User talk:Anarchyte/Archive 5

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

G2A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anarchyte/Archive_4#G2A

Hi Anarchyte, Here is my latest draft for the G2A entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moherson/G2A. I have gone over it and amended anything which constitutes a breach of regulations. Please bear in mind that some of information can only be sourced via G2A itself, as it has proven impossible to find from elsewhere. In these instances, it has been clearly marked that the quote comes from G2A itself, rather than me. Each reference is from a reliable source but if there is anything you are not happy with, could you please contact me highlighting the specific areas which are unsuitable for publication. The current article, while initially very helpful, is outdated with lots of new information that needs to be added. Thanks

Moherson (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick rundown of half the references you've provided:


 * 1) Alexa (✅)
 * 2) G2A ( (primary))
 * 3) Pocket Gamer (✅)
 * 4) MCVUK (not 100% sure)
 * 5) PC Advisor (✅)
 * 6) G2A ( (primary))
 * 7) G2A ( (primary))
 * 8) PVPLive (not sure, can't find any "about us" or staff pages, so it doesn't seem all that reliable)
 * 9) PR Newswire ( (press release))
 * 10) KRS (link isn't working)
 * 11) 3D Printing Industry (not sure)
 * 12) VR Focus (not sure)
 * 13) PewDiePie YouTube video (❌ (see WP:YOUTUBE))
 * 14) MSI YouTube video (❌)
 * 15) Curse (❌ (looks like it was submitted by a user, no editorial oversight))
 * 16) VR Focus (not sure)
 * 17) G2A ( (primary))
 * 18) PR Newswire ( (press release))
 * 19) 3Dgence (not sure)
 * 20) G2A ( (primary))
 * 21) G2A ( (primary))
 * 22) PCGamesN (❌ (discussion on WP:VG/RS)
 * 23) G2A ( (primary))
 * 24) G2A ( (primary))
 * 25) Turtle Entertainment (not sure)
 * 26) Tempo Storm (❌ (it's a gaming team))


 * I suggest you take a look at WP:VG/RS and WP:RSN and try to use websites that have been vetted by the community to be reliable. Most of the other references in your article follow the same trend. Typically, if it can't be referenced properly, don't include it. --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your feedback. However, you state that PR Newswire is a press release (therefore, presumably unreliable) but it is sourced in the original entry – three times no less – so forgive me if I’m getting mixed messages here.
 * Thanks again for your feedback. However, you state that PR Newswire is a press release (therefore, presumably unreliable) but it is sourced in the original entry – three times no less – so forgive me if I’m getting mixed messages here.


 * It also states at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Non-independent_sources that “Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but '10,000 people showed up to protest.' is not”. I believe I have written in accordance to this and the entry for Lee (jeans) does likewise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_(jeans).


 * As previously mentioned, it is impossible to reference some information which isn’t from a primary source but I have clearly indicated the areas where this occurs by following the guidelines above.


 * Furthermore, the original article sources Polygon which, although on the reliable sources list, contains an outdated blog post reference.


 * Could you please clarify the situation here as I believe there are inconsistencies evident which need clearing up for all concerned. I would like to be 100% about what the situation is so I can update the entry as it is clear that this is necessary.


 * Thanks! Moherson (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * means it's a situational source, i.e., they're okay when used correctly. Press releases are fine but an entire article shouldn't be referenced by them. I'm not sure what you mean by the Polygon article reference. Also, would you be able to fill in the references in their entirety? Take a look at how Far Harbor or Fragments of Him is referenced; they contain the first and last names, release dates, website names, access dates, etc.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Australian_school_bomb_threats
Dear Anarchyte,

I am the mother of Vincent Lauton, who is cited on the above linked page. Please be aware that the article is defamatory. Despite what the newspapers said (there will be a lawsuit about it soon), my son was NEVER interrogated regarding the school hoax in Australia. Some people created a twitter account using an email address from a public server he owns (darkness.su), which is perfectly legal by the way. It wasn't difficult to find him, his name is on it. The same people used Twitter to claim responsibility for the hoax and ask for money. His arrest made as much sense as arresting Bill Gates had they used hotmail. He has since been cleared of all charges. The Daily Mail web of lies (or article, that's just the same for them) was taken at face value by newspapers all over the world, each one adding more BS of their own. When the initial article was put online, my son was already free! None of the journalists ever doubled checked the facts. They will have to answer for that. I had hoped that Wikipedia was above this. As it appears, I was sorely mistaken.

I would really appreciate if you could erase all mention of my son from your article, or at least mention that it was not him, so that it would reflect the truth. Thanks

Francoise Lauton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.168.48 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, I've updated the page to reflect that he was later released by the French Police.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   01:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Omar Afuni, Anarchyte.

Unfortunately GSS-1987 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"I found many of the sources are self-published (e.g. www.omarafuni.com and blog.omarafuni.com) which are not acceptable to support notability and I removed links for blogspot.com"

To reply, leave a comment on GSS-1987's talk page.
 * All good, cheers for the notification. I've nominated the page for deletion because I couldn't find any reliable sourcing. The AfD can be seen here.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   00:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just saw and added it to the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cheers – GSS (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA2
Has it only been six months since RfA1? Saw your request on RFPP and thought "why doesn't he just do that himself?" -- samtar talk or stalk 12:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * heh. Yeah, it was in June. After pinged all the possible candidates to try out another ORCP, I put one up but was told to wait a bit because of my account age. I might run again in 2017, but only time will tell .   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   00:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Anarchyte: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Your GA nomination of Razer Naga
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Razer Naga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daß Wölf -- Daß Wölf (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Razer Naga
The article Razer Naga you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Razer Naga for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daß Wölf -- Daß Wölf (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Razer Naga
The article Razer Naga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Razer Naga for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daß Wölf -- Daß Wölf (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Anarchyte!


Happy New Year! Anarchyte, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

07:34:57, 2 January 2017 review of submission by 94.200.134.42
Dear Anarchyte, Thank you for your review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymondohora/sandbox/Raymond_O%27Hora I would be grateful if you could please advise what edits I should make in order to make the article less promotional? Many thanks, Raymondohora
 * Hello. I suggest you read up on WP:COI, as your name suggests that you may have a conflict of interest with the topic you are writing about. When writing an article, it's meant to be as neutral as humanly possible, and from the way I see it, the whole second sentence in the lead is promotional.

"The world’s first truly global music platform, where anyone can get involved. With a vision to champion and harness local talent in every country, and every genre, creating an equal opportunity for all artists around the world to participate and perform on the same world stage without discrimination of social background, location or culture."


