User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2014

Soka Gakkai
I wonder if its not time to take this article and even the article on Daisaku Ikeda to a higher level in terms of moderation or supervision. Same goes for the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. With all due respect I try to keep a balanced view in my edits also when it comes to critical issues. I even refrained form editing on Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda in any major way lately but it just seems that some editors carry on with a white washing campaign and misinterpret alternative or critical views as an attack. As much as I like to contribute to Wikipedia in the English and German version the work in the English version especially makes one feel slightly frustrated.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia, with the largest audience, so it attracts a large population of special interests wanting to promote their point of view.


 * As far as moderation, it's on my watch list. I observed that much of the disruptive behavior (at least the persistent image removals) seem to come from anonymous IP addresses or unconfirmed accounts, so semi-protection is a good solution for that. These editors are always welcome to post edit requests on the talk pages.


 * I don't see recent disruptive activity on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism to justify protection at this time, but I have put them on my watch list. Semi-protection wouldn't do any good on Daisaku Ikeda because the disputants are all confirmed editors, the best recourse there, if disruption continues without resolution, is to request temporary full protection at WP:RFPP to force everyone to work out their differences on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Its good to know that a few have the articles in question on their watch list though. A few of those who were persistent in their behaviour have been silent for a while. Thanks!--Catflap08 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Soka_Gakkai. Kiruning (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands
Thanks for cleaning up the talk page! John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's been on my "to do" list for a long while. The archive bot won't archive any sections that don't have a date in the final signature, and the person who posted those never signed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you a mind reader?
Just wondering what put you on the trail of Sleepfoundation? I'd just asked them to abandon that account! Hordaland (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It came up in an OTRS message some time back, so I put it on my watch list. It came up again in my watch list again earlier today, which prompted me to look at it, and I noticed all the edits by that account, so I soft-blocked it (meaning the person isn't prevented from creating a new account, and the IP address isn't blocked either). ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good job, thanks. & thanks for definition of soft-block -- I'd wondered.  --Hordaland (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

recreated page
Sheela armani, which you just deleted, has been recreated. Rosario Berganza 07:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and just as quickly deleted by Jimflbleak.
 * If it appears a third time, let me know and I'll salt it to prevent re-creation. Hopefully the user will get the message about autobiographies on her talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Here's another gem btw: Paul Assani. Rosario Berganza 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, someone zapped that while I was typing the message. ;) Rosario Berganza 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:HCW33 (again)
User:HCW33 is part of a class, and Helen is just another student in the class, so would you be able to unblock them? The professor currently is going to work with us on fixing this all up, so it would help if we could unblock the only person blocked in the class. Thank you, and have a wonderful day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And you know this how...? I see no communication from HCW33, who has instructions on posting an unblock request, nothing on your own talk page regarding this situation, nothing on User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua where the activites are being recorded, nothing on his talk page, and zero communication from any of these socks with the Wikipedia community. Sorry, but this was a WP:DUCK. It smells so strongly of paid-editing sockpuppetry by a PR firm, I will need more explanation than your assurance before I unblock that account. I was about to block some more before you posted this note. I will refrain and wait for your response. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I am working with the education program with OhanaUnited and we started discussing offline about what to do here. I guess there is no rush in doing this, so we'll let you know what's up when we sort it out. Have a good day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We know this from here and here. We're trying to get a hold of the professor but the indications suggested that they were not socking or paid editing (which were the basis of your original block). OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. And yet, nothing specifically about HCW33. As I stated before, HCW33 has instructions on posting an unblock request. I have no assurance that this person is even a part of that group. If this group of students is truly interested in communicating with the community as claimed by the letter of that professor, then let's see some evidence of communication on publicly viewable talk pages, not copy/pasted emails. Wikipedia works by community interaction, not by back-room deals. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if we were to be discussing sensitive information, such as the identities of these users, we should be doing it on-Wiki? Okay, I'll remember that the next time I work with editors who don't want their identities leaked to the entire internet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not interested in personal details. I'm interested in seeing any evidence that they are making any attempt at all to work with the community on talk pages, discussing articles, guidelines, improvements, etc. And, posting an unblock request with an explanation. I see none of that. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Most students I work with aren't as willing as your average editor, so this is not surprising. I am going to leave it here, but I just want to let you know that it would be actually surprising if they went through this approach, as very few students are willing to challenge authority, something which also is a major thing where these students come from. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the table on Financialization page is vandalism
In fact, I did use the talk page to explain why I thought deletion of the table comparing financial turnover to GDP was vandalism of the heart of the article on Financialization. Perhaps you failed to see it? Clearly, you do not address the issue I raised there. TonyWikrent (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek addressed the issues quite well in his replies to you on his talk page. Perhaps you failed to read them?
 * My point about using talk pages was that you're supposed to do that instead of revert-warring. I have also replied on the article talk page. If you want the table in there, do it properly with wiki-markup and citations, using information that isn't more than a decade out of date. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, tertiary sources
with respect to this, please see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). it is a primary source. Would you please revert yourself? Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's a primary source according to MEDRS. However, MEDRS also says "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source." That is the case here. Therefore, I do not see how reverting my restoration of that content would improve the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree; this is not what MEDRS is about. I opened a discussion on the talk page; please come talk. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 03:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW
Hi Amatulic - would you mind stopping by WP:ANEW and commenting on your alleged violation of the 3rr. Looking at the diffs, it does look like a violation of the 3rr to me, but I'd like to hear comment from you before trying to do anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring: / disruptive editing / 3-revert rule violation on Health effects of wine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall concern is that discussion was taking place and one should get consensus on the talk page first. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidently you did not see the final edit summary.
 * By my count, that was two reverts (the first two edits made substantial changes to content and sourcing in an attempt to satisfy objections). Furthermore, there was no consensus evident to remove a well-sourced statement that has received significant coverage in both mainstream and scientific press.
 * Nevertheless, I will abide by the block. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would recommend a RfC rather than continuing to revert in the future. Restoring any content repeatedly even if in a different forms still count as a revert by my reading. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy The Groundhog
Hello, I indicated on the comment for Jimmy the Groundhog that I had started with the source for the Wiarton Willie and was editing to replace Wiarton Willie information with the Jimmy the Groundhog information that I have acquired from reliable sources. I also indicated on the Jimmy the Groundhog talk page that I was currently editing the page to remove the Wiarton Willie page and add Jimmy the Groundhog information. But when I went to save the page - it had been deleted. Why did no one read the talk page and wait for me to finish adding the information that I said I was in the process of adding? Can you undelete the page so I can add the mentioned text? Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 02:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did read the talk page. And I looked at the article, which was identical to another article except for the name. Main space articles need to have some minimum threshold of acceptance before you put an article there.


 * You're welcome to try again, but please do it in your sandbox or at WP:AFC where you don't have to worry about someone coming along and tagging for speedy deletion, and someone else deleting it.


 * If you need help moving the finished article out of your sandbox, drop me a note and I'll be glad to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bring back SubtweetCat
It has come to my attention that you are responsible for the removal of the page titled "SubtweetCat". Obviously this was done in error. Please correct your mistake, if possible. You are depriving readers, especially of the Tweep variety, of essential information.

66.87.68.102 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Madeline


 * Absolutely not. You have got to be kidding. Readers have been deprived of nothing.
 * Wikipedia doesn't host articles about non-notable individuals who happen to have an internet presence. Exactly what part of Notability and Notability (people) does this anonymous pseudonym meet? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bring back SubtweetCat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B10F:8F1A:B48E:34D3:90B4:BF96 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No. See comment above. And try familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphero
Hello. I noticed Sphero was deleted by you per G5, and the archived page also looks biased to me. Out of curiosity, could you point me to the relevant discussions of the block/ban? I've recreated the page, and could you please check if the article meets the standards now? Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 03:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277.
 * This is a prolific paid-editing company who has created hundreds of sock accounts to create articles for clients and evade blocks on Wikipedia. They're still going at it. The page you created looks OK to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Turns out it's Wiki-PR, again. It's rather sad to see Orbotix engage in such activities. But on the other side, they are also victims, cheated by Wiki-PR's false claims ("We respect Wikipedia and its rules against promoting and advertising. And we never directly edit Wikipedia ourselves." and such). Fortunately, the results about the ban come first on a Google search for "Wiki-PR" now (and an article about the legal battle right under Wiki-PR's site) - That should warn them. And are they really still "going at it"? Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 08:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonder about your criteria
Hello Amatulic,

Even though I respect your decision, I wonder what kind of criteria were you using in your decision. Basically you are saying that no corporation (unless it is a BIG name) can put a referral to their stuff. If I was writing about Microsoft there would not be an issue I guess. As regarding the Horizon Oil spill, I found my notes very humorous and it was underlining the community concern and involvement in the event. As regarding the "logo" page, I`m a professional logo designer with over 20 years of experience and thousands of brand identities designed. I find page about logo extremely useless. The only information it gives is about 3 guys big shots who got famous designers. No information about the actual purpose or different styles to give readers more information about the actual logo and the process. This page should be called "3 top logo designers". I have a lot of usefull information about the logo, but because I actually have a commercial source of information you will not use it. How come? Is Wikipedia only for amateurs? As soon as I put a reference to a professional source, you mark it as "advertisement". But when big companies do the same such as HP or IBM, you would trust them immediately. I don`t know how deeply you are involved in the editorial process but I have similar issue with "Logobee" page. That was removed for the reason of being "advertisement". I cant believe someone can simply do this without a good reason. Logobee existed for many years and the page created was caring very useful information about the company history, business owners, and criticism. Logobee is doing a lot of charity work, which has been noted in the referral. Besides if this material was considered as "advertisement", I see not much difference from pages like this Logoworks. If you let page like that exist but remove logobee page, you are acting extremely hypocritical. Logobee page, was a very useful source of information for Wikipedia users. I kindly ask that you restore the page. If you do feel that some of the material presented looks like "advertisement" I do not object to removing it from the page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodikbobik (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not delete the article. I nominated it for deletion. That's a big difference. You need to contact the administrator who deleted it, or state your case at WP:DRV to build wider community consensus.


 * A large part of your activity on Wikipedia appears to be publicity for this company. You have added inappropriate links to other articles along with promotional text. This is an important policy: Wikipedia is not a publicity medium.


 * Your attempts to insert links to this company, combined with creating an article about the company, strongly suggests that you have some sort of association with the company. You need to disclose that association publicly, on your user page or in talk page conversation. Please see WP:Conflict of interest for guidance. If you have a conflict of interest, your best venue for submitting articles is WP:AFC.


 * Regarding Microsoft, which you mentioned: No representative of Microsoft wrote their article.


 * Regarding Logoworks: They didn't write their article either. Also your comparison amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not a valid argument to keep or delete anything. Each article stands or falls on its own merits without regard to whatever else might exist. Unlike Logobee, Logoworks has had significant coverage in nationally distributed news sources, easily meeting the notability requirements in WP:CORP. Logobee did not meet that threshold. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, I really appretiate your commnets. Thank you. Can you please explain more about you reaction to my actions. I`ve found out about Logobee a long time ago, as being a logo designer myself I felt strange not to find any resources on Wikipedia about the company. When I posted the article I didn`t intend to "falsely" promote it. Right after the submission, the page got a warning "orphan page, needs more outbound links from Wikipedia pages". That was my only reaction - to seek appropriate pages where Logobee link would be appropriate. I still do not understand why the links I submitted on other pages appear inappropriate. As I explained my reasons above (adding it to the "logo" page). You are saying that these actions look suspicious, I say it is pretty normal stream of actions by the creator of the page. As for the notability requirements, I can easy provide more resources, but that was never given to me as a choice, before deletion. I would love to hear from the administrators that the content was OK, need more links. Because the reason that was given to me sounds like the material is bad "advertisemnt". In the wikipedia guidelines it is not saying how many or how good the "notability links" should be. So I assume it is open to the admin interpretation what is considered a sufficient requirement. I still get the feeling that the administration of Wikipedia is using bias opinion regarding resources submitted. Instead of looking at the real value of its content. As for the logoworks editor, I strongly believe that no one will be able to write an article about a company without some sort of knowledge or association. I`ve seen logobee actions and have deep respect to the work they do. As did the editor of logoworks that saw something that triggered him to write about them. --Dodikbobik (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodikbobik (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with adding internal wikilinks to other articles to prevent your new article from being an orphan. I was referring to the external links you added to other articles, which were inappropriate and seemed to be solely for the purpose of promoting the company. In the case of the logo article, you referenced a blog, which are generally not acceptable as references. In the case of Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, you added irrelevant prose for the purpose of linking to the logobee website. The fact that you were able to obtain a vector-format version of their logo, unavailable from their web site (as far as I can tell) also suggests you have an association with the company.


 * Just having links or references doesn't make something notable. The type and quality of those references are what matters. See the golden rule of Wikipedia for a concise explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This brings more light to what you were saying and I start to see the picture you were getting. As it may seems like I was doing something wrong. This was not the case. Being relatively new to this, I was naively thinking that Wikipedia would appreciate some references to the external content. As in the case of "logo" page. I actually spent a lot of time researching logo design material and logobee site. At the time, the blog page seemed to have a very good collection of samples and material about logo design. So yes by assuming it would benefit the community I got labeled as the spammer. In regards to the Oil spill, it was also the case of me searching for some material from logobee that could be relevant to wiki pages. You have rightfully cough the misunderstanding and removed it. At the time I thought it would be relevant. Because I made this mistake by being novice and trying my best to find good material, I got labeled and my article got banned as well. Would you agree that my actions were harmful and in violation of Wikipedia rules and polices by trying my best? I understand that your role as the administrator is to catch inappropriate actions by users. However in this case, you reaction and request to remove the page caused me a deep shame. As regarding to where I got the logo file, it was a simple request from logobee to send me the file. If I was really trying to promote, or do something inappropriate like that I would have probably come up with a much more obvious case.I had spent a lot of time preparing this article, this is why it is so painful.--Dodikbobik (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be painful. New articles posted to main article space are closely scrutinized and routinely deleted. Most new editors get tripped up by violating policies and guidelines inadvertently. Your article is also not "banned", it was just deleted as existing for publicity purposes, based on observations of your behavior related to the topic.


