User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2018

Draft:Ejembi John Onah
I have edited on above subject per your advice; please kindly review it and if ok to move it to main space, thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to submit the article for review. There is a button in the box at the top to do that. It is possible someone else will review it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have resubmitted as you advised, thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the template on top of the draft article since the issues raised has been addressed and submitted for review, thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, all previous templates should stay, so that reviewers can understand the history of the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So far I have followed all rules and respected and responded to all revision comments; getting ready to resubmit after all concerns have been answered. There was only an issue with award of prestigious award on the subject on which I was not allowed to reference linkedin which I respected. APart from that all other references in the article have been verified by other editors as reliable, so today one of the editors despite all this requested the article be considered for deletion; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Ejembi_John_Onah even at a draft stage. It should be noted that the subject meets 1-8 criteria for notability academics. Any advise from you will be appreciated, thanks

Ejembi12 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and your maturity of approach in high level professionalism. I intend to remove the award and honor since in Germany, scholarship award recipients are not published by such board even from well known organizations like DAAD and KAAD just like MacArthur foundation as confirmed by head of KAAD recently as governed by law, although the Head of KAAD confirmed recently that the subject was a scholar in 1996 via an email. Since other 7 criteria on notability academics have been met by the article; the subject needs to proof only one to be notable Ejembi12 (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC) The draft article has been deleted; I want to appeal the deletion since the article is still being developed in the draft space. Please, I want to request an undeletion, is this the right step if not is there any step to take? Ejembi12 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , stop. Just. Stop. You've had enough opportunity to develop the draft into something suitable, and you failed. You're welcome to contribute to other areas of Wikipedia, but if you continue tilting at windmills it will only end badly. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Primefac, please the article was in a draft space and being developed; all the citations were from reliable source and the only one at issue was removed, so why this? Please see to what I a m saying, I don't want to sound offensive with due respect, let me appeal this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejembi12 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You can go to Deletion review, but if you open a case there to argue about the merits of your draft, you won't get anywhere. Deletion review is for determining whether the deletion properly reflected the consensus of the discussion. In this case it was; however, there may be a valid argument that the delete rationales about behavior should have been discounted. I note that no one really contradicted my argument that the discussion should have focused on the evidence for notability, not tendentious behavior.
 * You have an uphill climb here. The Wikipedia community takes a dim view of articles about a subject written by the subject or by anyone else who has a conflict of interest about the subject, preferring that articles be written by editors who are independent of the subject. On the other hand, this is one of the purposes of WP:AFC, to give COI editors a venue to write. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was somewhat surprised that the closure went the way it did, since neither – as Anachronist said – contributors' behavior nor – as you pointed out, based on WP:DRAFT – lack of demonstrated notability are supposed to be grounds for deletion at MfD. I expected "no policy-based consensus". But I agree with the others that deletion review is not likely to help. PMC is an extremely experienced admin and if she saw no irregularity closing the discussion this way, her ruling is likely to be upheld by any other group of admins that you asked to review it.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks user: Anachronist for your input as usual; my thinking was that if there was a disagreement User:jmcgnh should have put it for mere discussion not deletion. Most of the people were involved party without any neutral voice which eroded objectivity to concentrate on attack on my person. An article in draft space is like an egg which is held with care to allow the chicken to be hatched. I will do my best to seek a review as you advised, thanks once more. Ejembi12 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Can you please list examples besides WWE and Sinclair Brpadcast Group-related edits? Just wondering to help me in the future. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: HotelOnline
Hi Anachronist. Just declared my professional affiliation to the company, as per your request. Hope the page meets the requirements now! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havarb (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lifespan Integration
, the creator of the aforementioned article, left a message on my talk page. Could you talk to the user and explain to them why the article was deleted? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "why" should be quite clear from the deletion discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved to draft
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Nobel Prize effect, from its old location at User:Anachronist/Nobel Prize effect. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  10:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have un-done your move. The preferred location for my own rough drafts is in my user space. I will get to it eventually. This is NOT an AFC submission. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It appeared that you submitted it as an AfC draft, which is possible from userspace. Apologies. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  19:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, I never submitted it, nor did I ever intend to. I see what happened. Looks like slapped an AFC submission template on it for some reason, earlier today. There is no way something like that should be submitted for review in such a state of un-readiness. And I don't need to go through AFC; I know what an article needs before putting it in main space.
 * If all this is the result of using automated tools, this is yet another reason I don't use them. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Page in question showed up in a Stale Userspace category I often patrol. It looked reasonably acceptable for main space and a valid topic. Submitted to AfC for potential promotion or at leadt to expose it wider so that other editors could work on it. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. There's one quotation with an incomplete citation, and I cannot complete it until I go to a university library to look it up in person (Google Books won't let me view more than a snippet, and Google Scholar didn't show me anything). I had intended to keep it in my user space until I got around to checking on that... but as you can see it has languished for 3 years, and I anticipated that happening, which is why I never moved it to draft space. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Australian Smart Communities Association
As you seem so focussed on my entry how about going in and approving my request to create an entry for the Australian Smart Communities Association? Thanks, /LP Edit0695 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a COI editor, you are free to create an entry in draft space, such as Draft:Australian Smart Communities Association, and submit it for review via Articles for creation. That is the only venue we have for COI editors to publish articles. If your submission is approved, it will be moved to main space, and won't be tagged as COI unless you continue to make substantive changes to it in main space. For main space articles with which you have a conflict of interest, you should propose further changes on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist. I have done as you suggested and submitted an entry for Australian Smart Communities Association. Hopefully you or someone else will push it through to the next stage. Edit0695 (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. There is no draft article, as I suggested above. Please follow the process. Put the article in draft space and go to Articles for creation and submit it for review. You haven't done either step. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nobel Prize effect
Hello! Your submission of Nobel Prize effect 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! Manelolo (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gianni Blu
Hello Anachronist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gianni Blu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''It's not quite there, though it's pretty close. Probably enough to pass A7 too. Most likely needs to go to AfD. I'll remove some pictures though, there's too many.''' Thank you. Ged UK  15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Famous Dex Article
Hey, I noticed you removed Famous Dex last October, but the draft has been edited with some gusto since then.

As a third party and reasonably experienced editor, I think it's a total shame for Dex's page to be removed; if I spend some time cleaning up the citations, do you think it'd be alright?

