User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive46

Peer review request
Hello, I recently nominated American football for peer review and was wondering if you would want to give feedback. I noticed you on the volunteers list, and you note American sports as your topic of interest or expertise. While I noticed you seem to be more of a baseball person, I'd be very glad to have your input.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing National Football League instead, I don't have the full time to review the American football article, the review of NFL article will also take up a lot of my free time. Secret account 21:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, if you don't have any time there is no reason to feel compelled to do a PR. I'm more than happy to have NFL reviewed. :)  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Secret!
You don't know me. But, I am a student at the University of Washington, in Seattle. I'm a senior, studying Informatics. In one of my current classes, INFO 447 - Computer Supported Collaborative Work, we are studying Wikipedia. We have been reading several (usually dry) academic and research articles discussing various topics concerning Wikipedia. A couple weeks ago, we were studying the criteria that is considered when an Admin candidate is up for selection. It just so happened to be that you were the candidate that we looked at, talked about, and analyzed. What's funny is that we read all about your deletion methods, and you just deleted an article that I edited about an hour ago! Small world! (That article did need to go, by the way, so no hard feelings). Anyway. On behalf of the INFO 447 class at the University of Washington, I just want to give you a hearty "congrats" on your new Adminship. Cheers! And good luck. Danielbullis (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ruth
I hope you are doing well and enjoying the bits. Whenever you want to proceed on Ruth is good with me. I haven't touched the Yankees or Red Sox material.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I been very busy lately, stuck with school papers and such, plus spring break at work thus I'm likely to be inactive for a while extremely soon. With the little time I had I was doing CSD and some easier AFD work, but I would move back to Ruth. Tomorrow I have to follow up on some GA reviews I did, and create one I promised to another editor, but I probably can do some expansion on Wednesday and depending on the weather this weekend. Sorry for the delay. Secret account 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Just checking in.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RFA
Hello Secret. I went and did my homework, looking at past failed and successful RFAs (never been to that part of Wikipedia. There be dragons!) and looking at the most common objections, I'm guessing I haven't been editing for as long as I think would be ideal. Also my lack of content work might be an issue, although I can content with the best of them I guess I have not concentrated on that as much. As far as what I'd do with them brooms, really I guess it would be just an extension of what I've been doing with OTRS (which as an aside, has been extremely rewarding). But I'd hate to go through that gauntlet and come out on the other side with nothing to show for it. So how's about we wait maybe a couple of months? I really appreciate your suggestion and I'm still interested, but I'd rather wait a bit. Thanks again, and I'll come knocking around mid-April or such. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be actively editing then! Secret account 01:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

George Nicol (baseball) GAR
I've finished addressing or responding to all the comments you made on Talk:George Nicol (baseball)/GA1. Could you please have another look? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out by early tomorrow, I been having computer problems (my laptop crashed and is a total loss, need to buy a new one), thus I haven't been as active in editing like I wanted. Secret account 03:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I understand. Could you have a quick look at the article then (now that it's been one week since my first comment)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Folk Dance Music SD
I deal a fair amount in Speedy Tags but haven't been around lately. It doesn't seem to me that a music genre should be speedy deleted under A7, but if I'm wrong please let me know. I didn't like that article at all but being that it was asserted as a genre and not an entity listed under A7 or any other tag I was going to watch it for a while and see if anything more promising turned up. Beach drifter (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 18:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Secret; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Masterton/GA1
Hi Secret! Just wanted to ping you on this GA review, as it has been a few weeks since you last looked at it. Cheers! Resolute 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping? If you're busy, I can ask the folks at WT:GAN if someone would be willing to pick up the review. Thanks, Resolute 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll recheck it in a few hours, it's just that I been IPad editing which made it impossible to do GA reviews or contribute to content. I got computer editing again, so it should be any issues. Sorry for the delay. Secret account 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article right now, will leave some comments in the morning. Secret account 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I remember that was mentioned. I wasn't meaning to push you on the review.  Thanks! Resolute 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion?