 * Instead of posting your first draft to main article space, it is a really good idea for new editors to work on draft articles in their sandbox or in a sub-page of your user space. Or use the process at WP:AFC if you are somehow close to the topic.


 * If you like, I am willing to restore the article to your user space, so you can work on it at your leisure without fear of it being deleted. I'm also happy to review it for suitability before moving it to main article space, or you can submit it to WP:AFC when you're satisfied with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, This is at least some good news. If you can point to me my weak spots, I would be in your debt. Please restore it to my space. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, but I have to inform the deleting administrator first. I'll leave a note on your talk page when it's all done. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you --Dodikbobik (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I got my page restored at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dodikbobik/Logobee. Thank you and Tokyogirl for giving me another chance. Tokyogirl already edited some parts of the article. Do you find anything else bad?--Dodikbobik (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give some heads up, of my new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_brand_new_awards Maybe you have time to take a look--Dodikbobik (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC) --Dodikbobik (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See, this is why I recommend writing articles in your sandbox (see the link at the top of the page, that's your personal sandbox), or as a sub-page from your user page (as the Logobee article currently stands). You're coming across as a paid editor (and if you are, you should disclose it, we do have paid editors here who are respected), and you are not establishing the notability of your article subjects with adequate references. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see it got nominated for deletion. Honestly I`m not a paid editor, or an editor at all. I have several interests in life, and trying some new stuff. It is pretty puzzling to me right now how some stuff gets through and some don`t. The award I listed is no different from this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Design_Award. In fact there are many references to Wikipedia people. I assumed the role of wikipedia was the source of deep and global knowledge of any subject. I thought my new article (not about a particular company) would serve the purpose of educating people about the contest. There are many important people involved in the project that creates a bigger and deeper array of information about the person. I see some pattern here and it seems there is a prejudice towards entries that are involved in commercial activities. My (univer sitcom) page is still up, no one bothered. --Dodikbobik (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no prejudice against commercial entries. It's just that commercial entries must comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular WP:CORP. Most new articles about companies get deleted, either for reasons of non-notability, or promotional intent, or both. Because we get so much spam from companies attempting to promote themselves, new articles on companies are scrutinized closely, and they must meet the bar for acceptance or they go.


 * I consider myself an experienced editor, but I sure wouldn't create an article about a company without making several drafts in my own sandbox first. It's easier to write about literature, science, or technology -- see User:Amatulic for a short list of articles I've created, and you'll see I avoid creating company articles. The closest I ever got was to write about Naugahide as my first edit as a newbie. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand. It is tough life. Being completely true, there are not that many articles that wouldn`t in one way or another promote something or be commercial. Even your article may be viewed as such. Good one by the way, and I see the references. By placing an article about a city or an instrument there is always an element of "advertisement". It is insane trying to separate this matter. I really thought I found something good and unique. I`m not directly involved with the awards or logobee. I`m simply related to the area and have a lot of knowledge about it. Now, you were being so kind and cooperative, may we start with reviewing loogbee page please? I`d love to finally get this one resolved, it took too much effort of getting there :) Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have addred more refference links. There are two references to Logobee from wikipedia pages, so it shouldn`t be considered an orphan. Please let me know how it looks. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I saw your comments and responded on my talk page. I would appreciate your response. Thank you--Dodikbobik (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I left you a follow up.--Dodikbobik (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, Sorry, I was referring to a different edit. See my page please. Thanks.--70.28.27.57 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame). 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. (Actually, it's Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame), but I've grouped them together.) 6 an 6 sh 6 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I chimed in. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Marc Latamie's article for delation
Dear Amatulic, I added the references and the sources in the notice, as requested.Could you please explain me when and how the users decide to remove the advertissment at the top of the page about the delation? What can we do for that? I thank you very much in advance --Lucilulle (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP Violations on Mata Amritanandamayi Page
Amatulic - You've been very help in the past in moderating the Mata Amritanandamayi page. There is currently a content dispute based on a self-published source. Would you please take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.219.20 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic - Right now the allegations based on the "Holy Hell" book are getting play in various media outlets in India. I believe this is why there is so much disruption on the Mata Amritanandamayi page right now. Would there be some justification for locking the page for a week or two while this issue settles down? JamesRoberts (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
Hello. Could you please take a moment to review the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy page? It sounds like an advertisement, and isn't greatly sourced. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a warning on the COI editor's talk page and did some fairly massive pruning. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Much appreciated! NHCLS (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klonarda Nezaj
Dear Amatulic: Before you do too much work on the above article, you may want to discuss it with the editors at Wikiproject Volleyball. Here's the discussion so far: &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to do any work on it. There was a request at WP:REFUND to restore it, since it had been deleted as an abandoned draft. I noticed that it had never been evaluated, so I saw no reason to deny the request. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Harry Maxwell
Hi Amatulic,

I would like to re-create the page for Harry Maxwell. I noticed you deleted it in January 2014 - citing the reason that the page has re-appeared despite being similar to a previous version.

I would like to re-create the article with the focus on Maxwell as a New Media Journalist and former Reality TV personality, rather than the latter being the focus.

I believe the page is justified under: Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers, and I have enough sources from national media outlets to justify him as high profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual

Do you think I should go ahead and submit the article for creation?

Thanks! Beautifulgalz123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulgalz123 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, go right ahead. You might want to work on it in your sandbox or a sub-page of your userpage before moving it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of CloudSOC
Hi there -- the CloudSOC page seemed to have been deleted as it was apparently self-promoting my three published works? I had only included those as references to give the founding member of the company some gravitas and weight, versus not referring to the works. The point of the article is to focus on DNS Analytics technology, which can be used to identify state-sponsored malware attacks (along with all those references that discuss work undertaken by McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, and such). I would like to request that the article is considered for userfication at this time, and reintroduced once I have worked with others to improve the article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismcnab (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. It's at User:Chrismcnab/CloudSOC. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

YMCA Camp Wanakita
Hello. Could you please take a moment to review the YMCA Camp Wanakita page? It is written like an advertisement. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did some clean-up including blocking one user violating Username policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Explain yourself
Explain why articles like Trac and YouTrack, which are essentially the same as Traq, just for a different question, qualify for Wikipedia, but Traq didn't. I seriously don't understand why it should be deleted, it's exactly the same. I'am not related to the Traq project in any way, I don't even use it or want to advertise it. Leandros99 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First, nobody has accused you of having a conflict of interest, as far as I know. I certainly didn't. As explained to you already, articles are evaluated independently, on their own merits. Making WP:OTHERSTUFF comparisons is not an accepted way to make a case for keeping.


 * You might try looking at WP:42 for a general overview.


 * YouTrack demonstrated ample coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, thereby qualifying for inclusion by meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirement of Notability.


 * Trac is a long-standing article with numerous contributors. It doesn't demonstrate coverage; however, deletion under WP:CSD as you proposed would not be uncontroversial, considering the number of contributors and age of the article. It would qualify for a deletion nomination at WP:AFD if you wish to nominate it there. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to edit summary
"removed G7 - page does not qualify. Ask someone to hide your edits if you have a concern."

Okay I would like my edits hidden. Thanks. BTW, I did not mean to rollback you, I meant to press the thanks button, which happened to be close to the rollback button. I rollbacked on myself immediately. NHRHS2010  RIP M.H. (1994-2014)  23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You basically have four options:
 * Revision deletion, which will hide your edits from everyone except administrators. Administrators can perform this.
 * Suppression of your edits, even from administrators. Only oversighters can perform this.
 * Courtesy vanishing - this may actually be what you want if your intention is to leave Wikipedia without a trace and not return. Your contributions will not be deleted but they will be attributed to a new random username not traceable to you. Only bureaucrats can perform this function for you. If this is what you want, then this may be the simplest option.
 * If you do intend to return, then you can simply abandon the account and start another one.


 * If you just want an administrator to delete your edits, you're going to have to explain clearly what you want deleted/suppressed, and why. If there are privacy concerns, and some edits you made aren't relevant to those concerns, then it will be hard to justify hiding them.


 * Regarding your tags: I did delete a few user talk pages where you were the only editor, or the only other editor was a bot. Otherwise I reverted your tags. Frankly, where I reverted you, I failed to see the harm to you or anyone else by leaving those edits visible. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I am actually having an email discussion with Floquenbeam about this matter. As for my contributions with my old name on high-traffic pages (such as AIV or my old Wiki-friend Hdt83's talk page) before my name change, I think I can leave it for now as edits from seven years ago would be a lot more difficult to locate in those pages and there would be a lot less concerns. NHRHS2010  RIP M.H. (1994-2014)  00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jimmie Jansson
Hello Amatulic. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jimmie Jansson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Player has played in the SHL (listed on NHOCKEY/LA as one of the "fully professional" leagues) since the last deletion debate. Significant enough difference in player stature to not qualify under G4.''' Thank you. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I didn't see anything different in the current article and the last deleted revision, which is why I nominated it for G4. I could easily delete it myself but when I'm not sure I'll tag the article for someone else to look at. Thanks for your vigilance. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn AFD
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Openupashop
FYI, there's a chance that this was a sock of who I blocked a few days ago. The pattern seemed similar to me, although slightly different. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It looked like a bot to me. It was re-creating articles as fast as I could delete them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, I had that thought as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Gang Recording Studio
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... "Claude Puterflam founded the Gang Recording Studio in the heart of Paris" the studio is truly in the centre of Paris.

"the studio was specifically designed to have a relaxing feel to encourage the creativity of the artists" This is the case for any studio in the world, Studios NEED to HAVE a relaxing ambiance.

"remaining consistent with the requirements of professional recording environments." it seems obvious that professional studios focus on their work environment.

"which ensures perfect insulation" A perfect insulation has nothing promotional, it is the correct way to describe a physical behavior for wave propagation.

"high quality audio" It seems obvious for a studio.

Hopefully wikipedia will stop deleting this article, or at least explain in detail why or how this article is promotional. Please have a look at articles about notorious recording studios such as Electric Lady Studios or Ocean Way Recording and explain me why this one is so different.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologique (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Every one of those lines you quoted has a promotional tone, and none of them make the subject notable. That's primarily why the article was deleted. Because you evidently did not read or understand the multiple notices on your talk page, the article is now protected from recreation. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Furthermore, the article failed to meet the criteria for inclusion for companies, spelled out in WP:CORP.


 * It seems obvious that you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Please read and abide by WP:COI before proceeding further. Your best approach is to submit the article for review via WP:AFC rather than submit it directly to main article space as you have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique
I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique. While it is true that the Moldovan National Division is fully pro, he has yet actually play any games, which is what is required for notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. This is why an almost, if not entirely identical article was deleted just over a week ago. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I admit I don't follow football, so I am not familiar with teams or players. Is there a good chance he will participate in a match, or is it more likely that he won't? Do these teams maintain players who never actually play? I think what I mean is, it would not make sense to delete the article if tomorrow he he happens to play for the team. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He will almost certainly play senior level football at some point, but he's only eighteen so at this point it's hard to tell when and where that will be. There is very real chance that he'll wind up playing in the non-fully-pro second division, or that he'll leave Moldova altogether and wind up in a country without a fully pro top flight. If I had to guess, I'd say the odds are about fifty-fifty whether or not he'll meet WP:NFOOTBALL at some point. As for him playing a match tomorrow, that I can more or less rule out. Most professional football clubs have one or two young players who are nominally part of their squad, but whose purpose there is mainly to train with the senior team, not to actually play. I should also add that preemptive creations are generally frowned upon. In the roughly four years I've been involved in the deletion process at the WikiProject football, I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that the subject would meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the future, unless the article also already met WP:GNG, which is clearly not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The article is now deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's back, and he doesn't appear to be any more notable than 3 days ago. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-deleted and protected from re-creation, warning left on editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpupetry case
Hi Amatulic, I've been investigating a sockpuppetry case surrounding several users and I came across User:HCW33 who you blocked in December for abusing multiple accounts. Could you provide some more information regarding this i.e. whether there is an existing sockpuppetry investigation? Thanks. -SFK2 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no sockpuppetry investigation, to my knowledge. I blocked that account for seeming like a WP:DUCK, making promotional edits to substantially the same articles as another account created at about the same time, which was also creating promotional articles.