NigeriaNoKamisama (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't anywhere near being ready for main space, and as far as I can tell it still doesn't address the concerns in the original AFD. The sources badly need cleaning up. Just glancing through it, I see too many unnecessary references to primary sources, directory listings, itunes pages, particularly Discogs, which is a crowdsource site and shouldn't be cited at all, let alone three times. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in this COIN discussion World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Exo Platform
Hello, I want to have acces on the page to modify the sources ... Otherwise, quote me the references to remove and the necessary recommendations to optimize this page and to be publish... Can you please give me access to modify references and optimise it? Bjaouane (talk)14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained to you in Articles for deletion/EXo Platform, the problem isn't that references should be removed, it's that the existing references don't sufficiently establish notability of the topic. If you want to suggest better references, I recommend you suggest them in the deletion discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nobel Prize effect
Hello! Your submission of Nobel Prize effect 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! Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

restoring Draft:Famous Dex
Hi, I see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_Dex you protected the page from being created. I just checked out the draft again, made a minor edit, and tried to move it as an article but was unsuccessful. The draft (linked on that page) looks a lot better now than it did last time I looked at it (no more vandalism, plus the song peak should establish some notability), so was wondering if you could check it out and move it to an article. If you think it's still not ready I'd be happy to keep working on it! thanks, Melodies1917 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC) -wanted to add i just noticed someone above asked almost the same questions, so I'll work on the ones you mentioned there. Melodies1917 (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks much better. I suggest:
 * Clean up the cite error, and please review the possible whitewashing by an anonymous IP address earlier this month. It's OK to have some primary sources, like interviews, for stating things the subject says about themselves, so this interview on YouTube might be useful for filling in some of the early life bio, but I'll let you decide whether to include that. Once you confirm those things, I'm happy to move the article to main space and merge the old deleted history. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks! I'll do that and reply back.Melodies1917 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I fixed it up a bit, let me know if it looks alright. Are the last few iTunes links okay as references for Singles? I left those for now.-Melodies1917 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's really no point in using iTunes links as citations, especially if the songs themselves aren't independently notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see if I can find better ones but if not, I think there might be only two songs that should be left there, so I'll remove the others.Melodies1917 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Melodies1917 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Famous Dex revised
hi! don't mean to be a bother but i fixed up Famous Dex some more, does it look like it's ready to be created as an article? thanks, Melodies1917 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Famous Dex has been nominated for deletion. Let's wait until that's resolved. I doubt it would be deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Four-bar linkage and Slider-crank linkage
Dear Anachronist, Since March 16, 2018 there is a separate article on Slider-crank linkage where the superfluous content from Four-bar linkage has been transferred. Please read the talk page Talk:Four-bar linkage and after that consider reverting back the Four-bar linkage article. Thank you and have a nice week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Someone else already fixed it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk-reverted false and unsourced information
Hello Anachronist,

I saw that you reverted some unchecked and false information to the page, which was erased by me exactly because it was either false or needed citation. Please accept my apologies if I break some of the rules here, while editing or erasing, but in this very case I think that I DID keep all the rules. I presume that you need examples. Here is one - you state that "bank laws in Bulgaria have no bearing on the content of the English Wikipedia". However the text I erased not only violated those laws, it was also based on rumors and unchecked information. Still you reverted it. How should anyone proceed when seeing that unchecked and false information, which contradicts to the facts, given by the official registers (this is the case with almost all the texts I have erased), is being reverted? Thank you for your prompt answer. User:Lee-ann-25
 * You removed text that was cited to a reliable source (Forbes) with the reasoning that the text breaks laws in Bulgaria. That is an invalid reason to remove material (the English Wikipedia is not subject to Bulgarian law), and we report what reliable sources say, regardless of what you may believe is the truth. See WP:NOTTRUTH for guidance; read the summary in the box at the top. Your judgment or my judgment of the truth is irrelevant. We report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources contradict one another, we report it all with appropriate weight. I reverted your edits for that reason and also the fact that other text you removed broke existing citations that were used in multiple places. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting my edit.
The orginal translation of the verse is wrong if you go the website i gave and check each of the words syntax the meaning of the word qawwahuna means protectors so the translation was not correct also i provided references for everything for the other two hadith that was taken from the scholary point of view I SUGGEST WE TALK ON THE TALK PGE AND THAT YOU DO NOT REVERT MY EDITS FOR SOMETHING YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING IN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You clearly ignored the box at the top of the article, and you have not met the WP:BURDEN for including your additional content. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Epan
It's back and it has re-created the "MicrosoftWindows" redirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EpanIndonesia Jeh (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (No reply needed) Jeh (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement portal
There are a few supporting subpages that should also be restored (and moved to the correct titles). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Portal:Civil Right Movement/Selected biography
 * Portal:Civil Right Movement/Did you know
 * Portal:Civil Right Movement/Selected picture
 * Portal:Civil Right Movement/Selected article
 * I took care of them. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Civil Rights Movement
A, why "deleted revisions should stay deleted"? This hides my own contribution, and makes it hard to get it back now that the capitalization decision has been reaffirmed via the RM consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant Coffee's revisions. If you want, I can restore yours. Personally I don't have a dog in the fight, I was just trying to find a compromise that would allow the article to be kept while appeasing Coffee. I must have succeeded because now everybody is equally displeased! ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He had reverted my changes, but I'd like to get them back; could do manually if restoring the history seems like a bad idea, but I don't understand why it would be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored your edits. I also don't understand why restoring the history would be a bad idea. At the time, it seemed the only way Coffee would agree to restoration is if the page weren't attributed to him. But now that he's gone and blocked himself and retired, we could restore it. He was adamant that a G7 tag mandates deletion, and it doesn't really. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now it shows the move I did, but still not the edits. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing remains in the deleted contribution history with your name on it. Is it possible you made edits on a different article? I checked Portal:Civil rights movement but that has zero deleted edits. I saw it had been briefly moved to Draft:Civil rights movement, but when I checked that, the only deleted edits were from Winged Blades of Godric, Coffee, and a bot. Were there any other versions? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know; thanks for checking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nobel Prize effect
Hello! Your submission of Nobel Prize effect 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Stewart Lake & Veronica Lake
I see Stewart Lake has at long last prevailed in his quest to be listed on Veronica Lake's page as her husband. Could you tell me what happened?