 * Take a look at some other articles for a rough idea on how things are written here. Here are a few featured biographies, if you wish to look at them: Felice Beato, Felice Beato, and Elaine Paige. --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Clicker Heroes Level64.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clicker Heroes Level64.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 06:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Mangalore Airport (India)
Pretty irrational move done here. Newspaper articles never address names of airports the right way. The official name is Mangalore Aiport per ICAO and IATA databases and AAI. Perhaps consulting at WT:AIRLINE before closing the RM would've been rational. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Request for unprotection: Only about 300 links, not exactly a high risk template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.97.173 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin so I am unable to assist you in unprotecting stuff. I suggest you take a look at the talk page as there is currently a discussion going on surrounding your protection requests. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   01:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Articles for deletion/The Calutron Girls
Would you care changing your "speedy keep" close to "snow keep", per WP:SK? (Not a big deal, I know) Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Anarchyte. Articles for deletion/Gandarpur is a bit similar. It's not a speedy keep because none of the WP:SKCRIT are met, so technically it's a keep per WP:SNOW. But in this case the discussion had already run for about 164-165 hours, so I'd had just let it stay open past the 168 hours mark. — Sam Sailor 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the two errors. I was tired so I guess I sorta rushed it. I'll try to not make the same mistake in the future. :)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most disliked YouTube videos for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most disliked YouTube videos 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/List of most disliked YouTube videos 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. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

G2A - “products and services” section
Hello Anarchyte, I see that you edited and deleted the whole “products and services” section saying it was “unnecessary and poorly worded.” I have some questions to ask you about these comments: 1) Why do you think that a section about the products and services of a company is unnecessary? 2) Could you tell me why exactly you think it was poorly worded? How I could improve it in the future? I see that you are an experienced editor and wanted to hear your take on this. Thanks for your attention and hopefully hear from you soon. Best,

Moherson (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I felt like the wording of it gave it a promotional-ish feeling, as well as being overly separated. Take a look at this section on a different article. It's not the same type of thing, but that's how I think a list of features should be laid out. I don't think the information itself was unnecessary, but instead the way it was presented. Here's one example of some promotional-ish text:


 * G2A states that its paid membership service, G2A Shield, offers additional G2A Marketplace features including free G2A Coin transfers, up to 10% cashback, priority pre-order deliveries, a price match promise, one-contact resolution and access to 24/7 Live Chat.
 * Hope this helps! If you've any more questions, feel free to ask! --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Your GA nomination of Alienation (video game)
The article Alienation (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alienation (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Deism Article
Hello and thank you for the heads up about the deism article. I just joined Wikipedia as a contributor, and my focus is on deism. I am actually a Doctor of Theology (ThD), ordained minister and police chaplain. I identify as a deist, and have been one for the better part of 20 years. I have some journals and articles that I have written that I can use as a source. I am still trying to figure out how to link everything, but I will look into it more this week. Not to sound arrogant, but I consider myself a theological expert on deism, and I just want to clarify some of the information that is presented in the deism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDFinch (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Everything needs a source, check out WP:REFB. It's great that you're an expert on the subject, but we can't take your word for what you write in the article, that would fall under WP:OR.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:G2Acom Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:G2Acom Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

00:16:38, 25 February 2017 review of submission by 169.253.194.1
The original submission was premature. The draft is now ready for review; it contains publicly available, verifiable citations and links. Thank you for your service. Best regards.

Play Magnus
I removed your +tags from the article. There are plenty of secondary sources in the article. If you want more, then find some rather than +tag spamming, references at article:


 * Play Magnus for iPhone pits you against a young chess grandmaster
 * Gizbot: Play Magnus for iPhone Let's You Play Against Chess Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen
 * Live Mint: Magnus Carlsen parlays chess success into hot tech start-up
 * Fast Company: This Simulation of Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen is Read to Checkmate You

IQ125 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Verge is okay, GizBot is questionable and hasn't been discussed at WP:VG/RS, Fast Company is fine, and I'm not sure about Live Mint. As you added the poorly sourced info, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find the sources, the tags are only for advice. At the moment it's only scraping by in regards to proving notability, I really suggest you find some more reliable sources to go in the article.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The product is named after and endorsed by the World Chess Champion and the application has over one-million downloads. The references support the product is notable.  If you want to add more references you are welcome to do some actual research instead of +tag spamming.  Good luck IQ125 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not tag spamming, I am simply adding the relevant tags to a somewhat unfinished article. Your opinion on the sources doesn't make them reliable, they need tonne vetted by the community, such as at the reference notice board or at WP:VG/RS. I suggest you take the questionable sources to one of those places and see what other people think. The App Store sources are fine but it's always good to use hem as a secondary source; a more reliable ref should be there as well. The burden is on you to add the sources to the information you've added, but I'll see what I can do with the article later today. --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * three +tags is called +tag-spamming. If you want to add information with citations to the article that is fine with me.  IQ125 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not called if they're warranted. The most recent one I added, the advert tag to the gameplay section, was because of the following:
 * levels based on Magnus Carlsen's ability at a given age to provide a fun playing environment for a chess player of any ability.
 * That portion of the article is almost directly taken from the official site, which is literally an advertisement for the game. You haven't put any quotes around it, and even if you didn't that line still wouldn't be necessary in its current state. Praise for the game goes under reception (which doesn't exist right now). Just because you don't like the article having tags doesn't mean that you can remove them all. The tags are there to warn the readers about possible errors in the article and to remove that disclaimer goes against the point of their existence. Please accept that me adding tags isn't a vendetta against you or the article, it's just that the article isn't up to scratch or up to par with article standards. Please, intead of removing the tags, try to fix them. I've said it a few times now but because you've added the content the burden is on you to fix the errors that arise.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed the advertisement tag but want to stress to IQ125 that the tags were perfectly valid, and you've been removing them without addressing them. In particular, the burden for sourcing and such lies on you, who have added the content, not the tagger or patroller. The article history shows you had the same response to notability tags and others, from multiple editors. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2017
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Faceit
Hey Anarchyte,

Sorry if I removed your citations, it was by no means intentional if I did. Thanks for adding sources, and I'll add some for where the citations are needed.