 * For further enlightenment, see the sections above, and . Those sections include links to other relevant pages documenting this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So it turns out that this is part of a university program? Something isn't quite right about the whole situation - what action can be taken? -SFK2 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. To me the "isn't quite right" is a group of editors who are unwilling to engage with the community, but instead embark on projects to create promotional pages about companies, and communicate by back-room channels via private email than via talk pages. According to the two sections I linked above, it may be a good-faith class project verified by private email conversation that didn't involve me. My only involvement was blocking one account as a sockpuppet, which introduced me to the bigger picture later. You may want to look at the pages of the people above who left comments in that section. They know more about the situation than I do. One of them has kept an extensive record of the activities of this group. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Mellor
Hi Amatulic. I'm trying to create a biography for Jonathan Mellor, but it appears the page is locked down, due to non-notable articles being created. Your name is against the last deletion of this article. The Jonathan Mellor I wish to create is an athlete who competed at the 3000 metres event in Poland this month, therefore meeting WP:ATHLETE. I'd be greatful if you could allow the page to become unlocked so I can create the article (should be within 24hrs of posting this request). Any questions, please get back to me. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The last version of that article was about a non-notable theatrical performer.
 * I suggest you create the article in your sandbox or a sub-page in your user space, and when it's ready, let me know and I'll move it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've created it here in my sandbox. Grateful if you could move it into the live world. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Done! ~Amatulić (talk)


 * Thank you!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

United States $2 bill
I noticed that you made an edit to the article on the United States $2 bill. In particular, I'm curious about why you reverted a change that I made to the date for the obverse design. The design was approved, and production of the notes began in 1928, so I'm wondering why you changed the date back to 1932. The 1928 date conforms to the information provided by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Almostfm (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. In a single action reverted several recent edits that changed content without explaining why in the edit summary. I may have restored a version too far back. If yours was caught up in that and it was a correct edit, please change it back. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I'll change the date back Almostfm (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai again
I've just blocked two editors for editwarring at the Soka Gakkai article. Since you were the last person to make a substantial edit to the page, other than those two editors, would you please take a look at it? Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember making any substantial edits to that page, other than to revert one of the many attempts by anons to add non-BLP-compliant promotional content for a self-published book. My involvement has been as an admin. After that I semi-protected the article, because it was clear that my previous pending change protection wasn't having an effect. Anyway, I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am willing to fully-protect the page for an indefinite period until the participants can formulate a consensus-based editprotected request. I'm happy to monitor the progress. What do you think? An alternative is to ban the combatants altogether from editing in that subject area. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going by this edit; I'd forgotten you were an admin, although I would have approached you the same way if I'd remembered. Let's see what these two editors do after the blocks expire; they were 24-hour blocks, so it shouldn't be too long.  Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. I had forgotten about that one. Anyway, thanks. We'll wait and see. There was some progress on the talk page before this edit war, although the participants seem fond of walls o' text, which is why I suspect their communication isn't as effective as they'd like. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist
Please see the link above. It turns out you were the blocking admin too, I don't understand the logic behind the reason as no reason was stated for its abuse. Further the reporting editor was an IP with NO other edits. Please explain the reasons as there have been numerous others seeking to post the site.(Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).
 * Answered on that page. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dupe detector fail
As to the dupe detector fail, see, e.g., this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, this is weird. The duplication detector currently doesn't seem to be working at all, if you display the version of this page that has the speedy delete tag and click on the link.


 * In any case, thanks for pointing this out. I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed exactly the same thing. I've seen it fail in that manner from time to time (btw ... the article remains, with the copyvio).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. Something must have distracted me. It's gone now. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx.Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Singapore
I noticed that you had earlier warned editor Ujongbakuto about edit warring on the Singapore page. Looks like that editor may be doing it again, recently reverting a significant copy edit that I had done to bring the article closer to WP:MOS. I re-reverted, but thought it worth bringing to your attention. Jaytwist (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Afterglow (a cappella)
I noticed that you deleted my article on this a cappella group from the University of California Davis, why was it deleted? What can I do to make sure it does not get deleted? Is it possible to retrieve the information that I posted? Thanks. Ucdafterglow 16:33, 22 March 2014 (PST)
 * I didn't delete the article. I deleted a redirect to the article. Administrator deleted the article. The article was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD because it failed to contain any assertion of why the group is significant, and it would have been deleted anyway for failing to demonstrate meeting any of the criteria described in WP:BAND.
 * You won't be able to reply here since your account is blocked. Follow the instructions in the block message on your talk page if you want to appeal your block. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warning
I saw the warning for the Syrian Civil war template sorry about that did not notice the hours passed between the two edits.I did do two reverts but in two different days so must have missed the hours passed won't happen again.Even tough I would like to suggest to keep a little bit of tolerance  on that template as there are many editors who edit the map with no sources or sources that are unreliable and outdated and there are fewer editors like me who tend to correct the mistakes.This guys usually do up to 10 edits per day so it takes a lot of editors to get the map back in order.Daki122 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I know you were editing in good faith, and I assumed you lost track of the time, which is why I didn't block you. But please be mindful of the 1RR rule, particularly in articles about Middle East conflicts. There are many hot heads who are quick to jump on the smallest infractions, and administrators who are fed up with the editing conflicts are quick to pull the trigger on blocks, to maintain order. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chessie (band)
Hi Amatulic. When I declined the speedy for this one a few years ago, I really should have added more than just the one reference! Would you have any objection to me restoring the article and adding more sources? I think there's a good chance it meets GNG. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection. Go right ahead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Studio 146
I don't think the speedy tag on Studio 146 was warranted. It had been on mainspace for two years and there were references provided in the article. If there were concerns over notability, it should have been taken to AfD, not speedied. In any case, I would appreciate if you can provide a copy of the deleted article at User:Mar4d/Studio 146 where I can refine it. Thank you,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the nomination was warranted. Before I deleted the article, I checked every single reference and found only trivial mentions on the subject. This is not significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Many articles about non-notable subjects simply aren't noticed for years, and then found and speedily deleted.
 * In any case, I have userfied the article to User:Mar4d/Studio 146 as you requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

May I bring it to your notice that the user seems to have made another inappropriate speedy nomination too. Please restore my article to the mainspace or into my userspace link provided ASAP. Thanks again,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That nomination was inappropriate, but the situation there is quite different than for your article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

MasterMover
In order for me to amend this article I would like to know if there was anywhere I could take a copy of it from? I uploaded part of it from a Word file but the rest was created in Wikipedia. Newby error I guess.

If I can get a copy I can reassess and upload when it meets the correct criteria, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Karl (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article to User:Russell Karl/MasterMover. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

CSD Alteration
Please take time to actually look at the userpage, talkpage of the article with the spi links or ask the tagging editor in this case myself before removing a G5 tag. It's somewhat disruptive although very much on the minor side of things for sure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did. You should take more care to nominate speedy deletions properly. It was clearly not A7, and not G11, and G5 has not yet been proven. Nominate it for G5 after the SPI case closes.
 * Do not restore the tags. Doing so is disruptive. Consider yourself warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing them and accusing an editor that they haven't gave any evidence, when they did and it's clear they did is disruptive in and of itself so please consider yourself also warned. Please also point me to any guideline that states at WP:G5 that states I must wait until a SPI was completed. I'm very interested for you to back up your actions here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:CSD more carefully yourself. And no, you gave no evidence in the edit summary or in the tag, and an incomplete SPI that isn't obviously a WP:DUCK is not "evidence". Waiting for the outcome of the SPI is an administrator's discretion, which I exercised. Bottom line, you misapplied the G5 tag (because the article already had substantial edits by others), as well as A7 (because it had adequate reliable sourcing) and G11 (because it was not unambiguously promotional). A multi-speedy-nomination like that, which is so obviously misapplied, constitutes disruptive behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ok I'm going to ANI because if you can't admit you fucked up even here maybe there you can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Be sure to mention how you've been adhering to WP:CIVIL while you're at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * [] Please by all means do something yourself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Luchetti photo
Amulatic: I have left this response on my own talk page, too. Still unclear how you are notified of edits to your responses on talk pages, so I'm duplicating here:


 * I just heard from the subject, it appears the photo is after all a selfie, so this is for Amatulic (I'll also post this on your talk page), can you tell us what to do so that the photo can be left alone as is? Here are Cathy's words:


 * "Brian,


 * I had the photo taken at Sears for 10.00. It was a photo booth, not a human photographer. Amazingly, it turned out. There is no way I can get permission for this, as I said: photo booth."

Bwisok (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert query
I'm curious why you reverted my CSD tag on this I don't mind but just can't figure why it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It was deleted, so in that sense your CSD tag was already "used up". Then someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND, which is perfectly legitimate in accordance with WP:CSD, so I restored it. See the deletion log here.
 * However, I restored it with your CSD tag still in place, so I simply reverted the most recent edit to get rid of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, a restore request, that makes sense! It will take a lot of effort to make it encyclopedic from its current state, so that's why I didn't understand. Thanks for your explanation! JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not promotional?
Let me just quote it.

''Beliefs drive consumer behavior and as marketers stop relying on demographics they have typically looked at, and begin to monitor belief instead, they will recognize the value of Faith-Based Marketing. ''

Marketers need to be cognizant of the influence of the faith-based consumer on discretionary spending, media choices, and leisure activities.

''You don’t need to look far to see that faith as a core value in many Americans’ lives cannot be understated. ''

''And the demand for Faith-Based entertainment has not slowed down. ''

Entertainment industry analysts expect the faith-based trend is only going to continue to gain momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith-Based_Marketing

Ging287 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. A few lines out of an entire article don't warrant speedy deletion under WP:CSD. The article does not require a complete re-write, so it doesn't qualify for deletion under G11. Simply remove those lines. If you disagree, take it to WP:AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interested in closing a move discussion on The Beatles (album)?
I noticed you closed the previous discussion back in August 2011, so I was curious if you would be willing to settle the current discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album) once the 7 days are over on April 7? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't really see any new arguments there. Or consensus. I'll watch it and see how it pans out, although I'm reluctant to close the same topic of discussion twice. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'll wait until the seven days are out and see if an admin comes along to close the discussion. In lieu of closing, could I ask your opinion on the strength or relevance of the official title argument that underpins much of the opposition to the move? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Who knows, I may still close it.


 * What wasn't established in the previous discussion is that "White Album" is the common name used by reliable sources. When there is no consensus among sources (as was the case in the last debate that I closed), then the fallback would be to use the official name.


 * In my view, the burden on those who argue in favor of the official name is to prove that reliable sources have no consensus. The burden on those who argue in favor of "White Album" is to prove that reliable sources do show a consensus. I'd like to see the discussion focus on that, instead if bickering over personal opinions. You did bring that up with a reference to hits on Google Scholar, which is a fairly decent point. I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you for the explanation. Putting The White Album into Google ngram is easy enough, although I am having difficulty finding a way to just display results for The Beatles independent of the band. Do you know a way to make Google Ngram italics-sensitive? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I added the caveat "if it's meaningful" to my last comment. I know ngram is case-sensitive, but I don't know of any way to make it detect italics. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. In the meantime, I have added this graph to the rationale (which works upon pressing search), while stressing the lack of italics-only search. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a "snow close" at the discussion on the basis that we're being dragged through another discussion about something that has already been fairly decided. Would you consider closing now?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW does not apply here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should recuse yourself from the closing, and from making any further comments on the current discussion. Is that a problem?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have not participated in the discussion. I am simply responding to comments left on my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. - why? And how do you figure a snow close doesn't apply - at this point, this is a disruptive nom. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it may be helpful data for a reviewing administrator to make a decision. Please also read WP:SNOW. It applies for snowball consensus, which isn't evident as far as I can tell. If you want it closed early, find another administrator. I for one am going to let it run its course to see if a consensus emerges, and even then I may not close it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...
WP:REFUND is not WP:DRV. We can't !vote for overturn/relist there ES  &#38;L  16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad. Too little sleep, and I've been trying to advise someone on OTRS on this matter, repeatedly advised her to use DRV and when she wrote that she did it, I unthinkingly followed her link without noticing it was REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of TINO Methodology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TINO Methodology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/TINO Methodology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

warnborough Edits
Dear Amatulic, I see you reverted a IP addressed change, this was to an irrelvant (website looking for links from Wikipedia) site. I wonder if you could review your changes, and help maintain that page in a true and proper form. thanks,

atb, Bob. BobLees (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your input regarding additional information on Stevia article
Hello, I noticed you were an essential contributor on the Stevia page and was hoping you might have some feedback on some information I would like to include on the Stevia wiki page. I wanted to include some information regarding a fermentation technology that produces a range of steviol glycosides, using sustainable, low-cost carbohydrate feedstocks, which can be sourced from virtually anywhere on the planet. Do you think this information is appropriate and if so, would I be able to fit this under History/Use, which should probably have more subsections (History, Use, Chemistry). Also, under "commercialization", do you think it would be appropriate to add some names of companies who produce biosynthetic Stevia (the actual plant). Thank you so much for your time!

173.58.72.206 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that there are reliable sources covering the topic, I'd say information about the production of steviol glycosides would be more appropriate in the steviol glycoside article, not so much the Stevia article, which is more about the plant itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Veron (software)
I think you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veron_%28software%29 article which in A7 criteria. Now i wrote an article on same topic in my sandbox for experiment User:FaisalNipun/sandbox. is this article appropriate for publishing in Wikipedia rule ? FaisalNipun (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Because you seem to have a conflict of interest regarding this subject (it's your software, correct?), please first read Conflict of interest. Then please follow the instructions at Articles for creation to submit your article, which is the best approach for someone with a conflict of interest. There your article will be evaluated by a neutral reviewer and you will be given suggestions on how to improve it before publishing it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Metronaut
Hi,

The PROD had already lapsed, so it makes little difference, practically speaking. The speedy deletion was at my own initiative, as the entire text of the article read "Metronaut is a Danish rock band from Copenhagen Denmark, formed in 2006. The band had their international radio debut on Radio Regen on April 15th 2014 at 22:41." I assume you believe that a international radio debut is an assertion of notability. I can respect that position, though I honestly disagree with it. I'm sure you understand that such a close question is a matter on which legitimate disagreement can exist. It was certainly not my intention to cause offense. I will amend the log. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Metronaut article had already been declined for speedy deletion twice before you deleted it.


 * The article, while short, nevertheless suggested to me that the band might meet WP:BAND criterion #12 (featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network). This would disqualify it from A7 because it's a credible claim of significance.


 * PROD vs A7 makes a difference procedurally: Articles deleted by PROD can be restored by request at WP:REFUND, but articles deleted by A7 cannot. I felt that the article deserved closer examination by the community.


 * Usually band articles are clearly deserving of A7 and I seem to delete them almost daily. This one was more ambiguous. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am well-acquainted with the procedural difference between an A7 and a PROD. The reason I said (and I maintain) that there is little practical difference is very simple: I am quite liberal with userfications.  Within the limits of policy (ie, excepting BLP issues, copyvio, Office Actions, personal attacks, etc.), I will gladly restore to userfy any speedy deleted content upon request, as I would have done for anyone who objected to Metronaut's deletion, speedy or otherwise.


 * If you sincerely believed that Metronaut deserved a wider hearing, you might have considered contesting the PROD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that it had been prodded until I noticed it had been deleted, else I would have contested it. Anyway, userfication is an excellent alternative if you're agreeable. Let's wait and see if the author requests it. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding redirected username
Hello Amatulic. I have a question regarding the report related to the user named OGmuthafkkinDoc which apparently was redirected to OriginalDoc. Looking at the history of the pages this editor was editing shows the contributions were from the problematic username. What would be the correct action for me to have taken under these circumstances? Thank you for taking time to consider this question.—John Cline (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong, and it is kind of confusing. The edits made by the problematic username were constructive, so WP:AIV wasn't really the place to report the username problem. Rather, WP:UAA is for reporting violations of Username policy.