This has been going on for a couple of years now. I'm involved because I run a wiki for Historic Saranac Lake, and he has hassled us about it as he hassles everyone, with threats of legal action. His claims strike me as utterly fake. One of the documents he provided lists him as the son of Alan Ladd! Another claims he was a famed mega-recording star. Despite his threats I note that at least one [|one blog that he threatened back in 2015] (see his threat at the end of the page) continues to ignore his demands. He says he'll have Google remove all references to Veronica Lake, and that he has sued MGM. The whole thing just seems screwy.

So did he present better evidence than previously, or did he just wear folks down?

Thanks for whatever light you can shed! -- Marc Wanner


 * These claims were made in the OTRS communication:
 * Veronica Lake married Stewart Lake.
 * Robert Carleton Munro was not married to Veronica Lake but to her mother.
 * Veronica Lake was born in Brooklyn, not Seattle. There is apparently a birth cert available, if requested. (And I agree that the Seattle factoid doesn't belong, as it was WP:OR cited to the US Census.)
 * I note that any claims in the article about who she married are unsourced and should be removed. My reversion inadvertently changed a few other things.
 * The article isn't fully-protected. Any extended-confirmed editor such as yourself may still edit it. If you do revert it back, be sure to provide reliable sources. The points under contention need sourcing, for sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen, a thread has been opened at WP:AN regarding this, though I'm not too sure why. I removed the unsourced marriage claim. ansh 666 18:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to say thank you for the IP block exception. Will help a lot. It's quite hard to get back in once you've been locked out like that. Anyway, I appreciate what you've done, now I can get back to work. Kind regards, Vitreology (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm happy I could help out. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Nobel Prize effect
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Anachronist. Could you please reverse the changes you just made to the entry for Laurie Patton and revert to my my most recent version. The version I posted this week is up to date and accurate. I have disclosed a COI and have been advised by Wikipedia that it is permissible for me to make changes in order to update / add so long as they are accurate and substantiated with references, which I have done. As it now stands the entry is inaccurate.


 * You made substantive changes. Please propose them on the talk page. You are permitted to make small corrections. If you want to restore your substantive changes, the COI tag is going back onto the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Enniferj/Housing theory
You just deleted User:Enniferj/Housing theory. I had cheked it and was about to decline the speedy. Thus was moved to userspace by the xloser of Articles for deletion/Housing theory, so it cannot be a G4 recreation. It is plausibly useful notes for an article on the subject, so it is not in my view a U5. I urge you to reconsider this deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has also been hanging around since 2009 with no changes. I should have deleted it as G13. Because nothing was done in all those years, will there be anything done if I restore it? Or will it just languish like it's been doing? Wikipedia, after all, isn't an indefinite hosting service for material that has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a draft nor in draft space, so G13 doesn't apply, and "stale" is not a speedy deletion criterion. Whether anyone will make use of it to draft a valid article, i can't say. I might not object to it being n deleted by MfD, but it simply doesn't fit any of the WP:CSDs, at least not in my view, and i feel taht those should be quite strictly adhered to. Particularly i want U5 to be strictly adhered to, because it tends in my view to be drastically over-used. I don't see this doing any harm as it was. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A draft needn't be in draft space to be a draft. In fact, "draft space" didn't even exist back in 2009 when that was deleted. The fact remains, it was deleted via AFD, deleted again via WP:G4, and also copied to userspace. At that point, it became a draft. Articles don't have to "do any harm" to qualify for deletion, as this did. I may have erred in deleting it as G4, but it certainly qualifies as a G13. I can restore it as if it were G13, and if it isn't improved in 6 months, it will be deleted again. Is that acceptable? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G13 didn't exist in 2009 either. It was created after AfC migrated from project space to the newly created draft space, and very carefully limited. G13 Quite specifically says (my emphasis) Any deletion of a page under G13 that is in userspace and is not tagged with an AfC template is out of process, and subject to summary restoration. But please do restore it, and if someone tags it for G13 in 6 months I can remove the tag then. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a WP:STALEDRAFT, so it should probably be restored to draft space and listed at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption. The correct thing to do at this point, actually, is consult with the deleting administrator for a different viewpoint. I have directed him to this talk page here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

iDubbbz redirect
The page iDubbbzTV has been salt protected. However, it should be created as a redirect to iDubbbz. That's all. Can you or another admin please make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The page iDubbbzTV must be re-created as a redirect to iDubbbz. Originally the criteria for notability was not met, but his single Asian Jake Paul charted, making the article meet the criteria for notability. Thanks, Howpper (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to wonder how that article got into main space when Draft:iDubbbz has existed since October 2017 and has been edited up to a week ago. who merged the contents of different articles to main space, and  who created the live draft: What gives? I see in the history of iDubbbz some declined AFC submissions but no approval -- and the current incarnation is disturbingly similar to the last version declined. Should this even be in main space? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I had moved an earlier copy to Draft back on April 9, 2018 because it clearly wasn't ready for mainspace. But ignored whatever I commented on in Draft and re-created the article in mainspace, and a histmerge was requested.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks. To me, this looked like an evasion of article create-protection. My first reaction was to summarily delete it as such, or restore it to draft, until I saw your activity and Anthony's. Do you agree this incarnation is appropriate for main space? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It sucks that editors are ignoring the draft approval process, but now about the only thing that can be done is to leave the BLP primary sources tags on the article until it eventually can be referenced with secondary sources independent of the subject. iDubbbz is the more appropriate name of the subject, as the TV part is just the channel name, so iDubbbzTV could be re-created as a redirect. To be fair, did edit Draft:iDubbbz on April 27 so he probably had his local draft prepared based on that one. So Draft can be redirected to the article. Version 2 can be deleted as that is a placeholder article created during the histmerge. The concerns from the Draft were all posted to the talk page of the current article.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The page iDubbbzTV must be re-created as a redirect to iDubbbz :: ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to do that. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Two factor authentication
I want to enable two factor authentication in my account, but I don't know how. I've been notified that there was two fail login attempt in unknown device. Please help me. Thanks. Nguyenducminh2508 (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC).
 * See Simple 2FA to get started. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Short unreferenced articles
Hello. I wanted to reply the message that you left in my talk page. I want to create more articles. Some of they might also be very short in contents, because of lack of information. But if you consider that some articles have to be deleted, please do so. But please don't block my account. I only want to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All you have been doing so far is making work for others, and you articles end up being deleted. Use your sandbox or draft space if you want to create draft articles. Don't put them in main space. The disruption you are causing will result in you being blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Two things: 1) Can I keep creating articles even though some of them might be short? If you consider that they should get deleted, then you can do it. 2) What's the meaning of creating draft articles? Aren't those supposed to be only yours and not get published in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you keep creating articles that others must delete, it is much less work for everyone if your account is blocked, to prevent further disruption.
 * To create a draft article, see Articles for creation. Basically you title it with the prefix "Draft", as in Draft:Example article. Your draft articles are available for anyone to work on, but they will get deleted if they have no activity for six months. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What kind of articles are destined to get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any articles not meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria will get deleted (see Notability). Any biographies of living persons that don't have any references to reliable sources will get deleted. Any promotional articles will get deleted. Any original research (topics not described in independent reliable sources) will get deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

