing their minds but simply unable to do so because they did not get the necessary information that would definitely have changed their minds in time (because they were offline or didn't check the RfA again). Of course a crat shouldn't presume that people able to change their !vote were not capable of doing so but that was not what I thought I was saying and certainly not what I meant to say. I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like a more detailed explanation (if possible) why you think in this extreme example crats shouldn't be allowed to assume that supporters would have switched if they had the chance to do so. Regards
So
Why
18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy seems to assume that all editors who supported early on would change their minds given damaging information and that since they are incapable of doing it because of time, its fine to weight their !vote less on this assumption.If that seems better, I would be more than happy to strike and rephrase. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Just dropping in to say a) thanks for helping kick-start WP:ACTRIAL again; I don't really have much to say other than I hope it all works and b) you and FIM should be admins. If you don't ask for the bit, Mr. Fuzzybottom will come looking and forcibly give it to you ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I couldn't find the template used for the NPP newsletter, but if you have access, could you please change "<hr>" to "<hr />", as the lack of the endtag means that edit coloration continues on. Thanks, ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 11:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi- I just want to make sure I'm not out of line on discussing the Panzer Ace renaming- I actually am working on an edit of the "Dog" page and I don't want trouble. How does this process work? Is the discussion on the page of the "Panzer Ace" article? Thanks for your help- Jeff T. Makumbe ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Also- If I put in * Support can I still make comments or suggestions on the page? Or should I wait? Can I still make suggestions for edits on the page or should I start those in a new section? Thanks, Jeff T Makumbe ( talk) 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help- JT Makumbe ( talk) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Do whatever you think is appropriate as per terms and conditions but just let me know what exactly made you tag this article for deletion ...and then i may contest or do something about it Dashing2002 ( talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, Thanks a lot for the explanation, i think you are right at the moment ....it was due to mere ignorance and nothing else....thus i admit and appreciate the action.......next time i would surely keep in mind both aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashing2002 ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tony, thanks for your contribution. I am not paid to edit, I take a interest in lgbt and community work in the United Kingdom and only edit or submit new articles which are able to be accurately sourced and verifiable and also in the public interest of relating to an issue of public discussion . Much appreciation to you! MIRANDAScoCIS ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kudpung, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Doc James, and Rentier: and any others watching who care: We now have edit filter 867 for large initial creations by non-extended confirmed users. We're still trying to define what "large" is. The goal being to catch the most in the filter while not overwhelming it with too many creations. Thoughts on that would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Large_creations_in_single_edit_by_inexperienced_users TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You marked the page we made for our company as a candidate for speedy deletion. We had modeled the page off of other similar companies within our market segment and want to get any advice for making the page a useful part of Wikipedia. Any changes we would have to make to get the article up to the standards for a page we can take care of. We understand the conflict of interest issue, is this unavoidable entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberextruder ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you removed a section of UFO Kidnapped, that I re-added and yet it has been removed again. I think that this section should be included because even though it not have the information is important for the article. There are lots of articles that do not yet quote sources, but still cite their info, so I think it should still be on the page. I am trying to hire someone to make some YouTube videos comparing both YCDTOTV and UFO Kidnapped, that will show scenes from both shows, but I haven't found anyone yet to do it, and I do not yet know how to do it by myself. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I disagree with this RM closure you made at Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)#Requested move 15 April 2017. There seems to be more support votes than opposes and your rationale "!votes supporting moving do not address the stylization points raised by those opposing, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are relatively weak" doesn't seem convincing since the oppose votes are basically calling it stylization but that's obviously not true since the dot is part of the title. Removing the dot changes the title and that's the same as changing " Michael Jackson" to " George Washington" (not the same in significance but the same in policy). — The Magnificentist 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The Magnificentist 12:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and pointing out problems with the article.
Trowdad ( talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we both managed to file an SPI report on the same person at the same time! [2] My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tony, Regarding the move of the article "Lawrence of Rome" to "Saint Lawrence", I certainly agree with all the reasoning, regarding
But please also consider this: Similarly to what you said: "moving this title to Lawrence would be out of the question", I also find the move to "Saint Lawrence" very unfortunate. The problem is that there are so many other Saint Lawrences, that I can guarantee you total chaos will follow. People will attribute everything "Lawrence" to this "Saint Lawrence" without checking if this actually the right saint. You might be able to oversee what gets written in the saint's article, but I wouldn't want to check for every link created to it. This is where "Lawrence of Rome" is clearly superior: It makes people stop and think about it.
I see it much in the same way as the many, many other lemmas that do not reflect the wording most readers will be looking for, but a scientifically correct wording or the legally correct name of a person.
And all this reasoning goes doubly for the Category: It will become useless as people will most certainly throw everything "Lawrence" into it without thinking twice.
Best Regards --
BjKa (
talk)
09:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the help--this is really an interpersonal quarrel between the 2 editors involved, quite apart from their diametrically opposed view on all aspects of notability. There is I think already an interaction ban, &, as frequently occurs with such bans, they both try to circumvent it by doing things they know will upset the other party. I cannot take direct action, except to try to keep them from snother ani where they will very likely both be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I was digging into your contributions and logs for a while, and I really feel we need admins like you. Would you accept a nomination? -- Kostas20142 ( talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See
Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From
WP:NPPAFC.
Opt-out. Sent by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
.