 * In this case, the user had already requested a username change. Administrator's can't rename accounts, only bureaucrats can do that. The bureaucrat Acalamari (if you look at the history of the redirect) is the person who renamed the account and redirected the old user pages to the new pages.


 * The confusing part is that there are still edits attributed to the old OGmuthafkinDoc name. I believe what happened is this: OGmuthafkinDoc had a long history of contributions. Acalamari moved those contributions to the new username, but the user was still logged in and making edits under the original username after Acalamari performed this move. He should have waited and logged in under his new account name. So we are left with some remnant contributions from the old account where there should be none; all should be attributed to the new account name. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that thoughtful reply; kind too! I did make a mistake reporting the matter at AIV and I do know what spawned my error. I remain thankful that when at times I do err, the administrators I have observed at both UAA and AIV have consistently, without fail, set right the matter, while tactfully correcting the mistake in my premise. That being said, I wish to close my comment by speaking on two matters I have observed, as they relate to you. Foremost, thank you for all the fine things you have done as a contributor building this encyclopedia. And; the 3RR block atop this page is unequivocal BS! Without judging the person who placed the block, I judge the action logged as a manifestation of poor judgment. Also you handled it well – much better than I could have done. Bravo! Best regards—John Cline (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comment. Thanks. I've also asked Acalamari to look into it and see about getting those remaining edits re-attributed to the new account OroginalDoc. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Farhad shahnawaz
Hi, Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page i have created with new content. I am not able to figure it out fro the beginning. Please throw some light on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footfallexperts (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhad shahnawaz determined that the article should be deleted. Your attempts to recreate page in multiple places was considered disruptive, especially since a draft already existed at WP:AFC. Therefore, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farhad Shahnawaz for you to work on. Please get it into shape there and nowhere else, and submit it for review. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

More Albert Pyun vandalism
Albert Pyun has now created Cinema of Guam which needs to be deleted. He created the page using a sock aping various editors from Guam and another wiki editors. Page needs to be deleted. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson
 * By the time I saw your message, the page had already been deleted and the account has been blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch deletion
Dear Amatulić, I see you deleted the page "Amanda_Eliasch" for, I suppose, valid reason, since there are several people editing it, I wonder could it be given chance to be corrected first to meet Wikipedia guidelines instead deleting it at once? Is there any chance to bring it up and let me correct it, since I know there might be reasons for your deletion? I would really appreciate it! Greetings from Zagreb and in any case I do prefer Plavac in any form, whether it is Mali, Madirazza, Plenković or Bura. :-)

All best, Vice


 * The reason can be found in the deletion log, in this case unambiguous promotion of the subject. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Anway, I'm happy to restore it to your user space for you to improve, if you wish. Just let me know.


 * By the way, I tasted a Serbian wine made from a grape called Granac and I swear it tasted just like Plavac Mali. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will try Granac if I stumble upon it! I tasted Californian Zinfandel / Grgich Hills which shares striking similarity to Plavac Mali.

Please restore the page if it's not a big deal, I'll refine it and make it factual, no idea whoever edited it what they did with it. The 'subject' is a friend of mine so I'll take care. Will edit next week when I get time, so if you can bring it up next week would be great! Thanks a lot!

All best, Vice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.157.77 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to know your username here (not your IP address), so that I can restore the page to your space for you to work on. I can't restore it to main article space. I have to "userfy" it. Alternately, if you do not wish to create an account, I can restore it to the Articles for creation space for you to work on and submit for review when you think it's ready.


 * I was also wrong about the name of the wine grape. It's Vranac, not Granac. Sierra Ridge winery in Amador county grows and sells it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Registered, username: Sedamjedan. Oh yes, tasted Macedonian Vranac, I've been pleasantly surprised. If you didn't already, give it a try. A bit wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedamjedan (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I've tried it and I thought it tasted remarkably like Plavac Mali. At least the one sold at Sierra Ridge.
 * I have restored the article to your user space at User:Sedamjedan/Amanda Eliasch. Good luck with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

my account name
Hello, You wrote on my talk page: ''I must also mention that your account name implies shared use between two individuals. Is that the case? If not, you may want to mention that on your user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)''

The name "Jack 'n Jill" was the name of my preschool. Auburn was the name of the town it was in.Jacknjillauburn (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B11avm/sandbox
You declined the speedy here. I'd like to point out that this account has been used to promote a client which was reverted, and created an article to promote the same client at Nyanza Autoparts which was deleted. That this auto parts company is a client can be verified by viewing the lower right of their website. The account is obviously being used to promote the business interests of BNP Digitalmedia. This sandbox article is nothing more than a vehicle intended to promote BNP Digitalmedia. There are no sources, no claim to notability/fame of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the sandbox article is straightforward and not unambiguously promotional, and there is no prohibition against anyone with a conflict of interest from editing. In fact, the sandbox article has a "Submit" link at the top for submitting it to WP:AFC, which is the recommended venue for anyone with a conflict of interest to submit articles.
 * Regardless of the user's history, the fact remains that if he wants to write an article about his client, starting it in the sandbox and submitting it to AFC is the correct approach. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not writing about a client. He's writing about himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even then, WP:AFC is the place to go to write an article about oneself or any other subject with which there's a conflict of interest. In a case like this it's best to give the user some WP:ROPE to do things right. If he hangs himself by trying to circumvent AFC, then a block may be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wilma.Franzese - About your conflict of interest
Dear Amatulic,

I would like to say that I am truly sad and sorry about what happened. I just wanted to save all the information to not to lose them. I didn't know that by clicking button´save´they will automatically appear on the Wikipedia page. Today I was supposed to make necessary changes (e.g. deleting dispensable links as to the Facebook page), but sadly I found out that my page had already been deleted. I can assure you that I am familiarized with all the relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. According to this situation, I would be extremely grateful if you could reconsider your decision and bring back my article, so I could reedit it (according to all the terms of using Wikipedia). However, if this is not possible, I would like to write it one more time, but without any errors or inaccuracies which could disturb Wikipedia policy.

Thanking you in advance. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Yours sincerely,

Wilma F.


 * I have restored the article User:Wilma.franzese/Schiano Bikes for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparent NLT vio at Right Sector talk
Apparent NLT vio by Darouet at Talk:Right Sector (13:37, 11 May 2014). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC:
 * ? I see nothing resembling a legal threat in that edit. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never threatened anyone here or elsewhere, and I like Dervorguilla to boot. I think Dervorguilla is referring to my objection to labeling Anton Shekhovstov as a "self-style conspiracy theorist," but Dervorguilla correct me if I'm wrong. -Darouet (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ? I see the word "slander", which Darouet was doubtless using informally and which Dervorguilla finds it convenient to label a legal threat because it's also a term of law. As we know, Dervorguilla likes terms and forms of law a lot. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike. I see no legal threat anywhere. I see a short mention of an off-wiki legal threat against an off-wiki person (Shekhovtsov), but discussing a legal threat isn't anywhere near the same as actually making one on a talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood Darouet’s comment, Orange Mike  (or Amatulić). Can you clear up a couple of points for me?

1. Which particular assertion does his comment identify as “slandering” somebody?

2. Who made that assertion? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My guesses:

1. The assertion that Anton Shekhovtsov is “a self-professed conspiracy theorist.”

2. A WP editor (in this case, Dervorguilla). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 05:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the basic issue–

Darouet’s comment begs the question of whether WP is slandering the named scholar. It then goes on to say that WP is slandering “the scholar who might be the most well-known researcher on this subject.”

Some helpful background material, from Black’s Law Dictionary (2009):


 * slander per se. Slander for which [actual harm] need not be proved, because it imputes to the plaintiff any one of the following: … (3) conduct that would adversely affect one’s business or profession…

and from AP Stylebook (2013):


 * Potentially libelous stories.… Transmission of a corrective may itself have legal consequences because it formally acknowledges an error.… There is always a risk that the clarification or retraction, while well-meaning, would undermine your position in a libel lawsuit.

So the issue here may be whether Darouet’s well-meant comment could perhaps undermine WP’s position in a libel suit. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Some policy, at NLT (emphasis added):


 * What is not a legal threat
 * A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat.
 * Perceived legal threats
 * It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia…. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are … "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue….
 * A user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies … and require assistance in dealing with such comments.

Would it make sense to for an administrator to assist one or both users in understanding what the term “slander” means? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m withdrawing my request, in the hope that no more assertions by editors about other editors’ “slandering” will be made unless actually warranted. Thanks for listening! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwertylaw
Take a look at the deleted edit, and you will see spamming. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was promotional, but the username "QwertyLaw" is not the same as AstapovLawyers, the entity being promoted. The block is fine, but technically not a username policy violation. I'd change the block message to uw-adblock with an indef=yes parameter. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor
can you modify your protection to fall to auto confirmed after full protection falls off? There is and has been a long history of sockpuppetry by a banned user. half of the edit war is because the dob is an obsession. relevant info can be found at the SPI for User:Smauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, full and semi protections don't stack. One replaces the other, so I have to re-protect manually when it expires. Full/semi, create, and PCP all expire independently, but full and semi aren't independent of each other.


 * Notes to myself: article Shraddha Kapoor, full protection expires 19:53 12 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I set a reminder to myself on that date. Please ping me in case I forget. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi protection restored, set to expire in 1 year. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fix a page?
Hey, can you fix the revisions for File:Windows 2000.png? I tried to delete the versions that had been deleted prior, but messed up and I'm not sure how to repair things. I figure it's better to ask someone else to step in at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what needs to be done, because I don't know which versions should be visible.


 * It might be cleanest simply to delete the entire thing, then restore the selected revisions.


 * Remember with an image, there are two groups to delete/restore: the page revisions, and the uploaded files. You delete page revisions just like with any other Wikipedia page. You delete the uploaded files from the page itself (scroll to the bottom and you see a "delete" link next to every uploaded version).


 * From the logs, I'm guessing that anything dated after 20 May 2011 would be restored, and anything before that would remain deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a fair use image, so what needs to be done is to delete all of the image revisions except the latest one but restore all of the page revisions. (Sorry for butting in here, but I sort of started this whole mess, so...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I deleted the entire page, then restored it all except for the most recent image. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was wondering what's going on with this file, since my watchlist is bursting with entries about it. At first, I thought maybe you guys just want to restore and instead hide past revisions (per new instructions) but now... alright, would it be alright if I asked what is going on?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dogmaticeclectic posted a request at WP:REFUND to undelete some deleted uploads for review, and then delete them again. Tokyogirl tried to comply but had some confusion with the admin tools, since this was her first time using them on an image. Then she asked me (above) to clean up. So I did. That's what happened. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

? about RFPC
Just wondering why you're not using the RFPC template for standard responses on Request for Permisisons/Confirmed the panda ₯’  20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two possible reasons:
 * (a) Because it's easier to use generic templates when I'm in a hurry.
 * (b) Because the canned responses are not what I want to say.
 * I do this on WP:REFUND too, but at least the template collection there includes a generic "not done" response. This isn't the case with RFPC, and I don't know enough about creating templates to rectify this.


 * Why? Does this break anything?


 * There's something broken in the software, by the way. Unconfirmed users who try to upload images are being shown what seems to be a hard-coded, non-configurable error message that instructs them to post a plea to RFPC, but we reject reject requests for confirmation when the reason given is a desire to upload images. Fixing this bug would likely eliminate a lot of requests on that page. I have posted notices about this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Confirmed as well as to MediaWiki_talk:Permissionserrors (which controls the anonymous IP error message but not the unconfirmed register user message). So far no one has responded.


 * What would you suggest is the next step? Village pump (technical)? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, well, 2 of your responses today matched the template ... so I was surprised to see you hand-type them. I'm not sure where that error is coded ... WP:VPT is likely next  the panda ₯’  23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I hand-type about 1/3 of my WP:REFUND responses too. I don't frequent the page enough to memorize the response codes, and often typing out "Please read the big box at the top" seems quicker than looking up the code trying to find the right one, until I find myself typing something longer than I intended, and I curse myself for not thinking ahead. :) My last two responses were also far more succinct than the canned response. I suspect that few people read the responses anyway. In some cases I have followed up to the user talk pages and got no reply there either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability Rules - Please Elaborate!!!
Amatulic,

We just submitted an article for review and was rejected by you. You cited the notability rules as the grounds for rejection. However, all the references are notable, and the references are verifiable. One is the corpcounsel.com website, which is a reliable third party website and the other one is the United States Patent and Trademark Office's website. Can you elaborate on this? We have looked at many examples of other articles such as BSTZ for which Wikipedia has allowed submission. What is the difference between our submission and this other page? Thanks.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshadf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look at the comment I added in the article you submitted, where I elaborated on the reason for rejection. You provided zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The company's own web site, trivial mentions in a list, and a list of self-written documents (patents), do not establish notability. See WP:CORP and Golden Rule for more information.


 * Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments about what else might exist on Wikipedia are irrelevant. Each article stands or falls on its own merits, independent of anything else that might exist. BSTZ is a poor article and would likely not survive a deletion discussion if nominated for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg
Informal review requested, in the linked discussion, the uploader claims permission WAS obtained. OTRS check suggested.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find that one in OTRS. I searched for variations too. In fact the only hits on "Freyberg" were unrelated permission requests regarding the German Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the uploaders talk page. If the OTRS was sent, it might need to be sent again :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:24February2007Reeling.jpg
Informal review requested, this appears to be have been deleted for being orphan. The uploader notes a permission was obtained, Worth checking OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found this in OTRS ticket . In fact that ticket asserts GDFL (not CC-by-SA) permission from "Andrew Threipland" for the following images:
 * File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg
 * File:24February2007Reeling.jpg
 * File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg
 * File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg
 * File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg
 * File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg
 * Since OTRS permission was obtained, these could be moved to Commons. Want me to restore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please!!! Be sure to update the information before transfer though :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll restore them here and tag with Copy to Commons. Not sure how to transfer images to Commons (never done it before), but I understand any user can do that, it doesn't require administrators. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored and re-tagged. Please perform any additional clean-up or formatting that might be needed for copying to Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for permission
Master Amatulic, I want to thank you for having faith in me and granting me special tools and permissions to preserve and embetter Wikipedia! That was fantastic! I started doing three reviews on articles and it was great!