House with an owl
I'm curious about why you moved this back to draft space. It had showed up in the queue waiting to be reviewed, and looked like it met all the criteria so I accepted it. What problem did you see? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I came across that in a list of new articles created by newbies, and it looked to me like an article still in draft form, with citations to works that briefly mentioned the subject, that was unintentionally created in main space instead of draft space. I moved it to draft to protect it from deletion, and in doing so I failed to notice that you had already reviewed it. I did eventually notice, but then I got pulled away by family matters so I never got a chance to revert myself. I'll do that now. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, cool, thanks. Yeah, I don't think it's the best article in the world, but compared to most of the drek I see at AfC, it's really not so bad :-)  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

WebTeb
The article was created today and been nominated for speedy deletion, but after having a talk with the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion, he told us to make some changes and we made them, and we added En references to the article that show that it has a good high notability .. at least in the Arab world!Mohammad Hijjawi (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I deleted it, I looked at every source and did not find any example of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Instead I found brief mentions and press releases. If you like, I can restore it to draft space for you to improve and submit for review via Articles for creation. Or I can restore it to main space and nominate it for deletion at Articles for deletion. What is your preference? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of refs were available in the Arabic language, and they were strong enough and from very good newspapers and trusted sites, but we had to replace them by En refs, I prefer to create a draft version, I will try to add more refs and lets take other editors' opinion. ThanksMohammad Hijjawi (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All right. I have restored the article to Draft:WebTeb.
 * There was already an older draft, written by someone else, so I merged the histories of your article and the older version, and designated you as the author in the submission box at the top of the page. You can view the older revisions in the article history in case there is anything useful there.
 * While English sources are preferable, they are not mandatory. Non-English sources are better than none at all!
 * When you're done, submit it for review by clicking in the box at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Wilhelm Vossenkuhl
Hello Anachronist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7: Appears to be a notable academic. Please see the German article at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Vossenkuhl.''' Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , having an article in another Wiki is IMO not a criterion for inclusion in en.Wiki. Especially as in this case where the German article has only a list of the subject's publications and two interviews as sources. If you can establish that he holds a named chair, then he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Otherwise it is a candidate for one of our three types of deletion process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article makes (at least one, arguably two) credible claims to significance. Having said that—and certainly in the article's current condition— has somewhat merely postponed the inevitable: it's unlikely to survive an AfD. Which, if I ever get off this blarsted phone, I may lodge myself. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 09:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While the article as it stands looks speedy-deletable to me, in looking at the Google translation of the German Wikipedia article, I find the statement "From 1993 to 2011 he taught at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich as a chair holder of Philosophy I." Holding a chair position is sufficient to meet WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. It is likely, therefore, that an AFD would result in a 'keep'. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I knew about the chair. I was just testing how good we are at researching for articles. A bit disingenuous perhaps, but it worked. We still need the source though. While this source, not used on de.Wiki, is important and while Vossekuhl as a subject is highly notable, the Wikipedia articles about him probably meet one of Wikipedia inclusion requirements per WP:NACADEMIC, but must nevertheless be adequately sourced. The creator,  on the other hand, should probably be asked to provide complete articles rather than starter stubs of little value in the expectation that others will do their work for them. I have moved the page to draft. (FYI: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That hoary old chestnut "just testing" :D  *pokes Kudpung* But seriously, if there are furren langwidge sources out there, can we get them into the article? I'm afraid I (as is probably claer) have no effective access to de.wp, but thanks Acanchronist for clarifying.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Title.
Hello. Just a question please. How can you edit an article's title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to move the article to another title. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: warring
Hi. You left a message on my talk page regarding edit warring on the Beachwood, Ohio article. Just so you are aware, if you look at the talk page for that article, both I and another editor have both left rational explanations for the various reverts (the reverts were made due to inaccurate and/or random/redundant information as well as NPOV language), however, the other party in the alleged edit war has not responded. If you get a chance, I would ask that you please look at the history of the article going back the past 8 months as the editor (see: User talk:Davidbergeraza1823), was previously warned repeatedly under another username ( see: User talk:Mark612 ) about his editing. He has a history of either inaccurate or unsubstantiated edits that are akin to marketing language and/or journalism. His edits are limited to a handful of articles, at least one of which he created himself and has since been deleted per WP policy. And for the record, I reached out to two different admins regarding this and received no response. Meanwhile, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and have no agenda other than to keep the articles encyclopedic and on topic. But now I'm being warned that I will be barred for trying to make edits that, under WP editing guidelines, are effectively in the right. Please have a closer look. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. To an uninvolved admin, I see several back and forth reverts, well-reasoned, but that is no excuse for edit warring over a long period, as has happened. Stability of the article should be preserved. I don't care how much time any of the editors have on Wikipedia, warring is warring, and if you can't avoid doing that, my options to preserve stability are limited: protect the article, or block accounts. In the event that both parties seem equally disruptive (even if in good faith), I would block both parties. Rather than resorting to those solutions, I elected to warn both parties and then I went through the article with fresh eyes to remove anything that seemed unsubstantiated or non-neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum. I see another admin already protected the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About Your Recent Reversions
I believe you may be acting overzealously. I would like to discuss a certain issue with you you continually intervene in. The issue involves several members with administrative status, intense COI, and a case I am going to submit to the arbitration committee. Is there anyway we could speak in private?73.58.148.1 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss what you want to discuss in the open, on the article talk page. In your case, I saw an anonymous IP address with zero previous edits remove validly sourced content from Karl Kjer without leaving any explanation whatsoever. It looked like vandalism, so it was reverted, plain and simple, which is a standard practice. If you want to defend your edit, please do so on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing refspam
Hello! I'm writing on your last edit of my article List_of_WebGL_frameworks. You removed most links from that article with that edit. The problem is that not all WebGL frameworks listed there have a dedicated article. So the only way to confirm that a particular WebGL framework exists, and that it is notable (I used to remove non-notable frameworks from that list), is to provide a reference to the official website. Also, without having a direct link, WebGL developers would need to take some efforts in order to find the official website where downloads, demos and documentation are usually located. If providing a link per each table entry is against the rules of Wikipedia, I'll just remove all frameworks without a dedicated article from there. SantaWinsAgain (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A list that includes a bunch of external links (even if they are disguised as references) to the home pages of websites is basically a web directory, which violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ideally an encyclopedia should be self-contained without the need for external links. In fact, there is no requirement that any citations be available online. There is no harm in including a complete list of WebGL frameworks that aren't notable that people may have to look up. It is also a common practice for lists to contain links only to other Wikipedia articles. Either way is fine. If you do decide to remove any entry without a dedicated article, you may want to modify the lead sentence to clarify that the list includes only WebGL frameworks that have their own articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it as is then.SantaWinsAgain (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

