This page 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.

Hi, since this is the second time that Polina Kuklina was up for deletion and was kept, it won't be up for deletion again will it? Isn't twice the most that an article can be nominated for deletion? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart. The AfD was closed as "no consensus." In such cases there is no prejudice against renominating, although it is customary to wait a reasonable period of time. Even in cases where an AfD ends with a "keep" it is not unknown for the page to be renominated. Although in such cases any renomination that is seen as too close to the last AfD may end up being speedily closed. CONSENSUS can change over time. Also sometimes guidelines have changed in a manner that impacts articles that may have survived earlier AfDs. In this case I would discourage any speedy renomination. I think we need to let the dust settle and see how the article develops before heading back to AfD. Courtesy ping Trillfendi. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The article won’t develop. It hasn’t for 9 years. Trillfendi ( talk) 04:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

List of European saints (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I still feel a need to delete almost all of the content on this list. Much of it fails verification. Are you sure that the arguments support a keep? Could I just redirect this to List of saints? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi power~enwiki. The subject is certainly notable. The quality of the list is another matter. You can selectively delete unsourced material and or propose a merge based on the list being a content fork that has too few verifiable entries for a stand alone list. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, only three entries have inline references, and two of those are redlinks. I can't reasonably delete everything else, though the verification failures are frequent enough I think I should. I've proposed blowing it up to a Lists of European saints; if I can't find some consensus to fix/redirect it I'll probably AFD it again or DRV it - it is that bad. I've also pinged @ TonyBallioni: to try to help. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Asking Tony for a 2nd opinion is a good idea. I will take another look and see what can be done. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've sent you an email; MaranoFan and I have agreed on several things. Ss 112 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Great news! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that some kidnapping are listed on the list of people who have disappeared, yet some are not. Is that because they were not witnessed or because they weren't missing for too long? The Lists of people who disappeared, is now broken into a few different sections, which two are called the list of people who have disappeared "mysteriously" pre and post 1970, yet I'm not quite if that should include kidnappings. What are your thoughts on this? By the way you are a Wikipedia administrator aren't you. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart. There is no formal guideline that covers this that I am aware of. Which means it is basically a content dispute. In these situations a discussion should be opened if that has not already happened and WP:CONSENSUS sought. You may want to try to get additional input from editors not watching the page by creating a Request for Comment. And yes, I am an admin but that doesn't really mean much other than that I have a few extra tools useful for routine maintenance and upkeep of the project. Being an admin doesn't give my opinion any more weight when discussing issues like this that revolve around what we want included in an article. I hope this helps. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO, I don't know if a case of this has ever been reported to you, but there's a recurring vandal user who is obsessed with adding their name (Robin Weisse) to various popular song articles to pretend they wrote them. Their accounts have all been blocked. They're back using Treatitro. Ss 112 17:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you closed Gharaibeh as delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharaibeh but was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jovanmilic97. I'm not sure what happened there. It looks like the talk page got zapped but for whatever reason the article did not. XfD Closer must have had a glitch. In any event, it's gone now. Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, nice to meet you. i wrote SaQi wikipedia article. i will be glad to follow your advice.

I saw some of your colleague make mistake about saqi sax player and saqi trumpet player in there research. /info/en/?search=SaQi

The link about the source they added are wrong, they added link about a saqi play trumpet. My wikipedia article its about about a saxophonist play smooth jazz.

please let me know your opinion. best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

   @CLAIREYUAN2010: I looked through the page history and couldn't find any edits that mentioned trumpet. – Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Athaenara: Hello thank you for your answer when you open the SaQi'Wikipedia page /info/en/?search=SaQi The first post about: (with the red color) : This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Etc......

this post talk about some sources are not related to my article. the last line of the first post: Find sources: "SaQi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR. All this link its about other saqi, first link SaQi youtube, he is a trumpet player, second link "news" its about a saqi's in japan. the saxplayer is french the one in the link from an arabic country. the link "newspaper also talk about other artist but nothing related to my article.

let me know more details to understand what i did wrong thank you. --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

   @CLAIREYUAN2010: That's a Template:Find sources link. It's part of Template:Article for deletion/dated and doesn't add content to the page. – Athaenara ✉ 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Athaenara:

Find sources: "SaQi" : link to SaQi trumpet player : https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22SaQi%22&num=50 – news : link to a SaQi live in Japan : https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22SaQi%22+-wikipedia All the links in this template dont talk about the SaQi in my article, please explain me why ? i would like to find the good way and fix it. Best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

   @CLAIREYUAN2010: Wikipedia editors have no control over what Google does. Any internet user can narrow a search by writing their own more specific search strings, including saxophone and excluding trumpet for example. – Athaenara ✉ 12:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Athaenara: Thank you for your answer. I understand, but why your colleage add this link if its not related to my wikipedia article ? best regard --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

   @CLAIREYUAN2010: To repeat: {{
Find sources}} is part of {{
Article for deletion/dated}}. Questions about it could be posted on Template talk:Article for deletion/dated or Template talk:Find sources. – Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Athaenara: Thank you. i will ask on the template talk. Best regard. --CLAIREYUAN2010 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi CLAIREYUAN2010. The article was deleted per the consensus at this discussion. If you are planning to create a new article of the same name, please do so as a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to WP:AfC for review. Also kindly note on the talk page that an article with the same name has previously been deleted and link the above cited AfD discussion. If you recreate the page and it is substantially the same as the one just deleted, it is likely to be speedily deleted per WP:G4. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Ad Orientem ( talk), I noticed that you have deleted the Article Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal on February 09, 2019. While I highly appreciate your efforts to maintain "the quality and keep the crap out," I was surely surprised that the article was deleted after being on Wikipedia for 5 years. I am sure you know that the article was created by me in 2014 and at the time, when it was nominated for a deletion (because being a beginner, I hadn't been able to provide a reference immediately), the result of the committee was a no consensus after I had provided credible references and the article was allowed to exist on Wikipedia. All the controversy over the article started when a few days ago, I tried linking some of the books of the subject of the article i.e., Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal, to some pages/articles that were relevant to his books/publications in their respective Further Reading Sections even tough some pages/articles already listed his books in the said section. Immediately those Edits were reverted but User:Pepperbeast while editing Mr Iqbal's article, deleted the section Publications that listed about 59 publications of the subject (i.e. Mr Iqbal) which deprived the readers of the information that the subject is actually known for in the academic circles world over. When another user requested Mr Beast to revert that particular Edit only, Mr Beast initiated a Sockpuppet investigation against me, accusing me of operation two (or even more) accounts. He also was the one who immediately put the AfD tag on the top of the article.

While reading the article for deletion page, I was surprised to read that User:Pepperbeast and User:AhmadLX have misled the members who participated in the debate to delete the article and I would certainly like to make them clear for you:

Firstly, Mr Beast has said that the subject is non-notable. In fact, the subject "is considered an authority on Saudi Arabia and Middle-East affairs." Secondly, he misled others by stating that this was "only an act of self-promotion by a now-banned user." This is totally absurd as Mr Beast cleary was aware that a user had banned me only because of a misunderstanding that I and the Mr Iqbal were the same person because of some similarity between my username and Mr Iqbal's name. When I proved to the user that the case was otherwise, my account was unblocked, but, I was asked not to edit Mr Iqbal's article and change my username.

User:AhmadLX has himself accepted that Google Books return many results about the author. Some of them can be viewed here. However, Mr AhmadLX has also misreported that there is only one news report mention of the subject, when there are at least more that a dozen (I can list them if required). He has also claimed that "one sources used is actually a letter to the editor of a newspaper." I challenge him to produce the evidence for it. He has also mentioned that the article was created by the subject himself. Again, I challenge him to prove his claim.

Coming to the notability of the subject, the subject is the first person to write on the creation of the modern Saudi Arabia in English language (in 1963). The subject has authored about 59 publications on subjects like history, Islamic Studies, Middle-East, Pakistan, India, Kashmir Dispute, etc. He has been a close aide of President Richard Nixon, King Faisal, President Zia-ul-Haq and worked with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, etc. He also has been a teacher of and influenced notable authors like Mohammad Ishaq Khan and Z. G. Muhammad. I can go on and on but most of the information about the subject was written in the article itself, which was unfortunately deleted. Before User:Pepperbeast deleted the Publications section of the article, there were about 92 credible references provided to back up the contents of the article.