Respects and bowing: The Mad Hatter (talk)


 * You're welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A question
Hi Amatulic, you are the protecting admin for article Vulfpeck. It was created and deleted several times, deletion log. I have rewritten and expanded the article with new references. What is the process for recreating the article? Bammesk (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Put it in your sandbox or in a subpage of your user space such as User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put it in User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. Bammesk (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, although it seems to be a WP:ONEEVENT case of notability, which we generally avoid. But the mainstream coverage is good, so I have moved the page to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool :) Thank you for reviewing the article. Bammesk (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(Deleted) Uploads from User:Rodolph

 * User_talk:Rodolph

These were some that the uploader specifically mentions as being either, their image, or for which permissions were obtained. As with previous 'informal reviewing' an OTRS check is recommended, Although in the case of some items which may be PD-art (i.e a 17th century painting), they could be restored fairly quickly.

I would of course like to thank you in advance for doing this reviewing, and would appreciate you contacting the uploader directly to assist them in 'recovering' the images appropriately.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph
Thank you for your assistance and views so far.

I've asked for some wider views at WP:ANI,Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh
We seem to have a bit of a difference of opinion with Requests_for_undeletion ... my opinion matches User_talk:Randykitty  the panda ₯’  22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know we have no time limit, but I have re-deleted as G11, and kept my closing statement that EC'd with yours @ WP:REFUND the panda ₯’  22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I userfied the article to User:La cate35/QualityUnit because it seemed quite far from "irredeemably promotional". It has problems that make it more appropriate for AFC than main space (too much product detail and poor sourcing) but it was neutrally written and looked like it could be fixed up. I wouldn't have userfied it otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just A Man (1969 debut album)‎‎
Hi. I'm not sure how you missed the sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this article, but check out the history of User:Maitlandplace and User:Maitlandsplace, and note that the latter was blocked expressly for abuse of multiple accounts after picking up the business of the former account in creating articles surrounding a small group of musicians. Perhaps it was just that in my G5 I named the sockpuppeteer instead of the actual sockpuppet who created the article. If so, I can only say that I figured it was the sockpuppeteer I was supposed to identify, since the sockpuppet who wrote the article is apparent from the article's history. Anyway, I've resubmitted the article for G5, but this time I named the account that created the article, the one that has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you missed the fact that the article does not qualify for G5, because it was not created in violation of any block or ban as G5 requires. It was created in October 2013, well before any block on either account, and there was no block evasion happening at the time of creation. Had I seen you re-tag it I would have reverted you and left you a warning. Nevertheless, I will not restore the article because it likely wouldn't survive AFD anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please check again. If you look at the current state of the deleted page, you'll see that the version that was created in October 2013 was deleted in November 2013, on account of being a copyright violation. The edition of the article I submitted for deletion was brand new, created after the user had been blocked. Indeed, Maitlandplace/Maitlandsplace left a note just yesterday at Requests for Undeletion reading "This is the new page about his first album i created ..." [emphasis mine]. (She's used Requests for Undeletion several times in the last few days to ask that an existing article she'd created not be deleted.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see. I stand corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Link Removal: Article Meditation
Please refrain from removing relevant links that do not violate Wikipedia's policies as you did with the article, Meditation. Thank You. 96.249.193.79 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link violates WP:ELNO, and now you are blocked for edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DPT Laboratories
Hi Amatulic. Per your comment at Requests for undeletion, I'm requesting a move of DPT Laboratories. to draft namespace at Draft:DPT Laboratories or to userspace at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Laboratories1. The company is notable per the sources, and I'd like to examine the article in hopes to improve it. I have notified User:INeverCry on their talk page and it was archived. I reposted it, and it was archived again. I believe this article may have been deleted due to an error in which assertion of significance regarding the company was mistaken as advertising or promotional. Please respond at your convenience. NorthAmerica1000 07:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored it to Draft space. There was no point restoring the talk page as it contained only one Wikiproject template, no discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response to this request. Sincerely, NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Afusat Saliu
I wish to request that you re-examine the speedy deletion of Afusat Saliu. This was originally proposed under A7, no assertion of significance, but you invoked WP:BLP1E, famous for only one thing, which may or may not apply in this case, but is not grounds for speedy deletion, and is not the same as A7. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't invoke BLP1E as a reason for speedily deleting it, I mentioned it in the rationale for the purpose of saying "see this also, Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on people famous for only one thing."


 * I deleted the article because there was no assertion of significance. Many people face deportation. That is not significant. Many girls in Nigeria are subjected to genital mutilation. The fact that two girls face this prospect is unfortunate, but also not significant. The fact that many people signed a petition is also not significant; this happens every day on petition web sites.


 * Given those facts, and the fact that the only coverage of the person is in relation to a single event, the article would likely not survive WP:AFD if nominated for deletion due to WP:BLP1E. Therefore I deemed the speedy deletion of the article to be uncontroversial and in accordance with WP:CSD.


 * I offer you three options:
 * If you wish to have it restored to main article space, you may open a case at Deletion review, citing this section on my talk page.
 * I can restore the article to your user space for you to improve further at your leisure, bearing in mind that a biography article based on a single event will be nominated for AFD when moved back to main space and likely not survive.
 * It may turn out that the notable topic is not the person, but the controversy, in which case the article should not be written as a biography, in which case you should either re-write it as an article about the controversy, or expand our existing article on female genital mutilation.
 * ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish to open a case at deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Afusat Saliu
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afusat Saliu. 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. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have courtesy-restored the article's history to facilitate discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Just a heads-up, I've nominated this for deletion as a copyvio of http://www.commoncause.in/nl/july-sep12/6.html which was modified "Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM" according to my web browser. It is very likely that the text on the commoncause web page was written before July 2012.

On January 15, 2013 you deleted a version as a BLPPROD. If the deleted version is basically another copy of what is there now and what is on the commoncause page, AND if that page was added to Wikipedia before "January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM," then the copyright-violation is no longer clear.

If the version you deleted is completely different and not an obvious non-starter, then consider restoring it and adding the sources listed in the copyvio version to the talk page as possible sources and re-start the BLPPROD clock. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed this to a suspected copyright violation per the above and per the comments on the contested deletion, see Copyright problems/2014 May 31. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the correct way to go about it. If there's no response in a week, remind me and I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you check the dates and content of the deleted version? If the dates are early enough and the content is nearly identical, the current version may not be a copyvio.  If the content is not the same, it may be a useful replacement for the current version.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The most recently deleted version is from 14 January, and has just one paragraph consisting of 3 sentences that are nearly identical to the most recent lead 3 sentences currently replaced by the copyvio tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Telerik
Hi,

I want to thank you for not deleting the Telerik page outright. I've reworked the page and submitted it for review. I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's likely to pass muster? I'd hate to go through a three week process and have to go back to step one.

Thanks, MaximZero (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it still comes across as somewhat promotional overall. If it is rejected, you don't have to go back to step 1, you just have to revise it until it's acceptable.


 * Some advice that may help: the lead section of any encyclopedia article should serve only as an overview summary of the rest of the article. It should not cover topics that aren't covered in more detail later (for example, Telerik Platform and the pledge to create an education platform aren't mentioned anywhere else). You should just have a briefer sentence about each and provide more detail in the article body. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion
You reverted my edits to this article without understanding what is going on. If every First and Biggest is to be included in that article, then that article will become too big and probably an encyclopedia onto itself. The history of talkpage of that article clarifies the situation. For example I deleted the entry of "First to leave Gold standard" and the "Tallest building". If we have to include every first, eg. First car, First Republic, First paper currency, First diaper, First tap water, Tallest tree, Tallest antenna, Tallest ....

You know where it will go. It will be only a matter of time before that article will be flooded by people wanting to include their tallest, biggest and firstest. And then it will be the end of that article.

Anyways, why I am giving a damn? To hell with it.--103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what is going on: you were edit-warring. The article has clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which you evidently did not bother to read, and have resorted to edit-warring.


 * Similar arguments to yours have been made for other list articles such as List of common misconceptions, in spite of the well-defined criteria for inclusion that have evolved by community consensus.


 * If you want to change the criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. Edit warring will not resolve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith
Does the list of religious texts include stuff like this? Reading the article on Hadith I'm not sure. The editor adding this is new and still very uncertain about how we work, see Talk:Quran. He wants to create an article, it will be interesting to see what he does. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, I found (and modified) his edit to Hadith List of religious texts while examining his contribution history.


 * I was initially going to revert it, but eventually decided to leave it in. Every Muslim I have asked, insists that while the Quran is the primary text, the Hadith are equally important in many respects and determine some fundamental practices and beliefs (such as the belief that Muslims must be offended by depictions of Muhammad, and teaching found only in Hadith). As I understand it, Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God, and Hadith are quotations and teachings of Muhammad, which provide clarity and understanding of the word of God.


 * I have no objection to removal of that entry, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hadith are obviously important to varying extents, but I'm not convinced they are religious texts, but no point arguing that, as I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither am I. Might be a good question to ask at Reference desk. In fact, looking over the archives, some light is shed by Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 26, which suggests that Hadith are analogous to the Catechism in Christianity or the Talmud in Judaism; that is, they are commentaries or clarifications on the text that is considered "scripture". Are Catechism or Talmud considered "religious texts"? Adherents likely consider them that way, but I am not sure about religious scholars. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Talmud is in the list. I think I've got better things to do that will improve Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Me too. Although, Wikipedia is a low priority for me right now, just something I do when I take a break from seeking my next contract. Real Life must always come first. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding
Hello Amatulic, I am in the process of working on this page with Wikipedia help team. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. My tagging of the article is still appropriate, as it alerts other editors of issues and improvements that need to be made. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Amatulic, please see my note on the crisis bonding talk page.Dr. Susan M. Sutton Clawson 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs)

Thank you for taking care of this situation for us. Delete the article, then restore the redirect - the perfect solution! --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisis bonding listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crisis bonding. Since you had some involvement with the Crisis bonding redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Elliott Wave Dilemma
Hi Amatulic,

Thanks for contacting me about the removal of the external link on the page Elliott Wave principle.

When I first came across this page, I went to the first external link for additional reading, but as you can see, it provides very little information. Obviously I was disappointed and found a better page from a site that I frequent. If you think it looks inappropriate, you can add a better page yourself and I'll be happy to read it.

Regards, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblakely (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, one of those links was low quality, so I have just removed it. I replaced it with a link to the Investopedia entry, which is more substantial. Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)
I came back to this AfD to reply to the nom, who didn't seem to understand my last comment. Instead, I found your close. Do you agree that WP:N is a test to determine if an article should be standalone, and that in the case of an article split, non-notability means recombining the two parts? And that this is an issue for either a bold edit, or for the content contributors to discuss on one of the two talk pages? Given that there is no theoretical case for deletion on notability grounds here, was this a WP:IAR close? Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The debate had gone on for more than 7 days and was well past time for closing. You raise several points:
 * WP:N can be a test to determine if a subject merits a stand-alone article. The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article. The 'keep' arguments were not compelling, as they were not based on any policy.
 * In the case of an article split into a notable and non-notable pieces, it's perfectly fine to restore the non-notable piece to the original article. That is not a concern for closing the AFD, because the old material is still available in the original article's history, and can be restored by anyone at any time.
 * Once an AFD is created, that is where discussion should be concerning the deletion of the article. Now that it is deleted, further discussion should commence on the talk page of the article from which the content was originally split.
 * I have never found a need to invoke IAR in administrative actions. You asserted "there is no theoretical case for deletion" without any supporting arguments, and your assertion conflicts with the consensus in the AFD discussion.
 * I knew that no decision I made would be satisfactory to all participants. If you are unable to find the content that was split in the original article's talk page history, I can userfy the deleted article for you if you believe that significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to support the notability of the mall. WP:DRV is also an option. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All editors who post to an AfD page are advised that a guideline is available. See WP:BEFORE a1, c1, c3, c4.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that "The consensus I saw in the AFD discussion was that this particular topic did not merit a stand-alone article.", and I am not here to disagree with that.
 * By observing that the material exists in another edit history and can be restored, you agree that there is no applicable content policy for the deletion of the material in the edit history. Redirects are cheap.  Those are the only two things that can be deleted.  Where is there a policy-basis for deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to delete. I deleted it. The fact that the content is still available elsewhere means that it is not necessary to keep that content in another place. There is no policy that mandates keeping redundant content, only that redundant content should be merged per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
 * You are welcome to open at case at WP:DRV. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

KEN Greenbook
With regards to your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KEN_Greenbook#Page_moved ... the changes have been made. Kindly approve. Thank you.KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. The article still has serious problems and cannot be approved until corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Please take a look. Thanks. KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Need your additional comments on declined article
Hi! Could you please check the external links in the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unison RTOS: all external links redirect to different reviews and articles from independent experts (except the second one - it links to official website). Also I need your help about your comment "the submission reads like a brochure, with too much unnecessary detail" - I tried to create this article as some alike (Unix) - so I just do not understand what I need to change. Thank you in advance for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please provide examples of sources that constitute reviews by independent experts, and show how they are referenced in the article. Honestly, I don't see any. The two inline sources currently in the article cite the inventor, so those sources are not independent and do not constitute coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources as required. The links you provided are simply product description pages, not coverage of the topic as required. The details about components and features are not useful information for a layperson wanting to learn about the subject and make the article appear like a product brochure aimed at industry insiders. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for comments!

What can advise about this article: http://www.m2mevolution.com/ - that is independent review by rather respected person.