 * Could you kindly join in and give a helping hand in assessing and progressing. A well reasoned assessment with reference to Wikipedia policies & guidelines would clearly be needed. I feel that the deletion discussion would have been slam-dunk case if the papal election frenzy and the Media circus would not have entered the scene. Arguments like I "feel" so and so is unfortunately a notoriously difficult assessment tool and not always agreeable with encyclopedic sentiments. A bad example of a non-convincing argument from the discussion in question is: Well what utter crap! I'm a reader of Wikipedia and I found myself at this article because I wanted to know about the likely candidates, and a useful article I found it. Well I don't care whether it meets whatever "core policies" you're talking about, but I do care whether it provides me with information I need. And it does, so cut the crap about deleting it.


 * What arguments i.e. policies & guidelines do you think are most convincing or/and could some be left out?

So far these points have been cited as relevant :


 * KEEP
 * WP:GNG (cited once)


 * DELETE
 * WP:CRYSTAL
 * WP:OR
 * WP:V
 * WP:NOTADVOCATE
 * WP:NOTOPINION
 * WP:RNPOV
 * WP:COMPREHENSIVE
 * WP:IRS
 * WP:FRINGE
 * WP:NOTGOSSIP
 * WP:NEWSORG
 * WP:YESPOV
 * WP:WEIGHT


 * Which is it?
 * Thank you for taking a look at all of this! --Pgarret (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't participate or close it because of a potential WP:COI (I voted delete for the other ones), but the consensus from a policy point of view is correct, but WP:NOTGOSSIP being used for deleting bleh. Secret account 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Willis vandalism
Secret, could you please look into passing out some blocks to various editors making vandalism-only edits to the Patrick Willis article? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just saw your note about your laptop. Sorry about that; I know what that's like.  I will pass this request for page protection and watching the crazed IPs along to Bagumba and Zagalejo.  Cheer up -- at least your iPad still works (don't drop it!).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
NtheP (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

My RfA
Secret, thank you again for your excellent nomination. It was very persuasive! The RfA could not have gone much better. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin
I'm aware I'm long way off.... I'm just not sure how far i am from realisticly applying for admin and what areas I need to apply myself to before applying for such a postion? Some feedback on myself as a wikipedian would be appreciated. king regards, Wiki ian 10:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, and sorry to butt in here, but I just had a little look at your contribs so I thought I would give my two cents. I have four pointers for you. The first is that your editing has been quite sporadic, and some people might oppose an RfA for that. People would be more likely to support an RfA if you edited Wikipedia regularly, say maybe a few hundred edits a month (more if you do things like recent changes patrol). Second, you need more experience of doing administrative tasks. Perhaps get involved in new page patrolling (carefully), comment regularly at AfD, or help at Copyright problems (we could definitely do with some help there). People will only support giving you tools to do administrative tasks after they can see that you are good at doing administrative tasks. :) Third, I see that you have already done quite a bit of content work, but it would be great if you could get some Good Articles or even Featured Articles. Encyclopaedia articles are why we are here, after all, and it does help give you perspective on other aspects of editing. (Although I will admit that it is a bit hypocritical for me to recommend you get Good Articles, because I haven't got any and I still passed RfA.)  Finally, perhaps the most important advice is that you shouldn't seek out adminship actively. There has been a lot of talk recently about so-called "MMORPG" admin candidates, and people are likely to oppose if they sense that you editing to seek adminship. Rather, adminship will come naturally as a result of your editing activities, so it is best not to force things. Hope this helps! Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, butting in as well ;) This tool here might help you: User:Scottywong/Admin scoring tool results Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Sharp (heavy metal music singer)
Dear Secret: If Kevin Sharp is a member of two notable bands, per WP:BAND, how is it appropriate to delete the article entirely? If we redirect to one of the notable bands, how do we know quickly that Sharp is part of the other band? If musicians who are members of ONE notable band are redirected to that band, how does it make sense that a musician who is a member of two or more notable bands does not redirect to any band at all? This precedent has been established with Lamagna, Hughell, Pitruzzella and Kochmit. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well consensus says he doesn't meet GNG anyways, despite technically meeting "WP:BAND. Just figure out which band made a bigger impact in his career, and create a proper redirect as that title is an extremely unlikely search term. It's a cleanup issue that you guys in that project decide. Secret account 03:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Exit 245
Please userify this article under my account for further incubation.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done User:RadioFan/Exit 245 Secret account 05:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--RadioFan (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project
Secret, I saw that you were previously active in the compilation of the various Vital Article lists. There have recently been numerous wholesale changes to these lists, many without serious consideration. In discussing these matters with User:Jusdafax, it has been suggested that we need to get more people involved who have a broader perspective, including those who were previously involved with the project. Please consider yourself hereby invited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Astronomer28


