User talk:Boomer Vial/Archive 4

Username policy?
Please provide link where I can find username policy you've indicated I may be in violation of. Thought I'd read through pretty carefully advice on creating username, but now when I search for said policy, I'm only finding articles regarding creation of said policies, and not actually specific to Wikipedia. Really not trying to be in violation, so pointing me in the right direction would be incredibly helpful. Thank you! CGPwiki (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll find it at WP:UPOL. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My user page
I'm allowed to request for my user page to be protected, right? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. What kind of protection are you looking for? There hasn't been any vandalism. Widr (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just semi-protection. I'm just taking a precautionary measure, but if you want me to wait until it's justified to protect it, that's fine. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Widr (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

178.222.82.95
How do you figure? Different ISPs in different countries, different areas of editing... --Neil N  talk to me 03:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was going by behavioral evidence based on the last IP editors to edit the talk page of . My mistake. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo
Thanks for your message. I have deleted the some of the content on this page because it inaccurately depicts my fathers views on the subject. We, Godfrey Mdimi's children are collating a comprehensive account to be added soon. In its current state the page inaccurately majors on an issue that was minor for our dad and also inaccurately states his position on the topic. Ipolile (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you leave the article alone, as you have a conflict of interest, and any further edits will only guarantee that you will be blocked. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC) A
 * Are you an administrator? Ipolile (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether I am or not is contrary to the point. Please read WP:COI for any questions involving conflicts of interest. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD tagging
Hey there,

I saw you tagged the article Dasmesh Punjabi School with A1 and A3 the very minute it was created. In general, it is not recommended that articles be tagged for speedy deletion in those two categories shortly after being created, as this might be seen as a bit bitey, especially towards newcomers. See here for more information. In any event, A3 seems inappropriate as the article in question did not consist solely of external links, category tags and "See also" sections etc. Anyway, thanks for your edit and hope you find my suggestions useful :). --Dps04 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, regarding the later half of your comment, I clicked the wrong CSD template. As for the first half, how long is a good amount of time to when from the article creation date to add a CSD tag via A7? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no strict rule, but I'd say wait for around 15 minutes, or at least 10 minutes (preferably more) before tagging with A7. Hope this helps! --Dps04 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD Tagging
Hello there. I notice that here you have tagged an article with CSD G6 criteria. Just being written in a foreign language is not grounds for deletion - in these circumstances it is appropriate to place the template. This will place it so an editor proficient in both languages can translate the page. WP:PNT is a great page from some in-depth information on this. CSD is only for very clear-cut cases, so if there is not rational listed for CSD - it won't be deleted under CSD. I would read WP:CSD for some examples on where/where not to use them. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies about that. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion on a source
I was reading over the article of Saul Alinsky, and I couldn't help but notice how heavily the article relies on the March 1972 issue of Playboy that features an article with Alinsky. I also noticed that the there is no actual reference behind the citation, I did a bit of digging to see if I could find a suitable reference for the interview. I'm not particularly "well-versed" in WP:RS, so a second opinion if this would be an acceptable reliable source. Thanks. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 08:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First, please note that a reference does not have to be online. It's fine for them to cite it as ""Playboy Interview: Saul Alinsky". Playboy Magazine. March 1972." - there's a reasonable expectation that an interested reader would be able to track down that source, if they wanted to - e.g. using a library service.
 * Secondly, sure, "The Progress Report" seems like it could be used as a reliable source - it's a non-profit, with editorial control over that published content. I suggest that, if it covers the same fact, you add it as a further reference to existing claims. If you want to add further info, sure, use it - subject to the usual stuff about WP:WEIGHT etc.
 * If anyone disagrees, they can undo your change and you can discuss it with 'em. (WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:VRS).
 * Note that, if using that reference, you are citing "The Progress Report" - you are not citing the wayback machine page, which exists merely as a Convenience link to the published information.
 * For further help with referencing queries, there's also Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

CVUA training
Hi there!

I've noticed you've just added your name to the list of Counter-Vandalism Academy trainers. I'm one of 's students and am concerned since my trainer has not been active on Wikipedia for a while (almost two months); moreover, he has not made any changes to my CVUA training page in six months. On the CVUA talk page, me and have initiated a proposal regarding trainer activity, and if it was to go through, this would essentially allow for Music1201 to be removed from the active trainers' list.

For this reason, I am wondering whether you are willing to take over for him so that I can finish my CVUA training and have endorsement when I am ready to request rights such as rollbacker, patroller, and pending changes reviewer, all of which I have previously failed to gain on the grounds of lacking sufficient counter-vandalism experience.

Thanks for your consideration! Regards, &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you leave off at? Here? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right. I don't really know whose method he used, but that's as much as Music1201 assigned to me. I think at this point I should be ready to proceed with the next stage, depending on whose method you prefer. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, well that's the bottom of the page, which pretty much covers everything concerning vandalism, so I'll grade you, and let you know of the results. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Music1201/CVUA/Some Gadget Geek is now updated. Now to grade the overall assessment. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me
Can you help me to vote this page Shah Aqeeq Baba Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are so interested, or invested in the article. Do you have some sort of affiliation with the person with whom the article is about? Also, please read WP:SOCK, seeing as you didn't bother to even read my reply to Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * sir because many people are waiting for this page in Pakistan Shah Aqeeq Baba is an Sufi saint like Lal Shahbaz Qalander but his page is necessary to create.

