User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveSix

Sarah Knox Taylor
This was not a good closure. It was full of "it's interesting" and "she's related to ______" arguments (which are discouraged in AFD's), and overlooked/disregarded lack of independent notability. A better thing to do would've been a relist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus of experienced editors in that discussion is crystal clear: notability can be established through family relations when they are sufficiently unusual. There was a strong agreement as to the exceptional nature of the case in question, such that any purportedly contrary guidelines could be WP:IARed. This was certainly not a case in which a flood of canvassed or inexperienced editors could legitimately have their opinions discarded in the determination of the consensus. I stand by the correctness of the closure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all; WP:BIOFAMILY states that family affiliations by themselves do not make one notable. No good reason for ignoring that. "IAR" also can't just be used like that as a cop-out response for AFD's. Experienced doesn't always mean good votes, just saying. It was by no means a "correct" closure, and it disappoints me to see so many users overlook/disregard the nuances of notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, welcome to take this matter to deletion review. However, I can predict the outcome that process with virtual certainty. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I suggest testing your "family relations can never by themselves establish notability" thesis with a simple thought experiment: imagine the results of nominating the article on Michelle Obama for deletion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I WANT AN AUTO FROM APARRI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.239.2 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fiorella Mattheis


A tag has been placed on Fiorella Mattheis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -&copy;2015 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 18:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple Google News search shows that Mattheis has received a plethora of coverage in reliable sources, amply satisfying WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see also pt:Fiorella Mattheis. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiorella Mattheis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (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) 09:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like this problem is now fixed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hello im sorry for vandalism you want to be my friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.93.186 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. How would you like to improve Wikipedia? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Category
Hey thanks for closing this category discussion. You may be aware that you should only rename the nominated categories of this particular discussion. Other categories of the tree that you would prefer to be renamed should first be nominated/discussed as well, either in full CfD or in the speedy renaming section. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping out at CFD, especially for implementing the changes manually and for doing the follow-up nomination for the next layer of categories. If I may make a few suggestions:
 * You redirected the old category pages rather than move them. For several months, it has been possible to use the "move" function for category pages in the same way as articles. It doesn't move the members (well, not straight away), but it does a few useful things: (i) it keeps the history of the category together; (ii) it automatically creates a category redirect at the old page; (iii) by default, it moves the category talk page as well, which you omitted (I have done those now); (iv) it automatically updates the interwiki links for Wikipedias in other languages, which are now held at Wikidata (also now done).
 * As you may have noticed, user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao moved a lot of the contents for you using Cat-a-lot, which is amazingly fast, and a lot less work than AWB for a category with many members. The main disadvantage is that the edit summary cannot be tailored e.g. to link to the CFD discussion.
 * WP:CFDAI has more instructions on closing and implementing CFDs. Feel free to ping me if you would like any further advice, or ask me to use the bots to implement a decision that you have closed.
 * Hope this helps! – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot
For the record, I don't see these as insurmountable problems. Current (or recent) blocks, transcluded templates, and perhaps a couple of keywords (in addition to 2014, 2015, words like sockpuppet and banned). With a little thought and a few such checks, it's not insurmountable. In addition to the reading pointed to earlier, there was an 'experiment', by the WMF I believe, to blank a sample of older pages. This may be worth looking into if it can be found. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like the most straightforward exclusion criterion is the IP being currently blocked, which AWB apparently has no means of detecting. Modification of source code would be required; however, my programming skills are rusty, and I never learned C# or Wikipedia's API. While this customization of AWB would handle current block and open proxy notices, it would still be necessary to have exclusion rules enumerating every sockpuppet template, every redirect to every sockpuppet template, etc. Using AWB in manually confirmed mode makes the task more straightforward: I can paste the list of IP talk pages into my userspace sandbox, and use navigation popups to check for blocked users. Any sockpuppet templates would appear prominently in the diff display. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that it's probably been done before (I found Bots/Requests for approval/SharedIPArchiveBot 2). Consider checking for un-substed templates, and categories, which are rare for basic warnings and a fairly good indicator of stuff to keep. The page WP:OLDIP originally arose in the context of deleting user talk pages, so blanking by comparison is relatively benign, but it gives a good indication of the possible areas of concern. I'm quite a big fan of getting rid of the blocks on indefinitely blocked IP addresses with ancient edits. Until the blocks are gone, it's useful to track them. Also, most of the IPs in CAT:OP should either be unblocked, or if not blocked, have their block templates cleared. I leave you to judge your own capabilities in this area. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (and a favor)
Thanks for the prompt revdel.