In the light of the above information, I request you to review your decision and bring the said deleted article back. In the article's Talk Page, users, including me, had already invited other users to correct the article and also remove if there were any contents in it that didn't comply with the Wikipedia guidelines about biography of living persons. I also would do my best to do the same. Since I was asked not to edit the article "for the time-being," I had refrained from correcting the article. -- Lutfy Jahan ( talk) 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Lutfy Jahan. The discussion was open for a full week. Three experienced editors agreed it should be deleted and they made cogent arguments based on Policy and Guidelines. I regret that your response above does not refute the concerns raised in the discussion. At this point you have three courses of action available to you. The first is to accept the verdict of the community and move on. The second is to appeal my closure at WP:DRV. Though I must advise you that in my opinion as an experienced editor there is no realistic chance of that succeeding as the only matter that would be considered is whether or not I correctly interpreted the consensus in the discussion. Your third option is to recreate the article, taking great care to remedy the issues identified in the AfD discussion. If you choose this course, I advise you to create the page as a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to WP:AfC for review. Be sure to include a note on the talk page to the effect that the page had been previously deleted along with a link to the AfD discussion. This process would hopefully shield your page from being speedily deleted per WP:G4. There is no guarantee of success there but I believe it is the only course that gives any chance of restoring an article on this subject. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oberlin Academy Preparatory School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Drover's Wife. I will take a look at this in a little bit as there is a bunch of stuff on my plate at the moment. But I don't recall any discussion over this before the DRV. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a discussion that was exactly split between "merge" and "keep" and you closed it as "keep" with no explanation. You had to know that was going to be a controversial close. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted following review. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Faizan Ul Haq. Can you please also take care of 2 other similar promo stuffs from the same user. I have already marked it with CSD tags. Draft:Mohammedfaizanulhaq and User:Mohammedfaizanulhaq/sandbox-- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been handled. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed block evasion, it's Cow Cleaner 5000. Just thought I'd clear that up, if you were wondering. ^{[ Username Needed} 20:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony J. Hilder (2nd nomination)

I wonder if you might reconsider closing this as keep (which would certainly avoid doing it all over again).

My rationale is that there were only three delete votes, relatively early in the dicussion. All of these pointed to the lack of reliable sources. Later in the discussion, further sources were found, the rest of the votes were keep, and none of these were challenged by anyone arguing for delete.

I believe even the sources I found are, on their own, sufficient to satisfy the concerns raised by all the delete arguments. So this should really be considered an AfD of two halves, and after sources were added, no one argued for delete.

What would a consensus look like to you in these cirucmstances? Do all the delete voters need to come back and change their vote?-- Pontificalibus 08:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but after slogging through that mess for the third time, I am still not convinced we have a consensus. But I will invite a couple of other admins whose judgement I trust to take a look and give a second opinion. If they think it's a keep I will modify the close accordingly. Ping Oshwah and TonyBallioni. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - The "delete" votes say that the sources don't add up to the user being notable, the "keep" votes say that they do. The discussion input that I viewed as the most in-depth was made by an editor whose made major and significant contributions to the article over an extended period of time (so, of course they're going to try and argue keeping it). Boiling the discussion down to the number of votes on each side and the overall arguments stated within them (which are pretty much equal and the same), I also agree that the discussion has reached no consensus. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The delete votes were made prior to sufficient sources being found. If you read the discussion only from the first relisting it's a unanimous keep.-- Pontificalibus 06:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Just when I thought we'd seen the back of them... 79.41.67.185 Geolocates to Italy, back on Ava Max and Cardi B articles. Ss 112 14:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A periodically active user has created uncited pages with the same name, which I suspect is his own, and has vandalized the List of French monarchs article. – Conservatrix ( talk) 20:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User warned and page tagged for speedy deletion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And now blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What do WP rules say about advertising a book of Fictional Biography that is not even in English on the main page of an article of English Wikipedia?

Incidentally, doesn't "talk" come immediately after the first insertion and revert? Not after a following re-insertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diligens. Promotion or advertising is a strict no no. Any such material needs to be removed. Articles that are entirely promotional can be deleted. See WP:NOPROMO and WP:G11. Setting aside naked promotion, books are generally judged on the basis of our notability guidelines of which the two most applicable are WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The language the book is written in, as also any cited references, is immaterial. However the body of the article should be in English with some commonsense exceptions granted for well known foreign words or phrases, especially when used as a quote. And yes, when an edit is challenged by reversion, the next stop is usually the talk page. See WP:BRD. I hope this helps. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Using 2A00:23C5:D304:1100:DCC0:7AF:878D:BB65, they've been blocked on countless IPs and are instantly identifiable by that edit summary alone. Editing the article for Ariana's latest single Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored. (Not sure if you know, so that's why the summary) Ss 112 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for advice in handling a source.

Consider the following:

1. An author has about 5 books published in Belgium.

2. One of the books is about a dead person of one-time, momentary fame in the 60's.

3. The author has access to the person's diary that nobody in the world has access to.

4. The author made a claim characterizing the person as being something most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief.

5. The claim in the book does not give any quote from the diary to support it.

6. Attempt to contact the author gives no response.

Questions: Is this considered "verifiable"? Is this considered a "Reliable Source"?

Any further thoughts would be welcome. Diligens ( talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

No. See WP:REDFLAG. Serious claims likely to be of a controversial nature need to be backed by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• After a discussion which was clearly decided, a participant decided to just start a revert war there at The_Singing_Nun. What's the procedure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"The author made a claim characterizing the person as being something most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief." In the case of the Singing Nun the author made a claim characterizing Deckers as lesbian. I have deep concerns about neutrality if an editor is starting from a personal view that homosexuality is "something most of the world considers despicable" - as if it is not therefore worthy of coverage or validity in a secular encyclopaedia in the same way as any other biographical detail. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The ONLY basis for resolving content disputes are The Rules and WP:CONSENSUS. We do not traffic in moral judgements. The discussion on the article talk page is veering dangerously off track. I suggest everyone refocus. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why it's important that we avoid inflammatory and non-neutral language like "despicable" which do imply moral judgements. Contaldo80 ( talk) 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur. That word carries a negative connotation and should be avoided. In such circumstances the word "controversial" is typically a good choice if discussing aspects of someone's personal life that might provoke conflicting reactions. People's sexual lives are often treated as controversial and this is reflected in some of our guidelines. Stick to the guidelines and that will resolve 80-90% of disagreements. The rest can be handled through calm and civil discussion keeping in mind that we are all on the same team. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I normally agree also, but this was a freak circumstance where someone else actually stated that it was not "controversial" in the world, when it clearly is. This is the point at which I was forced to explain what controversy means. It is a fact that controversial subjects involve one side thinking something is good and the other side thinking it is rotten. They were free to express which side they were on, and I am free to express which side I am on. The word "despicable", however, was directed only to the Admin on HIS talk page, but those with whom I was discussing followed me over here, took it and brought it back to the article's talk page to take things off track. Diligens ( talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Hi AO. I'm quite baffled by the behaviour of the new editor GUMBALL2004. They hardly ever explain their edits around Ariana Grande topics (specifically her discography), especially their indirect reverts/changes to content. I began by asking them on the page then began warning them on their talk page to stop reverting content in this way, but they have barely taken any notice. They don't appear to have contributed to or even started any discussion regarding their disputed edits. They removed a note on the article two or three times without explanation, which was there to prevent editors changing a chart position mistakenly, and now they've taken to repeating a ref name seven more times than is necessary (when it was fine to stay once at the top of the column). I have no idea what they're up to other than making strange, WP:OWN-like edits for the sake of it. Can you maybe drop them a line to take note of WP:BRD/talk page messages left for them? I'm about out of patience today... Ss 112 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I smell a sock. Passing this on to a CU. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112 Confirmed and indeffed by Bbb23. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even think about that. Thanks! Ss 112 04:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor have been blocked twice by Oshwah and MSGJ for edit warring and now they are doing again in Watching Movies with the Sound Off [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: No response to the fact that the user who reported me has done three reverts as well as pointed out? Nice4What ( talk) 01:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, had to step away fro a few minutes. I have replied on your talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