--Kaostic W (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's completely fine! Make sure that when you add sources they're reliable. HLTV is questionable. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason HLTV is included is due to it's popularity within the CS:GO scene for reliance and media coverage. I can find alternative sources for any of the mentioned stats if required! I've removed some of the information for the time being until more reliable sources become available. --Kaostic W (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware of how widespread HLTV is in the CSGO community (I'm actually working on the article for CSGO right now!), but there have been discussions regarding its reliability before on WP:VG/RS. If you'd like to read them you can find them in the archives on WT:VG/RS. Different, more reliable sources, would be preferred if they're available. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA
Hello. It's nearly a year since this. Are you interested in running again? I might be interested in nominating you. My first question would be what have you done since then to address the concerns of the opposers? Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon,, and cheers for the interest. Here are the main points of opposition from the last RfA:


 * 1) Low account age.
 * 2) Occasionally making "hasty" edits and the GamerGate stuff.
 * 3) Low amount of content creation.
 * 4) Getting confused with different policies
 * Looking back, I can agree that I probably rushed into RfA. I had barely had 1 year of editing at the time of nomination, so I should've been able to see the "too soon" votes coming. The only way to fix this issue would be to wait, but most people said to wait 9 months or so until the next run (it's been almost 10 months since, as of today). For the hasty edits I've tried to put more time and effort into both my general edits and my closures, and I'm fairly sure I've gotten better at closing stuff, though I do make mistakes occasionally (doesn't everyone?). For the GamerGate related stuff, I just haven't bothered to touch that or other heavily sanctioned articles. As for content creation, I went from an abysmally low amount of creation to having 8 GAs under my belt (one of which failed an FA nom). Finally, the policies issue. I'm fairly certain that most of the opposes were related to my failed attempt to explain consensus, which I believe I now have down packed. I'm not 100% sure if I'm ready, and I don't want to rush into stuff again, so if I were to run again I'd want to go to ORCP first (or at least ask a few of the opposition to see what they're opinion is now). --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All of that sounds really wise. Especially the last sentence. How about inviting some constructive feedback from some of the strongest opponents? Pretty much nothing reads so well in a RfA than 'I opposed him last time because of X and I'm happy to support because he's now Y' --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The following people had good arguments in their opposition statements about any of the aforementioned reasons: . I'd love to know their opinions now, even if they still agree with what they went with months ago.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some really excellent and experienced Wikipedians in that list. Worth hearing from them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall my oppose was with regret and was a "near miss", and when challenged on it (as oppose voters generally are), I said I could be persuaded to support in a couple of months depending on what additional experience (particularly content) could be gained. I'll have a dig around your contributions and see if ORCP is worth going for. When it comes to nominations, it might be an idea to try and get one of the oppose voters from the first RfA as a co-nominator; that usually signals to the community that things really have been turned around. PS: Oh yes, you helped me get Regent Street to GA didn't you - well that's my content concerns resolved right there and then! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anarchyte. The RfA was a close run thing, and you only just didn't get people's support because confidence in your judgement wasn't quite there due to lack of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia norms. I expect you'd find a much more positive response this time round. Anyway, here's my test question for you. What would you do in these three situations:
 * A) You're asked to close an AfD which has been relisted twice. There are ten delete comments and 10 keep comments. All comments are based on policy and are well argued. On looking at the article yourself you notice that the three reliable sources used to establish notability don't actually mention the subject directly, but this has not been noticed by anyone.
 * B) You're asked to close an AfD which has been relisted twice. There are ten delete comments and 10 keep comments. All comments are based on policy and are well argued, and all sources check out.
 * C) You're asked to close an AfD which has been relisted twice. There are ten delete comments and 10 keep comments. All comments are based on policy and are well argued, and all sources check out, but during your research you find a source not previously noticed which contains phrases and sentences which are remarkably similar to those in the article, sometimes almost word for word.
 * Have fun!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that I must be the one to close these, but if not and there was a situation like what was in the first example, I'd leave my own 2c on the AfD and mention the poor sources. In regards to the first two questions (A, B), if I had to close it, I don't want to come across as "super voting" so I'd close them both as "no consensus," but in regards to A, I'd mention the poor sources in the closure and maybe notion to the idea of renominating the article if things don't get better within a couple months. I'd close them this way because every single argument brought up for both sides were aruged based on policy, and hence no proper consensus has been found. There's no rule against relisting a page three times, it's just not common, so that could also be an option, if that's not defeating the purpose of this test. I'm also assuming that there are only three sources in the first article, and that all of them aren't that good. When closing the AfD, the admin is allowed to weigh in on the closure but they aren't allowed to flip it on its head and be the decider, if I remember correctly (though please correct me if I am wrong). If there are twenty people that cannot find a consensus after it has been relisted twice, it's probably safe to say that nothing is going to change with another week. For the final question, it really depends on how much is taken from outside sources. If it's only a few sentences I would still be able to close it as "no consensus" (for the same reasons as above: 20 people unable to find a consensus, etc) and re-write the plagarised content. If it's the majority of the article (let's say a decently high number via this tool, such as 60%+), I would close it as delete because it would fall under WP:G12.
 * If any of this could be worked on (like if you would close something differently), please tell me. From what I can see, most of the time those would be closed as "no consensus," except the final one which needs a bit more background. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If any of this could be worked on (like if you would close something differently), please tell me. From what I can see, most of the time those would be closed as "no consensus," except the final one which needs a bit more background. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If any of this could be worked on (like if you would close something differently), please tell me. From what I can see, most of the time those would be closed as "no consensus," except the final one which needs a bit more background. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much how I would answer it, to be honest. FWIW, the last AfD I looked at closing and did exactly what you described here was Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors (another admin relisted a few hours later and it then closed as "no consensus"). Since we're in the "asking questions" mood, here's one from me :


 * You have closed an AfD on "Joe Bloggs" as "delete" where nine people voted "delete" with good policy-based arguments and one person, the article's creator, voted "keep" mentioning many blogs and self-published sources (for the sake of doubt, let's assume none pass WP:RS in any way shape or form) . The next day, the creator leaves you a message on your talk page : "I am most surprised at why you closed the discussion for Joe Bloggs as delete. None of the other participants have any experience in this topic, and I am quite upset to find my hard work wiped out without warning and my views ignored. As you can see from the debate, there is a lengthy interview in myrandomblog.wordpress.com which I can attest is 100% true as I have spoken to Mr Bloggs on the phone and he assures me it is factually correct. I urge you to restore the article as it is important that Wikipedia remains a true and accurate portrayal of the world we live in. Thankyou." How do you respond? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As I obviously don't want to scare away a (presumably) new user, I would try to explain everything in as simple terms as possible while linking everything related. Hope that's a good responce for this matter. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hello . I closed the AfD for xyz as "delete" because there was an overwhelming consensus that the page should be deleted. All of the users that weighed in used arguments that were in-line with Wikipedia's policies on the matter, specifically WP:N and WP:RS. As Wikipedia only accepts reliable, third-party sources, the references you provided were not adequit enough to warrant a relisting of the AfD as they were self-published and/or original research. If you would like, I can restore the article in your sandbox where you can continue to work on it and then submit it to articles for creation where experienced members of the community can help you and give you advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to ping me using . Cheers."
 * Strong oppose candidate cannot spell adequate. Nah, just messing with you - that sounds absolutely fine. Wait to see if you get some feedback from others, then I'd recommend filing a poll on ORCP Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also misspelled response, probably because I'm about to fall asleep, I'll read the other editor's opinions in the morning.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

While there are situations where there are right and wrong answers, the way we've constructed policy on Wikipedia is to allow for judgement calls to be made, so in general any answer is fine if you can explain it with reference to policy or precedent or common sense, and you've done that. There are, though, things that those who write RfA questions will have in mind when constructing a question. One of the things I had in mind you picked up on - the supervote. It has happened to me. I got challenged where I introduced something into a close, that though policy based, had not been brought up in the discussion. While we have IAR, most Wikipedians prefer admins not to go down that route, and to follow reasonable procedure. So where you have found new evidence, it is, as you say, better to mention it rather than to act on it.