from talk section on Aspartame
Could you please tell me how to go about challenging the people that seem to run the aspartame article. A while back you acted as a third party on the aspartame talk section.

Thank you Claustro123 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one "runs" the aspartame article, but there are several editors who are keen to ensure that the article complies with our policies and guidelines, and doesn't drift off into the fringes of science. In particular, WP:MEDRS rules. If you can find sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, then base your comments on that. Note that isolated studies are considered primary sources, and are therefore weaker than sources that aggregate several studies. Primary sources can be used in the article, but not to make any assertions in Wikipedia's voice about health effects. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Humboldt-Institut
Hello, I did a translation of the German Wikipedia article about a language school, the Humboldt-Institut. The article has been deleted, marked with A7 (No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I would be happy to rewrite the article as I think information about a language school that caters almost exclusively for international students, who often do not yet speak the language, should be available in a more common language, such as English. Furthermore the article covers an educational institution, a sort of institution that is specifically exempt in A7. Please let me know. how we can proceed. User:Ristretto_de 15:28, 11 June 2018 (CET)
 * While A7 doesn't apply to schools, the article would not have survived an WP:AFD discussion anyway, and G11 did apply. The fact that it is a language school that caters to international students is also not a reason to keep the article; the school must comply with WP:CORP inclusion criteria, like any other organization.
 * Because it will not survive in its current state in main article space, I have restored it to Draft:Humboldt-Institut for you to improve. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have rewritten a few sentences to achieve a more neutral tone, added additional references and links to newspaper articles in German and Spanish and submitted the draft for review Draft:Humboldt-Institut. ~User:Ristretto_de 12:55, 13 June 2018 (CET)

Deleted article from November appears to have been recreated
Hello! I see that in November of last year you deleted the article Zakariya Mohammed and blocked re-creation as it was a recently deleted BLP. It appears that, to get around the block, it has been created again at Zakariya (director) - as a redirect from Draft:Zakariya Mohammed. This time, it appears as though the article has references to it. I just thought I'd let you know about it - thanks! :) – numbermaniac  12:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Question (PCO Imaging Discussion)
Hey Anachronist :) I have a question about the PCO Imaging Discussion Link The discussion got "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." how long will this discussion probably go? is there anything you can as an admin do? I've never seen that before.. :) Cheers --Lauranos (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

BambooHR
Hi Anachronist. You speedy deleted BambooHR under "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". An earlier version of the article had been created by a banned user but the current version created by me is not. Please reconsider your speedy deletion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Woops. You're right. Thanks for alerting me. I have restored it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Cunard (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm...
At Articles for deletion/PCO Imaging you wrote:--Brand Eins: This one is good. I never heard of the publication but it's a good article..Any comments, in light of this? :) &#x222F; WBG converse 13:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I had looked at all the "about" pages through Google Translate but I missed that one. It makes me think that the Brand Eins coverage of PCO are just disguised press releases. I would therefore consider it a biased source, but not necessarily an unreliable source &mdash; that's a question best taken to WP:RSN. If you want to start a second AFD, I won't object, although there was another source that provided some significant coverage, so the outcome might be borderline. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah.I'm willing to brand the Eins one as typical re-branded PR-stuff but I concur on the part of borderline notability.Still, might take a shot:)....  &#x222F; WBG converse 04:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad
Please remove extended confirmed from this article, as is not part of Arab-Israeli conflict. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.248.27 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ #7. This has nothing to do with Arab-Israeli conflict, it has to do with persistent disruption of the article by inexperienced editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Conroy Protection Note
Is it actually a thing that even extended confirmed users can be made to go through AfC? I have no love for that article or its editor, I've just not seen that particular stipulation before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the extended confirmed protection level was created, I now tend to create-protect articles at that creation level instead of admin-only creation. The idea is that an experienced and trusted editor who wants to create the article can still do so without admin involvement, but a COI editor, who typically won't meet the qualifications for extended-confirmed, will need an extended-confirmed editor to approve the article. I am assuming here that an AFC reviewer will already be extended-confirmed. My protection summary in this case could have been worded better; I didn't intend to require extended-confirmed editors to go through AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)(117.209.186.90 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC))

Thanq for block the disruptive IP user:2405:204:641d:afbb:1d00:bdc:386:1e4e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:204:641D:AFBB:1D00:BDC:386:1E4E

Request : Please close the discussion for further damage by this ip

(Kumpati (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You closed the above discussion and blocked the user. But some one reverted this.
 * No, the block just expired, that's all. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Columbery
Dear My article was deleted several days ago bacause of enecyclopedical material. I understood what was wrong and how to correct it. User:RHaworth said me that you can help me and tell me how to rewrite it. I would be very pleased if you told me how to. Kind Regards, Dmytro Buhaiov


 * The best advice I can offer is the same as what RHaworth gave you: Please wait. If your company or product meets the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:CORP, then someone without a conflict of interest will write about it here. And if you are being compensated by the company, you must comply with WP:PAID before you do anything further on Wikipedia. This is a legal requirement to which you agreed when you created your account. If your purpose here is to use Wikipedia for publicity purposes, then you should not be writing on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you are welcome to start over with the draft. Include references to reliable sources that are independent of the company (not press releases or the company's own website). Don't go into too much detail about the company's product offerings. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RV sock per EVADE
Anachronist, I appreciate your comment about removing material added by a sock editor. Per EVADE sock edits can be reverted without additional justification because we don't want to reward/encurage the efforts of the sock:
 * Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through.

