User:And Adoil Descended/Archive 1

Logical punctuation
Hi, I just reverted a couple of your edits because Wikipedia uses logical punctuation. :) Lady  of  Shalott  02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

CVUA
Good evening! My name is Achowat and I'm an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. If you'll have me, I'd love to work with you to help you understand how we on Wikipedia handle vandalism. I've watchlisted this page, so feel free to respond here. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Achowat. Nice to meet you. So, how do we begin? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the first step is to read the various processes involved in the Four Steps. (Identify, Restore, Warn, Report). So take a few minutes and read WP:VAND, WP:REVERT, WP:WARN and WP:GAIV and if you have any questions, let me know. Achowat (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: what is this Twinkle that I've seen people mention? Is that some kind of a software program? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle is a pop-up menu that can be activated under your options. When it is enabled and you press "TW", you get a pop-up menu that allows you to Welcome, Warn, or Report a user, plus many more options, such as CSD, PROD, and XFD tagging. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And, if you don't mind my asking...why are you stalking my page? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All the Instructors have that nasty habit. It allows us to more quickly respond to your questions than if it were only me watchlisting it. How is your reading coming along? Achowat (talk)
 * I read the articles. Now what do we do? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing to do is spend a few hours vandal patrolling this weekend, using Twinkle if that's what you feel comfortable with. On Monday (or, likely, Sunday night), I'll review those reverts and see if there are any concerns I have. And remember, use the "Rollback - Vandal" option in any situation where you would use the WP:Rollback feature if you had access to it. Achowat (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few things. First, your vandalism reverts look good (in fact, there are situations where you might be assuming too much good faith, which is definitely the side to err on). The big thing that I'd like to see is more use of the warning templates. They serve three real purporses: they show vandals that we "know what they're up to", which scares a lot off; they allow the next anti-vandal to give a more stern warning; and they comprise the "sufficient warning" needed to block a true vandal at WP:AIV. Essentially, every time something is "vandalism" (ie, you would use Rollback on it) then there should be an accompanying template at that User/IP's talk page. Achowat (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Achowat! And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you've done no counter-vandalism work since my comment. Is everything ok? Is counter-vandalism still an area of focus for you? Achowat (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not been on this website that much since the 12th. And when I am online, I don't seem to find that much vandalism that I can revert. And when I do, it seems that other guys beat me to the Twinkle punch. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that can get disheartening. Perhaps it'd be wise to use the DefCon system (Vandalism information) which uses Huggle statistics to inform counter-vandals of a high level of reverts. It's not always 100% accurate, but it does a good job. Achowat (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So I've gone over your contributions and it seems like you have a full handle on what is and is not Vandalism. I'm willing to graduate you out of the Academy today, but would you like me to "nominate you" at WP:PERM for the Rollback bit? I think it's quite clear you can be trusted with it. Achowat (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Achowat. Thank you very much for graduating me from the Academy and for offering to "nominate" me at WP:PERM. I am flattered that you consider my efforts worthy of your attention and support. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and nominate yourself at WP:PERM and I'll add a Non-Admin Observation that I think you're ready. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Thank you, again, for being so nice to me. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue
Hello And Adoil Descended. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Source is under a compatible license. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for update, Malik! And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Buzzme; there was enough context to identify the subject :). Context is "can you tell what the article is about?". If so, it shouldn't be tagged using that - although as a non-notable website it did meet A7. Ironholds (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Graduate

 * Sweet! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Lad
Hey AAD. I (in a roundabout fashion) was asked to review Articles for deletion/Blood Lad and your close of it. So, the first thing to bear in mind is that while non-admins can close AfDs, we don't necessarily encourage it except in very specific circumstances - namely when the outcome is beyond a shadow of a doubt. And on the shadow of a doubt front, it's always good to remember that closes are not nose-counts; the number of people voting "keep!" or "delete!" is secondary to the strength of their arguments and whether they have disproved counter-arguments. It's also secondary to whether their arguments are in line with policy and what Wikipedia requires of articles.

So, in this AfD we have people near-unanimously saying "keep"; that's fine. Always a good sign that it's appropriate for NAC :). However, as the last comment in the article pointed out, one of the sources is not independent and the other is (possibly) not reliable, and having a single independent, reliable source does not notability make. This argument should, I feel, have been taken into account in the closing, and the closing comment doesn't suggest it was :(.