It is always tricky dealing with hypothetical questions, and admin candidates can tie themselves up in knots making assumptions. Always better to deal with the situation as it is offered. One of the common failings of new admins is to do as they are asked rather than what is in the best interest. Just because you have been asked to close a discussion or AfD, or to block someone for edit warring, or to tell an IP editor that they can't keep inserting that sentence, doesn't mean you have to. You don't have to take sides with the person who has approached you for help in a dispute. You look at the situation from your own independent perspective, and if you feel it not right to close the AfD, then don't close it. Add a comment or relist it, or even decline. That's fine, as long as you explain your actions. Closing a copyvio article as delete under WP:G12 is permissible if certain criteria are met. What folks like to see in a RfA is clear mention of those circumstances if you are proposing to delete something that would ordinary be closed as a default keep under No consensus. If there is viable history with no copyvio, then deleting the entire article would not be appropriate. Also, looking at the history is of value as these days we have so many Wikipedia mirrors that the source might be younger than the Wikipedia article.

You've done well with your answers, and it's unlikely that anyone would take serious issue with you, though in vague hypothetical situations like these it is generally best to explain more rather than less, and to stick with what is on offer without making additional assumptions. The phrase I used for the sources was "the three reliable sources used to establish notability" - sources are used in an article for various things, not all of them applying to notability, and I did say that the sources were reliable, so making an assumption that they were the only sources, and that they weren't good, is drifting away from the question, and introducing unnecessary variables which may detract you from the main point of the question. Us question setters sometimes ask tricky questions - not because we're mean, but because in the real world of being an admin malicious users can and will attempt to trick or mislead you, so read questions carefully, and try not to make assumptions. Keep your options open, and say: If it is X, I'd do this, if it is Y I'd do that, and if it is Z I'd do the other.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm pinged here. I'd say that I wouldn't have a tenure-based objection to a second go at RfA at this point. Two years is enough time to learn the ropes and the block log is clean. I haven't delved the actual editing, so I'll leave it right there for now. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers for all the advice, should I make an ORCP soon?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opposition, I mentioned my concerns about the quality of Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) and I notice that there has been very little change in that article since then. If you are nominated again, I am willing to take a close look with an open mind at your work in the past year. Although I did not mention Gamergate, one thing I would be concerned about is whether there have been any similar problematic involvements. I wish you well. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sort of hit a wall on the Castle article because I can't speak German and therefore couldn't find that many sources, so instead of trying to do something I knew I couldn't, I moved on to writing other articles. As for the GamerGate stuff, I haven't been involved with anything related to that, and my only edits to ArbCom sanctioned articles have been small copyedits. Thanks for the advice. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   00:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * may be able to help with the German sources for Schauenburgkirche <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've created an ORCP, let's see how it goes.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say go for it, Anarchyte. You have a greater deal of experience now as opposed to last time, and not only that but it seems you have the backing of more people. I really feel like I shouldn't have opposed last time, but it's understandable that others opposed in light of account age etc. I don't see any issues—I'll support. JAG  UAR   20:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain . That was one of my major issues. What were you trying to communicate then and what are your feelings about that bit of editing now? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the Ketchapp incident was completely due to my lack of experience. That comment to only showed that even more. In that comment I tried to somewhat explain that because I found the blog post via that source, it was okay to just source that page, instead of where I actually got in the information from, which was (obviously) the wrong idea. Looking back, I can completely understand why people would've opposed because of that, and to be honest I might have as well (if it wasn't my RFA). Since then I've gotten a lot better at sourcing the content I add, adding all of the parameters that apply, and making sure that I source where I get the info from directly, instead of a half-related page. Hope that answers your question, feel free to follow up if you wish. Cheers,   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, apologies for the amount of time it has taken me to respond to your requests for comments here. There were several reasons for the delay, some good and some bad, but I will move on from there now. (I did see your pings.)


 * I have looked at your recent editing history, and I didn't see anything that I would regard as a barrier to adminship. Of course, there may be something dreadful lurking in one of the edits that I didn't look at, and which I will stumble across between now and your next RfA, but I have no reason to think it likely. The two reasons for my "very reluctant oppose" last time were lack of clarity about what a reference was, and lack of clarity about what constituted admin action, and I have not seen any recent examples of similar lack of understanding, so I see no reason to think I will not be able to fulfil the hope I expressed then by saying "I look forward to supporting another RfA for Anarchyte in a year or two".


 * There are several other thoughts I have on this which I could mention, but I find surprisingly many of them have already been mentioned above, particularly by SilkTork, and there is no point in repeating what has already been said. I would, however, like to ask you one question. Consider the following situation. You review an unblock request for which the block log reason is given as "3RR violations on the article Blaa blaa blaa". The unblock request says "This block is unwarranted, because I took care never to breach 3RR. Just look at my edits and count them. Also, I was never warned about edit-warring on this article." You check the history, and confirm that the editor has always stopped short of 4 edits in 24 hours, and in fact only once came anywhere near it, reaching 4 edits in 25 hours. What is more, that occasion was over a month ago, and since then, although the editor has repeated the reverts about ten times, there has always been a gap of at least two days between edits, so clearly the blocking administrator was wrong to block for 3RR. Also, you find it is perfectly true that the editor has had no warning about edit-warring on this article: the only two warnings he or she has ever had about the edit-warring policy were in regard to two completely different articles, and both of those were over two months ago. What do you say when you close the unblock request? (Of course, in real life a perfectly acceptable answer would be "I wouldn't close it, I would leave it to another administrator", but I would like to see what you would say in a situation of this kind.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the comments, real life always comes first so I understand when something goes wrong or gets delayed. As for your question, per the WP:3RR page, users don't always need to hit the full 3 reverts to warrant action (though from taking a look at the 3RR notice board, it seems users rarely get blocked for anything lower than 4):
 * ""Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.""