He's right about the NFCC violation, you know - and that's a valid exception to WP:3RRNO. Two practically identical album covers don't cut it per WP:NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking at that now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Black Kite: I have remove the second cover off the infobox. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 19:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. It really isn't needed. There are occasions when two alt covers are OK, but they're rare. Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out User:Black Kite. @ TheAmazingPeanuts: I prefer the "clean" cover is in the infobox as I've explained on the talk page. It's for the same reason we use clean covers for many albums, ex: Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) and Thank U, Next amongst many others. Nice4What ( talk) 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion. G5 is eligible. Thanks. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Abelmoschus Esculentus. I hate to be a stickler for procedure but excepting in cases of naked vandalism, copyvios and similar things that just need to be deleted quickly, I generally don't delete pages that haven't been tagged. If you can please tag these for CSD I will be happy to handle the requests. Thanks... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

All tagged. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem,

I hope you are well. I was looking at the deletion log and noticed you had a lot of deletions based on the G5 premise that the pages had been created by a blocked editor but when I looked at a few of them ( Banga Pradesh, Provincial instrument of East Bengal), that doesn't seem to be the case. I see that they are listed in the comment above mine but when I look at the edits, I don't see any banned editors editing these pages. What am I missing here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Liz: They are requested by a banned sock at WP:AFC/R and it's my fault to accept them. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hi Liz. It was somewhat complicated. See the discussion and links directly above. The bottom line is that these were all redirects created via AfC at the request of an IP that was a blocked user. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A couple of people in the AFD had called for Olwen Kelly to be salted. What do you think? -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I did salt it. Look under the deletion log. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, ah OK. Just saw it was for extended confirmation access. I kinda thought it was restricted to admin only so thought you hadn't SALT it as I could have created the article. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The default for creation protection is now extended confirmed. Admins do have the option of restricting creation to syspos, but I am guessing that this is sufficient. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Since I saw you are active on closing AfDs, I want to ask you if this relist on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genie in a String Bikini by Sheldybett was a bad choice or not? Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks premature and barring the arrival of a Keep !vote, I'd likely close it as a delete. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is back using account 2600:1:92AC:C710:570B:C28A:9D09:217. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 13:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again. A dispute between an anonymous editor and myself has erupted on the Archduchess Maria Beatrix of Austria-Este article. Would you arbitrate? – Conservatrix ( talk) 03:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a note in the editing history. If this continues to be an issue let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User was a SOCK of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. – Conservatrix ( talk) 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you open an SPI. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FactStraight picked him off on the Henri, Count of Chambord and Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria-Este (1817–1886) articles. – Conservatrix ( talk) 04:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick IP address swap and he is back: User talk:82.132.242.194. – Conservatrix ( talk) 17:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Jessewaugh canvassing editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice asking them to look at the AfD for Jesse Waugh. It concerns an editor you have a final warning to nearly a year ago who recently edited again. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this has been handled. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, one of the keep !voters on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Arlington mayoral election (Squeaky Rubber Duck) was blocked as a sock master a day before the article was closed but this never got noted on the XfD - would this have affected your close? (None of the keep !votes discussed notability anyways.) Thanks! SportingFlyer T· C 08:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There are still three keep comments all of which cite the same point. When you add in the merge !vote, this is a no consensus. I suggest waiting a month or two and renominate. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest residences in Saudi Arabia as "delete". Could you please restore a copy of the article to my userspace, and I would prefer with the full edit history, so that I may have the material available to add to List of largest residences(?) started during the AFD. I don't understand why you did not judge "merge" or "redirect" would be preferable, but whatever. Argh, maybe I should dispute the close. I dunno. Could you please give me access to the full article with edit history, anyhow, thanks in advance. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ Doncram. See User:Doncram/List of largest residences in Saudi Arabia. Sorry about the deletion but after looking again, I'm afraid that is where consensus was. Your's was the only !vote for a merge. Good luck with your salvage operation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Using 152.208.57.111. I honestly forget how many times this user has been blocked. Ss 112 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Warned user This IP has not been blocked before and the last warnings were stale. There are a lot of IP/vandals that add bogus claims. If you think this is one of them, let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, I know they haven't been blocked using that IP. They're an IP address that has been blocked before using different addresses—they habitually add unsourced personnel sections to country artists' album articles. Ss 112 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Unfortunately they haven't edited in well over 12 hrs which is stale for blocking purposes. Let me know if they start again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Also, a bit of background on an unrelated matter: There's a user who's been here since 2007, has 8,000 or so edits but has now been blocked three times for adding hoax material, unsourced or poorly sourced material, and when called out for it, edit wars and abuses the editor they've been reverted by, writes literal walls of text going off at admins ("f**king" this, "F**KING" that—their censorship, not mine) in their unblock requests, and has apparently sent harassment via email, etc. I assume they'll be permanently blocked at some point in the near future, but as for now they're still around. They haven't edited in a few days, but last time they did, they apparently dug up the history of an article from 12 years ago to harass an editor they've had conflicts with and change a bunch of material on an article the editor has worked on. Not long before that, they were back adding unsourced material to music articles despite being previously blocked for this. They are truly something else. They claim they can recite recording dates of songs and albums and have "pinpointed" events in and timelines of artists' lives—and expect admins and other users to take them at their word when called out for it, going on and on about how it's just "common sense" and they don't need references. It sounds literally crazy, obsessive, unhealthy, and like the ramblings of an unstable person but...that's neither here nor there. So what is typically the next period of time a user is blocked for after their last block was for one month? Or does it depend on how severe the problem is? Ss 112 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of variables, though in the end it is usually a judgement call unless its being handed down by ARBCOM or at ANI. In general a pattern of nakedly disruptive editing that continues after multiple blocks would get an indef from me. But again, it all depends on the circumstances. In any event, it sounds like there are enough admins involved that jumping into that would not be helpful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha don't worry, I wasn't about to ask you to get involved. I would seriously hesitate before inviting anybody, even an admin, to associate with them. Moreso than any other editor I've ever said it about, I am certain they will end up indefinitely blocked because their problems are far too numerous, habitual and recurring. None of their blocks has even slightly curbed their behaviour. It seems to just hardens their position. Combined with the casual additions of unsourced information it's a recipe for assured disaster. Ss 112 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• The IP resumed editing later yesterday, and has continued adding unsourced material today. Ss 112 22:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nb. for you. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I was wondering why you think you are being "trapped in the wrong century" as a classical conservative? FYI, I am a deletionist here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 00:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Because Western Civilization has been in a general decline since 1789 and IMO that decline became terminal in 1914. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. It's almost impossible to find anyone today who embraces monarchy in the West. However, if you were given the chance, would you choose to be part of the Middle East? Even though they have a lot of cultural differences, they follow the same history norms of the West. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No. My support for monarchism is in the context of Western Civilization including its culture and religious heritage. Though I do have a certain respect for those non-Western monarchies that have somehow survived into the modern world. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO they are 100 years behind, especially if you look at their women's rights. I think they won't be able to survive any longer though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the popular take. However I am not a subscriber to the Whig theory of history. History, and I admit to having no more than ten thousand years to invoke, suggests that democracy, when and where tried, always fails over time with the rise of demagogues, the cheapening of the franchise and the eventual realization by the majority that they can plunder the public treasury (i.e. the minority) at will. Democracy has often been likened to two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting. Even though I don't fully support your ideals (perhaps as a consequence of ignorance), I respect them. They seems to have a lot of parallels with Socrates's take on democracy and J.R.R Tolkien's philosophy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 22:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Would you mind revisiting/taking a deeper look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennings International School? I don't think a "no consensus" is a way to go here, especially with one of the keep votes using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as argument ("secondary schools are notable" which is not valid anymore since 2017 and therefore has no ground) while saying the sources he found are not indepth which points to WP:NSCHOOL requiring that. I considered to open a deletion review for it, but thought to discuss with you here first of course. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 13:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I am going to reverse my close and reclose it as a delete. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Same thing happened here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexicon International School Kandy from the same user but I completely agree with your closure there (including the fact a delete vote violated WP:JUSTAVOTE, a discussion was a pure mess all around). Thank you for the fast reply and action! Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 22:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Using Xfrancescosus. While it appears they registered in April 2018, I'm sure users like this have plenty of registered accounts that they suddenly remember that they own. They haven't edited since then, and have gone back to editing List of awards and nominations received by... articles, like List of awards and nominations received by Zara Larsson, List of awards and nominations received by Arctic Monkeys, and of course Ava Max, and requesting another user update her charts because they can't edit Sweet but Psycho. And of course, one of their previous accounts had "Frances" in the name as well. Very telltale. Ss 112 16:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed by Ponyo (thanks!). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am kindly asking you to interfere to the Vladimir Plahotniuc page, editing conflict, where the Wiki policies rules are enfriged by AlberPenfold. I am requesting to remove the page protection by the time when the dispute be solved. -- Jeremydas ( talk) 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No change in protection level is warranted at this time. Take any disagreement to the talk page and seek consensus. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate if I could understand better regarding the addition of subtitles to break-up a lengthy block of text. To help guide the reader, I have added subtitles that do not appear to be controversial are clearly marked as accusations to avoid giving the false impression that the subject has been convicted or to provide guild by association with the words. Nevertheless, Jeremydas insists on deleting the subtitles without offering any alternatives and refuses to engage in a dialogue about this issue. I appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thank you. -- AlberPenfold ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion is still continuing. Now he is taking interest in the on-going conflicts between Pakistan and India as 5.21.246.31 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Is there any possibility of range block? Orientls ( talk) 04:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