Or this one: http://enewschannels.com/ - it is also the riview by independent author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The M2M article is OK, but still marginal, because it's reporting on the company's own press release rather than engaging in independent coverage.


 * As for the other one on enewschannels, you gotta be kidding. That's a press release that was given to the author to publish. It is not independent. Verbatim identical press releases can be found on press release sites such as this one. Press releases are not acceptable, even if they are parroted by an "independent" author.


 * To be independent, a source must have no connection to the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not check if the text is unique. I will try to find another articles. Thank you for helping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Which spammer was that? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Amongst
Hello Amatulic. I was rather surprised to see you removing "amongst" from articles with the rationale that it is archaic. Whilst it might not be commonly used in the US, it's still commonly used in the UK, and per WP:ENGVAR, is entirely appropriate. See recent usages from the BBC to confirm. Cheers, Number   5  7  14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just about every UK style guide recommends against it. For further information, see the while article. This is not an ENGVAR issue, as the word is used on both sides of the pond. It's simply correcting awkward grammar. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless our own style guide recommends against it, I don't see the relevance of what others do. It's still widely used and perfectly acceptable. It is definitely not "awkward grammar", although I'd be interested to hear why you think it is. Number   5  7  14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "situated amongst a region" (which I had corrected when you replied just now) is awkward and incorrect regardless of whether "among" or "amongst" is used. Furthermore, whilst the word is commonly used on both sides of the Atlantic, and therefore not an ENGVAR issue, it is also widely considered as archaic and unnecessary by professional publications on both sides. The fact that the Wikipedia style guide fails to address the topic is not a reason to leave it alone. The Wikipedia style guide also fails to address many common grammatical errors and words specifically (such as "ain't"), so does that mean we should just ignore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that's awkward, but it's because the wrong word was used (among would be equally inappropriate). I also disagree that it's "widely" considered archaic. If the BBC uses it, it's a fairly strong indicator that it's normal. Number   5  7  14:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The BBC has no consistency, using while/whilst and among/amongst with equal frequency. The UK style guides that do address these words universally appear to consider them archaic. The BBC does have its own style guide, and while it does not address the words "amongst" or "whilst" specifically, there is no occurrence of the word "amongst" in that guide, only "among", which may not mean anything except perhaps as an indicator to what the BBC considers "normal" without actually being prescriptive like other guides. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Enterprise Architect (Software) Deletion
Just following up for further advice, your comment on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_138#Enterprise_Architect_.28software.29

I have contacted Tom Morris (talk) and did receive an initial response, but no follow up (over several weeks). You mentioned taking some other action, but I am a little lost as to whether to proceed with a request for un-deletion. I would appreciate any insight on the path to proceed on. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The "other action" is to open a case at Deletion review, to allow the community to determine whether the administrator's deletion decision was proper in view of the arguments given in the AFD and the sources given in the article. The article's revision history would be restored for the purpose of discussion, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. I will follow up on this. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Re. David Hedlund
Hello. I noticed your message to him on his talk page, so I thought I'd let you know that he already has copied his entire article (45K bytes of it) to his talk page, to continue editing there. Which IMHO is inappropriate use of the talk page for someone who has been indef blocked. Thomas.W talk 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he did that before I warned him about it. I just removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Eric Fisher
Hi Amatulic, You have recently informed me that I will not receive my article back until I change my username, however I am new to this site and am unsure of how to do so. Will you please inform me of the steps I need to take in order to change that? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherarch (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:UNC the panda ₯’  14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * More specifically, go to WP:CHU/Simple and make a request there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta copyvio
I noticed you didn't create an entry for this page's copyright issues at Copyright problems, which left me kind of confused. It's a moot point now, I reviewed the editor's string of edits, found enough evidence of a copyvio to warrant action, reverted back to the last non-copyvio version, and put a copyvio-revdel template at the top. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator will review it soon. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the duplication detector report was enough. It was similar to earlier revisions of the article that had been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD, but I didn't renominate as G12 because I felt there was sufficient original material in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The template that you put on the article specifically linked to the (non-existent) discussion. The discussion has to be started by the person who applies the template.  In any case, it's a moot point for this particular article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection
User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Heather handpicked/The Handpicked Collection during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Avi Nir
Hi,

Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page I have created for Mr. Avi Nir, the CEO of Keshet Media Group. Avi Nir, is a very well known TV executive, heading Israels Keshet Broadcasting for the past 12 years, Mako and Keshet International, the international production and distribution arm of Keshet Media Group. Nir, is in charge of very well known local and international shows like Hatufim (Prisoners of War) that has become Homeland, he is also executive producer on Homeland, which granted him a prime time emmy award. He was named Israeli cloture most influential person. As a leading international TV executive and since Keshet International expanded globally with shows like Rising Star, Allegiance, Homeland and many more and formed international production outposts this profile and the profile of Keshet Media Group and Keshet International are highly relevant to understand where many shows originated from and produced by, who this company is and who its top executives are. Nir also serves as Executive Producer on all the US productions that originated from Keshet (over 10)

we made sure we back up everything with relevant links to media sources. Im a director at Keshet International and we updated the last profile. As a person who uses Wikipedia constantly as a reliable and trusted source of information- i understand and appreciate the importance of the quality of the information. im writing you, since i would like to upload an informative and respectable profile as i imagined we did I wouldn't like to upload our profiles again without getting the inputs from the person who deleted it first on the content and the updating form.

Your response would be highly appreciated

Many thanks in advance

Limor - Keshet International

91.240.235.225 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, none of that matters. What matters right now is that you are blocked, and you are evading the block by continuing to participate without logging in. The only page you are allowed to edit is your user talk page.


 * Please read Conflict of interest, because if you are associated with Avi Nir, you should not be writing about it. Articles written by people with a conflict of interest are not written from a neutral point of view, and are often deleted as unambiguously promotional.


 * Your first priority is to get your account unblocked. Do not attempt to create other accounts. You have one account, and you must use it. At this moment, you cannot do anything else until it is unblocked and renamed. Follow the instructions in your block notice, and be sure to read all the links in it.


 * The article was most recently deleted due to promotional tone and copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot re-publish material that has already been published elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have been nothing but WP:CIVIL and to the point.
It is the other editors (like Dave S and many more) that are uncivil. They repeatedly mischaracterize my position and the talk page is full of invective toward me, every time I say something. WP:AGF does not mean we're chumps. And these people are not intellectually honest. It is completely clear on that talk page and how this article has been edited and maintained for at least 8 years. What I wrote is completely legit. Censoring it is not. 71.161.194.233 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I personally agreed with much of what you wrote, the behavior of others does not excuse your own. You were not civil, commenting on contributors rather than content. You were doing "my" side of the argument no favors with your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise
Dear...

Thanks for your advise.

As an experienced Editor, please guide me to host those wiki page again.

As for my concern, those links are genuine. I checked few separately.

Meaning of up coming means .. He had already achieved few things and trying to achieve few more records.

I think you misunderstood it that he had not arrived anything. His name is already associated with so many pages with others in Wikipedia itself.

His movies, albums were already released in theaters.

So, he had already arrived his status.

Any how, as you say I will contact the Admin.

Once again guide me to recreate the pages. --Praisewinner (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)--Praisewinner (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You may contact the deleting admin as I suggested, and if you are still convinced that the deletion decision was wrong, you may make a case to Deletion review. Deletion review is not to argue about the merits of the article, but to discuss whether the deletion decision was valid in light of the discussion that already took place.


 * If you want to create new articles, your best approach is to use your sandbox or a sub-page in your user space. You may create any page as a sub-page, for example User:Praisewinner/Thomas Rathnam. That way you may work on it as a draft without worrying about it being deleted. Then you should submit it to Articles for creation, where it will be reviewed for suitability before acceptance for publication in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your adivice sir..
Thanks for your advice sir.

I will try to put it in my sand box and send it to you. --Praisewinner (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fresh set of eyes
Hey Amatulic, I'm taking Tomas' advice to seek out a fresh set of eyes about what is going on at the Merlot article. Essentially we have an editor who objects to any images that have a wine bottle involved--even the image to the left that was previously in the article. While I've been trying to work with him to encourage him to replace the images with better free-use alternatives, he prefers to just cast bad faith accusations of advertising and is now threatening to go on a POINTy deletion rampage through all of our wine articles. While there is another editor involved in the discussion that I feel is more amendable to working towards a middle ground in finding acceptable images, I'm becoming more concerned with the behavior of this other editor now that he feels "fueled" by the partial agreement with his POV by another editor. AgneCheese/Wine 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, his POINTy deletion spree wasn't a new threat from him. I forgot about this edit summary. AgneCheese/Wine 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that in most cases, an image works just as well without a depiction of a wine label. Wikipedia is not to be used as a publicity medium, even if that publicity is unintended. In articles that aren't about specific wines or wineries, if a wine label is present in an image, the bottle should be rotated to obscure the label partially. Particularly in the picture you included, just the wine glass would have been sufficient although the wine label is somewhat out of focus (and I must say, whatever gooey concoction is on the plate sure looks unappetizing to me; maybe a plastic cup of white Zin would be more fitting there).


 * One compromise that might satisfy everyone is to apply digital blur and contrast reduction effects to the label and continue using the existing image. For example, in my image File:Jug wine refills.jpg in which the labels were unavoidable, that's what I did: I hazed the labels out to the point where one cannot identify my uncle's winery. I also made sure the image was fairly low-resolution. One can digitally obscure the labels (using blurring, contrast effects, resolution reduction, or a combination) so that they don't look purposefully obscured yet the brand remains unidentifiable. Any "offending" images could simply be re-uploaded to the same name instead of being deleted. That might be a solution that satisfies all parties in the dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be completely amicable to that compromise. As you know, I am one of the most ardent anti-spam wine editors out there so I have no worries or objections about blurring the winery name or what not. I just don't have the technical skills to do that (though I've already tried my best with some of the pics I edited and re-added). My objective is to have fully developed articles that are illustrated with relevant free-images. The key details for me are the color of the wine in the glass, the identification of what the wine is (Merlot, Chard, etc) and the wine region. The winery name can be cut out or obscure in whatever way. That is 100% A-okay because the winery is wholly irrelevant IMO. I was just working with the best of what I had with the best skills and avenue at my disposal. I would be thrilled to death if Drmies or NewTestLeeper were willing to work with me to implement this compromise rather than go on a wholesale deletion spree that leaves our wine articles unillustrated and less developed. AgneCheese/Wine 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can try my hand at obscuring logos and winery names, although I won't be fast. My first day on a new job is tomorrow and I expect I'll be swamped with that as I get up to speed. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm totally fine with that because I know that in the end the articles will be better off. There is no deadline or rush on my part. I just hope that NewTestLeeper will cool down and not go on his mass deletion spree across a broad swath of wine articles. That's my only worry. :/ Best wishes with the new job. I know it can be both an exciting and stressful time. AgneCheese/Wine 03:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dix Township, Ford County, Illinois
Occasionally edited, not frequent. Lower to PC-protection? --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for the delayed response. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Last one
Since I prefer not to edit war, i'd appreciate if you use any of these sources to dispel any controversy: Thanks. Nons3r (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mystical Dimensions of Islam - Page 34, Annemarie Schimmel - 2011: "Jesus, the last prophet before Muhammad according to Koranic revelation ..."
 * My Soul Is a Woman: The Feminine in Islam - Page 22, Annemarie Schimmel - 1997: "... Mary, or Mariam, the virgin mother of Jesus, who was the last prophet before Muhammad"
 * Islam in Iran - Page 7, I. P. Petrushevsky - 1985: "Whereas in Islam's teaching 'Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah) was human; he was one of the great prophets and the immediate predecessor of Muhammad..."
 * You are missing the point. MOS:ISLAM is Wikipedia's guideline regarding how we present articles on these subjects. In such articles, we do not refer to Muhammad as a "prophet"; at most we refer to "the Islamic Prophet Muhammad" but only when such disambiguation is absolutely necessary. We don't refer to Jesus as a prophet either. Therefore, it is inappropriate to imply that Wikipedia regards these individuals as prophets by putting this information into an infobox. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and health
Hello, Amatulic! Am I remembering correctly, that you were one of the people who dealt with the problem of alcohol related articles by David Hedlund? Sorry for my faulty memory; I can't remember who all contributed to fixing the "Alcohol (drug)" article, and I can't go back and look because the page has been deleted so its talk page is gone. If this is a subject of interest to you, I just discovered another one: Alcohol and health. It was called to my attention by a new addition someone added (which is also problematic). But then I noticed the section "Pregnancy and alcohol" which is horrible: it cites a single study instead of a review article, and mis-states the results of the one study it cites. Then I looked at the article more generally, noticed its strong anti-alcohol bias and general incoherence, and had a hunch it was David Hedlund's work. Sure enough, it turns out he contributed most of the content, much of which is copied from other articles. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and maybe discuss on the article's talk page. The first question is: can the article be fixed, or would it be better to simply merge any salvageable content to some other article and then nuke it? Also, who else should I contact about this? Thanks for any comments! --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The original "Alcohol (drug)" page wasn't deleted. It was moved to Draft:Alcohol (drug), along with its talk page, because it has salvageable content but couldn't remain in main article space.


 * I had started looking at other articles David Hedlund touched, and remember coming across Alcohol and health and realized it would be a significant effort to clean it up and re-merge content back to more appropriate places. Then I got a new job which has significantly limited my Wikipedia time to minor gnome work. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful! I learned from that (draft) talk page that this article was originally spun off from Alcoholic beverage. When I have a little more time I'll go through the article section by section and analyze what has to be done. I understand about your new job, you are excused! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

amanda eliasch
why was the Amanda Eliasch page deleted? unfair and incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it, I restored it and then it was deleted again. The page's deletion log shows pretty clearly that it was deleted for copyvio and promotional reasons. Take it up with an admin who did delete it, and if you are not satisfied, take your case to Deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Link removed because external
Hi Amatulic, you remove the link of ThinkingRock from the Getting Things Done article because it was external only, which I understand. Could you help me to re-instate the original wikipedia ThinkingRock page which was written by an independent author? An administrator deleted it as in his opinion, there were not enough external references. I would like now to add these references but I need the original page back. I have tried to contact that administrator without success.