 * and per the warning users are given: ""...you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.""


 * I would need to contact the blocking administrator to see if there were other factors involved, and to get their opinion on the matter. You technically need four reverts to violate 3RR, so the way I see it, instead of blocking it would have been a better idea to guide them towards having a look at Dispute resolution or WP:DRN to see if they could solve the issue civilly. There is obviously a content dispute if the user has continued to revert it, and per the 2nd quote, even if they don't revert three times, they can still get blocked for indicating that they may intend to. The user should've been warned before being blocked and I'm fairly sure that if the other warnings were two months old then they would be stale (though please correct me if I'm wrong). If I were to unblock them I'd need reassurance that they would stop their somewhat-disruptive behaviour and try to talk to the user/s that they had a dispute with, though, without the barrier set by the question, I'd probably just ask the blocking admin to take a look.
 * I hope that answers the question adequately, if not please tell me where I went wrong. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC). Note: I've expanded/edited my answer as of 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC).   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That answer shows a much better understanding of both the edit-warring policy and blocking issues than is grasped by a good many editors. Certainly if in doubt "contact the blocking administrator to see if there were other factors involved" is the right thing to do, and of course you are right about edit-warring blocks not needing 3RR infringement, which is something which is not understood by an amazing number of editors, even ones who have repeatedly had it pointed out to them. My experience from reviewing unblock requests is that very often editors are blocked for edit-warring without breaching the 3 revert rule and then appeal on the basis that they haven't broken that "rule". (Your observation "from taking a look at the 3RR notice board, it seems users rarely get blocked for anything lower than 4" may be because the minority of cases that go via the edit warring notice board may not be entirely typical, or maybe because disproportionately many of the non-3RR ones lead to unblock requests, or both.) One of the things I was after was whether you would pick up on that, and you did.


 * I had hoped you might pick up on "I took care never to breach 3RR", which indicates that the editor was knowingly edit warring and trying to game the system by avoiding crossing the 3RR line. You didn't explicitly mention that, but your quoting "should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly" indicates that you are aware that evidence of intention is relevant, so I will settle for that.


 * Time and time again I have come across editors with a very extensive history of edit warring who take the attitude "it's perfectly all right to edit war until I get a warning about it and then stop so that I don't get blocked". That is gaming the system, and totally unjustified. In my view, if an editor knows about the edit warring policy because he or she has been warned about it, then he or she does not need warning again and again every time he or she edit wars. Naturally, I would not apply that principle mechanically without considering the particular circumstances, and various factors might encourage me to give a friendly warning rather than a block, such as being a good editor with little history of edit warring, only warned once and that was years ago, etc etc. However, in this case the editor has been warned more than once, "over two months ago", so presumably not over 3 months ago or I would have said that. Of course in real life there might be circumstances that would lead me to make a different decision, but as far as one can tell from what I said, this is an editor with a history of edit warring and being warned about it, who has been disruptively reverting to his or her preferred version over a long period, and has been warned about edit warring not much longer ago than the length of the current edit-war, and it is likely to be time for a block. You suggest "instead of blocking it would have been a better idea to guide them towards having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or WP:DRN", and of course in real life one would have to take account of the particular circumstances, but the facts that the editor has repeatedly been warned about the EW policy, that he or she is clearly deliberately trying to stop short of a block, and that the reverting has been going on for a long time, suggest that we may be past the stage of guiding them in that way. The question was to some extent prompted by my observation over the years that some editors get away with very long-term slow edit wars (sometimes literally for years) without ever being blocked because of an attitude that warnings have to be recent and reverts have to be close together in time. Both of those factors should be taken into consideration, but treating them as absolutes supported neither by policy nor, in my opinion, by common sense.


 * Another point I deliberately included in my story to see if you would pick it up is the fact that the blocking administrator specifically gave the 3 revert rule as the reason for the block, but that reason was clearly invalid. A administrator reviewing a block is not like an appeal court judge reviewing another court's decision, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to consider the block rigidly in terms of what the blocking administrator said: it should be reviewed in relation to all the relevant facts, and if a block is justified it isn't invalidated because the blocking administrator was not careful enough in stating the block reason. (That doesn't, of course, mean that I don't think administrators should be careful and try to avoid such mistakes.) You didn't explicitly pick up on the inaccurate block log reason, but evidently the fact that you didn't mention it and went ahead with considering other issues shows that you didn't think that one error invalidated the block, so I'm happy with that.


 * OK, so the conclusion of all this is that your answer to my question was on the whole good, but, as you will by now realise, I disagreed with some of what you said. However, different administrators do disagree without it meaning that one of them must be unsuitable as an admin. Also, the nature of the disagreement was one I am not too unhappy about, because you were more inclined to consider unblocking than I was. I am firmly of the opinion that far too many administrators are far too reluctant to unblock editors, so I am much happier with one who I see as erring in the other direction. So my one-sentence summary of all the above is "I don't agree with everything you said, but no two people always agree, and the kind of disagreement is not one that I see as a reason why you should not be an administrator". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RFA poll
First of all, thank you for your participation in my Optional RfA candidate poll. Maybe you are mostly right. About my CSD logs, admins can see the rest, since i just did not keep it until now. about my AfD votes yeah, although some are just not shown yet. Anyways thank you, I will bear all this in mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Play Magnus
If you feel the article needs more citations, then find some and add them instead of +tag spamming.