Hey AO, looks like the user Richarddo1442 can't comprehend BRD or requests to take their reverted edit to the talk page of Talk (Khalid song). Could you please advise them on such before they break 3RR? I'm sick of it already, this edit has been restored to the edit by several different editors now and it needs to be discussed. Thanks. Ss 112 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

They also seem to think striking through other users' comments is appropriate, instead of removing them outright: [4]. Ss 112 06:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, they abated and said they "didn't plan to make any more than 2 reverts"(?). Will let you know if the behaviour resumes... Ss 112 11:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I got through to this editor. If you get the time, would you be able explain to them to get consensus for their change on the talk page? I told them I did not want a pointless discussion with them yesterday, so then they came to my talk page a few minutes ago "expecting a counter argument", which sounds awfully entitled and like they just ignored all of what I said. They presented no such argument to argue with anyway. Now they've also done a BlaccCrab and renamed my talk page heading to them (which was "WP:BRD") to "False edit war accusation". Cute. Ss 112 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112 & Richarddo1442 Please discuss any issues regarding content on the relevant article's talk page. Please assume good faith and operate on the assumption that you are both here to improve the project. Sniping and similar types of behavior are not helpful. It is important to avoid edit warring, which means that once an edit is challenged by reversion the next stop should be the talk page in all but very rare circumstances like naked vandalism. If you are unable to reach agreement then see WP:DR for suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you for your respective contributions to the project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh AO, I'm done talking to them so you don't need to tell me. They're the one wanting the change, they can go to the article talk page like they should have done in the first place. Ss 112 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112 I was just trying to have a discussion with you about the issue. I think you need to calm down, and not get so emotional over it. I'm still willing to talk about the issue with you on the article's talk page. Richarddo1442 ( talk) 05:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Buddy, I believe I'm speaking as calmly as you, and your claims of me being "emotional" are complete nonsense. I could exactly the same thing to you because you've reacted much the same as I have. Why don't you calm down, take a chill pill and not get so worked up like you did yesterday, oh, and last year at Walter Gorlitz across like 20 different articles related to NF. Pot calling the kettle black much? The only emotion I'm displaying now is annoyance at your persistence in bothering me, in some attempt to try to get me to care about the issue, when I don't—you just need to learn to propose a change on the article talk page, which you still have not done. I don't have to participate in it because we're not going to agree; you have to get consensus from other editors. Don't tag me anymore thanks, and it was pointless to even do so in the first place as I watchlisted Ad Orientem's talk page years ago, hence why I came here. Go get consensus and leave me out of it, and don't bother Ad Orientem with some ridiculous reply to try to one-up me, because I'm officially done after this. Thanks. Ss 112 05:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

It has come to my attention that the Betty Sutherland's (who is my Nana) wikipedia page has been deleted. I can understand why based on the content there however, she's done a lot that wasn't included and I would urge you to consider reversing the deletion. My Nana is still alive and well and it would be a shame to see this remain removed. I have developed some content outlining some of her successes for your review. Please advise what next steps may be.

Thank you in advance for your consideration! Melanie Sutherland

--- Betty Sutherland was elected as an Alderman of the Borough of North York in 1973 after her husband, Bill Sutherland's, ward was split in two due to the city’s vast growth. Betty served for 12 years in North York Ward 14 from 1973-1985 along side Bill who was also an Alderman. At the time, they were the only couple to serve together on Council. Betty won all of her elections handily and was acclaimed for 1 term.

Betty and Bill both served on North York Council and Metro Toronto Councils where Betty was known to be a very hard worker and a community person. She was deeply involved with the community in what is now called the Peanut area located on Don Mills between Finch Ave and Sheppard Ave. In this area, she organized Victoria Day and Canada Day events with bands, fireworks, picnics and sports. She also wrote a community column for the local newspaper called “The Enterprise” and later “The Mirror”.

Betty spearheaded many issues and when she was a Metro Councillor, she championed building a tunnel to Toronto Island so that residents could more easily enjoy the parkland. Her motion to build it was defeated on a very close vote, no thanks to her husband’s vote against her plan.

With that being said Betty had many wins at North York City Council. She championed the first municipal bylaw banning smoking in grocery stores. At the time, it was the City’s legal opinion that it was only the Federal government that could regulate smoking. But, with the help of hundreds of people she rallied to show up at Council in support of the bylaw, it was adopted and the rest is history.

In her role as Chair of the Metro Parks Committee, Betty spearheaded the development of the current pathways throughout the city’s ravines and waterways notwithstanding stiff opposition. Now, people across the city of Toronto enjoy walking, hiking and bike riding throughout the city’s many ravines and waterways. In fact, to recognize her work, Metro Council named a part of the trail along the Don Valley River as the “Betty Sutherland Trail” in her honour.

Betty did not like the fact that large trucks could drive in the left hand lanes of city highways because she considered it to be dangerous to drivers of family cars, so she successfully lobbied to ban trucks from the left hand lane of the Don Valley Park. The signage remains there today and the truck ban has been expanded throughout Ontario, including the 400-series highways.

Betty brought the first bylaw forward to ensure sufficient trees were planted when new industrial and commercial buildings were built in order to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reduce pollution.

She was also responsible for ensuring the Don Valley Parkway was extended past Sheppard Ave because at the time, the Provincial plan was to stop the highway at Sheppard and instead extend just a two-lane road north. Now, the Don Valley Parkway turns into Highway 404 extending almost as far north as Lake Simcoe.

Betty retired with her husband Bill in 1985 when she was 55. Their son, Paul Sutherland ran for Council and was successfully elected to North York as Alderman in 1985.

Now, Betty likes to spend most of her time in Florida but still makes the trip back to Canada every summer to relax at the family cottage. She enjoys spending time with her children, grandchildren and great-grand children! --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.49.94 ( talk) 18:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 70.79.49.94. I'm sorry the article about your grandmother was deleted. Unfortunately, as an encyclopedia we have to have some standards about what to include. This article has been deleted twice, both times following discussions at WP:AFD that resulted in a strong community consensus that the subject did not meet our criteria for inclusion. The relevant guidelines are WP:BASIC, WP:BLP and WP:NPOL. You may read the two discussions here and here. If you wish to formally appeal the deletion you may do so at WP:DRV. However, I caution you that IMO as an experienced editor, there is no chance of the verdict of either discussion being overturned. I regret any distress this may cause and hope that you will continue to contribute to the project. [Please note that I am current extremely busy in the real world and any messages left here may not receive a speedy reply.] Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I read you are on a break, so please forgive the intrusion if you are still away :)

I just started to read about Universal Medicine.

The article is in a terrible state, so I am going to attempt to do a full copyedit.

I just wanted to warn you and ask for any advice before I started.

For example, I have had to remove a few unref'd statements - but noticed that four years ago a ref was stated as being included ... looks like I need to be going back through all the old versions lol

I also wondered if there was a time you though it stable, and complete enough, for me to read to see how it has progressed?

I know there was a lot of NPOV disturbance, and it currently has a fair amount of flowery peackocking puffery.

Hopefully I won't meet too much resistance.

My main concern is relevent sectioning, and combining all those tiny sentences into flowing paragraphs!

Cheers Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. Thanks for the courtesy note. If you are just copy editing that's fine, but I strongly advise you to tread carefully if your thinking of any substantive changes. At one point supporters of this group were engaged in a determined POV editing campaign. There are quite a few experienced editors who have this on their watchlist. I suggest discussing any major changes on the talk page first. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

the orgasm statement content is referenced in the linked news mp3 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/radio/local_sydney/audio/201804/twt-2018-04-16-uq-cult.mp3 geo-blocking may have added to confusion outside aust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.21.108 ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Anything related to editing the article should be posted/discussed on the article's talk page. Thanks... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply ... first challenge alreadyt in within 12 hours, this is going to be interesting lol Chaosdruid ( talk) 13:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. I have found an IP, 108.17.18.29, who mostly edits music articles and adds content to critical reception sections and charts to album articles as well as artist articles. I am confident they are the editor EditorE, who was blocked for their unhinged personal attacks on me. It might sound like a silly thing to be sure of their identity over, but one of the things EditorE used to do was name the subsections of "Charts" "weekly" and "yearly" without writing "weekly charts" as most do, and this IP does that too. Combined with the fact the sock you blocked of theirs, 108.17.12.203 also starts with 108.17 and the topics they're interested in, especially around alternative music, I'm quite confident that if you notify Bbb23 of this, it will be found to be them. Ss 112 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Along with the above, I see Tanapot2001 is back editing Drake discography quite a bit, so I think page protection is necessary to stop that. They also created most of the content on Drake's latest song at Girls Need Love using 2405:9800:BA01:FA8:D6E:FC31:A83A:5652. Ss 112 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 year. IP blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There is this editor who made comments like this and this to another editor. This should not be acceptable. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Caution notice issued. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO, would you consider protecting Ariana Grande discography? Looks like Decemberboyl is still block evading (using an account that was already blocked called SUPERSNAKE66), and as a follow-up edit after that was blocked, I believe they used the IP 178.138.99.241. Thanks. Ss 112 21:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not enough socking/disruptive editing to justify protection. A substantial percentage of the constructive edits on the article are from IPs. PP would be using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. And in this case would cause a lot of collateral damage. Regarding the suspected IP I suggest SPI. They have only the one edit and I am not comfortable with a DUCK block based on that. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so what about if WP:DUCK IPs start to edit the article and reinstate what Decemberboyl's socks did? Can it be protected then? Ss 112 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection is generally a last resort used when disruptive editing has become pervasive. Especially so on articles that are heavily (and constructively) edited by IPs. If this is becoming a serious problem I would look at a rangeblock or some other solution first. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is block evading yet again using account 2600:1:92DE:1A0A:D364:696:7A1F:D049. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 19:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

They now using 2601:240:CF80:5250:D549:5B25:540C:27BC. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 00:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Back using Pure Shorez. Binksternet reverted them at Saints & Sinners (All Saints album) and within their first few edits are reverting and making genre edits...definitely them. Ss 112 10:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for randomly entering this discussion but I think this one is a MJH sock too, since the first edit is rearranging genres on a Mariah Carey album article.— N Ø 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Account just created and their first edit is the usual. Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. No idea where this person gets so many IPs but they’re already back with [5].— N Ø 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are a real pest. IP blocked x 1 month. Page protected x 1 year. I hate protecting pages for that long but the alternative is playing wack-a-mole forever. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow up on a 24 hour ban you applied yesterday to the user DG Mester, you may wish to look at edits contributed by this IP continuing the behaviour. Koncorde ( talk) 14:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked x 2 weeks. DG Mester's block extended to 1 week. They are getting very close to an indef. This is getting old. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave to the discretion to you, but we may need semi-protection on the parent article, too, probably in conjunction with 30-500 protection on the parent article. A lot of edits come from fan IPs/accounts who just make edits to conform to what they think is best rather than policies and guidelines—for example, ordering characters from most to least favorite rather than properly by official credit order. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Already semi-protected indefinitely by Ymblanter. I'm not seeing enough disruptive editing to justify ECP at this time. But I will defer to Ymblanter as the most recent involved admin there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For the time being I do not see a need for extended confirmed protection either, though I am worried by a large amount of accounts which are only editing this article. If someone has enough time, they all should be warned, and then we can block them if they remain irresponsive and continue disruptive editing.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And that was back last year. Oops. I somehow oversaw that part. Striking part of my message above. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

After you banned DG Mester ( talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, he started editing as 2601:192:8800:C0C0:5C81:7CE0:942:BAAE ( talk · contribs) by restoring his preferred versions. – Sabbatino ( talk) 08:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked x 1 month. DG Mester blocked indef. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now rangeblocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. See Special:Contributions/24.227.92.114. Same IP user evading the block you carried out at Special:Contributions/24.73.197.194. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 6 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. Looks like we have another case of an inexperienced user, StatsFreak, who thinks it's okay to edit war and when reverted, continue to go back to an article instead of discussing the changes they wish. For the past week or so, they have been restoring bits of material to Beyoncé discography that are largely unsourced and contentious. I have attempted to explain BRD to them but they have largely chosen to ignore it. I understand that you wish to remain impartial on issues, but this is not a case where you need to ping me at their talk page to discuss it with them on the article talk page. It is not up to me nor required for me to partake in the seeking of consensus, so if possible, can you please just explain to them the procedure because they obviously won't listen to me. Also, would it be possible to protect the discography from some contentious IP edits? Besides StatsFreak's edits, there are IPs restoring unsourced and incorrect information, and they appear to have a different address every time they edit. Thanks. Ss 112 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their page and also protected the article indefinitely. It looks like it has been a persistent target of varying types of disruptive editing. On a side note you might try being a bit less sharp when discussing issues with other editors. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/69.156.0.149 The one always putting false info on WWE Music pages etc 65.26.211.68 ( talk) 16:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Stale

Sorry no edits in the last four days. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we get temporary full protection and temporary full move protection there? People are ignoring the talk page discussion, which is currently still ongoing, and I foresee it continuing to happen. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Move protected x 2 weeks. I'm not seeing enough disruptive editing to justify full protection of the article for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth was vandalism or disruptive about my edit? Are Jonathan Pollard's activities disputed? 2600:1702:3AD0:F9C0:AC07:CFB8:192D:141A ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The language you introduced was inflammatory and a serious breach of WP:BLP. See also WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:SOAP. If you introduce that or similar language again w/o clear supporting citations to reliable secondary sources, I will block you on the spot. You are welcome to edit here only if you are capable of checking your agenda at the door and doing so in neutral manner repeating only what has been stated in the aforementioned reliable sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It might be stale now, but just noting that I've found what I'm pretty sure is a sock of PeopleEater143 sock, using 2601:48:8100:6d8a:8cf3:35ad:6cb4:eb83. Edits are all pop albums, using mobile, there's a somewhat snarky edit summary, and geolocates to the same area of America PeopleEater did. Ss 112 00:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My last questions on my talk page are quite serious questions I am waiting for you to answer. -- Diligens ( talk) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking sides in a content dispute where I have been obliged to intervene in my capacity as an admin. It would be improper for me to do so. Please see WP:INVOLVED. I will however note that this general issue, i.e. her alleged homosexuality, has been an ongoing issue. At this point how it should be addressed in the article probably needs to be handled via a WP:RfC. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am asking for a general principle. If the person of a biography is quoted testifying a fact about her/himself, doesn't it require an equivalent testimony to contradict that in an article? -- Diligens ( talk) 01:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple policies and guidelines that bear on this issue including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:GAY to name just a few. You are trying to make this a cut and dry issue, which it is not. I STRONGLY advise you to stop your tendentious editing and open an RfC to resolve the question of how to handle the subject of her alleged sexuality in the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will now look into the RfC. -- 32.210.186.99 ( talk) 02:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was told by someone not to make category pages for anything less than five categories. What exactly does this mean and is it true as well? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 08:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart. I have no idea. Could you provide me with a link so I can get an idea as to what this is about? Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ooops, it was a mishap of words, I meant five articles, not categories, here is an old message sent to me: I have told you this before, don't make dead end categories like you did with Category:The Dangerous Alliance members. Also, don't make categories for stuff with less than 5 articles for it. What exactly does this mean? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This not especially helpful as I would need to review the background, which is why I asked for a link to the discussion. With the caveat that I don't really do much in categories, I think I would request the person posting that to clarify and provide a link to the relevant WP:PAGs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

For Ad Orientem, I just want to protect historical article from prevent from abuse like vandalism. I know you decline all my request from lock pages because not enough historical proof.

In the end word, I will try my best to find real source from reality or online to fix it. Best regards, Cordially, and Yours respectfully

From Malaysia

Alif Fizol ( talk) 19:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Alif Fizol Anonymous users (IPs) are allowed to edit the encyclopedia with very few restrictions. And we do not protect pages preemptively. We only protect pages if there has been actual, recent and persistent disruption that cannot be handled by lesser means. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel like commenting at ANI because it has, unfortunately, derailed. TBH, this is partly your fault (see your own advice about ANI on your userpage). The background you presented was excellent, but you focused too much on your own conduct, which was blameless, and very little on proposing a solution. In my view, you should have focused on proposing sanctions for Diligens, i.e., a topic ban, and acknowledged the accusations they've made against you as a footnote. I don't know what you want now, but if they still include administrative action, you might say so clearly at the thread. My $.02.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Good advice. I have added a comment in an effort to refocus the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Last year you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai Civilized Party as delete, as most of the discussion participants thought it was WP:TOOSOON. The subject has since won a seat in the 2019 Thai general election (or at least is expected to, according to unofficial calculations). This should help establish its notability; I think maybe the article can be restored? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paul 012. I am prepared to userfy the article. If you would like me to move into a user subpage for you to work on, let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please move it to User:Paul_012/Thai Civilized Party; thank you. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you please add whatever needs to be added to this article that I have nonimated for deletion, as I am not sure about what needs to be added or how to do this process. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Having a look now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. There are a couple issues here. First the AfD nomination did not transclude properly. If you have not already found it I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Twinkle. That's a tool set that will make it a lot easier to tag pages among many other things. I am going to go ahead and fix the nomination and resubmit it. A quick glance suggests the article subject is probably not notable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am very sure that Pavlos Kouroupis isn't notable, thanks for your help. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, how long do AFD notices last before they are removed? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussions remain open for seven days unless there are good reasons to close them early. Sometimes, if there is no clear consensus, a discussion can be relisted for another week. I've been watching the discussion and find it interesting. The article has been expanded and is now decently sourced. I am considering withdrawing the nomination given developments. However you are free to join the discussion and vote to either Keep or Delete as you were not the nominating editor. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have now changed my mind about having it deleted since the article has really improved. Could you please put some lines through the nomination as I don't know how to yet do that. I would like the AFD closed, but if you are unable to close it because of rules then that's okay with me. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Already withdrawn. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Good job, and thanks for changing your mind on this issue as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 06:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the star that you gave me, you are a great administrator! Davidgoodheart ( talk) 21:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I now know how to put lines through edits, but I don't know how to change categories on talk pages. Please see if you can make any changes to this /info/en/?search=Talk:Pavlos_Kouroupis. I think that this should be changed now since the article is now been improved so much. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reclassified the article as a "start" class. The other categories look good to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that for me. As of right now there is only one vote left to have the Pavlos Kouroupis article deleted. Perhaps now you can close the AFD since only one vote does not count as "outstanding votes". Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart. I cannot close the AfD for two reasons. First the term "outstanding" in this case is used to mean "unresolved" or words to similar effect. And secondly, as the nominator or "OP" I am WP:INVOLVED. As such it would be improper for me to close the discussion. In any event it will certainly be closed as a Keep so there is no rush or need to worry. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am off to bed, so if there is anything else I will attend to it in the morning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Back with the smart-alec summaries and edits to recent pop album articles, using 72.94.151.197. Geolocates to the same area of the US. Ss 112 22:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they're also using 2600:387:3:801:0:0:0:38. Same types of edits to same articles, using mobile to edit, smart-alec summary... Ss 112 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Same geolocation. Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another: 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:90 Is there any kind of rangeblock that would be appropriate yet? This IPv6 looks similar to the one above. Ss 112 22:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 2600:387:3:800:0:0:0:0/61 x 1 month. Not sure how effective this will be but here's hoping. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bumped the block to 3 months. I just noticed that this range has been previously blocked multiple times. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Already back using 69.249.240.211. They seem to really focus on Dedicated (Carly Rae Jepsen album). Ss 112 01:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked x 1 month. Page protected. Persistent little pest aint he. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. The user Coolmarc is edit warring to retain an unreliable source on Don't Call Me Up. They don't understand that they added material, I removed it. They came to my talk page expecting me to get back to them quicksmart and when I didn't, proceeded to revert me. I said take it to the talk page, they reverted again. Can you please explain this to them? I can't with this user anymore. Ss 112 16:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion for them at the talk page since they apparently can't. But I dare say when they come back online they'll revert me again. Ss 112 16:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note left. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure they'll probably find that I notified you here and retort here. It's not our first disagreement. I think in this instance they seem to believe that their addition of a genre was a substantial period of time ago (even though it was only three hours ago and that I made the bold edit by challenging it, so that therefore BRD applies to me somehow(?) Ss 112 16:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries. There needs to be a discussion and the talk page is the place for it. (FYI I will be out for a few hours.) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan. Quite sure it's PeopleEater143. The snark and mobile editing, and all recent pop music topics as well. Ss 112 13:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, would you be able to move User:Ss112/Kraftwerk to Kraftwerk (Sarah Connor album) and User:Ss112/Vincent to Vincent (Sarah Connor song)? Thanks! Ss 112 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There appear to be articles already at those names. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

NM I see they are redirects. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I need you to tag the redirects for deletion per G6. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that. Done. Ss 112 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

Hi AO, straight up I'm going to ask: would you be able to block this user? Link: DilanBrechero. I reported them at ANV for their constant addition of unsourced genres (even after being warned, they are still doing it), inability to understand WP:NSONGS, and uploading oversized images lacking any licensing information whatsoever. They have refused to communicate at all, have never left an edit summary, have been warned enough times by a variety of editors (including myself) since March. I don't know what else can be done. Clearly they don't heed warnings, including from admins. It's a clear WP:CIR case. Ss 112 03:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs. This is not malicious editing, but I do agree that it is disruptive and they have received enough warnings. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye of the user? S/he keep adding "Nick Kibler" on Where Are Ü Now as same pattern as Special:Contributions/DC124. 183.171.114.103 ( talk) 16:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a look now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed for socking. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete E. Michael Jones' page all of the sudden? He is with no doubt relevant enough. Is it because he is a Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother Jerome ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Brother Jerome. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I read the reasons listed for this man's page deletion and have to say they look quite polemic, unreasonable, and politically motivated. EMJ has written over 34 books about Philosophy and Religion, gives lectures all over the world and has a huge output of free talks and debates on youtube. He's definitely notable, and he's definitely not an Antisemite as is implied but a decent Catholic scholar. If you ban this man you might as well ban the Bible on Wikipedia too. But since you seem to be some kind of super-deleter on the Wiki, why don't you delete a page that truly deserves it. Look up Charles Weinblatt. This page is nothing but a self-glorifying CV written by Mr Weinblatt himself, who has really zero notability and obviously just abuses Wikipedia to host his ridiculous CV for reasons of self-importance. Have nice day. 194.166.56.170 ( talk) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with some of your concerns about Charles Weinblatt and have tagged the article. If it is not improved I may consider PRODing it or sending to AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Back using 173.72.97.141. Same articles, same type of edit summaries, same geolocation. Ss 112 23:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And blocked, yet again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I would like to kindly ask your team to translate the full article of Muslim conquest of Azerbaijan into English so I can translate it into Arabic language. Your cooperation in this regard will be highly appreciated. شيماء ( talk) 09:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi شيماء. I took a look at the article. It is in English, though it is rather rough at the moment. I have tagged the article requesting copyediting. You may direct a specific request to the Guild of Copy Editors. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Using Votesofcardib. Found them from the edits of RIAAOFFICIAL, and I'm a bit suspicious of their back-and-forth with this user. I reported the latter for their username, as clearly they're not the RIAA, and they were just blocked by 331dot. Ss 112 11:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you also looking into protecting Taki Taki (song)? I fell out of looking at it for a while, but it appears to have been the target for large chunks of disruptive edits by IPs and sockpuppet accounts for the past few weeks. Ss 112 13:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Page protected x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I notice that you didn't block Votesofcardib though. Do you think they're not a sock? Ss 112 01:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I thought I had blocked them. Now indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted some of the more promotional portions of the article but honestly Weinblatt himself has used no less than three different accounts to edit it and its almost entirely autobiographical. I think it might be best to AfD it and if he meets GNG start from scratch per WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that page fine to post my opening statement? If I do it in my own sandbox then it may be considered WP:POLEMIC.-- N Ø 16:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to "attack" me then it's not for that. It's mostly for agreeing to a discussion or not. If you want to go back to what we previously agreed on, say so. If not, then that's that. I'm not having an argument even if you do want to present evidence based on what you think I stalked you to or did to you. Ss 112 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You may post your statement there. But please refrain from adding heat w/o light. If I sense that the discussion is turning into a shouting match, I will close it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you got it. Ss 112 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. I am dealing with multiple issues this morning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Another Believer have to agree...? I believe they only objected because they didn't know what I tagged it for. Ss 112 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