ThinkingRock is a product similar to the ones listed as software implementations and I find it unfair that the other software are listed but not ThinkingRock. ThinkingRock is one of the rare implementation which is multi-platform with the security to be able to keep the data on desktop and not in the cloud.

Thank you for your help.

Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLem (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the replies to your post at Requests for undeletion. The article was restored 3 days ago to your user space at User:ClaireLem/ThinkingRock. Please continue to work on it there, and do not move it back to main space yourself.
 * Becaause you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, you should not be contributing content about your company or product in main article space. At the top of the article in your user space, you will see a button to submit it to Articles for creation when you believe the article is in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly Notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Marcosvr/ProMetic (August 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, 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=User_talk:Amatulic Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Amatulic reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I have moved this notice to User talk:Marcosvr, along with your signature and timestamp. Sorry if you are not happy with that, feel free to revert. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 11:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's weird. The tool must have figured I was the author since I did some clean-up edits before declining the submission. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a conflict of interest
No, I have not association with Infiniteconversions.com

Please don't jump to conclusions. I read the site, yes, and I find it to be a well-informed site with suitable writing style and tone.

Why did you remove the links?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankZappa14 (talk • contribs) 2014-08-23T15:26:05‎


 * Your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to add links to infiniteconversions.com. This is obvious based on your own contribution history, and strongly suggests that you have some association with the site.
 * Also, this is a blog site, and blogs are generally to be avoided as sources except in special circumstances. Particularly in this case, the whole site including the blog is designed to sell consulting services. Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity or promotion purposes.
 * I suggested to you on your talk page that WP:RSN is the proper place to discuss the reliability of that source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dorri Olds
Hello Amatulic…Thank you very much for the comment on the (rejected) submission I made on Dorri Olds. You mentioned the award she won, which is in fact noted on the New York Press website: http://nypress.com/summer-writing-contest-non-fiction-winner-9-lives-for-a-weeble/#respond

I am wondering if this might be sufficient (or at least help) for an article on her, noting she is not just known for a single event.

Your input is greatly appreciated! Thank you!Minusminority (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a nice piece, but it doesn't do much to convince me that she's known for more than a single event. She won a writing contest and her essay was published in a local-circulation publication. Is that a notable award, or something nationally recognized? It also says at the bottom that her work has appeared in some regional magazines and some books. That's fine, but her work appearing in other publications doesn't help either, because her own works do not constitute coverage of the person. For someone to be notable we need to see coverage about her.


 * If she were a "high profile" individual, then WP:BLP1E would no longer apply. Right now she seems to be low-profile. Who is a low-profile individual offers some clarification of the distinctions. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick reply, Amatulic…I appreciate your help - - and will do more work when time allows…(Also, want to mention that though NY Press was local publication in New York City - it was widely circulated and notable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Press) …Once again, thanks!Minusminority (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Minusminority (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. No problems with the notability of the publication. However, even if she published a piece in the New York Times, which has wider circulation, it still wouldn't be coverage about her. The New York Times has plenty of reporters who write for the paper who aren't notable either, by Wikipedia's way of defining it. "Notable" doesn't mean "famous" or even "well known". For Wikipedia, notable means significant coverage about the subject in verifiable and reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Coconut Article Corrections
All changes to the Coconut Oil article are discussed and justified in the talk section. Please explain why you reverted these corrections when there were errors in the existing piece and my corrections were based on scientific research data that was properly cited in the talk section. I removed the erroneous statements, so there was no place to cite in the article itself. Blonz (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) ER Blonz, Ph.D.
 * You failed to use an edit summary to describe what you were doing or why. You did this twice, and you were reverted twice. Talk:Coconut oil contains disagreement about your removal of the statement and accompanying citation. In such cases, it is better to discuss the issue than engage in an edit war, as you seem to be doing. See WP:BRD for guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ContentBridge
Hey, just giving you a head's up just in case. I've nominated ContentBridge for deletion but I'm kind of worried about the assertions the original article creator was making on the article's talk page. They're a paid editor but I think that their COI is getting in the way of their editing when it comes to this article. I'm not asking you to participate in either the talk page or the AfD, but I would like for you to kind of keep an eye on this editor for a while. I've tried talking to them about the various issues on the article but they essentially replied that the article should remain "as is" and that they didn't see why the sources were unusable to show notability or why (for example) that the staff member section would be seen as promotional and give the staff undue weight. That really, REALLY concerns me since that kind of makes me think that their COI is too great to really edit neutrally- especially since they were trying to say that someone being quoted in a Variety article shows notability for the company. (They argued that since he was asked, that means he is important, which means that the company is notable since they asked him because of the company.) Again, just asking you to keep an eye on things in general and at most, just try to give the editor some advice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a look at some other articles created by this editor, also for pay, and I think those could use some extra eyes, too. Personally I don't have time for this right now... --Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Redirected Parx Racing to the proper article, Parx Casino and Racing. Should solve the problem of the newbie who keeps redirecting it to his/her userapsace. It's a plausible redirect, so hope that ends the problem! ;-) Hope that helped! Montanabw (talk)  20:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:53:52, 11 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcosvr
Hi Amatulic,

Sorry to take up your time but would you mind allowing me a copy the Prometic Life Sciences draft so that I may fix the issue and resubmit it?

I asked Revent and he suggest I ask the administrator which I think is you?

Many thanks for any help Marcosvr (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Marcos


 * @Marcosvr: FYI, that draft was moved to Draft:ProMetic Life Sciences. Since I'm not an admin, I can't actually look at the deleted draft, but the copyright violation was a press release... as I remember, the 'description of the company' was taken directly from there. Even if a section of text is copyrighted by the subject of the article, it still cannot legally be reused unless it has been released to the public domain or under a WP:Compatible license. You can get a copy of the draft from the administrator who deleted it and resubmit it once the issue has been fixed. Revent


 * I cannot restore a draft that is a copyright violation.
 * I would email it to you, but you don't have an email address enabled here. You can set that in your user preferences. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clarence N. Hickman
Hello! Your submission of Clarence N. Hickman 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! Edwardx (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarence N. Hickman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bell Telephone. 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) 09:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of 12 step groups discussion
Howdy Amatulic. A experienced editor has proposed to change the standard for inclusion of List of twelve-step groups from being a list of wikipedia articles, to being a list of 12 step groups (without the necessity of having an article attached to the entry). The discussion is currently on the talk page. I am contacting you because you have participated in the maintenance of that article. If you have no opinion, please feel free to disregard this notice. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hólmbert Friðjónsson
...has ended up as a redirect to itself. You know the history and can probably disentangle it better than I can. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought I took care of that last step. All that needed to be done was revert the last edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Belmond La Samanna
Hi Amatulic. I wanted to check with you whether adding the following 3 citations for the captioned Wikipedia page would resolve the notability concern?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yoq2kOiSkEEC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=happy+ward+la+samanna&source=bl&ots=uJBmmFGE_B&sig=nIYRyTxi9sK2ln3GlQDTMEPMMpA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=26IYVKGNLoeQyASjo4GAAw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=happy%20ward%20la%20samanna&f=false

http://www.marc-michaels.com/recognition/featured-publications/robb-report-vacation-homes-january-2008/

http://rolandrichardson.com/lasamanna3.html

Thanks for your advice. Laurashaikh (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Laurashaikh


 * The first one you cite above is basically a travel guidebook. Their purpose is to provide comprehensive information on the subject matter. This is routine coverage, analogous to a wine review in Wine Spectator or a restaurant description in Zagat.


 * I don't know what to make of the second one. An architectural firm with a review of a resort? They seem to be referencing (or reproducing) an article from the Robb Report Vacation Homes publication, so I don't know why that source wouldn't be cited directly. In any case if Vacation Homes is in the business of profiling resorts, then that would be routine coverage also.


 * The third one is an artist's own web site, and the page features his gallery that happens to be located at the resort. That doesn't constitute "coverage" in the spirit of WP:SIGCOV. The source clearly isn't independent of the resort, and independence is required.


 * Therefore, I do not believe these sources resolve the notability concern.


 * Finally, I must ask, what is your connection with the subject of that article? Your contribution history suggests an association. You are required to disclose any association publicly, and you agreed to do so when you accepted the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. You seem to be engaging in paid advocacy, public relations, or marketing, so please read WP:NOPAY also.


 * Please put a conflict of interest disclosure statement on your user page User:Laurashaikh. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson
Thanks for sorting the history merge on this page. --nonsense ferret  22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye...
I am about to go away for a couple of weeks. Could I ask you to keep an eye on two items at REFUND which might need follow-up? Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At WP:REFUND I declined to restore because it had been restored before in January but not worked on. If the requester comes back with a plausible promise to do something this time, I guess it should be restored again. (I won't be surprised if he never comes back - it amazes me how many people never reply to a follow-up question).
 * At WP:REFUND I also declined, for BLP reasons, but offered to email the text. Please do that if requested. I have explained on the user's talk page how to enable email.
 * Will do. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. George Farah is done, only Christopher Wright to look out for. JohnCD (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. Apparently he posted a reply just minutes after I had checked the page yesterday. Thanks for catching it. I'll monitor the Christopher Wright section. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DeTao
Hi, Dear Amatulic I just want to ask about my page Beijing DeTao Masters Academy that you deleted due to some copyright reasons. Is there anyway I can restore this page? and how should I do it? Please help! Much appreciated!Detao (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)-
 * Pages with copyright violations cannot be restored. Because much of the material came from the web site http://www.detaoma.net, there would be no reason or benefit to restoring a page that duplicates material elsewhere.


 * You can certainly try to write it again without copying existing content, or you can write to WP:OTRS to grant irrevocable permission to use that content if you are the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, see WP:CONSENT for a legal template and email address to use.


 * Your username suggests that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of that article. You might want to read Conflict of interest for guidance, and disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, as you agreed to do by accepting the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service when you created your account. If you want to re-create the article, I suggest you use Articles for creation to submit your article for review, which is the appropriate venue for authors with a conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, seems a bit complicated, but I'll definitely give it a go. Thanks a lot!--Detao (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

inre Casey LaBow
I am working on a better version of the poor unsourced stub that you had to A7 speedy back in November 2012. I'll invite you to take a look before I take in to mainspace. Cheers,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks much better -- however, as a biography of a living person, the article won't last long in main space without references showing coverage in reliable independent sources. Also it isn't clear from the draft, which part of WP:NACTOR is satisfied by the subject. Her past roles don't appear to be significant although I am unfamiliar with The Twilight Saga and her role in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Twilight Saga is a pretty big deal film-wise, though I admit to personally being bored with it. However, her recurring roles in Part 1 and Part 2, and enough other principle roles have her meet meet WP:BIO though WP:NACTOR and enough media attention to meet WP:GNG. BUT the draft is no way ready yet and I ain't done yet by a long shot. Like I wrote above, I'll invite you when ready. Just wanted to let you know.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd say the draft will be ready if you can add a few reliable sources as references. It's certainly a lot better than the deleted version. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources added. More to follow. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Amatulic I am really thankful to you for considering my appeal and giving me a chance by unblocking my wikipedia account.

Well in case of getting a mentor I would like you to be my mentor and help me out in contributing to wikipedia.

Thanking you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noormohammed satya (talk • contribs) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking for an opinion about South Beach Diet
Hi Amatulic, I came across your account while reviewing discussions on the Atkins diet Talk page. I've been working with editors to try to make improvements to the South Beach Diet article, but we seem to have come to an impasse. Since this is a similar topic and you say you enjoy commenting on content disagreements, I thought you might be interested in reviewing the discussions (there are a few) on the Talk page. As I've noted there, I am working on behalf of the South Beach Diet and I am avoiding making any edits to the article myself.

To give you a brief rundown of what's happened thus far, I began by preparing a new draft of the article, but after receiving feedback from other editors, I realized there was not consensus for that. Since then, the focus has been on improving individual sections, most recently with a discussion about the History and theory section. As you'll see, there is a difference of opinion concerning what information should be included in that section and, more broadly, the entire article. I'm reaching out to you and one other editor and I'm hoping you can take a look and weigh in if you have time. I realize that the discussion jumps around a bit, so I can try to clarify any threads that are difficult to follow. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Shloime Gertner
Thank you very much for undeleting the page. I have filled it out with new, referenced content. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the prior deleted history. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist
Added to whitelist here, is it correctly done?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a good proposal. I'll add my own comments tomorrow. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any update?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no deadlines for these things on Wikipedia. However, I have removed the altafsir.com from the blacklist. That doesn't mean the link can be added, though, because it is still blacklisted on meta. I have responded on the spam-blacklist talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Q1) So what do I have to do now. Do i follwo some sort of procedure to remove it from meta blacklist now? Q2) Another question, I want to blacklist this website: al-islam.org, i see some spam from it and it is also the home page of a fringe islamic sect called the Ahmadiyyah, kind of like Nation of Islam. They have a lot of fringe views their and I have seen it in a number of external links--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. You'd have to make your case at Meta, which is not part of Wikipedia but a global Wikimedia Foundation blacklist. You may have to accept that it may stay listed. In that case, if there is a consistent pattern to use for references, it may be possible to put a pattern-match rule in the whitelist for the purpose of installing in a template. It may even be possible to temporarily whitelist it for template usage and re-blacklist it once the template is done, I am not sure.
 * 2. All you need to do go to the page where you requested de-listing, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The top part of the page is for requests to add to the blacklist. The bottom part, where you posted, is for de-listing requests. Present your evidence as completely as possible for administrators to investigate. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update. After exploring the site, it seems that a regex pattern like this:
 * \bwww\.altafsir\.com\/Tafasir\.asp\?tMadhNo=[0-9]+&tTafsirNo=[0-9]+&tSoraNo=[0=9]+&tAyahNo=[0-9]+&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2\b
 * would likely allow through only the tafsirs in English but not any other part of the web site. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet
Hi again Amatulić, I wanted to thank you again for taking a look at the South Beach Diet discussion. I was wondering if you had any interest in taking a look at the version I had drafted? I would be curious to hear your thoughts about it compared to the current draft. I had proposed it as a replacement a few weeks ago, and received what I'm afraid I consider to be unconstructive comments from LaMona and another editor. I am of course working in tandem with South Beach Diet, however my goal first and foremost has been to write a better Wikipedia article, and I don't think my proposal has had a fair hearing yet. What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request on 11:51:04, 13 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcosvr
Hi Amatulic,

I been trying to request my deleted page be sent back to me for editing 'ProMetic Life Sciences' and had not luck so far. Can send to me or tell me who I need to contact please?