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=%22play+magnus%22&oq=%22play+magnus%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l10.2882.5425.0.7973.14.14.0.0.0.0.100.1094.13j1.14.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.12.971.0..0i131k1.PGM3nCjrEBM — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQ125 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Tagging is allowed and this is a valid tag. Either address the tag yourself, or leave it alone. You need to stop reverting all tags on sight and accusing everyone of tag spamming. It's disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Adding onto what  has said already, I explained my reasoning behind the adding of the one refimprove tag in my edit summary. I'll repeat it here for convenience: "article still has reference issues: 3/7 are primary, 2/7 have unknown reliability. that leaves 2/7 as being completely fine." In my opinion, if only two of the given seven references are 100% reliable, the article has an issue. Taking a look at the history of the article, it seems you contact almost every single editor that does something to the article that you don't like. You left a message on 's talk page after he added a warranted tag, which you removed. You do not own the article, this is Wikipedia, the website where almost anyone can edit almost anything, and some competence is required to understand that. Your actions indicate that you think that you own the article, which is starting to become disruptive. The kerfuffle at the recent AfD for the article also didn't help, and I left a short message there for you, which I don't think you read (if you're interested, here's the link).    Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Go find some more verifications then, you are the one that wants them!! IQ125 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. You need to read what we've all told you multiple times. Until you understand how tags work and are willing to have a conversation, I see no point to respond to your messages.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Far Harbor
Hey, bringing the conversation here rather than bog down the ORCP. I had a read through the other day and I don't think it's far off FA standards. Where articles tend to fall down is on the prose. Professional, engaging, prose is harder than most people think and FAC can be quite daunting until you've been through it a few times. I reviewed Resident Evil 5 at FAC the other day and that's just been promoted. It might be a good idea to compare Far Harbor to that and to look over the FAC to see if any of the comments made there are relevant to Far Harbor and thus head off any potential objections. Then it's just a case of biting the bullet and nominating it again. Let me know when you're ready to do that and I'll give it a thorough read through and leave some comments on the FAC. I'll watchlist the FAC and if there's anything you're not sure about or you want a second opinion on, just ask me and I'll have a look. By the way, I highly recommend Tony's guide, which details a lot of common prose flaws and how to fix them. HJ Mitchell &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  14:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-read through the article again and fixed some obvious mistakes, though I probably missed some as it's 2AM right now. I'll have another look sometime tomorrow (or should I say later today?) and then close off the PR and start an FAC. If you've got any time to spare, comments on the PR before I close it and launch the FAC would be appreciated.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   16:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unlikely to get to it today. I wanted to get some writing done this weekend and I haven't done any yet. But you never know. It'll more likely be tomorrow by the time I can give it the time a proper review needs. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All good. There's no rush.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've made a few more edits to it. Do you know of anyone who might also be able to give it a quick run-through prior to its nomination?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I got some writing done in the end yesterday so I'll try and get some reading done today! I feel like I've accomplished something with the long weekend now. I'd suggest nominating it and asking the reviewers from last time to revisit. I'll give it a thorough going over,  probably in the next few hours. You could ask, who wrote Resident Evil 5 which which I reviewed the other day. The best way to get reviewers is to review other people's articles, so if there's another nomination that interests you, don't be scared to offer a few comments.  Nominators are usually grateful for any constructive feedback. Best,  HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working through now. Since the PR is still open, that seems as good a place as any to leave comments. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And done. You'll want to go through these and make sure I haven't made a mess. I think you'd be safe nominating it now. Other people might raise various things (of course everyone has particular things they look for) but I'm not seeing anything that couldn't be addressed during an FAC. As long as you keep on top of replying to reviewers' comments quickly you should be fine. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  21:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll launch the FAC after you take a look at the replies I left you on the PR page. I'd like to keep all the discussion for those points on that page for consistencies sake.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied there briefly. Feel free to shut it down and launch the FAC if you're happy with things. Don't feel you have to keep it open just for me. And be aware that I keep very strange hours—I'm UTC+1 but I work nights Sunday to Thursday, so my replies might come at slightly random times. My reading of this is that I can sort of "sponsor" you a FAC and act as a "mentor" . I'm not sure exactly what's expected beyond thoroughly going over it before the nomination, which I've just done, but I'll watch the FAC closely and I can certainly write something endorsing the nomination. Beyond that, we just have to see what reviewers come up with. By the way I'm watching you now so no need to ping me. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  09:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've created the page. I'll try to contact some people in a bit.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, you know you need to transclude that onto WP:FAC itself, don't you? ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Knew I would forget something. Cheers!  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

wrote biography wiki said it was not constrictive? educational it is!
i wrote a real article about jen jenatos early life movies made challenges and freedom through charity work now and the moderate said they removed it because it wasn't constructive i have copy right permission by the actress what is the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've undone your edits because they weren't constructive. I'm fairly sure you're talking about this edit to Fuat Kalkan, not Jean Jeantot. Your edit didn't add anything useful to the article, and instead actually broke parts. The sentence "had a good upbringing, never lonely" isn't sourced, and is somewhat not in a neutral point of view. As for the other edits of yours that I've reversed, I left the reason why on your talk page. You tried to add sources to an article by adding "((national geographic))". That isn't how you add sources and I've linked you a guide on how to properly cite materials. Please read over it. If you've got any more questions, feel free to follow up. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

20 April 2017 redirects for discussion notifications
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 Cars. Since you had some involvement with the 2 Cars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 cars. Since you had some involvement with the 2 cars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 Cars (game). Since you had some involvement with the 2 Cars (game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazing Brick. Since you had some involvement with the Amazing Brick redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazing brick. Since you had some involvement with the Amazing brick redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazing Ninja. Since you had some involvement with the Amazing Ninja redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazing ninja. Since you had some involvement with the Amazing ninja redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don&. Since you had some involvement with the Don't Touch The Spikes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don&. Since you had some involvement with the Don't touch the spikes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dont Touch The Spikes. Since you had some involvement with the Dont Touch The Spikes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ZigZag (mobile game). Since you had some involvement with the ZigZag (mobile game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Games created by Ketchapp. Since you had some involvement with the Games created by Ketchapp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Play Magnus
Hey, I meant to say this a week ago, but I still wanted to thank you for your post at Articles for deletion/Play Magnus. When I saw IQ125's post I felt I should say something and was trying to come up with something that wouldn't likely just make things worse, only to look down a couple posts and see you'd already posted something much better than anything I would have come up with. Having editors like you around makes Wikipedia a much less stressful place. Again, thanks.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems! Thanks for the kind words . Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Water Music Publishing
Dmurphy235 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)No. I do not have a COI
 * Alright, I suggest you reply on User talk:Kudpung though, to keep the conversation in one place. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fighters Uncaged, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorneys. 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) 09:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

JENA JENATATO
I DONT KNOW WHY IM BEING ACCUSED OF EDITING SOMEONES BIO JEAN? NO THAT WAS NOT ME, I SOLETY UPLOADED MY BIOGRAPHY FROM FANS REQUEST IF I EDITED MY OWN PAGE WRONG PLS TEACH ME BUT YOU ARE CONFUSING ME WITH A USER FROM 2007 I JUST JOINED 2 WEEKS AGO? WOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