This is a very active sock. See SPI here [] (especially the archive) and the sock's effort to justify their behavior here ]. Of course legitimate editors are welcome to restore the edits in which case they would be the party responsible for the content. Springee (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because WP:EVADE says you may revert sock edits doesn't mean you must, especially when it's constructive, encyclopedic, well-written, and well-sourced material having zero editorial reason for removing. See the second sentence you quoted: There is no policy that requires you to remove good content. In this case, not only did you remove a large swath added by one editor, in doing so you removed material from the body that was covered in the lead, violating WP:LEAD. In your eagerness to enforce a policy, you ended up disrupting an article that was already in good shape.
 * Furthermore, it was not clear to me at the time that what you removed was added by any sockpuppet. As an admin, edit histories show me every contribution from blocked editors (the display shows the blocked user's name as struck through). I could not find any blocked user who added the content you removed, and you failed to identify the contributor in your edit summary. You removed material added by Charb6, who has been accused of being a sock in an SPI case not yet closed. Basically you made editorial changes based on a suspicion, not a conclusion. Even so, regardless of whether Charb6 is a sock, the material you removed doesn't seem related to HughD's topic ban on American politics. At best the subject of bump fire is on the fringes, and the content you removed was not political.
 * Finally, yes I take responsibility for content I restore. For your part, I recommend that in the future, you balance the content against the contributor, and not just consider the contributor as you have been doing. Your aggressive attempt to right a wrong in this case degraded the quality of the article. Please don't be disruptive yourself while attempting to fix what you consider to be disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern. HughD is indef blocked and has been a very active sock editor both via IP addresses and sock accounts since their indef block.  You are correct that I should have made the connection between the edits and the sock master clear.  I will be more careful in the future.  I will also wait for SPI investigations to close before making such changes in the future. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Solid (web decentralization project)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Ablust
I can't find where right now, but I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere that says admins should not decline more than one unblock request for the same block, and I note that you have declined two in a row at User talk:Ablust. I don't disagree with your reasoning in the second one, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually seen a prohibition about that, but in general I agree with it. In this case, I had given a warning in my first decline that a subsequent appeal that fails to address the reasons for the block may result in revocation of talk page access. Because the user clearly didn't understand my reasoning or advice in his next appeal, I decided to give him one more chance rather than simply revoking talk page access. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I defintely have seen it somewhere some time ago, and admins do pretty much seem to follow it. But anyway, I've commented that I concur with the decline. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Lewis Pugh
So in future, I can just bin off those annoying bot messages, on all those article Talk pages that have them, with totally immunity? Hey, maybe someone could design a bot to get rid of them all?? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead. I don't believe there's a policy one way or another about keeping those notices on talk pages. Technically the bot notices are appropriate because they're about improving the article, but overall, bots shouldn't be putting messages on article talk pages. Or if they do, the messages need to be terse. I've been deleting those useless "External links modified" messages whenever I come across them, for several months now. No one has complained. I suspect anyone who notices welcomes the removal. Deleting a bot message implies that you have read and acknowledged it, so it isn't a problem if you remove them. If anyone gives you trouble about it, tell 'em I agree with you, but it isn't worth getting into a revert-war over. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alas, bots are my only true friends these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stan Giesbrecht
Hey, Anachronist. I have blocked indefinitely, see my note here for why, and have removed his texts on the talkpage. I do believe they constitutes abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Only when I checked the history afterwards did I realize that there was a response from you in there, somewhere in the middle. Of course it wasn't my intention to remove that; I had missed it. On the other hand, I can't very well put it back on its own, without context. Perhaps I should revert myself and restore your response along with SG's attempts to "expose corruption" et cetera. What do you think? I'm not sure what to do. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Actually I was in the middle of writing a brief response to his latest reply when you did your actions. No need to restore my text. I have left a reply on his talk page.
 * It's a pity, I think he could be a good editor, and he was acting in good faith, but seemed to think that WP:IAR is a valid reason to cause disruption to an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anachronist. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Deleting Articles Created
Hi Anachronist, as stated in the discussions on my talk page, it has been decided that I am not move to forward with the project of creating artist pages. I have been trying to figure out how to delete the pages I did created but I cannot find clear answer. Do I have the authority to delete pages or should I make suggestions for deletion and state why. Some pages have been deleted already by reviewers and made into draft pages and others and been published. Even though I have been instructed to delete all of the pages I don't want to cross any more lines by deleting content that already contributes to Wikipedia. If you can advise it, would be much appreciated. - ~VersiaHarris (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versia Harris (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Only administrators like myself can delete pages. If you are the sole author of the page, you can put the tag at the top of it and someone will come along and delete it.
 * However, some of the articles you created are welcome on Wikipedia, and should be kept. Here's a list of the ones still here:
 * Ras Ishi Butcher includes a credible assertion of notability but scant sourcing, so it's a reasonable stub article. You could tag it for deletion if you want but I think it's best to keep it.
 * Jackson L. Burnside III has no substantive content and no assertion of notability, so it would likely be deleted anyway in accordance with WP:A7. You should probably tag that one with the tag. I could delete it, but as an administrator I cannot do so unilaterally, I need a record of justification such as you tagging it, or someone else tagging it with.
 * Virgil Broodhagen is clearly notable, adds value to Wikipedia, and should be kept. In fact if you attempted to tag it for deletion, it could be restored again by request by anyone.
 * Coral Bernadine has already been through public review at Articles for deletion/Coral Bernadine and the community decision was to keep. It cannot be deleted even if you tagged it for deletion.
 * I hope that helps, and I hope you stay. You have shown that you have the ability to write good articles here. Feel free to contribute more in main article space on topics that don't carry a conflict of interest for you. For topics in which you do have a conflict of interest (such as articles you are paid to create), use draft space instead (that is, put "Draft:" in front of the title when you create the article, like "Draft:Jackson L. Burnside III") and submit it for review via Articles for creation.
 * Let me know if you need any help. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your response. It is very helpful!-Versia Harris