Now, I'm not here to scream or rant at you, just to give you some advice on how AfDs (and non-admin closures) are treated and what the expectations are :). Hopefully that will be the end of it and we can all move forward - nobody expects editors to be perfect, just to learn from their mistakes (and lord knows I've made a lot). However, if you are feeling particularly WP:BOLD, you could undo your close and leave it for someone else - it's completely up to you. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attenion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thought about your non-admin closure of Articles for deletion/Opexa Therapeutics. It's true that I agreed with the "keep" outcome; I felt it was a "keep" because of additional sources I had added, and there was one other person who agreed with me. However, one delete nomination plus two "keep" opinions do not really add up to a consensus - at least not an obvious, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt consensus such as Ironholds says is needed for a non-admin close. Personally I'm not an administrator, but I hang out at AfD a lot, and I don't think many admins would have closed this discussion with so little input; most want to see at least three concurring opinions before calling it a consensus. IMO that discussion needed another opinion or two, maybe a relisting if its seven days have run out.

No harm done, since my hunch is it would have eventually gotten those additional "keep" comments. This is just a friendly comment - intended as helpful feedback, particularly if you are doing non-admin closures in preparation for a run for administrator (and I encourage you to think about that). Thanks for helping Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your comments. I have noticed articles being deleted from the AfD pages with only two or three calls for their removal, and I figured that the same standard could apply with preserving articles. Or maybe I was being a little too bold? In any event, I do not believe that the initial reason for deletion retained its relevance in view of your wonderful additions, which is what Ironman alluded to in his earlier comment about "beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt" reasoning for a non-admin closure. But, then again, he only turns up here to tell me what I'm doing wrong! :P But thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I don't get many visitors, so anyone coming here is always welcomed! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noticed articles being deleted from the AfD pages with only two or three calls for their removal, and I figured that the same standard could apply with preserving articles. There's a difference between "three votes for delete (counting the nominator's), none for keep" and "one vote for delete (the nominator's), two for keep." The first is consensus; the second is not IMO. But as I said: no harm, no foul. Do keep on closing discussions, you're helping Wikipedia. And as always at Wikipedia, if anyone disagrees, they'll let you know! 0;-D (P.S. If Ironholds has adopted you, you're in good hands.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Melanie, I wish that you and Ironman gave pep talks to other people on this website. I came back from a holiday break and I just took a look at the recently closed AfDs and I found three non-admin closures that did not follow any of the guidelines that you prescribed:, and . This website's unofficial rule seems to be "Every man for himself!" And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there
I noticed you have put a deletion notice on Lumber Avenue by accident. Its okay, I have removed it so do not worry. Cheers. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was no accident, and the article is now the subject of an AfD discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
For relatively new articles and such, may I suggest wp:speedy deletion? Uses less resources (admin time) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim! You may want to take a look at what I did - I put a Prod tag on Lumber Avenue, but the editor who created that article removed it. So, I took it AfD. I decided to take the other two articles that he created to AfD, because I thought he might remove any Speedy Delete or Prod tags. I just wanted confirmation that my opinion of those articles was correct. In any event, there turned out to be a funny surprise: the editor in question was unmasked as a sockpuppet! So, it all worked out in the end. :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also recognize that "speedy deletion" means anything less than 7 days ... there's no rush. dangerous  panda  12:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven days = speedy? Hmmmm. :/ And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dfgtj
Hello And Adoil Descended. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dfgtj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''This is not patent nonsense. G1 only applies to content such as "th453wt3h2srhwrth". However, I have re-tagged it as a G3.''' Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha. Obviously, I need to tighten my G-string. :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wicked Walking Tours
it has a link. --Cake102992 (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs a bit more than that, I'm afraid. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh, thank you very much! My very first barnstar! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Diverging C Curve
Hey, sorry, I took down your speedy template because I wasn't able to see how it was blatantly a hoax. It might be more blatant to someone with some knowledge of the issue, of course. Do you mind creating an AFD of it? I could but I'm just going to say I have no clue and therefore no opinion. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  05:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have deferred to someone who understands economics, or at least can spend 45 seconds looking up references to affirm that such a theory does not exist? Or perhaps you can read the article and check that the "economist" who created this is a secondary school student? If I didn't confirm that it was a blatant hoax, I would not have tagged it as such. In any event, I put it up for AfD - it will take a few days longer than necessary to get rid of such rubbish, but at least this phony article will be removed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

close
Good NAC at Articles for deletion/Boulevard Drive-In Theatre (Allentown, Pennsylvania)  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Cookies!

 * Thank you. I have been off Wikipedia for a bit, and this is a very nice treat for my return! And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

on unanimity
Thanks for closing Articles for deletion/Bubbler

To nitpick... Consensus was not unanimous due to the unretracted position of the nominator, and ambiguity about whether "keep" and "merge" and "move" are all the same thing. I think you should cut "unanimous" from your close. However, thank you for the very good NACs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the non-admin closure was inappropriate. Several editors (four out of nine editors who !voted, plus my own comment) advocated moving or merging the article.  Two of the "keep" !voters gave no reasoning other than that they agreed with Howicus, who had actually !voted "keep and move".  So, while there was a great consensus that the article should not have been deleted, there was not, in my opinion, a consensus that the outcome should be a simple "keep"; more strongly, I feel that the consensus was to move or merge the page. Non-admin closures should only be made when the consensus is clear. Because this AfD was closed as just "keep", any editor now wishing to move or redirect the page must establish an explicit consensus to do so, which will be difficult, since the Bubbler article receives very little traffic. Dricherby (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The consensus in question, as I see it, is the wealth of opinions that followed the initial point raised by the nominator. There were no calls for deletion after the discussion began - the unanimity, in my view, is based on the total absence of calls for deletion once the discussion began. Had there been one person who shared the nominator's opinion, I would have abstained from a non-admin closure. Opinions on whether to move or merge or redirect the article, however, should be discussed outside of the AfD section; that is not the purpose of the AfD vehicle. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion began when somebody suggested deleting the page, not when the first person commented on that; for me, though, the "unanimous" thing isn't a big deal. However, opinions about merging and redirecting are absolutely part of the AfD process: WP:DISCUSSAFD explicitly suggests "merge" and "redirect" as possible recommendations; WP:AFD/AI gives instructions on how to perform a close when the consensus is to merge or redirect; WP:NAC explicitly mentions merges and redirects as closes that a non-admin has the capability to perform; there are templates to mark a page for merging after an AfD is closed with that conclusion. You are right that merging and redirecting is not the purpose of AfD: an editor who wants to propose merging or redirecting should do that on the relevant talk pages. But merge/redirect is very much a possible outcome of AfD.  Furthermore, it was an outcome that received much discussion in the particular AfD in question and your close does not even mention it. Dricherby (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for the shortcomings of my closing statement. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

California legislators
Despite his claim that the hundreds of California legislator microstubs are "part of a larger project", Aggie88's earlier comments on his talk page  make it clear that this "project" is actually an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about the notability criteria for politicians. I've already asked him not to do this on his talk page but he deleted my message, which is why I'm saying this here, rather than there. Dricherby (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, his more recent comments seem more measured and at least some of the stubs contain a few sentences of information, with appropriate sources. So maybe this isn't as big an issue as I thought it was going to be. Dricherby (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't over-think these things, Dricherby! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CSD on Bill Cipher
You placed a CSD on Bill Cipher, but the article is not referring to a real person, it is referring to a character in a TV show, Gravity Falls. I have updated the CSD to A1 and A10, as it has no context, and the character is already described on the show's page. Any comments, let me know! Tek022 &#124; Comments?  21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I realized my tag was not the right one after I logged out and shut off my computer! I did wonder if someone would alert me to my error - and someone did! :D And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Investors Bank Page
Hello, I understand the reason for the COI tag, and have added a declaration to the Talk page. Everything on the page is a fact. If you still see any specific issues that would warrant the tag, please let us know. Thank you. Investorsbank (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll userfy it for you, but it will be tomorrow I'm afraid  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jimflbeak. I plan to be around tomorrow, so I will be on the lookout for it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll shortly post the text here. If you recreate you will need to

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Most of the text is unreferenced
 * write in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * add more about the company itself, currently it's all about what the company does and its products. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?
 * Thank you very much. I will do my best to make this a presentable article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi And Adoil. Will you be adding this page soon? 70.192.72.157 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope so. I have been offline due to a family matter. I will be able to devote more time to this website in August. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you help?
I saw that you posted a "this article will be deleted" on another editor's page. I was wondering if you'd take a look at this Doyle Doss bioplug as another possible candidate for removal? The person who edits it is a bulldog about this page, and simply will not consider that 2 tiny mentions in major newspapers and one local reference to having been in the New York Times is sufficient for notability. I don't think so and I tried to talk to the page fanatic, but no go. I see you seem to know something of the process of removing ridiculous pages from wikipedia and was wondering if you could help please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that an article cannot be salvaged and deserves to be deleted, you can always nominate in the Articles for Deletion section of Wikipedia. In viewing this particular article, it appears to be adequately referenced. While it would be nice for the article to have more content, I don't see it anywhere near ridiculous. I am sorry that I could not be of more assistance. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That is very sweet. Thank you! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:NorbertRillieux.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NorbertRillieux.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The photograph in question was taken in the 19th century. Its copyright expired a long, long time ago. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erskine Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friars Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed! And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you help?
Can you also help me change my user name please? Manny the Frenchie (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how to add references. Can you help? Manny the Frenchie (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Wickes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Studio One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

 * Thank you. This is a nice surprise. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Mediran ( t  •  c ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you, too! And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. This is a nice surprise! And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grand Forks International
Hello, I have been working on creating a page for the Grand Forks International today, and noticed you marked it as a candidate for speedy deletion. I realize this is only my first article, but I was wondering what I can do to improve it so it will not be deleted. Thanks! Canucksfan97 (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site
I am not debating the close, as I feel notability had been established... but I wish to notify you of an slight error in your closing statement. The AFd was opened by User:jps, and the one delete vote (apart from the nominator's) was that of User:Spirit of Eagle who DID withdraw. As the discussion did last seven days and there were no delete votes outside the nom's, I do not think your close will be contested.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, my error - I misread the AfD and thought the nominator was withdrawing the debate. My apologies. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears from the discussion at WP:FTN that the nom is aware of this and sees no reason to challenge it or take it to WP:DRV. I did not officially !vote but I agree with MichaelQSchmidt that the close is fine. Location (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But you did grant notability likely asked some cogent questions that opened a discussion elsewhere. Thank you,   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

COIN
I removed your entry at COIN and have contacted the oversight team, as I believe that your edit violated our WP:OUTING policy. if you want to repost it without linking to external sites you believe are relevant, please do so. I will let you know what the oversight team says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not good, is it? I am sorry - I did not intend to create problems. The individual in question had openly identified himself online - I just wanted to note the conflict of interest in this person spamming the website with a promotional article about his company. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
&#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Eduardo (rapper)
If you are going to do closures at AfD, please complete the procedure. I had to create Talk:Eduardo (rapper).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a number of non-admin closures and this is the first time I forgot to include that step. I got distracted by another editor who was questioning the closure, which is why I forgot to finish the process off. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear; thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...
...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it.

(What do I look like, Sidney Poitier? I'd rather be Rod Steiger - I can manage the accent.  Yes, I know it's the wrong movie.  No, I don't care. :-) )-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Very sweet thank you
I love the dove, thank uWP.NICKNAME.22 WP.NICKNAME.22 11:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.NICKNAME.22 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug McKeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On Golden Pond (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New page reviewer granted
Hello And Adoil Descended. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 13,500 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
 * Thank you, and Happy New Year! And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Volodymyr Kedrowsky
Dear Sir, I saw very interesting art. that You created on Wiki about "Kedrowsky". Just one question - is there any evidence or source confirming Ostoja in his family? I would much appreciate any answer or link/ source to confirm that. Best regards camdan (talk 01:36, 31 Oktober 2017 (UTC)
 * You are confusing me with Andrec at UkrHEC. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see talk page for "History of Unitarian Universalism"
Your deletion of the contents of this page in favor of a redirect seems precipitate and unnecessarily extreme. Please go to the Talk page to discuss the matter with me before further edits. ArthurOgawa (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benzinga (April 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Benzinga and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Benzinga, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Benzinga Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CNMall41&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Benzinga reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Iqbal Unnisa


Hello, And Adoil Descended. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Iqbal Unnisa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Benzinga
Hello, And Adoil Descended. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Benzinga, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Benzinga


Hello, And Adoil Descended. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Benzinga".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)