ERROR
I NEVER COMMENTED ON A FAUT ARTICLE PLEASE STOP HARRASING AND CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSES IP THIS IS THE 5TH TIME IM JEN JENATO AN AUTHOR MODEL ACTRESS PLEASE STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be editing an article that is about you anyway. Please see WP:COI.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RfD results
Hi and thank you for your participation at RfD. I just thought I'd share a little tip: if you close a discussion with XFDCloser using a 'custom' outcome, it's generally a good idea to have a glance at the resultant redirect/page to see if everything is OK. If the outcome was to disambiguate, then there's usually some formatting to be done, like removing the former redirect content from the top of the page, and ensuring the disambiguate template at the bottom is functional. Also, the dab page may occasionally need to be updated with any suggestions that were made in the discussion since it was first drafted (but that doesn't happen very often). Many thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, cheers for the pointers. I haven't been too active at RfD until recently, so I'm still learning the ropes there! Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An example is PPPPPP, for which I have removed the redirect at the top and made the "Disambiguation" template at the bottom go live instead of displaying as a link to the actual template. I have also placed WikiProject Disambiguation at the top of Talk:PPPPPP. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. Thanks!  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout 2048
Hi Anarchyte, if you have the time would you mind leaving some comments at the Wipeout 2048 FAC? In return I'll gladly do a review of Far Harbor which you currently have up at FAC. Wipeout 2048 should be nearing promotion now—all it needs is a couple more reviews. Don't worry if you can't do it. Thanks! JAG UAR   22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be able to look at it in about 5 hours, if that's fine. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking
Regarding this revision of yours, is linking to Multiplayer video game really overlinking? I am discussing it here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk |  contribs  ) 12:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you removed the word “multiplayer” itself . What’s the reason for that? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 12:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, I believe it is. Multiplayer is already linked to that article in the infobox. Linking "video game" is definitely over linking. I might leave my 2c on that page later. I've readded the word "multiplayer". I removed it because I was looking at a few of the other articles to base this one off, but then it struck me that the ones I was looking at also feature single-player campaigns. Apologies for the misunderstandings.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about the inclusion of the word multiplayer in the opening sentence on WT:VG. I understand you're currently blocked, but if you'd like to read over it, please do. Only a couple of people have commented, but from the way I'm interpreting it (per what has said) is that if the game is primarily multiplayer and only includes a small amount of sp content, we should include it in the lead. I'm fine with the inclusion, though I'm still not sure about the linking (though I have no strong opinions either way, so I'm fine with leaving it linked, Wp:OLINK I showed you was more about the linking of video game). I hope this clears up any confusion or disagreements we've had on this article. Have a great day,   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2 Cars listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 Cars. Since you had some involvement with the 2 Cars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2 cars listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 cars. Since you had some involvement with the 2 cars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2 Cars (game) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2 Cars (game). Since you had some involvement with the 2 Cars (game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Games created by Ketchapp listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Games created by Ketchapp. Since you had some involvement with the Games created by Ketchapp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Lead missing"
I don't agree with your edit summary here: to me, the lead is the first sentence which says "Topic is/was a ..." and explains why it's notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (Unlike those irritating biogs which start "Person was born to Jemima and Fred Thingummy in a quiet village in Borsetshire"). Even a stub should have such a lead sentence. I've left a note on the creating editor's user talk page on the subject. Pam D  09:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And rather than remove the piece of text sourced to Wikipedia I think a cn tag is more productive! But between us we've improved a newbie's first attempt enormously. Thanks. Pam  D  09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, in regards to the tag, I was about to contact you about that and apologize for the misunderstanding; it was my mistake (I misread the article). I've got the article creator's talk page on my watchlist already, which is where I was going to respond (I saw your note). I tried to add a lead sentence after I removed that tag (as I realised in hindsight where I had went wrong), but you had already done it so I got an edit conflict (see here). As for the cn tag instead of removing the content, I occasionally do that, though from what I've experienced, the tags don't really ever result in much, sadly. Hope that clears everything up, have a great day!  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RfA
While the RL issues I mention on my usertalk are still there, I'm currently around onwiki and would like to nominate you. Would you a) accept my nomination and b) want to go for it now or wait for my RL to firm up so I could be completely confident I'd be around during the fun and games? If you'd rather wait, it might be a matter of a week or two, or it might be up to 3 or 4 months. It's hard to say and I'm not in a position to explain more, I'm afraid.

If/when you want to go for it, any talk page stalkers want to co-nom? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, first off, I'm sorry to hear about the real life issues, I hope everything ends well. Real life is always more important than Wikipedia.
 * As for the RfA, I do not have plans to run for another month or two, simply because I want to make sure I'm 100% ready and not rushing into things. I guess that answers part b of your message. As for part a, has expressed interest in nominating me in late June, and I would happily accept a nom/co-nom from both or either of you (I look up to both of you onwiki), but so you may need to chat with him about his plans (I believe he wants to nominate a few people at the same time, or something along those lines). Cheers,   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am poised to file an RfA when the election's over and Anarchyte has got 2 years' service. In the meantime,, has re-appeared so you could ask him about RfA #2? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please could one of you ping me with a month or so to go. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

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

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

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

File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Flow 234 (Nina)  talk  10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fighters Uncaged
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fighters Uncaged you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fighters Uncaged
The article Fighters Uncaged you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fighters Uncaged for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fighters Uncaged
The article Fighters Uncaged you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fighters Uncaged for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fighters Uncaged back cropped.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fighters Uncaged back cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fighters Uncaged
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hello, Anarchyte! This is Lutontownfc. I made a page on the Rocky character Union Cane that you reverted for no given reason. Can you please explain why you reverted all my hard work, and attempts to make a good page. Thanks!

-Lutontownfc


 * Lutontownfc, Anarchyte left this edit note when he reverted: Unreliable sources, reinstated redirect. please have a look at wp:rs. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for letting me know! I'll try to find more reliable sources this time!

-Lutontownfc
 * Since I just reverted it as well, I'll elaborate a bit more in case you didn't see my edit note. Wikia sites themselves are unreliable sources, because anyone can edit them and there's no guarantee that anything in them is correct. They cannot be used to establish notability, which is required for articles to stick around. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I get it now. Thank You!