Hello Secret. Per [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive207#User:Astronomer28_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:31_hours_.29 this comment] you are one of the admins who has blocked Astronomer28 in the past. An editor has now [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Astronomer28 posted on my talk] about renewed edit warring by Astronomer28 on Nicolaus Copernicus. In your February comment you indicated that an indef block might be the next step. Actually, I was thinking of the same thing. I've already warned him under WP:ARBEE for nationalist edit warring. If you have a moment to check out his recent edits on Copernicus, can you give me your opinion on the wisdom of an indef block? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Arin Hanson
Searching through what the Wikiproject for Video games says are reliable sources, I found an interview he did which counts as significant coverage. In the article before it was deleted there is a link to another reliable source interviewing him as well. Based on these two results alone, he passes WP:GNG. Please restore the article so I can add in the new source I found.  D r e a m Focus  09:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus you know better if a source was already listed in a Wikipedia article and it didn't survive AFD, the source probably never met our guidelines period. And there was strong policy based reasoning in that AFD from universally respected users. The best I could do is WP:USERFY it but I'm not going to undelete because of some random interview source. Secret account 01:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Arin Hanson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arin Hanson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  D r e a m Focus  02:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Greek Life at the University of Missouri
How exactly did you judge the consensus for this deletion? You deleted the page under the rationale that " keepers provide no policy based reasoning", but didn't all three of the supporters of deletion simply endorse the nomination? In fact, Theopolisme is the only one that really had any reasoning at all in his statement- Fox and DavidTTTaylor said simply "per nom". I can understand perhaps a no consensus decision, but there was really no rational behind deletion except that this subject was local, which is a fact that could be applied to many articles and on its own really doesn't justify deletion of a notable article. Ducknish (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, just a friendly reminder that I've posted this message. You seem to have had some activity, but since you haven't responded yet I'm figuring you may have missed it. I'd like to try working this out one-on-one before having to try deletion review. Ducknish (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yea this is a rather sloppy debate policy wise, and its true two of the deletes isn't policy based neither, and your comment is the closest to the keep side policy based (the rest was clear cut ignored). The article has serious BLP and NPOV violations as it mostly describes incidents that happened within those frats with the only source the local school newspaper, sourcing concerns still exists. Are you willing to WP:USERFY it and work on the article? I'm not going to restore the article the way it is but willing to restore it only as stub version. If I restore it back the full version I do have to re AFD the article. Secret account 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, go ahead and Userfy it. I'll put some work into it and see what I can do. Thanks for the help. Ducknish (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Secret and Ducknish, I noticed this AfD only after it had closed, so I did not have an opportunity to participate. I believe the proper outcome, based on the "precedent" of several other similar AfDs, should have been an abridgement and merge of the Missouri Greek life content to the parent University of Missouri article.  See, for example, Articles for deletion/Greek Life at the University of Florida.  If my memory is correct, that was one of several similar Greek life articles that were AfD'ed about the same time.  IMHO, all similar articles should be treated similarly, and I would support nominating for AfD any and all remaining "Greek life" articles.  In fact, if someone else doesn't do it, I probably will.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RFA
A couple of weeks ago, you asked User:Nthep if he wanted to run for adminship. He has agreed to, and I have written up a nomination statement here. Are you interested in co-nomming? Go  Phightins  !  18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Transwikis
Hello Secret,

I notice you closed the bus-route AfD's recently - do you have a specific objection to the transwiki requests? I thought that when this is an option and matches the goals of other projects it is preferable to a straight deletion. Most editors of other projects cannot see deleted revisions on this one. Regards, – SJ  +  19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I know Wikivoyage doesn't accept individual articles like that from looking at that project. I support moving all these Bus routes in X articles there, but if they won't accept it and there is consensus to delete otherwise what can I do? Thanks Secret account 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