Hello Tony, I am responding to your request for speedy deletion as I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh in your judgement. As a student, and a new member of the Wikipedia community, my only intention with creating the page was to spread knowledge about an Information and Access Management software, I study these types of software in depth at my university in the Masters level and was surprised to find that a software that has received many patents and works with some of the most well established telecommunications operators in the world was not listed on the Wikipedia space. I am asking that in good faith you please remove this request, and rather mark it for clean up, and allow me to review what you believe to be promotional. On the premise of sharing knowledge, I would like to know what you believe to be promotional or inflammatory, and adjust the work rather than just scrapping it and having it deleted. As a new user, and this being my first contribution to the community, I would like to have a learning opportunity rather than just be told what I was done is wrong. Please allow me to make adjusts me to the page in a clean up manner, rather than just telling me it is simply not good enough to meet your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvedd-paddick ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Jim, I think you missed my strike above: the IP has a consistent but odd contribution history of making both necessary and unnecessary changes to wikilinks, so it might not be a sock. When I first pinged you I was on mobile so I didn't notice. The odd cosmetic editing could be considered disruptive in some circumstances, though. Re: the block of the account and the deletion: the editor is likely NOTHERE and I agree with G11, but thought I should point out oddities with that IP, though. Thanks for all your help on this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I hope this ends up in the right place. I am not very technology minded, with a paint brush I have confidence but with a computer not so much. I was contacted by a writer about 6 months ago, he was writing an article about me and needed information and asked if he could use some of my work. I said yes, and I thought that was that. Later, he said I needed to personally join wiki and add my pictures and give my consent to usage. I did and I thought that that was that. Then I got another message that they were being deleted and I had to prove that my paintings were mine so i spoke with someone from wiki online and they told me it would be better to send them from the email address on my website along with pictures of myself that also appeared in the mass media at the same time to prove that I was in fact Adam Cooley. Everything was fine until, Then I got another message that they were up for deletion, again. I just finished contacting wiki on live chat and they sent me a link to a program which would generate the copyright license agreement. They told me everything should be fine...but i dont want to have to do this again. This is like reverse catfish. So if you have any suggestions as to how i can prove that i am Adam Cooley, and that I did paint all of my paintings please let me know.
here are my contributions:
File:The Suckling Pig by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:The Dream Machine by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Banana hands by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 1 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Masa and the Horse by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 2 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Cooking Dinner for the Little Lady by artist Adam Cooley.jpg
they are all on my website, in my book, on my facebook, instagram, gallery listings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aciam888 ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, I'm not sure what the talk conversation about this refers to. Could you link that to the right page? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Checklist. I messed up the ping --
There'sNoTime (
to explain)
09:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Tony,
Jytdog has suggested via my talk page that I am unsuitable to continue patrolling new pages. Although I do not understand the logic behind his reasoning for this, I am not interested in questioning it either. It was a great learning experience being a group member, and was glad to volunteer my time to help keep that backlog down. But unsuitable is unsuitable. I doubt I shall ever use the right again at this point, even if I am not formally dropped from the group, so maybe this is just as well? "Not even the appearance of impropriety." I am doing the best I can, and it seems this is part of it. Cheers! KDS4444 ( talk) Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
What does this edit-history tell us? — fortuna velut luna 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I feel a bit unsafe making edits about the recently deceased person we're talking about, because I sometimes do some traveling in the region. (Nervous smile.) - Alternativity ( talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!
Ideal users are:
We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you took part in resolving several issues regarding Catholicism. Recently, some of those issues and discussions have been reopened on the page Talk:Catholicism (term), and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino ( talk) 14:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Papal conclave, 1669–70 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
Display name 99 --
Display name 99 (
talk)
21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
User TonyBallioni,
Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Emil_Bashkansky. I hope this clears things up. 63784563583073562973A ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony,
I received your notification the proposed deletion of ZeroTier page. The page was deleted too.
ZeroTier is an app that delivers VPN, SDN, and SD-WAN capabilities for computer networking. It allows users to connect laptops, desktops, phones, embedded devices, cloud resources, and apps (almost any kind of device or application), any way they want anywhere they go. ZeroTier's technology is free and open source.
ZeroTier Inc. is the company that has developed ZeroTier - along with other solutions.
We would like to know if it's possible for us to have a Wikipedia Page - either for the app/software or for the company - or if it is just not allowed at all.
If you can give us your advice or help us with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding our issue it would be great. It will also prevent any other content from being marked for deletion again.
Thank you for your help.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Geraldina.scarascia (
talk •
contribs)
00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Re: request for deletion of the wiki page for Al-Shabaka Al-Shabaka,_The_Palestinian_Policy_Network. Can you clarify the concern on notability? It seems that the think tank is cited or referenced in numerous media articles, scholarly journals, books, etc. Some of these were referenced in sections that you have deleted. Is it a formatting issue or something problematic with the references themselves? Would like to keep this up, if possible and if its an editing issue. Thanks 12.130.117.108 ( talk) 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I read your comments and agree that many of the sources were self promotion. However, he is a C-Level Executive at LegalShield and is listen on their Wiki page. His publications are noteworthy including the American Bar Association. I believe with the edits in place now that our guidelines are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi KDS4444, I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to remove permissions.
That's too bad, Tony, but it's
fixable. You certainly belong to the category "oh I thought he was already an admin". 16k edits, over a year of recent activity, article creation, civility record, policy pages... you're the
kind of user that every wiki would like for an admin. What do you say?
No such user (
talk)
12:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)