Could you email me a short paraphrase of what you deleted? I ought to know, in general terms, what's going on.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The offending user was engaged in scatological vandalism on your userpage, which I reverted. Since I'm not currently an administrator, I did not perform the revision deletion, nor do I have access to deleted revisions. You can contact Gamaliel, who deleted the vandalized revisions, regarding their content. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've sent MarkBernstein the details privately. it was pretty minor stuff.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
David, you need to talk to Black Dragon. That user is not listening and treating the talk page like a forum for him opinions. He has already been told by me and other editors that he's wrong and why and he refuses to listen or get the message and move on. That's why I'm reverting his last comment. The matter isn't up for discussion because he is in violation of WP:OR and won't admit it. Thanks for your look in. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To avoid edit wars on talk pages, Wikipedia etiquette generally requires that one refrain from removing comments by users with whom one is in a content dispute. If a comment really is egregiously uncivil, it will probably be removed by a neutral third party. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Covencraft
Regarding this edit, do you have an ISBN for that edition? I couldn't find a 2003 edition for Covencraft, only the 1998 edition. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. It looks like 2003 is the date of the most recent printing, and 1998 is the copyright date. It appears that the latter is the date that should be in the article. I will self-revert. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for catching that. And thank you for fixing all those "citation needed" issues in the article, it is very much appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wiccan views of divinity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman (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) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strangely, this is not an actual error. Since the source I cited uses "Atman" ambiguously, the internal link for this term needs to be ambiguous as well. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown
Whoops! Sorry. In the process of reverting that brats vandalism, accidentally reverted your revert. Sorry!!! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Double Revert
Double revert, thanks:. I realized as the revert was happening. --JustBerry (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) See User_talk:Adam9007. --JustBerry (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA
It's been a year and a half, feel like running again? Keegan (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One thing RFA !voters like to see is a recent history of high participation in Wikipedia. I was on a wikibreak from September 2014 to December 2014, and have had a minimal number of edits from January 2015 to July 2015. However, I expect my editing to be significant for the foreseeable future. I should be ready for RFA in about five months. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All righty :) Keegan (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD notices
Could you please make sure you remove the AfD notice from articles when closing. I removed one from here for you. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that error, which appears to be a script malfunction. I will check every article manually once the script has finished. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aligarh Institute Gazette
Hi! Just wanted to point out something to you regarding the subject AfD you closed as keep. The only 3 keep voters in the AfD seem to have some WP:COI with the topic. Two of them, Arifjwadder and EyThink have been dedicating their time since few weeks only for articles related to Aligarh Muslim University and Rajib56789 came out after 2012 only to edit AMU related articles. Am not asking you to reopen the AfD or reconsider it in any manner. But just wanted to point this out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but even with consideration of the editorial COI, there was no consensus for merger or deletion. I will, however, reverse the closure and relist the AFD to see if a clearer consensus can be developed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Arifjwadder, User:EyThink and User: Rajib56789 have been indef blocked for socking. See Sockpuppet investigations/Arifjwadder/Archive. So thanks for relisting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I devloping very bad stress right now, So I cant handing this!!!
I had to rechanged it back and sightly change to kinda make sense, Augustus Sol Invictus wikipedia page for how oblivous that sources are claiming facts about guy are accurate [And need be in infobox for reason]? Put right now I cant be mad on you for unchange it for "reason" on guidelines are cant control my very bad stress due of Academic event two days ago. 70.61.121.86 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Making personal attacks against other users is not okay. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see this title of subject is about cant handle about this an day ago. 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closings in Articles covered by Discretionary Sanctions
Hi. Because Longevity articles are covered by discretionary sanctions, I think they are inherently controversial. As such, I think WP:NACD suggests that AfDs about them ought not be closed by non-admins. "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." I've asked an admin who's closed some others recently to review some of your closures, here. David in DC (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