Thank you

Marcosvr (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally you would contact the administrator who deleted Draft:ProMetic Life Sciences. In this case, however, deleted it due to copyright infringement, so it can't be restored, although the text can be emailed to you. If that's what you want, you need to enable email on your account first. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Eringer discussion
It looks like you've been pretty busy with administrative stuff. I have a more polished proposal for the Monaco section on the Robert Eringer Talk page if you are still interested/can find the time for that article. Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been out all day. I did see your proposal but I haven't had a chance to look at it closely. I will look at it tomorrow; have to go to bed now. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, should be pretty straight forward. 009o9 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've revisited proposal for the Monaco section, made some clarifications and tried to remove some wordiness. Can you have a look when you get a chance? 009o9 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By no means am I trying to rush you, just informing you that I have a clean copy at Talk:Robert_Eringer, I've been fussing around with so many clarifications that I'd best provide a clean copy. Hopefully, it will be just a trivial matter of a read-through at your convenience. Thanks!009o9 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

3D Hubs discussion
Hi Amatulić, Thanks for reviewing my article! I know 3D Hubs well, but I don't have any conflict of interest with them. I'm totallly new to wikipedia (as an editor), I just know some html and I copied the format of the page from wikis of other similar companies. Sorry if some parts seemed overly enthusiastic, hope it's okay now. Cheers, (User talk:Kisg24 09:35, 17 October 2014)

Nadya fatira
Considering the number of times this has been deleted and recreated, would you consider salting it, as well as the correct title Nadya Fatira? Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've salted the lowercase title. I've refrained on the proper-case one, because pasting it into Google Translate seems to indicate some sort of notability, with a record label release as well as singles being used for movie soundtracks. It bears further investigating, but certainly the COI author needs to be using WP:AFC for this. I will suggest it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence N. Hickman
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Still A7?
Hi Amatulic,

I wanted to create Sarah Àlainn but apparently it has already been deleted by you 6 months ago per A7 (which is comprehensible because she was not famous at that time). In light of her recent mainstream success in Japan I believe the article should be restored, what do you think? A quick search leads to http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/culture/music/mnews/20141023-OYT8T50092.html http://www.tokyo-sports.co.jp/entame/entertainment/316197/ http://www.excite.co.jp/News/music/20140925/Musicman_artist39870.html I read Japanese, these are real articles, not sponsored. Yomiuri is the largest newspaper in Japan.

Thanks! Waiting for your feedback :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article to Draft:Sarah Àlainn for you to improve, before moving it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

SBD redux
Hi Amatulic, I've finally returned to the South Beach Diet discussion page this afternoon, aiming for a fresh start. As you may recall, I had recently suggested an alternative draft for this article's History and theory section, however User:LaMona offered several objections to it. I tried to explain why I considered these reasons inapposite, but she disagreed, and no other editors joined. You then appeared in the subsequent thread, advising (correctly to my mind) that the article should not be split, however no more fruitful discussion emerged.

Today I am taking this new approach: rather than simply offering up my draft for consideration, I have provided a bulleted list of reasons why I believe something should be done about the History and theory section. If we can establish consensus that the current version does not live up to Wikipedia's standards—as I think is unmistakably the case—perhaps this could lead to a new discussion about how to fix it. Would you be willing to take a look and weigh in with your thoughts? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Miss Supranational - deleted article
Hello Amatulic, first of all sorry - that's my first experience with undeleting..

Article [|Miss Supranational] has been deleted for two reasons:

1. This is not a notable beauty pageant. IMO not truth: Miss Supranational started in 2009 (an annual event). National preliminaries are conducted by their licence-holders (84 Grand Finale pageants in december 2014, 82 in 2013, 73 in 2012..)

July, 2013 Global Beauties (the leading independent resource for international beauty pageants) 15th Annual Global Beauties Awards: - Best Stage: WINNER -- Miss World, 2nd place -- Miss Supranational, 3rd place -- Miss Universe - Best Television Pageant Production: WINNER: Miss Supranational, 2nd place: Miss World, 3rd place: Miss Universe - Best Group of Candidates: WINNER: Miss World, 2nd place: Miss Universe, 3rd place: Miss Supranational - Pageant of the Year: WINNER -- Miss World, 2nd place -- Miss Universe, 3rd place -- Miss Supranational - Most watched show on television: WINNER -- Miss World, 2nd place -- Miss Universe, 3rd place -- Miss Supranational (90 countries, in all continents)

Google Trends: for "miss supranational" Google Trends: miss supranational vs. miss tourism international

2. A small number of references Yes, that's the truth. At the moment we have prepared about 30 links to other websites owned and operated by third parties (in english, including bbc, interfax, cnn and others)

IMO article about Miss Supranational should be on Wikipedia. But new article should be better then previous.

I'd be grateful for any help or guidance.. Ickyflix (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your first point is irrelevant to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as spelled out in WP:CORP. We need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.


 * Having 30 links to other websites is also not meaningful unless those links are more than directory listings and trivial mentions. Those links need to provide significant coverage. See Golden rule for a brief overview of what is expected and required.


 * Your use of the pronoun "we" indicates that the account is accessible by more than one person. Is this correct?


 * You are also implying that you are associated with Miss Supranational in some way. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, which you agreed to abide by when you registered your account, requires you to disclose publicly (preferably on your user page) any paid affiliation you may have to Miss Supranational. Conflict of interest also recommends disclosing any conflict of interest you may have, paid or not.


 * Your best approach, since you apparently have a conflict of interest, is to follow the instructions at Articles for creation to submit your article for evaluation by other editors, prior to acceptance into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sarah J Price
Hi I've tried to reply to you about your offer of help about the undeletion of Sarah J Price and the log's been archived so it will not let me, so in reply Yes football writer, musician, and comedian is all the same person, All the work is basically a form of writing and acting, but in different careers this can now be made clear now with links to articles/interviews that are accompanied by photographs and youtube clips of performances that clearly show the same person, if the article could be restored to my user space, that would be great, it would give me a good place to start again then i can run it through DRV as suggested thanks  Jasperxj (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC) '  (｡◕‿◕｡) ''']]
 * Userfied. See your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Health and Pollution
This page was deleted. Can I get the text back so I can edit. Without seeing it, I don't know why it was deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollutionfighter (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The message on your talk page by the person who proposed it for deletion explains why it was deleted. It was unambiguously promotional. Sorry, I won't restore it, because the article didn't contain anything worthy of restoration. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not asking you to restore it to wiki. I am asking you to send me the content you deleted so I can make edits.  You are not giving me a chance to make any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollutionfighter (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 November 2014‎


 * Sending you the content is not possible at this time because you have not registered an email address with your account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Prajyotmahajan
Two more appeared, see also User talk:JohnCD. I have blocked and tagged per DUCK, as Ponyo suggested last time, and marked the SPI closed so as not to clutter up the list; but you might give it a glance as a second pair of eyes, to make sure I am not being unreasonable. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked reasonable to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken move
I by mistake moved page because of keyboard pressing. So, please can you make an effort to make a correct move to Kamalapuram mandal. Because you can see Duggirala mandal, Kota mandal, all these pages have small 'm' for mandal.--Vin09 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; fixed. Hopefully everything including the merged histories are now in the correct place. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect page
Thanks for deleting the page Hafidh ibn Ahmed Ali al-Hakami (due to a copyright infringement). There seems to be a redirect page also entitled Haafidh ibn Ahmed 'Alee al-Hakamee. Can you remove this also? RookTaker (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Association
Hello. I am not the one who deleted the speedy deletion nomination from the Taya Smith page. And also, I do not have any association with the subjects I have made articles about. 588userd (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 18 November 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)


 * Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I appreciate the note, and am glad to see you being proactive about it, after seeing you mention the problem before, on WP:REFUND I think. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oblivion Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Союз. 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) 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of Debian project leaders page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=634661032 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F634661032%7CList of Debian project leaders%5D%5D Ask for help])

Range block: Suvray
Amatulic - The hard block here is triggering an unblock request at User talk:Suvray. I can see the rather overt volume of spam coming from that range using multiple IPs, multiple domains, and multiple targeted articles. So, no question about the range block. Does it need to be a hard block? Can we modify to anon-only, or should we do an IP immunity on Suvray? I really detest IP immunity, but it may be the last resort here. He seems to be completely unrelated and has a productive track record. Thoughts? Kuru  (talk)  13:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for background on how this happened. I myself have no problem with IP block immunity if the user appears to be trustworthy.
 * It's fine to un-harden the block. I have just done so. I initially made it a hard block to prevent any spammers from spamming if they happened to have created an account, as one such account was identified in the spam-blacklist case. I'll just block the identified spammer account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Si, I picked that up from the range contributions; well handled. I'll add those domains to my stalk-list as well.  Kuru   (talk)  19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics
I saw you removed the speedy on network medicine. So I was wondering: do you think one would work on MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, for example? (That one appears to be written by someone with a COI.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably. It isn't unambiguously promotional, but it doesn't seem notable. A better solution might be to merge it to Mark Siegler with a short summary in that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged
I thank you for that undeletion request. I was amazingly underwhelmed by the last attempt at this article, a clear lack of research on this by others. I was able to make a couple minor changes from the old article, but unsurprisingly, very little was used. again my thanks. Have a happy holiday season! ®amos wants you in his office, NOW! 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The first-ever revision was rather lengthy, but I didn't think much of it was useful. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Noormohammed satya
Hello Amatulic. You may recall that User:Noormohammed satya had been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations and sockpuppetry, and that two months ago you unblocked him on the condition that he find a mentor. The user has continued to edit occasionally since his unblock, albeit without first securing a mentor, and perhaps as a consequence he has introduced copyright-infringing text into at least two articles. I notified him about these problems a couple times, most recently on 27 November, but there has been no response. As you were the unblocking admin, could I trouble you to have a look at the situation? The user was already the subject of a fairly extensive Contributor Copyright Investigation back in 2012 and we're not keen on the prospect of having to reopen it. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dreams Not Reality
Hello, it's Laura writing. As you can see, someone is trying (again) to damage the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_Not_Reality Can you please do something to protect our page??? Thanks for your help! Have a nice week end! --93.32.33.103 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Limbagio--93.32.33.103 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is protected from anonymous IP edits for 3 months. You will have to be logged in to a confirmed account to edit it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:REFUND
I've completed the list. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Devil Dub
Hi there, you speedy deleted Devil Dub, which existed for more than half a decade, under A9 ("Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance"). Well, at least four of the musicians on the record have articles. They are (former) members of bands such as Guns N' Roses, Primus and Praxis. Also, the album has a bunch of positive reviews, showing its significance. So why speedy deletion and not at least AfD? 93.222.73.139 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article credited the album to the band "Ben Wa". The length of time an article has been around isn't a concern, we have millions of articles here and only a few hundred active administrators. Bottom line, if the band doesn't have an encyclopedia article, then the album won't have one either. Feel free to write an article on Ben Wa that would survive deletion, and I'm happy to restore the page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand, but here you go: Draft:Ben Wa (band). 93.222.73.139 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nicely done for a submitted draft.


 * The reason this is necessary is because, if I restored it, someone else would come along and quickly delete it again due to having no band article.


 * I made some tweaks to the draft. It's pretty weak in sourcing. There is disagreement on whether the Wikipedia community considers Allmusic as a reliable source, going by archived discussions at WP:RSN. And Silicon Valley Metro is a local publication, not regional or even national. You also have a quotation with no citation, which would never be accepted. The saving grace might be the fact that the band had two releases by a reasonably notable record label.


 * If a reviewer approves it then I'll restore the album article. We'll see. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The URB quote is referenced via the Goldberg article. I also changed back the record label, because it is in fact "Records" and not "Recordings". I will include a few other alrticles. 93.222.73.139 (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Allmusic and MTV disagree with you. The proper name of the record label is Black Hole Recordings. See
 * http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/devil-dub-mr0001564648
 * http://www.mtv.com/artists/ben-wa/discography/574971/
 * Sources disagree on whether "Black Hole" is called "records" or "recordings". Some sources like Barnes & Noble simply call it "Black Hole". I can find no evidence of a record label ever existed with the name "Black Hole Records". As far as I can tell, that's just a record store in California.
 * That said, the Black Hole Recordings web site doesn't mention the album. If there is a website for the alternate name, that would be useful for verification. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I somewhat just believe my eyes. I also believe musicians involved in the project such as drummer Brain or Ben Wa themselves. No need to disagree with them. Btw.: Discogs even has twelve labels with that name. 93.222.73.139 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case the band may not have been published on any notable labels then. Black Hole Recordings is in the Netherlands. Black Hole Records has had at least two different addresses in Oakland, and I can't find any indication that they produced anything other than Devil Dub, which suggests that it was a vanity label for Ben Wa. I was about to revert those Wikilinks but I see you've already done so. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stray Records has a nice catalog with several notable artists. More than 60 albums in about two years is not that bad. 93.222.73.139 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Ben Wa (band) has been accepted. So how about restoring Devil Dub plus File:Devildub.jpg? Thanks. 93.222.85.86 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to see it's been accepted, but the band still looks borderline notable given the sources provided (and discussed above).


 * If you can find significant coverage of the album Devil Dub beyond the two local sources provided, I'll restore it. But coverage only local sources (in this case two local tabloids, Metro and SF Weekly) isn't sufficient to keep the article in main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)