His agreement is not necessary but as a courtesy I will give a few minutes in case he has an objection. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He has said "hmm, OK", but seems to think I created something at a draft namespace. Ss 112 16:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have clarified. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)r

Could really use semi-protection here of at least a month, in my opinion. See the request at WP:RFPP which seems to be backlogged. Thanks. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I will have a look at RfPP when I get a minute. I'm a bit busy right now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed but just wanted to clarify, I wasn't trying to paint him in a good light but to clarify that it was actually worse than I stated :) Out of 4 (now 5) blocks, only once did he reply and acknowledge. I almost blocked him for 3 myself, started to consider indef, and decided to post instead. -- ferret ( talk) 21:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's all good. The only reason he isn't indeffed right now is how dated the last block was. I'm sorry to say as much but some editors show up programmed for auto self destruct. This looks like one of them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I see that you blocked me and then unblocked me. It's fine! I knew it was a mistake and I'm not mad about it at all. INeed Support ^:3 01:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. That was a dreadful misread of the page history. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

216.59.110.18 has asked for a deletion review of Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Cryptic 18:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also Fight the New Drug ( AfD discussion), on today's page. — Cryptic 13:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Back again same disruption as before your block. - FlightTime ( open channel) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Page protected x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Oritentem, I'm trying to get some more eyes on this, in the form of a user block or page protection. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a look... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User blocked x 31 hrs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It may be wise to watchlist the article. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

NP... Unfortunately I have more than 7000 pages watchlisted, so I am no longer adding pages except in very unusual cases. But feel free to drop me a line if this issue resumes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

7000 articles is a full plate. Yes, the problems continued, and the page was mercifully locked. I'm only surprised that all the socks weren't blocked. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed for obvious socking and block evasion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. As I wrote to Cyphoidbomb, I wouldn't bet against a recurrence once the protection expires. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree and am trying to keep an eye on it. If the socking resumes, I will protect the page for at least a month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't u get that as content dispute when I didn't dispute I only did the steps to create the article yes this steps

The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific Private Limited is not even the company name nor would it be the article name per COMMON NAME. Not notable yet. Nothing much expressly on the company. It just is mostly like a floating portfolio type grouping. Invoking TWDC Latin America as proof that this article should exists is WP:OTHERSTUFF. That article has the same problems but because the article has existed longer a notability hat note is appropriate.

See the steps I did everything he told to do so why I get this as issue explain to my why u did what u did since I did everything by the rules wft 148.69.38.45 ( talk). —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not the subject of the article passes WP:N. That needs to be resolved in a discussion on the talk page. Your newly created article should not be blanked and redirected until a consensus is reached on that subject. If that cannot be handled on the talk page then an AfD should be opened. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I've decided to temporarily restore your version of the page. However what happens next still needs to be discussed on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk has been opened already at Talk:Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International, the page this would be redirected to as to not hide the discussion, which the above is all he has stated. The TWDC Asia Pacific article is rife with sourced just stating its existence or that of its country units or of its creation as a region of Disney DtC and International. Spshu ( talk) 14:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. Would you be able to drop a line to NotsARobot? I've tried to get through to them multiple times but they're not getting it. We have a chart guideline, WP:USCHARTS, that states a certain component chart should not be listed if a song already charted on the overall genre chart. However, this user has restored one of these charts to an article multiple times. I previously explained in an edit summary, left notes on the page, then on their talk page. I have just explained it again and warned them, but I doubt this will work either. They're clearly disregarding BRD as well here. Thanks if you can. Ss 112 18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO, just for reference. You've said in the past that when an editor boldly redirects an article, as in deletes the content and redirects it, that if that edit is undone and the editor who redirected it still disagrees, they should then go to AfD. Is this backed up by a policy or guideline, or just applying BRD? Not that it's happened, but I've come across an editor who seems to frequently delete content and redirect articles who, in a talk page message, says they have "no intention of [ever, possibly?] going to AfD" (They don't look like they peruse that process very often anyway.) Ss 112 05:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLANK and WP:BLAR both make it clear that page blanking should not be done except in very unusual circumstances as it is de-facto a specie of deletion. If it is contested then consensus needs to be sought. If a serious objection remains then the matter needs to go to AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Also, found 2601:48:8100:6d8a:c823:30d9:de16:c404. Definite sockpuppet of PeopleEater143. Same geolocation, same attitude in edit summaries, editing from mobile. Ss 112 14:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

2601:48:8100:6D8A:0:0:0:0/64 blocked x 3 months. This is getting tiresome. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Content on User_talk:Tony1 was replaced and the block notice was removed. I believe there is an ongoing ANI discussion as well, but I would need to find the thread for it. Noah ^Talk 23:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah It looks like there are multiple admins who are involved with this and I am not seeing how my jumping into this mess will improve the situation. Editors are in fact allowed to remove most notices from their talk page. If you think something is going on that needs immediate admin attention I suggest pinging one of those who have already chimed in at the ANI thread. Sorry, but I am going to pass on this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I will post on the ANI discussion, but blocked users are not allowed to remove the block notice from their talk page. Noah ^Talk 23:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe that active block notices are on the list of notices that can't be removed. Declined unblock requests are if they pertain to an active block. But the actual block notice is as far as I remember not covered. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm.. that is strange. Usually ongoing templates can't be removed from pages. Noah ^Talk 23:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Resumed adding unsourced, WP:OVERLINKed personnel sections right after your one-week block expired in February. 152.208.57.111 Ss 112 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The user User:Nanne Parmar, after you blocked them just copy and pasted the draft they created which got them blocked onto their talk page. I suggest that you revoke his talk page access to prevent him from continuing to add the text. They have done the edit twice (once adding it and once replacing the entire page). I have reverted their edit, but they will most likely continue to add the content again. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

TPA revoked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is at it again with a new account 2601:241:8101:CF0:2DA0:2A6B:9464:37F. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 2601:241:8101:CF0:0:0:0:0/64 x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. Is there anything that can be done about an IP editor that comes back every week to update chart positions before they can be sourced? They've now used 2604:2000:1109:DB:69F4:BB3E:BE89:4016, 2604:2000:1109:DB:C0D4:644A:832E:4852 and today, 2604:2000:1109:DB:6425:3B7B:6173:69F1. I have sufficiently warned them for this, telling them they need to wait until the website updates, and even leaving commented-out messages on the articles, and they are still doing it. They all appear to start with 2604:2000:1109:DB, so I would venture to say it's the same editor. In fact, on their latest IP, they have just removed the warning template I sent. Ss 112 07:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