Draft:Kelly Robert Savage
Hi Anachronist,

I find it difficult to know where I am meant to respond. Everything seems to come up on different pages unrelated to each other, and it seems to misunderstandings from people not seeing the context. Here is the progression as I see it:

It all started from my draft article on my son ("‪Draft:Kelly Robert Savage‬") being deleted. I can't see the exact history any more because the article has been deleted. From memory, this is what I did: I wrote an article about my son, Kelly Robert Savage, which I had hoped would go in as a biography. I declared my conflict of interest at the top of the page where the instructions said to declare it. At the time, there was a big red statement saying that I had declared a conflict of interest. Then it took several months for somebody to review it. Finally the reviewer said I couldn't write about Kelly because he was famous for a single thing, but I could rewrite it based on the incident (his death in the psychiatric hospital after being tied to his bed for ten days), and the subsequent changes that we have tried to make. They said that the changes needed to be significant. I have been trying to work to make the changes become significant, at which point I planned to revise the page for publication. I would like to have the page back so I could start revising it. I was not warned about losing the page after six months, otherwise I would have revised it earlier.

I asked for it to be brought back so I could edit it.

Then Flighttime said this:

‪FlightTime‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion‬ in "‪Draft:Kelly Robert Savage‬". @Martha.Savage: It seems (because of your username) you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article at all. View mention ‪FlightTime‬  View changes

I told him that I had already declared my conflict (which I did at the top of the page, as above)

Then I got this in response from you:

‪Anachronist‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪COI or paid editing‬".

You claim in this edit that you have "already" declared your conflict of interest, but I see no such declaration anywhere in your contribution history.

If you are being compensated in any way to edit on Wikipedia, you must comply with WP:PAID before you do anything else here. This is a mandatory legal requirement to which you agreed when you created your account here. Consider this a serious warning; any other activity on Wikipedia before you address this concern will result in your account being blocked.

Otherwise, what association do you have with the subjects you have been writing about? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So here is my reply:

I am not being paid for any of this. I simply want justice for my son and for the psychiatric establishment in Japan to change their dangerous practices. Publicising the problems is one of the ways I am working on it. I think you should not jump to conclusions about the source of a conflict of interest without checking the history, which was already given as my having a similar name to the person I was writing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha.Savage (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not part of our purpose to be used to right great wrongs and to publicize problems you are working on. If you want to do that, get a Facebook page. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Martha.Savage. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad
Yesterday i answered to Batreeq on the article's talk page, but he didn't respond. Instead, a few hours ago he edited the main page despite consensus still wasn't reached, and inserted very questionable links from YouTube and Islamic blogs that, he claims, are "reliable sources". I reverted his edit due to to NOR and UNRELIABLESOURCE. Moreover, he added sentences and notes with a blatantly apologetical, propagandistic tone and purpose from a Muslim point of view on that page (for a full overview on what's going on, read the talk page). I'm afraid that he could try to start another edit war in order to block me again and stop me from editing that page, while he's clearly trying to censor the most controversial aspects of Islam on it. What should i do?--GenoV84 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last revert: We can use YouTube as a source in special circumstances. I think this is one of those times. The video was posted by the copyright holder so it's legal. The video is of a recognized Islamic scholar explaining something. Therefore the video is no different than if the scholar posted the words on his blog. And as for blogs, we can cite blogs if they are from a recognized expert in the field. So I think that Youtube source is OK. The question is whether the Criticism of Muhammad article is the right place for it. I'm on the fence on that point. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, i'm concerned about that too. I just read his last reply on the talk page, he doesn't understand that Criticism of Muhammad is not the right place for those informations.--GenoV84 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * He did it again, i warned him twice. Meanwhile, an anonymous IP is trying to delete William Blake's illustration of Muhammad.--GenoV84 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ...and again; he also removed content this time. Last warning.--GenoV84 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you giving me a "last warning"? What are you planning to do? If you're asking for the article to be protected so you can discuss things, the place to ask for that is WP:RFPP, not to me because I've already been involved in that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish there was a repository for seriously funny vandalism
Because Another definition is the science of zoo animal species in crypts; this cryptozoology was totally vandalism, but also quite amusing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was funny too. I was smiling while I reverted it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Java Champions deleted page
Hi. Thank you for taking care of it. Yes, please to undelete it. I will improve it and add references until it is as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henritremblay (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored it to Draft:Java Champions for you to improve. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it normal
To apply full protection to a page 3 days after the last edit, citing edit warring as the reason? See the history of Duane Gish. The edit war looks to have died down already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I hadn't noticed the date. I just saw edit warring in the history with at least 3 reverts on each side so I just protected it. You are correct, that isn't normal. I'll remove the protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not that the page being protected bothered me much (it was actually on The Right Version if you can believe that), but I was just a little surprised by it. I appreciate the quick response. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Shazir Mucklai page
Hi, a while back I created a page for Shazir Mucklai. I never properly had the chance to expalin and therefore it blocked me from ever being able to create it again. Here are some notable PR pieces about him:

https://www.kivodaily.com/marketing/what-the-digital-age-means-to-entrepreneur-shazir-mucklai/ forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2017/05/24/fintech-tools-that-can-change-the-world-of-finance/ https://futuresharks.com/shazir-mucklai/

To give a brief history:

Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and adviser to many startups, he started doing this while a college student and expanded to running a PR Firm.