re 3RR warning
I know the 3RR policy, so I will stay off articles once I reach 3 "reversions". However, other editors are violating the WP:PROD policy by reverting my removal of the PROD template even though such removal is compliant with policy. I hope the deleting admin will account for that. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Other editors are reverting your removal of proposed deletion notices because your recent contributions are comprised primarily of the removal of PRODs without substantive explanation as to why you believe the deprodded articles should not be deleted. Many users would consider this sort of editing to be disruptive. Please also note that, per the editing warring policy, you might be blocked for edit warring across multiple articles even if you do not exceed three reversions on any one article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
PS: I absolutely love your userpage :)  Ya  sh  !   03:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Bernard Shaw's nationality.
Was he "Irish" or "British" or do we need to define his nationality in some other way? A debate on the subject, to reconsider a long-standing consensus that he was Irish, has started at talk:George Bernard Shaw. Just in case you're interested. Current comments are at "Nationality", at the foot of the page - although an earlier thread at "Irish"? may also be relevant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:57, 12 November 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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet Solutions
Hello David, I don't know if this is an administration problem or just an editorial one, but I will ask anyway. I am trying to create a page for Ronnie Apteker, the entrepreneur and film producer who founded Internet Solutions. But Wiki thinks there already is a page called Ronnie Apteker, which is simply a blank that redirects to Internet Solutions. So, it's impossible to create a dedicated Ronnie Apteker page without removing this redirect - and I don't know how to do such things. Would you happen to know how such a problem would be overcome? Thanks for your time. picknick99 (sorry, I've even forgotten how to do the sign off!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picknick99 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 November 2015‎
 * After entering "Ronnie Apteker" into the address bar, you can click on the name in "(Redirected from Ronnie Apteker)", then edit the redirect to create the article. Signing talk page comments is accomplished using ~ . DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronnie Apteker
Hi David. Thanks for your advice re Ronnie Apteker. I did know about the 4 tildes, but it had been so long since I last used Wikipedia I just couldn't remember. I now see there's even a shortcut button! Picknick99 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Picknick99 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi David. Thanks for informing me of the edits made on this article. This was more than likely the work of a family member in my house, as I recall the page being viewed by them several days ago with noticeable changes near the bottom (presumably in Criticisms). I don't remember the contents of the edits made, and hopefully this was just a "once in a blue moon" incident, but hopefully to avoid confusion in the future I've prompted to make an account unique to my computer so if something does happen again with my (well, our house's) IP Address on it, it'll make resolving any future issues here a bit easier.

Cheers, and Happy New Year! OliveOrujo (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanders party listing at Talk:Vermont
Hi DavidLeighEllis, would you mind providing your input at Talk:Vermont? We have a visitor from England who has some definite opinions. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Todd Lickliter
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa/iowa-basketball/2014/01/19/harty-todd-lickliter-left-iowas-basketball-program-in-shambles/4638875/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.192.101 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 January 2016‎
 * You are free to add this information to the article in an appropriate WP:NPOV way and with a proper citation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular, you shouldn't write that he's a criminal, since the source provided doesn't support that claim. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE BLOCK SOMEONE
I'm just kidding ;-) - I saw your edit notice and wanted to be silly. No but seriously, thanks for being attentive and for reverting back all of the shenanigans from Dwarf sperm whale - you beat me to it :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

AFDs & 168hrs
Hi David, I'm assuming you know but if not - AFDs need to stay open for 168 hours (7days) as per WP:NOTEARLY and the consensus here - As stupid as it all is the community as I found out doesn't seem to like early AFD closures .... So before someone takes you to ANI It might be a better idea to wait the full 7 days, Just thought I should probably "warn" you before the inevitable does happen, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While I'm not going to reverse anything that I closed before that discussion was closed, I will in the future wait for the full 168 hours to elapse, except in blatantly clear WP:SNOW cases. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I apologize if the above sounds moany it's just I'd rather not see anyone taken to ANI over something so trivial & pointless but anyway thanks for understanding I guess :), Anyway Happy editing, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case comments
I sort of can't help but to point out that that old ArbCom case was more than twice as long ago as you have been an editor. So imagine a third version of yourself editing in four more years, 2020, and ask yourself if anything you did at the beginning of your Wikipedia experience would still be relevant then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be if I repeated the same sort of behavior. For instance, if I ever were to create a template similar to template:uw-unwelcome, editors would properly point out that I did the same thing in the summer of 2013. By the way, the publicity of user renames extends beyond the rename log. Truly hiding your old username would involve oversighting every edit you made in which you used the old signature. I can hardly imagine that this would ever be done. If you truly want a fresh start, you need to stop using your current account, then create a new account with no apparent connection. You should begin by editing new topics, forgetting about the disputes in which you have previously been involved. You should avoid making repeated reversions on any of the sort of articles that were involved in the EEML case, because this could reveal your previous identity. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I give up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment
I noticed you comment re EEML and would like you to know that I have partially responded to it as former member of this group. In part because MVBW was member of it as well, which you are probably unaware.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

share IP address
this is a college IP address, so I have no idea who edited the article in question, re: basketball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.116 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I recommend that you create an account to avoid further notices directed to your IP address. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CFD closures timing
Hi. I have no general objection to you, or other non-admins, closing CFDs. There is a backlog, and heaven knows that section needs all the help it can get with closures. However, when you do so, as here, it's probably a good idea to wait until seven complete days have passed, per the closing instructions. Otherwise editors could object to the close as having been made too early. It looks like that one was closed about 20 hours too early. (In this case, I don't think it's necessary for you to re-open it. This is more of just a note for the future.) Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But thanks for being willing to close some. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)