-Lutontownfc
 * Good evening, . I reinstated the redirect over at Union Cane because you didn't supply any reliable sources, one of the most important aspects for all Wikipedia pages. I understand that having your hard work deleted can be frustrating (it's happened to all of us), but if you'd like to write a draft over at Draft:Union Cane or User:Lutontownfc/Union Cane I'll be glad to take a look when I've got time. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and accompanied by a reliable source. As said above, user-generated content is not considered reliable over here. You can ask about certain websites over at the noticeboard if you're not sure of the reliability of certain websites. Hope this helps, cheers.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominating SM City for Deletion
Hi I would like help in nominating SM City for deletion as the article is the same as SM Prime Holdings under a different name. I would like to see other user's thoughts on the article by placing an AFD on it. BugMenn (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I doubt an AfD would get closed as "delete" for that article at this time simply because it could be redirected to SM Prime Holdings or SM Supermalls. I suggest you bring it up with the company WikiProject, on the article's talk page (read over WP:MERGE), or at the Philippines WikiProject. I don't know enough about the company or its notability to give an educated opinion.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA
It's been a year since the last one and I can't see anything that will make it tank, so what say you? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 to that! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me ping and see what he thinks. I want to go back through the first RfA and just confirm for my own sanity that the key oppose votes have all been dealt with, before I go any further. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that., if you have time, can you take another look over my CSD/AFD stuff to make sure there are no remaining issues?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  00:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Might take a day or two though. Regards  So Why  06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spot-check looks good, can't see any problems. I would offer my services as a nominator but I see you have enough of those already? Regards  So Why  12:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to co-nom (I think was keen too), pop your name onto Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2 while we wait for Anarchyte to answer the standard 3 questions ("What is your name?", "What is your quest?" "What is your favourite colour?") . <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just adding co-noms without the candidate asking me to? Nah, Anarchyte should learn how hard it will be as an admin, so he should be forced to choose who may co-nom him Regarsd  So  Why  07:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, I don't mind. I'd love to have you as a co-nom, you've really helped me over the last few months.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see how you like it when the "Oppose, co-nominated by SoWhy" !votes start Joking aside, I added a few lines that are hopefully extremely convincing™. Regards  So  Why  09:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email .  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you did, it ended up in my spam folder. :-/ - I'll have a read through it and get back to you soon. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how strange. Got any idea why it ended up there? I'll be somewhat busy today so my reply to the email may take a few hours. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  23:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have sent back some comments on that lot via email. If you can address that, we'll probably be good to go after the next iteration. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Splendid. I've emailed back.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  09:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, great minds think alike. I came here just about to ask the same question at the same time Smiley.png. I think you're more than ready now - your continued work on RMs and other adminy things, as well as the GAs you've written since last year are all fantastic. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eagerly awaiting to support. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd love to co nom if I haven't missed the boat by the time I get home. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should be fine, the questions etc haven't been finalised yet.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

the more the merrier. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) ...and I didn't mean to exclude or anyone else for that matter. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a co-nom. Proudly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your other three(!) co-noms have said just about everything that needs to be said, but having seen you in action at FAC I wanted to add a little so I've added a fourth(!) statement. That I'm queuing up to nominate you behind people who certainly know what they're talking about is a very good sign! HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  21:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the RfA is ready for your answers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've sent a revised copy, just waiting on a response. Also, I saw your edit summary on the RfA page, I sincerely hope everything turns out okay.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you have at least four supporters (most likely ) Regards  So Why  10:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the answers to the questions, so I have IAR dropped them into the RfA - all you need to do is accept the nomination and we are off. I would recommend somebody else does the actual transclusion as it doesn't matter so much if they balls it up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up a few issues with the questions and I've sent you one more email before we finally pull the trigger.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . I've accepted the nomination. Thank you all for the kind words! Wish me luck . Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And it's 'Good luck' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto, wishing you the very best of luck at your RFA. I've posted a question there, it is completely optional for you to answer, but might help any that have lingering doubts (I highly doubt it, and I am not one of them). Again, best of luck! Steven   Crossin  11:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Userpage font
Could you possibly change the font on your userpage and such to be something that doesn't have insane stroke modulation (and especially not that stroke modulation with a sans-serif typeface)? You don't have to (it is your userpage, after all), but the current font is kinda hard to read and hurts my eyes a bit. Thanks! RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録 16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah, first time that's been requested. I've removed the font from the bulk of the page. Hope that helps. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not surprised about that, ha. If you want a nice humanist font to use, Syntax looks pretty good. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your RFA

 * Welcome to the admin corps. — xaosflux  Talk 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Thank you very much . I'll try not to break anything :).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Congrats on your RfA! The kitten can aid in catching rats.

L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'll be sure to put it in the green box :)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  00:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Means a lot.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Request
Can you semi-protect Now That's What I Call Music! 96 (UK series), Pink (singer), WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders, Secret Love Song, Glory Days (Little Mix album), Now That's What I Call Music! 97 (UK series), Hair (Little Mix song), Shout Out to My Ex, Down (Fifth Harmony song). Persistent long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction. 123.136.111.15 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good evening. I'm not entirely sure on what to do in these situations, so I'll ping some people who might. .  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at your recent RFPP responses and they were great. Evaluate these the same way and lock them for sockpuppetry if necessary, using escalating lengths. Alternatively, you can block the IP, though protection usually works better for LTA. Katietalk 13:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I said to you on my talk page, your responses to RFPP requests have been well done. Keep it up, but don't hesitate to reach out to any one of us if you need help or aren't sure about a situation :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to semi-protect that many articles in one hit as it would shut out far too many good faith edits; indeed, some of the disruption was reverted by other IPs from checking the history. Each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and I would recommend filing individual reports at Requests for page protection (which is the correct location for this). I think some of the disruptive IPs have already been blocked, which would make protection superfluous. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd have to look at each article history and judge this on a case-by-case basis. He really needs to file WP:RFPP requests instead of throwing a big list of articles at you here. I'd let him know this.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mehrunisa V Lub U AfD
Your closure of Articles for deletion/Mehrunisa V Lub U did not remove the AfD tag from the article Mehrunisa V Lub U. I have removed the tag for you now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm a bit confused as to why it didn't do it automatically, I used the closeAFD script to close it. Anyway, thanks again and have a good day.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  02:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dance Gavin Dance protection
Thank you for protecting this page. But, if the vandalism continues after the week is up will we extend the protection? There was a lot of vandalism on this page and to be honest I'm not sure if I reverted it all yet. The anonymous users really screwed up the band members section but I think I have that section fixed. Thanks. Bowling is life (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, if the vandalism does continue after the week is up, then yeah, it'd probably need a longer protection period (another week or two, I'd say).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2017
<div style=" background-color: #eeeeee; border-top: 4px #eeeeee solid; border-left: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-right: 2px #eeeeee solid; text-align: center; padding: 0.5em; margin:0em;"> The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 10, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2017

Previous issue | Index | Next issue <div style="border-left: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-right: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-bottom: 5px #eeeeee solid; margin:0em;padding:1em; background:#FEFEFE;">

Project At a Glance As of Q2 2017, the project has:


 * 211 Featured Articles
 * 70 Featured Lists
 * 11 Featured Topics
 * 1 Featured Portals


 * 28 Featured Pictures
 * 1,172 Good Articles
 * 23 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements


 * Feature: Shiny Wikipedians - A Featured Content Leaderboard
 * Feature: Final Fantasy VII postmortem

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 14:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC))
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk