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.

NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will respond on the SPI page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem.

This is the second time you have proposed that D. W. Cooper be deleted. The first time (in January 2014) I responded, as requested, with a statement on Talk: D. W. Cooper justifying the inclusion of this article.

Before I respond again (but where? I'll copy this note to the delete page), I want to be sure that you have read and understood my remarks there. If so, can you please explain further what reasons you have for proposing deletion for a second time?

Thank you. Wfbrooks ( talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have replied on the AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. Is there a discussion page for this issue, please? I didn't see one in the deletion template. My position is that this is a specialist directory, if it is one, not a general purpose directory of just any processors. Some of the entries were hard for me to find. - Denimadept ( talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Dwayne's Photo is especially notable in the photographic industry as the final location where Kodachrome was processed. Says so right there in the article and in the list of refs. National Geographic published some of these images, as well. Kodachrome used to be ubiquitous, with processing locations all over the world. As use decreased, these locations folded until Dwayne's was the last one. They got a certain amount of publicity due to the fact that they were the last ones, especially in 2010 when many thousands of rolls of Kodachrome, set aside for a long time, finally got dug up and sent in before the deadline. They processed the film until they ran out of the K14 processing chemistry. They were the last ones with any, Kodak is not making more, and it's now done. They're also a really good lab, IMnsHO. :-D - Denimadept ( talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Denimadept. You can discuss the PROD here or on the talk page of the article. The problem is that as I noted in the PROD (with link to the policy) Wikipedia does not serve as a directory service, period. If the subject doesn't possess a reasonable independent claim to encyclopedic notability then it's a no go. Our standards can be found at WP:GNG and more specifically for this list, WP:CORP. Notability within the photography world does not necessarily equate to encyclopedic notability. Among the standards for evidence of notability is in depth coverage of the subject from multiple reliable and independent sources. See WP:RS. A PROD is intended for non-controversial deletions and as such anyone can take a PROD notice down. But if you do choose to remove it without a compelling argument for notability, I will probably send the article to AfD. In closing please be assured that there is nothing personal here. I just see no viable claim to notability by our standards for the list and I have doubts about Dwayne's Photo (though I did not tag it for deletion, another editor may). Anyway I hope this helps as far as explanations go. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions or concerns. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You marked this new article as having a couple of issues. To help me improve it, could you please give me some examples of the sorts of things that could realistically be done. A P Monblat ( talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi A P Monblat. The basic problem is encyclopedic notability. This is covered in WP:N and WP:GNG. You can also look at WP:CORP. To establish notability you need in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. See WP:RS. In a nutshell though, reliable sources should be secondary sources and independent of the subject or any discernible bias. I suggest looking around for things like articles about the theater in known and reputable newspapers or magazines. Websites, unless they are run by a well known and independent entity with a proven track record for neutrality and strict editorial oversight/fact checking are generally not considered as acceptable for the purpose of establishing notability. While I tagged the article as being questionable in its notability and sources, I did not nominate it for deletion, although another editor may do so. This is becuase while the sources cited do not IMO esdtablish its notability according to our standards, this is the sort of subject where it seems like there should be enough in RS sources out there to ring the notability bell. I hope this helps. Please drop me a line if you have any more questions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You recently deleted a comment of mine from a talk page. I'm sure you had no intention to do it and that it was just a mistake, but please take care when editing. Thanks. Jeppiz ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies for the accidental delete. I am having issues with my browser. When I open Chrome after a couple minutes everything slows down drastically. When I check the process list it shows at least ten chrome windows operating though I see only the one I am using. And weird things are going on when editing in Wikipedia. I suspect a virus and am running a scan now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and I apologize in return if I sounded harsh; I was a bit pressed for time when writing. These things happen, it has happened to me as well. Have a nice day! Jeppiz ( talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rampur Khas (Vidhan Sabha constituency), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Vidhan Sabha is a state legislative assembly in India. Thank you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand why you decided to delete this article. I don't see what was promotional in it. I think this agency is notable because they have contracts with some models considered top models, and they discovered some of the best known Spanish models (such as Clara Alonso). Plus, instead of a speedy deletion you could have done a normal one where people can vote or you could have left a message on the talk page because in my opinion there was no need to delete it, if you know even just a few things about modeling you know about this agency. -- MirandaKeurr ( talk) 20:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MirandaKeurr. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. As I recall the article in question was worded like a promotional piece which is a no no on Wikipedia. See WP:PROMO. Also the standards for encyclopedic notability were not met. Please see WP:GNG and WP:CORP. You can request that an administrator restore the article if you wish. However please be aware that if the article is restored and significant improvements are not made it will probably be sent to AfD. I hope this helps. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your answer. But I don't understand why you say that the article "was worded like a promotional piece" because it looked like nearly every article about a modeling agency. Could you please tell me more precisely what was promotional? Thank you. -- MirandaKeurr ( talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I review dozens of articles in a day when I am doing NPP and regret that I cannot recall the exact wording. But the process is not without checks. The deletion was performed by an Administrator who reviewed the article and agreed with the nomination. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Ad Orientem, I removed the propose deletion tag you added to the Open Doors article. The sources I added clearly establishes notability per WP:GNG. The article needs to be expanded. I will try to work on it when I have time. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, I was reading the article on the German Papiermark, and saw you placed several "disputed" tags on the page. I went to the Talk page to see if I could figure out what the dispute was, but I couldn't find a relevant section. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks! -- Amlz ( talk) 06:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Gold Bug were from a NPOV.

Adnarkey ( talk) 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)ardnarkey Adnarkey ( talk) 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Adnarkey Thank you for your note. Many of you recent edits appear to be highly negative in their connotation and several are poorly sourced or not sourced at all. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NO PERSON IS ATTACKED.. This fact about what a gold bug is.. List of people talking gold and then selling gold services and products.

Feel free to take the edit apart in pieces, deleting the whole block of text is unreasonable;

Feel free to improve the sourcing.

Adnarkey ( talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)adnarkey Adnarkey ( talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting an entry in total

Removed the BLP violations and told 2 editors why and not to reinsert them. I think that the article should be on the most common meaning, everything else to the dab page. Dougweller ( talk) 12:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New sock, see my talk page as well. But going out now. Dougweller ( talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I left a question for you here. Since you are "on and off" WP it seemed like a good idea to let you know. :) Thank you. 104.32.193.6 ( talk) 15:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, the subject is too far outside of my competency for me to feel comfortable commenting. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article that I created ( Smoking in Tokelau). You noted that it might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe that it does, and I've tried to provide evidence on Talk:Smoking in Tokelau. Can you please comment on the talk page whether I have provided enough evidence? Thanks! Orthogonal1 ( talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ad Orientem RE: Beatriz Preciado article - As an experienced editor, I believe that the notability banner and reliable sources banners should be removed from this page. Preciado has written widely reviewed books published by Zone Books/the MIT Press, and the City University of New York, and has been the subject of major interviews and reviews at the Paris Review, E-Flux Magazine, and the Times Higher Education, three important publications in arts and publishing. She has also spoken at such important venues in the art world including the Tate Modern, the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, and the Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona. I would count these as a string of accomplishments recapped by reliable sources, which support her notability as a writer, artist, and philosopher. I ask therefore, that the notices be removed. Thanks OR drohowa ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done- Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Friend I found that you removed the getting here title from Koyikkal Palace page and saying that wikipedia is not a travel guide. OK But out friend google found lot of articles with info like this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 also can find more. So Can we delete all these getting here by just saying We are not a travel guide. Also added this info because on google search wikipedia result will come first. Giving a primary getting here info will be helpful to locate the place. -- Ranjithsiji ( talk) 09:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Ranjithsiji, thanks for the note. A couple of quick points... First, related issues on other articles are irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I removed the material in question from this article because it popped up on my NPP queue. I am not on a crusade to fix every related problem on other articles. I also note that in addition to Wikipedia not being a tourist guide, that sort of information is almost certainly promotional which is another no no. Thanks again for the note. If you have any more questions or concerns please feel free to drop me another line. Best regards...- Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Friend, OK NPP queue is fine. promotional is not intented because the Palace is closed for Public and the archeology dept of kerala restricted public entry. I added the info becuase it is an important place those who study kerala history. I am not expecting you to clear all the problems in that article because you have only primary knowledge about that place. Anyway fine thankyou for cleaning the article. Expecting that you will not place a deletion request there. See you later. Regards, -- Ranjithsiji ( talk) 02:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article may need a little work, but the subject is clearly notable. I don't see any danger of it being deleted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don’t take offense at my saying this, but you seem to have some strange ideas about speedy deletion:

• You removed the speedy deletion tag from Blue Express Corporation with the edit summary, “It is generally considered bad form to CSD an article 2 minutes after its creation. This also raises questions asto how one could have performed any preliminary due dilligence per WP:BEFORE…” I would agree that there is a consensus that in most cases articles should not be tagged under WP:A1 or WP:A3 moments after creation. But this consensus applies only to those two criteria; the tag that you removed was for WP:G11. And your reference to BEFORE is strange, for BEFORE applies only to AfD: Notice that BEFORE is a section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and notice that one the checks to be made under BEFORE is that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. (If you had removed the tag on the grounds that the article was not unambiguously promotional, I might agree with you.)
• You later removed a speedy tag from the same article with the edit summary, “Article is ineligible for CSD. See history.” But there is nothing in the history that makes the article ineligible for speedy deletion. Perhaps you are confusing proposed deletion with speedy deletion. Proposed deletion tags may not be replaced, but there is no such rule for speedy deletion. Naturally prudence dictates that before replacing a speedy tag one should consider any reason given for the previous removal, but in this case the second nomination is for a totally different criterion ( WP:A7).

I don’t want to get into an edit war with you over this; so I have taken the article directly to AfD. — teb728 t c 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will take a look at it again when I get a few minutes. Perhaps I misread the original tag. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update I replied in detail on the AfD, but the executive summary is I muffed it. Sorry about that... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		for your two proposals to settle the great "allision" controversy of 2014 I hereby award you your second Barnstar. Keep up the good work. Now you can't say you have just one anymore... Cheers! Cuprum17 ( talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks. I wonder if I can put this on a job application for the State Dept? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Go for it... Cuprum17 ( talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have posted my answer on why this article should not be deleted on the talk page of the article. Please reply there and stop the process of deletion till we arrive at a conclusion. Thanks! Lokesh 2000 ( talk) 06:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I replied on the talk page.- Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI: You forgot to sign your comment here. - Location ( talk) 04:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ooops... Thanks for the heads up! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When I made a change to your Dorothy Kilgallen edit after you submitted it several minutes ago, I added only a few things: a detail about the newspaper that dropped her syndicated column because of her controversial opinion and details about the Overseas Press Club in New York where she revealed publicly that the judge had been biased throughout most of the Sheppard trial. I added a clarification that Kilgallen said this publicly at an event that was held at the Overseas Press Club in New York, and she did so nine years and some months after Sheppard was convicted of murdering his wife.

Before I added these details, readers could have become confused about why the murder conviction of an Ohio doctor in 1954 could have an echo at the Overseas Press Club a long time after that conviction. Why "overseas?" Also, readers could be confused about the time frame: "nine years and some months later" means "nine years and some months" after ... what exactly? It was after the guilty verdict. Sheppard served nine-and-a-half years until his new lawyer F. Lee Bailey released him on a writ of habeas corpus with much assistance from Kilgallen.

As for the Cleveland location of the newspaper that dropped her column in late 1954, that is important because #1 the Cleveland metropolitan area was the part of the United States where the Sheppard controversy was hottest #2 we have no evidence that any other newspaper dropped her column specifically because of her opinion of Sheppard, therefore saying "at least one newspaper dropped ..." is misleading.

I have many more comments about the Kilgallen article on the Talk page for it. But I feel you deserve an explanation about the minor changes I made to your edit, so I'm typing this on your Talk page. Thanks for your attention. KathrynFauble ( talk) 00:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at it when you posted it. It seems reasonable. Please confine discussion of the article to its talk page though. Coherent discussions become very difficult when they are spread over multiple pages. Thanks... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to add however that we are not going to go back and start re-adding all of this bloat. The article is not about a murder trial. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 09:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Remember this article? Still not finding the sources to show his own notability yet but, I did discover why the press of turn of the century Hawaii seemed a bit obsessed with him. We knew his brother was John Mahiʻai Kāneakua but we didn't really know why John was considered an Aliʻi and really still do not have that answer but, the two brothers are the sons of Kapuailohiawahine Kanuha Miller. Turns out she was famous in her time as a composer and dancer. Her daughter, and the sister of Samuel and John Miller, is Isabella Miller. Her and her mother both were well known Hawaiian musicians. Isabella is the mother of Helen Desha Beamer and the three figures are the matriarchs of the most famous musical family in Hawaiian history (or so sources claim). Winona Beamer is Helen's granddaughter, Mahi Beamer is her grandson and Keola Beamer and Kapono Beamer are Winona's sons.

Slowly but surely I am finding reliable sources and the Beamer articles already existed and I stumbled on them when I found a source mentioning their names.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 20:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think that you have enough to establish notability and are planning to recreate the article, I suggest sending it to AfC in order to get some extra eyes on it. That can help prevent any future problems. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No plans to recreate the article, but I am beginning to think that there may be enough to create an over encompassing family article. Not yet however. Still needs much research, but things are much clearer on Samuel, just no further details. It has been suggested that there may be further information in the non English Hawaiian Newspapers and that Samuel may have been an artist but, as yet, no further info on him.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Primary sources. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No references? Why didn't you try and look at the bottom of the article? No footnotes, but that's a different matter.- MacRùsgail ( talk) 18:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ MacRùsgail Yikes! You are correct. I don't know how I missed that. I am not sure he meets the standard for WP:NAUTHOR, but that's a different matter. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful in future. If you don't like the way the article is written, please insist on inline refs. I have not come across a wheen of information on Addison, but thought he was notable enough for an article.- MacRùsgail ( talk) 18:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ad, Thanks for your comments regarding this article. As for the sources - this is a translation of the article from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The sources there are in Hebrew, and I couldn't find any matching English references. Is it possible to add Hebrew sources or at least provide more time before removing this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoz23 ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Egoz23 there is no requirement that sources be in English, only that they be reliable. That said, this is the English language Wikipedia so if there are any English sources out there, adding a few would be a good idea. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reinforcement; if enough people tell her, it may eventually sink in, and I don't want her to get the mistaken impression that I'm personally after her. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@ DGG No problem. Unfortunately based on past behavior and recent responses on her talk page I am not sanguine that she will accept the proffered advice. I think it's only a matter of time before this ends up at ANI. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ping Cullen328 and Location. In case you missed it Lee Israel passed away. I didn't want to post this on the Kilgallen talk page for obvious reasons. But I did find it interesting that Israel does not have her own article. I would think she is certainly notable.

• I have decided to write up a quick stub article so we at least have something on her. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for help editing the Marx article. Do you know anyone who can assist or negotiate? A few Marxists seem intent on deleting any criticism of Marx. I am hoping for a more balanced article. Jimjilin ( talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin Hi and thanks for dropping by. After looking at the material you attempted to add, the sources, and the discussion on the talk page, I find myself more or less in agreement with the other editors. The sources don't meet the standards in WP:RS. And your edits appear to be at least somewhat agenda oriented. On a side note I find that when I have a group of highly experienced editors all telling me that I am wrong about something, they are almost always right. I don't object to anyone asking for a second opinion. That's doing things the right way. But I do think we should be careful about casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. Please remember to assume good faith. This is a high quality and high traffic article. It is going to have a lot of experienced editors watching it. and most are probably not Communists. They are just trying to protect the integrity of the article. Beyond which I will simply echo the advice already given. Stick to material from high quality scholarly sources. If you are still not comfortable with the direction of the discussion you can always post a Request for Comment. Thank you for your contributions. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As a courtesy I am copying the other concerned editors. However, I think it would be best if further discussion remained on the article's talk page for the sake of coherence. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

CC: AndyTheGrump RolandR The Four Deuces Dustin V. S.

Other political/economic thinkers are criticized in their respective articles, but not Marx. Can we add any sort of criticism of Marx from Bakunin or Bertrand Russell or Richard Pipes or Piketty or anyone?? Jimjilin ( talk) 21:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please, let's keep the substantive discussion of the article on its talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi you are getting this message because of your interest in how the deletion process is currently set up.

I thought you maybe interested in this discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62#Speedy deletion of Adam (band)

thank you. have a nice day. 750editsstrong ( talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 I dropped a comment on the post. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, please don't post on Daniellagreen's page again. I have also asked her not to post here again. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, Thanks for the intervention. I just opened a discussion at ANI. I will defer to whatever conclusion is reached by the community and will happily refrain from further communication with Daniellagreen. Thanks again... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it would help a lot, as I said at ANI, if you were to provide links to and/or a clear description of the specific nature of the "incidents" you are reporting. John Carter ( talk) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. I think the problem is resolved for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the ANI. Just to set the record straight, Daniellagreen has only ever filed one report about a fellow editor, and that was an ANI about Montanabw in June 2014, which was ruled a content dispute. The discussion is here (includes a subheading as well): [1]. She then opened a misplaced thread on DRN Talk, but did not file a DRN request on the DRN board itself: [2]. Not sure why she is saying she made 3 reports. Softlavender ( talk) 05:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a major issue to my mind. I think Bishonen handled the situation very well and at this point it's best to just take a deep breath and move on. Seriously, there are FAR more important things to deal with in life than this nonsense. If there are any more problems I will refer it to an admin. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary and patrolled view: appreciate it. In regards DYK: no, I have a tendency to build content, rather then go for accolades or self-promotion: I believe in building the "wikipedia". Since I am a resident, I enjoy elaborating/translating content in the Azores/Portugal namespaces, since it is an under-developed category. Once again, thanks. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER ( talk) 10:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 08:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this from Titanic's main article. You can find the section under retrieval and burial of the dead.

In mid-May 1912, RMS Oceanic recovered three bodies over 200 miles (320 km) from the site of the sinking who were among the original occupants of Collapsible A. When Fifth Officer Harold Lowe and six crewmen returned to the wreck site sometime after the sinking in a lifeboat to pick up survivors, they rescued a dozen males and one female from Collapsible A, but left the dead bodies of three of its occupants.[r] After their retrieval from Collapsible A by Oceanic, the bodies were buried at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as there is a cited source we are good to go. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, as requested on the article about Michel Ducros, I'm currently work on the page in order to synthesize and summarize all the passages that are too long or not really relevant with a biography. It would be great if you could have a look and let me know if you have any suggestions about those modifications. Thanks a lot ! MrBeBe ( talk) 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know I mentioned you at at AN3 regarding Tomruen. [3] Technically you did pass the 3RR line, but you showed you intended to stop and believed you hadn't passed it yet, so I think you're fine at this point. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And I just noticed you and John Carter posted not long after. Sorry for being pokey on notifying you. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the AN3 report. I must have miscounted the reverts. But yeah I stopped and posted in two different places that I was doing so out of deference to 3RR. This guy seems completely off the hook over this. I really don't like going to Admin but honestly this editor is just impervious to reason. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your involvement with the Universal Medicine article. It seems now cooler heads are prevailing. I think all the editing has led to a piece that feels disjointed and could do with some reorganization. I have done so as a practice in my Sandbox. What's the correct WP etiquette for having people view this is see if we can get some consensus on it? I haven't removed anything (I hope!) just categorized some of the sections and moved sentences concerning common themes closer together. 79616gr ( talk) 01:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article and your deference to WP guidelines. I suggest you post a note on the article talk page with a link to your sandbox. Or you can migrate it to a WP:SUBPAGE and post the link. Thanks again... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem, I'll put a link on the talk page 79616gr ( talk) 02:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask you to have a look over the article again please when you get a sec? Several changes have been made today, including a link to an external site I think falls on the wrong side of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. You have been a very helpful neutral voice in the past, and your experience would be valued. 79616gr ( talk) 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done: Reverted questionable and likely POV edits. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated, and hopefully avoids the eruption of another edit war. 79616gr ( talk) 01:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Ad Orientem for your kind welcome and message on my user page.

Whilst I understand there are many wiki guidelines, and I am aware of a lot of them , I am also somewhat jaded by those very rules not being adhered to when it suits. I have had a call for an opinion of a senior editor sitting on the talk page for over a month now, with no acknowledgement. I undertook to carry out an edit that a senior editor suggested and it was immediately taken down and I was berated. It seems very clear to me that the writing of this article, whilst I acknowledge has been enormously cleaned up, is very negative and there is no breathing room whatsoever for allowing for the fact that these people who are written about are actually real human beings who, when you look a bit deeper than just the newspaper articles and the opinions of sceptics websites, have done nothing wrong except to receive negative press. If you care to read their websites and the many testimonials that are available from some of the people who have received treatments and/or attended the workshops , you can see for yourself that the organisation obviously offers a great deal to a lot of people. Whatever your opinion, or my opinion is of the perhaps wild and wacky treatments, it appears they have changed many people’s lives for the better . The negative media stories appear to have been based largely on lies that were initially told by a few people who have undertaken to ruin the reputation of this organization and its leader and have stated this publicly. And bizarrely, or not so bizarrely as scandal and sensationalism sells well these days, no journalist has ever bothered to tell the other side. And well may we both ask why. But that is the fact so we have to work with it. As I felt there was no one really caring if what was written was exactly true, I took it upon myself to follow up some of the so called facts and I found that: 1. Serge Benhayon never said or was quoted as saying that he has an income of $2 million, he said in the initial TV interview and in the article that I cited, that he had a turnover of $2 million – these are two vastly different things. 2. Universal Medicine, given that they have been attacked now for over 2 years (this is very easy to track) would be expected, as any decent company would, to try to have their reputation managed. The very fact that there is an article cited in this section that does not even mention Universal Medicine is a poor show of Wiki rules (it has been suggested by a senior editor previously that this citation not be used) however, if we are to keep that reference in, then for heavans sake lets not try to make this organization look like criminals ! They clearly are not criminals but just doing what any other company would do in the same circumstance. 3. If the cult counseling website link has a place on this article, then so does a link to a website that holds the other side of this story.

My edits told no lies, they used direct quotes from the very same articles as have already been cited, there was no personal analysis as you suggest – if I were to write my personal analysis it would be very different to what I have added. As I understand it, I have broken no Wiki rules. Kindly, tribescent08. Tribscent08 ( talk) 03:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08, again welcome to the project. Your edits clearly removed or drastically altered the clear meaning of article text that was backed by solid sources. We try very hard to keep things NPOV here, but that does not mean objective neutrality. We go where the sources tell us to go. And any sources cited must be reliable and verifiable. Sources that are affiliated or otherwise connected to the subject are generally disallowed when the content can in any way be controversial. And this subject has been VERY controversial as you have no doubt observed from its talk page. If you wish to make any major changes, please do so only after gaining consensus on the talk page. The best way to proceed is to explain in a new thread exactly what you are planning on changing. As for senior editors, I can't answer for what other unnamed editors may, or may not have said. I hope that you will remain with us and perhaps find other topics of interest that you might contribute to. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem I will use the talk page. Tribscent08 ( talk) 03:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This has not been an easy week. I've dealt with attacks from coordinated groups off wiki which have tried my patience. You, however, have responded in a humane and decent manner. For that, I can only express my appreciation. Sometimes it is the small things in life that make a big difference. Thank you. This will be my final post on wikipedia for some time. Marcos12 ( talk) 19:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take all of this on board and consider carefully your previous behavior. Civility is something that is taken very seriously here. The project cannot function without it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be an image of YMO, but I can't upload it. Could you help me to upload that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.205.51 ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I would need to have a source and the image would have to be in the public domain. Also please sign your comments so I know who I am talking to. (use four tildes , the squiggly little lines usually to the left of the #1 on most keyboards. Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done! Thanks.

Is youtube a reliable source on wikipedia? 78.149.112.95 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also please be sure you own the copyright to that image or have a license to use it. If that is the symbol or trademark of the YMO some for,m of legal release is going to be needed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would necessarily be under the circumstances, but I can more than understand taking some time off. I wish there were reasonable words which could be used in circumstances like these, but I don't know what they might be, other than to say that I hope the situation resolves itself as well as possible, in whatever form that might take. Prayer is not something that is necessarily common to a lot of us here, but I think that those who do such will include you and your family in them. John Carter ( talk) 18:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add to that. I had the same situation to get through two years ago, a sad and cold March. It didn't quite pan out for Mum but I have since learned gradually that there is indeed a time for everything. G d bless to you and yours. Irondome ( talk) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Offering prayers, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We will miss your calm and well-considered voice of reason, but will be thinking of you with prayers in our hearts for you and all of your family. Bless and be well; take care of yourself. Softlavender ( talk) 21:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

can u remove "THE" from " The Young Muslims UK". 78.149.197.63 ( talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm very sad. I understand how you feel. Everyone has to leave this world. May the Supreme Being give patience to you family. Take care. 78.149.197.63 ( talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I reverted your closure of a posted ITN/C item here. In almost all circumstances, nominations of posted items are not closed. The nomination section serves as a workspace for the item if circumstances related to the item change, or if the blurb needs to be updated. In some less frequent changes, if consensus changes post-posting, they can be removed. Posted items are generally only closed in cases of very contentious nominations in which further discussion would be entirely unproductive (see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2015#.5BPosted.5D_161st_Boat_Race for the most recent case of this). The nomination at hand does not appear to be contentious, and so I've reverted your closure. Best, Spencer ^{T♦ C} 06:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine and I appreciate the note. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	From one royalist and medievalist Orthodox to another. Prayers to your father.. Sigehelmus ( talk) 00:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, thank you very much. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please would you explain why you removed an AfD template w/editsummary "fixing AfD tag" here? As far as I can see the tag was filled-in & placed correctly. If I'm mistaken on that front, please do say.

The nomination process was awaiting completion and visible in my contribs ( [4]). I do appreciate the rationale can be put on the article Talk but, since the request for completion of the final AfD steps is made at WT:AFD (for non-registered editors) it's reasonable to simply put the rationale there like most folks.

I've now seen you've gone and nominated it yourself, after having removed my {{afd1}}, substituting your own nomination statement. That seems a little inappropriate and, well, rude. Otoh if you found my nom statement inadequate in some way, then of course I'm always open to constructive feedback, but I can't see what was wrong with it. – 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 06:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I have stepped on your toes. Removing the incomplete tag and simply creating a new and complete one using Twinkle is generally much easier. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

PS you might find that registering as a member resolves a lot of these issues. You can nominate articles with a couple of clicks and not have to go onto the talk page at AfD and ask other editors to finish things for you. Just a suggestion... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

( ←) Actually the tag wasn't incomplete—yours is identical, it just has a later timestamp ( diff). I did feel it came across (at the time) as less collaborative and more like someone else taking the credit so to speak with the non-reg'd editor silently erased from the equation. I don't think it was intentional. And I understand that you like to use familiar tools, though bar adding it to the log I'd setup everything so someone only needed to click the link and copypaste the text & hit Save. But no point dwelling and the AfD's up which is the important thing. P.S. Saw the note you added to the page - thank you. Have a good day. - 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 06:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the reason for the exclamation mark in !votes? Just curious. Sca ( talk) 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Honestly I don't have a clue. But it has been the convention on here for as long as I can remember. I just went with the flow. If you find out the reason, do drop me a line. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a small point (!), but I find it confusing – like, am I supposed to be looking for other votes with exclamation marks? Oh well. Sca ( talk) 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		Thank you for your many common sense edits to the USS PC-552 article, making the previous well-intentioned but malformed work more worthy of its subject. For improving the page, I award you with appropriate partial credit (shared with User:Dual Freq) and this very equally shared barnstar. BusterD ( talk) 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

BusterD, thank you very much. :-) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well deserved. Both you and Dual Freq have handled this exceptionally well. Let's hope your good work can bring back a potential contributor. BusterD ( talk) 00:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When it gets to the point where you can't even read the "discussion" due to the color formatting, something has to be done. Of course I'll probably be reverted... μηδείς ( talk) 03:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. ANI is such a nut house you never know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bless you and your family in your bereavement. I am very sorry to hear that your dad passed away, albeit peacefully. Our thoughts are with you. Softlavender ( talk) 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know you, but nevertheless offer my condolences for your loss. I hope you are feeling better now. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this while browsing, and just wanted to leave a word of blessing for you and your family. May his memory be eternal! Evensteven ( talk) 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Innuendo. Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know more about why you closed my nomination for 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape at ITNC. Is it because you think stories from the US must meet a higher standard of "significance" to be posted there? Everymorning talk 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The story in question is a sensationalized but ultimately fairly run of the mill crime story. People escape from prisons in other countries now and then and it gets some headlines, occasionally national, but there is nothing here that rises above the level of tabloid headlines. There is nothing here with international repercussions. This is at most a regional story that got picked up by the national media and will be front page news for a day or two. It does not meet ITN standards and based on my experience I believe there was less than zero chance the story was going to get posted on ITN. Sorry but there it is. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia. Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you possibly take a look at this please? It may be in violation of WP: PRIVACY. 79616gr ( talk) 03:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 79616gr ( talk) 04:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

NP... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

For nominating Death of Sandra Bland for deletion - I was almost certain this would happen, but not aware it would be at the hands of a monarchist :) I also suspected the article would be kept, per comments at the nomination. Thanks - Darouet ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

None at all. It happens. In hindsight I was definitely wrong with regard to the notability issue. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

An article cannot consist of multiple different definitions like that. That's a disambiguation page. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to there being an article at Gold bug in principle, but there currently is not one. It takes more than a definition of a phrase to constitute an article, or even a stub. You should check out WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary before trying to construct an actual article at this page. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You also need to be very careful about ascribing edits to bad faith. You literally have accused me of vandalism, and I take enormous exception to this. In addition, you have made non minor edit with the minor flag. Do NOT do that either. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You added this to my talk page:

[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gold bug. You do not get to arbitrarily delete/redirect an article that has been worked on by numerous editors. If you do this again without talk page consensus you will be asked to defend your actions at ANI. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this behaviour of yours is completely unacceptable. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Arbitrarily blanking an article that has been worked on by numerous editors including a highly respected Admin and that is well sourced without any attempt at securing consensus looks like vandalism to me. I am not going to edit war with you. If you do not revert your arbitrary blanking/redirect I will open an ANI discussion. If you think an article has major flaws consensus should be sought before blanking/redirecting it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Blanking an article is not necessarily vandalism, and you should not ascribe vandalism unless the behavior cannot be understood in any other way.

Administrators have no special powers or insight for deciding what is and is not an article. For myself, I've looked at this several times today, and come to exactly the same conclusion each time; it is not, and was not, an article. An article is supposed to be on one thing only. But here there's three (more like two and half things), and each of those is only one paragraph, that are unlikely to realistically grow to become an article.

In my opinion, the material should be moved to gold bug, which currently only has one definition. For simple terminology, which this is, wikionary is nearly always the best place to put it, as well as disambiguation pages as appropriate. GliderMaven ( talk) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The best course of action would have been to propose a WP:MERGE rather than simply blanking the article and redirecting it. I also note that you moved almost none of the blanked article to the disambiguation page, despite the fact it is all well sourced. I concede you have a valid point about the nature of the page, and it needs work, but deleting 95% of it is not the answer. And again this sort of thing should not be done arbitrarily. Redirects are generally regarded as a form of soft deletion, which is what this looks like. It should not be done if there is an objection without consensus. If you disagree you should send it to AfD where you can now nominate articles for redirection. Finally I regret my intemperate language in response to your actions, though I also note your initial blanking/redirect carried no edit summary and looked malicious. I believe very strongly that you are wrong and handling this improperly. But I do acknowledge you were/are acting in good faith. Since I strenuously object to the redirect, I again suggest you self revert and propose a MERGE or send the article to AfD with a request for redirection. Let the community decide. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to open a discussion as to why you are removing the adds to the USS Liberty incident that you feel are questionable. The article add quotes a book written by well known authors. I understand your issue with placement of my adds to the article, but I feel there is room to include my addendums.

I think a discussion is a good idea. It should however take place on the talk page of the article. Also I would note that quite a few editors have been removing the material. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I undo the closure at ITNC? You said that Jules Bianchi was a mistake, indicating COI. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think there is a realistic possibility of gaining consensus feel free to reopen the thread. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good morning

Can u go to Iraq national football team article , go to number 6.3 Recent results and fixtures in the article

This is source for article

I wait ur answer today

Best regards Kurdistantolive ( talk) 06:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source for articles on the encyclopedia and this section of the article you linked above also has no sources cited. There must be a source somewhere with current information on what the 2015 team is doing. I doubt that you and Steel Dogg are watching all of the games and reporting the results. Someone obviously has a source. Let's find it so we can fix the article and restore the currently unsourced material. Also remember that sources don't have to be in English. But they do have to be reliable. I don't read or speak Arabic but if anyone does, that would be where I would look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

not sure how this works; kinda new on WP. just wanted to say a quick "thanks" for reverting back on the R.Forest page. not that it was anything about my editing, but i certainly hadn't meant that someone would just delete the entire section because i raised a question about it

Colbey84 ( talk) 02:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Colbey84, thank you for your very kind note (and the cat). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

it seemed to be either a kitten or...a burger, or pita, or something. i hoped you weren't allergic. or a rabid dog fan. Colbey84 ( talk) 04:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that many people are fans of rabid dogs. If you see what I mean. ( talk page stalker) -- Softlavender ( talk) 04:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy $&^!, I have a talk page stalker?! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 07:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

LOLOL! Softlavender ( talk) 08:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you probably meant "pointing a finger exclusively at you" (stedda excursively) here, no? Sca ( talk) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If I had to make a living as a copy editor I would starve. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. These days there aren't many who make their livings as copy editors. Some of them wind up as inveterate nitpickers on Wikipedia, but we know how much that pays. Sca ( talk) 21:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! is THAT what i'm doing?! damn...i hate nits. (but i give up on much of the punctuation out here. i've never heard of such stupidity as this "logical reasoning" punctuation, or whatever they call it.) Colbey84 ( talk) 04:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, dude? You couldn't have waited until he's not linked to from the main page? I have removed your notability tag on the article for the time being; I will restore it this evening when it is no longer linked to from the main page. While most of the articles on Frederick have been written since Donald's rise to prominence, all of the things he did would have still happened had Donald never been born. p b p 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the tag while the article is linked on the main page and point in fact I should have waited. But the question is not whether he would have still done the things he did, but whether they would be considered worthy of any significant attention. As far as I can tell the coverage he has gotten is almost entirely based on his relationship to Donald. Once you eliminate that, I don't see much that separates him from any of the other millions of small business men of the late 19th century. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I regret the contretemps and biting too hard and too fast—hope you'll accept my apologies. There are a lot of (broadly speaking) 'genealogical'-looking entries on Wikipedia that simply need better sourcing to pass GNG muster, and that's one of my takeaway lessons here. But I cannot tell a lie, I was too quick and rash with my cherry tree takedown. We do have shared interests and passions; I look forward to editing productively with you in the future. For now, my sincere regrets — Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 18:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. We all have things we feel strongly about and sometimes it gets the better of us. I've been there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

enjoy a cup of tea CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. At the moment that sounds quite pleasant. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say it was decent of you to make that nom, although I did close it. μηδείς ( talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no objection to the close. Consensus was pretty clear. That said, I thought the reasoning in most of the oppose votes to be quite shallow. Oh well. Life goes on. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, I noticed you placed a notability cleanup tag on Chandraprabha Vidyapitha, Paksey. The article is terrible, and (like thousands of other high school articles) the sourcing doesn't demonstrate the significant independent coverage demanded by the notability guidelines. But because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the chances of getting it deleted at AfD are vanishingly small, so the notability tag seems like an empty gesture. I added sources for the fact that it's a high school and independent confirmation that it exists, in case those were sticking points for you. Worldbruce ( talk) 03:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, could you discuss on the talk page why you think the Occidental-Whittier rivalry is not notable? p b p 05:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have relied on the article talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the IP's nomination of Oxy-Whittier is because the IP nominated it primarily to get at me rather than because he actually believed the article failed the guidelines. The IPs other edits are "comments about a person" on talk pages of users I have interacted with; they were presumably hidden because they either unnecessarily attacked me and/or revealed personal information about me. This is what I tried to tell you via e-mail, but the e-mail bugged again, so here we are. p b p 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I have addressed the issues with the article on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, that guy has gotten himself an account and nominated the article for deletion, somehow managing to break the references as he did. SMH; I need to get this monkey off my back. p b p 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your objection to this appearing on ITN. The first time I didn't use correct syntax but why did you revert the second time? It's getting lots of news coverage so why not let people !vote on whether it appears on ITN. 78.144.199.224 ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a frivolous nomination that has less than a zero chance of being approved. It would likely be reverted by someone else if not me. But if it stayed it will be closed very quickly per WP:SNOW. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to post it go ahead. I won't revert you. But I would be shocked if it lasts 30 minutes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. I restored your nomination. But it lasted less than a minute. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You and I don't always agree by a long-shot, but your edits are always in good faith and reason-based; it would be a shame to see you cede the field. I hope you come back from your wikibreak when ready and resume your good old habits. μηδείς ( talk) 21:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am not abandoning Wikipedia, just ITN. It has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND and political WP:FORUM for anti-American commentary that no one seems interested in checking. I won't be returning. Good luck and thanks again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It works both ways, as adequately demonstrated by a quick analysis of your own edits. The biggest, by far, problem is that most editors think this is American Wikipedia, not English-language Wikipedia. As you say you won't return, I won't bother explaining further, perhaps as an American you haven't travelled too far or you're unaware of certain other English-speaking parts of the world (I know of one American who though possibly that passports had to be handed to the flight crew of transcontinental aircraft). The American bias is super-strong, it has be combatted fiercely to maintain this as English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps it would serve you and your countrymen better to create an American Wikipedia, it could even have a school mass killing ticker in the ITN section? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope to see you back. As someone who I have received good advice from, and who is obviously a most worthy presence within Wikipedia, your voice is very much appreciated. 79616gr ( talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

vv TONMOY SEN ( talk) 08:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

hlo TONMOY SEN ( talk) 08:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:143.176.216.29. Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Liz, Thank you and a blessed new year to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethnocracy. Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you posting on an ANI thread. great to see you back! I thought we had lost you! Anyway, I'm glad to see your well-reasoned participation. Softlavender ( talk) 06:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen a pretty atrocious use of the "thank" feature in an ironic sense (and I don't know if this is a common problem), and also criticized people for unilaterally editing the titles of threads I started, so I figured I should clarify that I meant your move was good, and I appreciated it. Hopefully the thread will get a proper close before it's archived. I was working on being less TLDR than is my habit, but it hasn't been a problem for a while.

And sorry for making you read through all that stuff. I will try harder to keep my temper under control (as with the TLDR, I was working on it before, but it hasn't been necessary for quite some time).

Cheers, and happy editing!

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes you reverted the edit. It's important in good writing to use a more specific word rather than a general word to describe an event factually. Thus, instead of an "attack" it would be better to use "attempted sinking" as torpedoes were used. Do you understand what the Zionists did? An "attack" could mean anything from just one 5.56 round up to a sinking. An "attempted sinking" is far more specific and conveys the intention of mass murder. 68.79.127.40 ( talk) 10:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags when there is clearly no consensus, is not appropriate. Pleazse do not remove the tags w/o talk page consensus.. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Regards the warning you dropped on my talk page, I have made exactly two (2) edits on this article in the last month. You however are rather clearly engaged in an edit war with multiple editors. I suggest you take a deep breath and consider the talk page consensus. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you're a Mets fan and I see you know your way around Wikipedia so I was wondering if you wanted to support the WikiProject proposal. Thanks. Leggomygreggo8 ( talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Leggomygreggo8 ( talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not refer to edit you disagree with as "vandalism". -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN. Thanks for the note and sorry about the delay in responding. I am traveling at present. Regards the warning I posted, normally I would agree with you. However, the user in question was persistently deleting an unquestionably factual statement from the article despite clear consensus and being reverted by numerous editors and repeated warnings. I'm sorry but AGF has limits and does not require the suspension of common sense. I was about to reply to their comment below when I checked and saw that he has been Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk)

Just what in God's name do you think you're doing?

Explain yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: User indeffed. Moving on. - Ad Orientem ( talk)

It gets better, England (1:2 - Iceland) are out of Europe twice in seven days and the Bliarite rump in the PLP have played their last hand. Corbyn is manning it out so far, much to my enjoyment and COMbbc are tying themselves in knots trying to lie about everything. The corp-0-rat media propaganda, that an out vote was a racist vote, isn't making much headway and the fact that the parteis that endorsed an in vote are all institutionally racist is irrepressible. Who needs a soap opera when this shower gets going? ;O)) Keith-264 ( talk) 08:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Common sense is not a loophole in our original research policy. The material you inserted plainly violates that policy and WP:V. - Mr X 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX. No it does not. If you had checked my edit summary I cited Refs 4&5 both of which make it clear that the assassin proclaimed his hatred of white people and his desire to kill them. This is a matter of public record and can be found in pretty much every reliable source that is covering this incident. When a person says they hate a specific ethnic/racial group and want to kill them, it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism. Seriously. As I noted in the talk page discussion which I also referenced in my edit summary, if this was a white person with the same record of overtly racist statements and affinity for known racist organizations, all of which is well documented by RS sources, we would not be having this debate. The man was clearly motivated, at least in part, by race hatred. I don't see how any reasonable people can deny this and I view this entire debate as symptomatic of the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's terrible reasoning, and it's based on information that you have evidently made up. Allow me to break it down:

1. "the assassin proclaimed his hatred of white people" - Actually, no, they say he was angry with white people. There's no mention of hate.
2. "This is a matter of public record" - We don't use public records; we use sources. Not a single reliable source has been identified that says "racial hatred".
3. "When a person says they hate a specific ethnic/racial group and want to kill them, it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism" - Except that he never said that he "hate[d] a specific ethnic/racial group"
4. "it is not a violation of Synth to label that racism" - Actually, it is. WP:OR includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ← and that's what you did.
5. "If this was a white person with the same record of overtly racist statements and affinity for known racist organizations, all of which is well documented by RS sources, we would not be having this debate" - If sources don't refer to the person as racist, then neither do we. It doesn't matter whether its a black or white person, we use sources, and we don't misrepresent them.
6. "The man was clearly motivated, at least in part, by race hatred." - That's nothing more than your personal opinion. Adding "clearly" to your argument doesn't make it less fallacious.
7. "I view this entire debate as symptomatic of the left leaning bias that is so prevalent on the project" - That's a canard. What is stopping more right-leaning people from participating in the project and restoring balance? Perhaps they're not as interested in building a free encyclopedia as they are promoting social stratification and smaller, but more authoritarian, government. Or maybe they just can't follow the same rules everyone else is expected to follow. Cheers.- Mr X 01:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page of the article and posted an RfC. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you referenced it yourself, it's good to see that you actually bothered to review the first paragraph of WP:CITELEAD instead of just referencing the second paragraph. Specifically: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." I'll bet that took you all of a lazy 10 seconds right? While you're at it, you also need to review the paragraph you wrote at the top of this page. And in future, adjust your attitude and behavior accordingly. That would be per WP:CIVIL. X4n6 ( talk) 19:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be assured I took the time to read the entire guideline. The first and last paragraphs need to be read in the same light. CITELEAD states that any statement likely to be challenged needs a source. I pointed out that the claim was clearly sourced in the article and did not consider that anyone would question the existence of a source directly alluded to in my edit summary. Clearly I was mistaken and should have added the source for the benefit of the wiki-lawyers among us. Mea culpa mea culpa. So, what's your excuse for adding a CN tag when you knew that a source existed just a few paragraphs below? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that you were wrong not to include the sources in the lead. However, you are incorrect in assuming that I - or any reader - needs to scour an entire article to find sources that should, per CITELEAD, have appeared in the lead first, if they are referenced there. Do you get it now? X4n6 ( talk) 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. I did not have to scour. I looked per WP:SOFIXIT, for perhaps all of 15 seconds and found it. Given that I had clearly pointed out the existence of the sources your above comment is not causing me to reconsider my earlier stated opinion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTGETTINGIT. X4n6 ( talk) 20:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You have already expended more time by a factor trying defend your indefensible editing then if you had just taken a few seconds, it's not a long article, and copied the source into the lead. Re-adding a CN tag to a claim that you have been told is sourced in the body of an article is either laziness or deliberate mendacity. In deference to AGF I am going with the former. Do you get it now? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Look I don't like getting into pissing contests over trivial stuff. Neither of us have handled this well. Why don't we agree to disagree and move on. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Having read several biographies, I corrected her birth city to Chicago from New York City in the first section with her birth and death information. Her actual birth city was already listed in the content of her bio here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:FFC0:6:795C:58FB:D1EE:36B7 ( talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. I have self reverted the two edits. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "Requiring at Least One Reliable Source for All New Articles" proposal is the voice of reason. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, though I fear the proposal is not going to pass. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Do let us in on the secret. 81.134.89.140 ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any recourse in this case. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I wonder if you could clarify -- why not just apply PROD? I assume PROD applies to any article; why not use the existing process? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The answer is that PROD can be taken down without condition or explanation by anyone. There is no requirement to make any improvement or fix anything. And once the PROD comes down you are stuck with rolling the dice in AfD and hoping you will get people to actually respond to your nomination. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. You are also right that participation at AfDs is very low; the article can linger for weeks, and the a single "keep" vote results in "no consensus". Wikipedia definitely does not need more low quality content. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I too am following the RfC closely and – while I'm very sympathetic to Ad Orientem's concern – I haven't voiced an opinion in favor (or against).

I think being a bit WP:BITEy is the biggest problem here. New editors should concentrate on creating articles that don't have to adhere to our strictest guidelines (ie. no BLPs), and we warn them about BLP concerns virtually every step of the way. Their only other option is to create non-BLP articles, and the suggested process would make that more difficult for them than it already is.

I take issue with the Wikipedia:There is no deadline crowd: WP:V does set a deadline (challenged information can and will be removed), but leaves the precise time of that deadline to editor discretion. Indeed, it's the lack of process toward the other end of the timeline of articles that are completely unsourced and are tagged as such (ie. claims are "challenged" to use WP:V lingo) that's disheartening. I have seen articles that are some 12 years old and have been tagged as lacking sources for more than 10 years! Surely by this time is it neither BITEy against anyone nor does it fall under WP:V's "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" when they have been warned about it a decade ago! I am shocked to find that we do not have a process for deleting old articles that consist of unreferenced, challenged, material in entirety.

I have tried to argue that by following the logic of WP:V, those articles can be deleted. Now, as correctly pointed out in the RFC, WP:V does not advocate deletion, but what it does advocate is removal of claims. If an article consists of unreferenced, challenged, claims only, removing those claims would lead to blanking the page. Wikipedia:Page blanking says that should blanking leave the article with no useful content, one should not blank the page but take it to WP:PROD directly. In effect, then, completely unreferenced articles that are old enough should be deleted via PROD. Unfortunately, when I've tried this people have completely missed the point and resorted to claiming that the article subject is notable and so it should not be deleted.

On that note, I don't agree with the views in the RfC at all that those who want to introduce new deletion processes are somehow WP:NOTHERE. Remember, this is what we started with when we did not have notability ("Do not delete anything that might in the future become an encyclopedia topic") and hoaxes, spam etc. allowed. Surely the people who have since then added the aforementioned to our set of deletion criteria improved the encyclopedia rather than doing the opposite.

(ping: K.e.coffman) –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a qualifier under the 5th support comment to address the BITE concerns. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it did not go as intended. The "keepism" movement is strong at Wikipedia! I get this from certain contributors who do not agree with my " deletionist zeal". For example: "You obviously have no interest in building the encyclopedia, you are just deleting information that was probably put in the article in good faith many years ago by someone who didn't know how to cite. Where is your good faith?" -- this is about material from an article tagged Refimprove since 2012. Or here the editor acknowledges that the material was "uncited or poorly cited", but states that if I "take this sort of action [remove uncited material] on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article" — right, because that's not a completely impossible task to do. :-)

@ Finnusertop: It's funny, but the argument that there's "no deadline" always comes from people who are intent on keeping articles on non-notable subjects and dubiously cited or uncited material. Oh well. Please feel free to ping me if there are any other "deletionism" proposals in the works. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the writing is on the wall and sometime in the next few days I will likely bow to consensus and close the discussion myself. But I am deeply disappointed. Wikipedia is not here for its editors, even new ones. We are here for our readers. And allowing articles to make claims that our readers cannot verify quickly by looking at a clear citation, is a serious "fail" in my book. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, given the obvious good-faith nature of the nomination, it would've been worthwhile to wait a bit longer before closing. It's not likely to pass, but getting snow closed within 30 minutes and with only one oppose vote is not very encouraging for a would-be new editor. Waiting for 24 hours, with something like 5-6 opposes and no supports, would make invoking WP:SNOW more reasonable to the newcomer. My $0.02. Banedon ( talk) 02:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am sorry if you feel stepped on by my SNOW close of your ITNC nomination. It was not my intention to offend. But I can assure you, as someone who has been around ITN for a while, that the proposal was not going to pass. ITN guidelines and longstanding precedent restrict political news to actual changes in administration and government. It's possible a few more comments might have accumulated before another editor shut it down, but not many. This was not going to last 24 hrs. I honestly doubt it would have survived another 30 minutes. If I had not closed it, someone else would have, and it was going to happen quickly. The editors at ITNC tend to be quick with the hook when a nomination is obviously DOA. It serves no purpose to keep it open just so other editors can pile on with their Oppose votes. All of which said, please don't get discouraged. Only about half of my own ITN noms have gotten through and I have had one or two shut down quickly. I hope you stick around. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it wasn't going to pass (it's also not "my nomination", and I've been reading ITNC for something like one year). But from the point of view of the IP editor ("Peter") who originally proposed it, I think it would've been better to let it run a while longer. Banedon ( talk) 05:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)