Here are some of his bios on top outlets:

“ Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and adviser in disruptive startups. He is a financier and specializes in options, IPOs, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai currently runs a six-figure PR firm helping startups commercialize their products and launch their ideas. He also writes for numerous publications, including the Huffington Post and USA Today. All of this while still attending college at the University of Texas at Dallas. “ — INC.com

“ Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and advisor in disruptive startups. Mucklai started his first venture out of high school selling books on Amazon and turned into an overnight success selling thousands of books through the e-commerce platform. He now writes for Huffington Post and USA Today. He is a financier and specializes in options, IPO’s, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai is a college senior working on an undergraduate degree in finance at the University of Texas At Dallas. Mucklai currently runs an six-figure PR firm helping startups commercialize their products and launching their ideas from inception to conception.” — USATODAY

“ Shazir Mucklai specializes in options, IPO’s, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai is a freshman working on an undergraduate degree in economics at the University of Texas At Dallas. “- TheStreet

“Economics major at UT Dallas. First start-up in high school. Over 10 start-ups. Successful stock trader. Published Author. Currently writing for TheStreet. 10bet.com “ — Huffingtonpost

Let me know and I can create it again. 2600:1702:410:5EA0:DD66:F540:903:24DC (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't restore it, because those PR pieces don't fix the notability problem because they aren't reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you want, you can try creating the article in draft space and submit it for review at Articles for creation. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Close at Cathy Newman
Am I reading this right:


 * On May 2nd an RFC was opened with the question For the sake of WP:RECENTISM, I'd suggest merging § Jordan Peterson interview into the "Channel 4 News" section under § Career
 * On July 20th a new section was created (within the existing RFC) asking effectively the same question Should the text under Cathy Newman § Jordan Peterson interview be merged into the section on her Channel 4 News career
 * Your found no consensus for the merge in the May 2nd discussion, but unanimous consensus in the July 20th discussion thus you closed as "merge."

Were editors who !voted in the first discussion expected to re-vote in the second and if so were they contacted? If not, what's to prevent any editor from restarting the !vote at an arbitrary point and nullifying previous votes? D.Creish (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The two discussions were under one heading. There was no consensus in the first, and unanimity in the second. That RFC was open for 3 months &mdash; plenty of time for anyone to present counter-arguments. No one did.
 * This RFC was reported as a backlog item in Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. That's how I learned of it. I simply responded to the request and closed the discussion.
 * Consensus can, and does, change. I have no objection to a new RFC being started, since so much time has passed since anyone responded to the previous one. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm still not clear. Did you consider the !votes in the first discussion in your close? If you didn't, do you know if the !voters in that discussion were notified of the re-vote? D.Creish (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered the votes in both discussions. One was no consensus, the other was unanimous. Taking both together, the conclusion was inescapable. And no, I did not check whether any prior participants were notified. Notification is not mandatory, and not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, I misunderstood thinking you ignored the first, and was going to ask you to revert. I'll reread the thread with that correction in mind. D.Creish (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. And as I mentioned, I have no objection to opening another RFC if you think it's appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for wrapping it up, Anachronist. I corrected a minor typo ("concensus" → "consensus") in your closing comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

email
I've sent you an email 'cause I don't want to risk making a fool of myself in public.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wondered who sent me that. I think the situation is resolved now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
You left two comments at Requests_for_undeletion.

I left an update, six days ago.

Do you have any idea why there has been no reply? I thought my request was a reasonable one.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. You didn't ping anyone there, and we tend to scroll to the bottom of that page because that's where the activity generally happens.
 * In any case, thanks for the rewrite. I have restored the deleted history of the article and its talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
i need to have it reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boinelomatlapeng (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have what reverted? Please be specific. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Finance-related malicious edits and more...
Hello Anachronist, I noticed you recently reverted some finance-related edits, almost all of these coming from a specific range (5.170.4x.x). It seems that similar edits also have been done on human emotions or feelings-related articles. Even in different areas, the moralistic style seems very similar and very similar is the IP range these edits come from. Check these edits for example:
 * Special:Diff/855947779
 * Special:Diff/865602922
 * Special:Diff/866542522

The user behind these edits shows an inclination to restore its questionable claims despite repeated motivated reverts, adding sometimes scarcely accredited sources. If you check the contributions coming in particular from IPs 5.170.44.x, 5.170.45.x , 5.170.46.x and 5.170.47.x you will appreciate this long-term behaviour. I'm quite new to wikipedia and I don't know how to warn administrators about this possible malicious misuse of the edition privileges. Can you do something for that and concurrently teach me the correct procedure to follow in these cases. Thank's a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming to an individual admin like you did is fine, but risks inaction until that admin happens to log in again. Otherwise, to leave a general notice about persistent vandalism, see WP:AIV. A report like you just gave above, to indicate an IP address range, is appropriate; we can block ranges as well as individual addresses.
 * For behavioral problems (like the edits are not vandalism but the user is being disruptive, incivil, or uncommunicative), WP:ANI is the place to report that (otherwise known as WP:CESSPIT, which you'll see after you look at it and it's why I avoid it). If you see what looks like the same user with different usernames (not IP addresses), WP:SPI is the place.
 * I'm heading off to work now, but when I get a break I'll look into this and take some action. Thanks for reporting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the range 5.170.0.0 - 5.170.47.255 for 1 month. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your tutoring, it's exactly what I need to improve my skills as a good wikipedian. Just a last question: in cases like the one above, it is more appropriate to treat it as a vandalism or as a behavioral issue? Horst Hof (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, vandalism is generally damage done in bad faith, and these edits were probably done in good faith, but they're just counter to Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and reliable sourcing. So it's more behavioral: The user doesn't seem interested in communicating and restores material that was removed. The only things that can be done, if the person has no username here, are blocking and article protection. Article protection is requested at WP:RFPP, but generally a request will be honored if there is clear evidence of frequent disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ArkaHayer
Hello. Since you posted a warning on their talk page the last two sections on my talk page might be of interest to you, since they show that ArkaHayer most definitely isn't here to build an encyclopaedia. Cheers, - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now indef-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Content Deleted
My purpose for the enotourism page is not for publicity of Oregon enotourism. My true purpose was for a class assignment where edits to a tourism sector that needed improvements was to be made. My class partner and myself, looking at the enotourism page, found that it lacked information not only on Oregon enotourism, but updated enotourism information in general. This is why not only was Oregon enotourism added to the article, but updated information on Italy, Chile, and Croatia were added. Over half of the information that was added included information on European enotourism and how that sector has grown in Italy with every single state in the country participating in some form. As students at an Oregon university, we did add some specific information on the region that we were most familiar with. However, we also wanted to improve the lackluster page with updated information from regions around the world. There was no intent to be publicity for Oregon, but rather include updated information on a quickly growing tourism industry that was missing to a page. Currently, the enotourism industry is growing quite rapidly, and having the page not only have little to no information, but solely reflect those locations in California does not appear to be an article without bias. Hansobri (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)hansobri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansobri (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashanti ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timothy_%E2%80%98Bos%E2%80%99_Bullock check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timothy_%E2%80%98Bos%E2%80%99_Bullock?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! -Fwth
 Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, !

Hey, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇 Flooded  with them hundreds 09:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)