George Nicol GAR
I understand you are extremely busy right now. If you cannot complete the GA review of the said article, could I get Wizardman to step in and complete the review, since he offered to do this on the page? It's already a month since the GAR was first started and I don't want this to drag on too long. If you do decide to let him finish off the review, please message him telling him about the arrangement, since he said he'll only "wrap up the review if [you] want". Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finishing the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

George S. Wise DYK
Hello! Your submission of George S. Wise at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ComputerJA (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for George S. Wise
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Addie Joss/GA1
Can you please take a look at your review and see what remains to be done on the article for it to pass? It's been two weeks since the article has been edited. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Me and Wizardman was discussing that article lately, especially about the expansion I asked thus the delay. I would ping him again and then probably pass the GA review as some of the sourcing is impossible to come by. Secret account 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There's also the Talk:Bill Masterton/GA1 review, which seems to be stalled. Can you make an update? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I passed Joss as the sourcing is more of a talk page discussion. That GA also had as the original nominee disappeared, thus making the job very difficult for Wizardman. As for Masterton, will do. Secret account 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Going down the list of 32-day-old reviews, I just found Talk:National Football League/GA2, which is also yours—it looks like you initiated all three on the same day—and basically unstarted. What are your plans for this one? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Joss I started and finished it the same day, was waiting for Wizardman, and again the lack of sources from that time period and the disappearance of the original editor (who had access to many of the current sources) made it a very difficult, if not almost impossible review. The NFL one I promised a user I would review it and completely forgot. Considering I don't have the time (I edit mostly from Ipad) I'll delete that one, unless you are willing to take over. With Masterton I would try to finish tonight. Secret account 18:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have any desire to take over the NFL one. I was just going down the list of month-old reviews in the hopes of getting them started again or put back into the reviewing pool, depending on the reviewer. In the case of the NFL, you may as well delete the GA2 so the review can be started fresh. Thanks for taking on the completion of Masterton; I can't imagine doing major-scale Wikipedia editing from an iPad. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Cindy ( need help? ) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Mundo (Hun)
I see that you deleted the above article as WP:G3 a few days ago, after it was tagged as that by one of the participants in a severely truncated AfD. However, the information that seems to have convinced the AfD participants that the article was a hoax and that at least some of the sources didn't even exist instead suggests fairly strongly to me that the article's creator had an imperfect command of English and was mangling the names of his sources (and may be unintentionally misinterpreting them). For instance, the "Origio Gothica of Jordanis" is fairly clearly the Getica by Jordanes and the "Vita of Saint Severin by Eugippius" a well-known life of Severinus of Noricum by Eugippius.

The article was deleted before I had a chance to look at it, so I can't tell for certain - but, from what I can see, there is a fairly good chance that the article's intended subject was a sixth-century military leader who may or may not have been the same person as Mundus (general) (historians still seem to be disputing the question). If so, there may be material in the article that should be added to Mundus (general) (which does not currently use Jordanes as a source) - and even if not, the article should probably be looked at again before it is definitively deleted. I would therefore be grateful if you could undelete the article, though I will certainly have no objection if it is sent straight back to AfD for a proper deletion discussion. PWilkinson (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be willing to WP:USERFY it, reading the content it's not what you think, more of some rambling that really doesn't make sense and nothing that is close to salvageable. It doesn't discuss a person at all. It might be some copy and pasted thing from Google Translate from I presume Latin which turned the translation into utter nonsense. That's the best I could do. Secret account 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Or better yet I could email the content, reading the nonsense I saw sentences like "In the tradition the Scaramuzes are shown somewhat similar to the Kali worshipping hinduistic Thugs or the ismaelitic Assassines." Again nothing salvageable. Secret account 22:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If the article was recently created, then emailing the content will do perfectly well - there just might be something worth salvaging but, by your description, that is not likely. If, however, it has been around long enough to have significantly different earlier versions, I'd like to check them as well, so userfying would be better. There probably is an article (or at least a redirect) to be written under this title, and I'd like to be certain that it's better to start completely from scratch. PWilkinson (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A9 deletion
Would you comment at WP:REFUND? the requester says it is an "official complication album" of Lil Boosie, who does have an article, so maybe it shouldn't be an A9. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mauro Baranzini 2nd copy
FYI: I have restored this after a request at WP:REFUND so that it can continue to be worked on - see the discussion there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators
As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

taking enough time with G13?
Hi secret, I saw you were doing G13 deletions, about 700 roughly so far today? Are you sure you take enough time reviewing each one? I myself wouldnt be able to do so many so fast. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Monde Selection
There was a PROD on this article a few days ago, which I had been intending to address. You cite "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11". A case could have been made for those criteria in the past, but not any more. If you re-examine the deleted text, you will see that my recent edits have added an entirely new and critical dimension, as well as removing much of the more obvious advertorial.

For example, this is what I have added to Food competition: "Monde Selection states that "This bronze, silver, gold or grand gold quality label can be compared to the quality stars of a hotel or those of the Michelin Guide."[2] However, whilst both processes are anonymous, Michelin chooses the hotels and restaurants it reviews and pays for everything. Only products who pay the Euro 1,100 entry fee are reviewed by Monde Selection. Unlike Olympic gold, silver and bronze medals, where only one of each is awarded per event, there are no limits to how many can be awarded in each category. Other competitions use a similar business model."

Monde Selection is the oldest of these food awards, and its gold/silver/bronze award stickers apear on many products in Europe. Without a Wikipedia page it would be almost impossible for anyone to find anything critical. Yes, more work needs to be done on this article, but it is very far from meriting speedy deletion. Could you please reconsider? Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping on this subject. I saw the deletion message yesterday but did not have the time to work on the article. I am surprised that this subject has been deleted as it was frequently improving. As a concerned food consumer, I am convinced that such articles are relevent for those who care about food quality and security. These labels help me to chose between one product and another, and products awarded by Monde Selection can be found in many countries (and it is a must to have in some of them, like in Japan). Also I am not a Wikispecialist I feel like this article should be kept and improve. I hope we will be able to work on this together. Imaqua (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I undeleted it per WP:REFUND but the article is borderline G11 with simply terrible sourcing. It needs a massive improvement. Secret account 01:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undeleting. I agree that sourcing is poor, but it is very difficult to find any critical commentary. I will try to make some further improvement. Edwardx (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

G13
It seems someone removed the recently added G13 from WP:CSD. I haven't been following the arguments at all, but perhaps one ought to lay off the deletions if there is a dispute about whether G13 has community approval. Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just saw and I of course reverted as it was one user who questioned the addition since it was put. Consensus is to include G13 in its current wording, but anything less than a year or merging it to G6 etc no consensus on that. Secret account 01:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But G13 doesn't exist as a valid deletion criterion until the talk page RfC has been formally closed, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I been following the discussion, but not participating on it, the RfC went from accepting G13 to should be included, merged, etc. In the current wording, yes it is a valid deletion criteria and considering no one bothered reverting until today it's clear. Well most of the G13 I been deleting meets other criteria (G1, G2, G3, G10, G11, G12) and I deleted a few that was very blatant as such. But I think I would attain with using that criteria for a while as I officially became WP:INVOLVED by reverting the editor. Secret account 01:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm using G13 again, but mostly on BLPs that doesn't meet our notability criteria and doesn't quite meet the usual G1/G2/G3/G10/G11/G12. Secret account 04:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for AfC submissions which meet other deletion criteria, you might wish to check the ones in these categories:
 * Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations – If correctly tagged, then G12 applies.
 * Category:AfC submissions declined as BLP violations – BLP violation sounds like G10 to me.
 * Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement – Sounds like G11 ones.
 * Category:AfC submissions declined as blank – G1 or G2? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks Secret account 03:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection
Yeah, new important article, so IMMEDIATELY exclude the majority of potential editors worldwide with your ill conceived ideas about protection. Great! 86.23.69.66 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale for a valid "no-consensus" close
I saw you closed Articles for deletion/Human rights abuses in Kashmir as "no consensus" well 👍 good job there. With that said, I think you could have been more precise in your rationale. Firstly, being an admin you should know that it is not uncommon to have a summary style article on a notable topic which subsumes and briefly discusses various other notable subtopics. Secondly, Here is a discussion immediately before the XFD that ensued the witless but zealous attempt to put selective original research and ludicrous synthesis in the name of "history of Human rights", where the nominator clearly hinted that should the discussion not go his way he will nominate it for deletion (diff ← 2nd paragraph). This is, to be perfectly honest, reeking of battle ground mentality as well as pointy editing. Thirdly, I myself posed a question for the nom. - ″how is it being used as a content fork can you explain please?″ It wasn't answered. You ought to have taken these into consideration. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind...
I reverted an edit that happened on User:Secret/recall; the edit seemed completely out of place. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Neighbourhood
Hi Secret, you deleted The Neighbourhood for infringing on http://www.mtv.com/artists/the-neighbourhood/biography/. But it's the other way around, MTV cites Wikipedia for its article (see the bottom of MTV's page). Could you please restore the artice? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.125.131 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the article and deleted it, it never had the (from Wikipedia) at the MTV page. In fact the article was quickly tagged as copyvio within minutes of creation so it seems probable that the person copied from MTV and they are somehow related to both pages but we can't never tell for sure, thus I can't restore it. The person is associated with the MTV bio needs to the OTRS system for permission. I saw the sources, they obviously meet WP:MUSIC. Any person could just recreate the article. Secret account 15:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Overseas Student Health Cover" Entry
Hi, I am trying to write an article on Overseas Student Health Cover and I see that this has already been deleted by yourself. The original author was CaleBennett, who used to work at this organisation. Overseas Student Health Cover is a legitimate article and I am the owner of the potential copyright content that you identified (oshcaustralia.com.au). How do I go about remedying this, so that and Overseas Student Health Cover page appears on wiki? Thanks. User:International_ed 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"CAConrad" Entry
I was getting ready to write an article on a poet, CA Conrad, and saw that there actually was a previous article about him on wikipedia that you deleted, claiming he was not a notable poet. I wanted to write an entry on him because of his work on somatic poetics--he's also won several awards, which makes me wonder at his article's deletion. Can you explain this to me? Thanks. 1000flight (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested PROD, restored. Secret account 23:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:RFA
Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

File:ESAM FC 079.jpg
Hi Secret - in regards to the above file, I did a thorough search at the Library of Congress, particularly in the Bain Collection, and while I did find some other photos of this person that I uploaded at Commons:Category:Ralph Johnstone, I could not find this photo or one like it. I understand that the photo is likely to be PD but WP:IUP requires that we have a verifiable source. Kelly hi! 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

desysop
just a nudge right after, but the admin stuff on your userpage should probably be taken down. I didn't want to edit it myself unless you first agreed.  Enigma msg  19:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was doing that while you were typing ;), yea retirement here. I have a few articles to finish Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson Ferris Fain, Don Larsen and Kenny Easley and the protected rights RFC to close. But then what can I do? Secret account 19:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what can you do? You can remain semi-active like me. I suppose for some it's all in or nothing. Back in 2008 and 2009 I was averaging thousands of edits a month. I edit every month now, but I haven't exceeded 107 edits in a month since 2010. Even without being deeply involved with Wikipedia, virtually everyone reads articles at some point, and some pages need minor adjustments.  Enigma msg  20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan to do an edit now and then, but I rather not have the tools during my remaining time in school because once I hit a backlog, I might take hours doing something like that. And minor edits don't require the tools. Adminship and school don't match well. Secret account 20:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, I was taking "then what can I do?" as meaning that you were retired and not editing anymore. No need for adminship if you're not going to be active, I concur.  Enigma msg  20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You start gnoming, just to keep your teeth sharp :) I work on stuff like List of nocturnal animals and similar, just adding sources and keeping clean.  You piddle around and do stuff just for fun, allowing it to be an occasional diversion from the real world.  Hope you are able to stay at least partially connected that way.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wish you the best!
Since for some reason, I have your user page on my watchlist, I saw all of the user rights that were being removed from you, trying to figure out what was going on. But now, I see; retirement for personal reasons. I know we haven't interacted all that much (or even at all), but I wanted to let you know about the fact that ... you will be missed. I am more than certain that severals of the admins that are admins today wouldn't be admins if they did not have that little nudge to run for admin with the nominations you have done on their RfAs. Anyways, take care of yourself; you're no good to Wikipedia or yourself otherwise! Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Brahmi sthiti
You deleted this article on 23/04/2013 without any prior notice to me. However, I have since re-written this article which may kindly be perused and approved.Aditya soni (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)