2604:2000:1109:DB::/64 blocked x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I'd like to restart a page about comedian Sheng Wang that was initially deleted in 2017 for an expired PROD and was not notable at the time. He's had a couple of credits/appearances since then, but would it possible to revisit this, or to create a stub? Let me know which steps I could take to revive it. Thank you! Frequenting ( talk) 00:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 Restored per WP:REFUND. Courtesy ping JDDJS. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Frequenting. Per your request I have restored the article. However, I need to caution you that in it's current condition it would be unlikely to survive AfD. If you intend to expand the article with an eye to establishing a clear claim to encyclopedic notability, I would not delay long. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for restoring it. Frequenting ( talk) 00:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ad! Can you review my article and move it to the mainspace? «This page contains a translation of ru:Елисеев, Виктор Васильевич from ru.wikipedia.» Manager1kz ( talk) 14:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Manager1kz. Unfortunately command of Russian is virtually non-existent and therefore I am not able to review the cited sources. I suggest you tag the draft and submit it WP:AfC for review. You may wish to drop a note on the AfC talk page alerting the team that someone with Russian language skills, or the time to run the references through a translation service, will be needed. Sorry I am not able to be more helpful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Category listed above have been up for deletion form more than seven days. Are you able to close it now? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This article List of northernmost items has been up for deletion for more than seven days, and should also be closed. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted yesterday for another seven days. A list of old AfD discussions awaiting closure can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just saw you blocked this account the other day. Do you think there's any indication it was Flooded themselves who made the account? It looks pretty suspicious to me. Ss 112 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No. It's a troll. FWTH was active in anti-vandalism patrols and made some of them unhappy. This was some troll grave dancing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. I for some reason just assumed it was probably Flooded self-grave dancing. Ss 112 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This article was started as an article about a mural a day after I created a redirect at Me!. He (Ss112) gamed the system and turned it into a single article after I started a draft for the single here. What is the right course of action here?-- N Ø 17:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Gaming the system" ( WP:GAME) is about an abuse of policy/process. This is not even anything that, let alone about policy. Don't claim I did anything after you; this is straight up paranoiad and conspiracies. You will see, hours ago, I talked about converting the article into a song at User talk:Another Believer as appropriate, as per Swift's wording ("the song"). I also asked Another Believer there, hours ago, if we should make Me! into a redirect. Ain't nobody stalking you. You can have your draft, but there was content at ME! first and it's appropriate for that to be about the Swift topic, whatever it may turn into @ Another Believer:. Ss 112 17:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. A mural and the song are separate topics. I started a draft about the song before you converted your article into an article about the song. Yours should be moved and kept at Me! (Mural) (or deleted if it is determined to be non-notable).-- N Ø 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

STOP! This is silly. If you are both creating articles, one about a song and the other about a mural, it's not difficult to fix this. Good grief. Just start a new article appropriately titled to differentiate from the other. Both articles will need different names in any case. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

AO, I intended ME! to be about anything relating to the name that Taylor Swift was going to do. As linked above, I told Another believer we should convert it when it becomes apparent. I don't know if the mural is notable in and of itself. Ss 112 17:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok let me look at the editing history. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I originally added the Taylor Swift template to ME!, and told Another Believer on his talk page I was unsure if it was just going to be a mural. I started that hours ago. MaranoFan has now taken it upon themselves to move their draft (which they appear to have started hours after my page) into their redirect Me!, which now co-exists. This is silly. I had content in mainspace about the song before MaranoFan did. We should not have two pages about the same topic. I did not intend my article to be solely about a mural, as made clear at Another Believer's talk page. Ss 112 17:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Your article was still about the mural when I expanded Me!. You deliberately changed yours to a song article a few minutes after my article about the song appeared in mainspace.-- N Ø 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That would require me to have stalked you MaranoFan, and I have news for you: not interested. You, however, have clearly stalked me in the past. My article was always intended to be about whatever Taylor was going to do (as made clear in the above linked discussion on Another Believer's talk page, which I said hours ago). You started an article in draftspace. Me! is not the draft article you started after my article. We should not be having two topics in mainspace on the same thing. I trust Ad Orientem will make the right call here. Ss 112 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not fulfilling your stalker fantasy. If you look at Me!'s history, I started the redirect a whole day before you created anything related to the song or mural.-- N Ø 18:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ew. And doesn't matter, redirects are not content. I saw that and it's not relevant, because you made it as a redirect to Me, not anything Taylor Swift-related. Content matters, and I started my article first, as about the event and whatever Taylor Swift was going to do. Not just a mural, thanks. Ss 112 18:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ok. Both of you were clearly writing articles concurrently on the same subject. MaranoFan posted the redirect first, although it was to a disambiguation page. Even so they posted the title first and both of you were generally writing on the same topic. This is my decision; ME! should be merged into Me! and then turned into a redirect. Sorry, but you both were working on this at the same time and Marano got the first post in the mainspace. That's what I am going with. If either of you are not good with that... WP:DR is that way. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am okay with said arrangement if it accurately identifies me as the starter of the Me! page. Ss112 is well aware of naming conventions, and purposely started his article at ME! instead of Me! to throw me out as the page creator.-- N Ø 18:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop it! You will get credit as the article creator, but I will not have this abuse of AGF on my talk page. I have a dentist appointment shortly, which for the first time in my life I am looking forward to. I will be back online in a few hours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I hate to come back and bicker here, but I archived the discussion at Talk:Me! (Taylor Swift song) as a decision was already reached by Anthony Appleyard. MaranoFan has continued to comment after my closing the discussion was put in place (per a decision being reached by an admin), and I reverted her telling her this, and she reverted me like I was trying to censor her when it's procedure to not edit closed discussions. Can this please stop? Ss 112 07:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You archived the discussion approximately half a second before I wrote my reply. You DELETING what I wrote is the severe offense here. You’ve added responses to archived discussions before [6], but I guess that’s another thing that only king Ss112 is allowed to do, and when the teenage girl does it it should "please stop".— N Ø 07:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll assume it was an edit conflict. Please stop trying to bicker with me. It is tiring to bicker with someone all the time. Aren't you tired? I think Ad Orientem is too, given his earlier response. Ss 112 07:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Heathenry. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please tell me if you think if is this a reliable source for the disappearance of Davy Crockett (outlaw): https://books.google.ca/books?id=BegmwZ3fuGUC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=outlaw+davy+crockett+had+disappeared&source=bl&ots=seDoa-FhGf&sig=ACfU3U0kRbM0GKvD94ksX8bmz58N8m6SiA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKvNuRvpvhAhXWvp4KHbYMBMwQ6AEwDHoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=outlaw%20davy%20crockett%20had%20disappeared&f=false, who had escaped from jail and had gone into hiding. It seems fine to me. After you answer this I will have some more questions to ask you. Thank you for your help as of late. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart. I need to know the context here. Has this been challenged? With some qualifications, the source looks reasonably RS. I am completely unfamiliar with the topic generally, but with a lot of these stories from the Old West it's sometimes hard to separate fact from myth. And there are sometimes contradictory accounts of events. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

These sources here https://truewestmagazine.com/the-outlaw-davy-crockett/ and https://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-davycrockettoutlaw/ were questioned, so I found a better source being the one that I showed you. I want to add him to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared article, "Fugitives who are no longer sought" section. That is why I asked you if this source is okay to use. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart according to the cited source, Mr. Crockett was shot to death after a track record of murder and generally being societal a pain in the @$$. I'm not seeing a claim to his "disappearing." His fate appears to be generally accepted. And they typically stop looking for people once they are dead. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The source that I added says that he escaped from jail, and was not seen for three years (which is a disappearance). That is why I want to add him to "Fugitives who are no longer sought" section, as he had disappeared, was once missing, but is no longer sought. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that list is intended for those who disappear and their final disposition remains unknown, but law enforcement have ceased looking for them for one reason or another. Often because they are most likely dead. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

All that I need to know for now is that is this source https://www.legendsofamerica.com/outlaw-list-c/3/ reliable about his escape from prison. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have doubts that the linked website meets our standards for WP:RS. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I will try to find a copy of the reliable google book and page where is says that Crockett disappeared from prison and wasn't seen for a while, that's all that I have to say for now about Crockett. My next question is this person Laurens de Graaf case a disappearance or an unsolved death? I personally think that it should be labeled an unsolved death, not a disappearance. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't put him on either list. History losing track of someone is not the same as their disappearing or dying under suspicious circumstances. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You very well may be right, but according to this source here ^[1] it says that he died, and this source seems reliable, that's why I said it should be an unsolved death. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 20:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

He was born almost 400 years ago. I guarantee you he died. Unless there are multiple independent reliable sources that are treating his death as a big deal, as opposed to routine mention, he probably doesn't belong on that list. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What I meant was is that he died around the time that they said he did that being May 24, 1704 and he disappeared then as well as his body wasn't found to be more clear. Thank you again for all your help. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Can you moved Draft:Cyclone Fani to mainspace please? It's a strengthening tropical cyclone that is threatening India and Bangladesh as a very strong tropical cyclone. It has a potential to cause severe damages and casualties once it makes landfall. Thanks! INeed Support ^:3 14:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hi INeedSupport. I would encourage you to try and add some meat from reliable secondary sources. But this does appear to pass GNG and I have moved it into the mainspace. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it! I will add some reliable secondary sources next time I make a draft article. Thank you for moving the article to mainspace! INeed Support ^:3 14:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)