Sir Can you vote to my page Hammadsaeed (talk)

And sir can you give me advise how to save my page from deleting please sir help me Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply me plz Hammadsaeed (talk) Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Now please stop spamming my talk page. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice
All filters have false positives, hence do check actual text before reporting a user/IP. Example:. Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. I seen that they tripped filter 384 multiple times, so I felt no need to assume good faith. Apologies. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with AFCH
I've checked the box in my preferences labeled "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", and refreshed my cache, but the option to open AFCH did not appear. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It will show up in the More dropdown in User: and Draft: pages. Did you check that? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'mma dummy. Thanks. :) Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation.
Hi, ! Remember this user? So I suspect, that he has a puppet. I have started an investigation, regarding it. It needs more attention, because the puppet is not blocked. Could you help me bring attention to the investigation. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 10:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that Widr already blocked the sockpuppet, and you've left a thorough, and valid reasoning to your suspicion, so I'm not sure what else there is to be done. Also, I'm not sure what you are expecting to accomplish, as the IP range is so vast between each other that a range block calculates that potentially "2147483648 users" would be collateral damage in such a sweeping block. I would, instead, suggest to administrators to protect the target pages of the sockpuppet. It would be easier to just WP:DENY. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Drafts and inline citations
Thanks for pitching in to help at AfC. I noticed that you declined several non-BLP drafts for not having inline citations. Inline citations are great, and I wish all drafts had them, but generally speaking they are not required. Declining drafts for their absence is one of the common reviewing errors to avoid.

The main circumstances in which inline citations are required are for contentious material about living persons and for direct quotations. If a draft makes extraordinary claims that appears doubtful, that too could justify declining for reason "ilc". Otherwise, decline the draft for another reason, leave it for another editor to review, or accept it and either improve it by adding inline citations, or if necessary template it with citation needed or another suitable references cleanup tag. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

How strange it is that failure of using inline citations is even an option to decline a submission. Thanks for the feedback, Worldbruce. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:38:43, 6 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Credoxtalkies
Please suggest me for what all details should i provide references?? What this document lacks for aproval?

Credoxtalkies (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Try reading WP:V, and WP:RS to get a general idea of what is accepted as a "reliable source". You can also use the help desk, or leave a "helpme" template on your talk page (with two of these {} in place of the quotations) if you have any further questions. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-English reliable sources
What is the stipulation regarding reliable sources that are in a foreign language? Are they allowed to be used, or not? Is there any gray areas of the like? Thanks in advanced. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG is the policy you're looking for. Basically; yes, non-English sources are fine if there are no English equivalents, but you should provide a translation as part of the citation. Yunshui 雲 水 11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Redacted
Apologies, BV, but since this section now directly connects a username and an IP address I'm going to have to oversight it. Suffice to say, your intuition was correct. Yunshui 雲 水 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...
I saw you left some encouragement on User talk:86.20.193.222.

Maybe you can help me out please. In this comment 86 implied he or she could view the then deleted revisions. (I've since requested their restoration.) Well, only administrators can view deleted revisions, and, at the time 86 made this comment the deleted versions were unavailable.

I asked 86 to explain how they were able to view those deleted revision,  as their comment opened up the very alarming possibility that 86 was a sockpuppetmaster, who had another ID, one with administrator authority, and that they used that ID to look at the deleted revisions.

Note: 86 excised my questions, without answering them.

I see, from your talk page, you know why sockpuppetry is frowned upon.

So, has 86 dropped any comments that hint they were using multiple IDs?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're posting harassment in the most odd places. VPP, and now here.
 * I chose to ignore your questions, because you'd ignored mine - you answered questions with questions.
 * Anyway - the answer is, google. Now please stop tilting at windmills. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

02:44:41, 8 March 2017 review of submission by Dtilque
Thank you for reviewing my page. You gave three reasons for rejection.

The first reason was that it is too long. No argument here; it is too long. The way to shorten it is to break it apart into smaller chunks and have more than one article. I'd like some guidance on this, though. Currently it has 700+ entries, broken up into some 60 sections based on the country. I don't want to break it up into 60 articles, as some of those countries have only one entry. So is there some upper limit as to the size of a list?

Second is that it's too confusing, especially the lede paragraphs. I won't argue with this, but I'm too close to the subject matter to see what is confusing. I'd be happy to rewrite the paragraphs, but need to know what I need to expain better.

Finally, there's too many repeat links. I think what you really meant here is that there's too many repeat uses of footnotes. Yes, I did reuse them and I had a reason, but perhaps my reason is flawed.

Shortly after I submitted it, I asked a friend to review it. At that time it did not have all those footnotes. He pointed out that Wikipedia's policy was to have a citation for every fact. Well, my page has three facts for every entry in each table: 1. that city A outside the US exists; 2. that place B inside the US exists; and 3. (most critically) that place B is named for city A.

I assumed that the fact that Wikipedia has pages for city A and place B was evidence for facts 1 and 2. Where there were no wikipages, I gave cites to support the city/place's existence. Fact 3 for most entries is stated in the wikipages for place B, although it's not backed by a cite in many of them. My friend implied that I should provide my own cites for fact 3, so I went and added a whole bunch of footnotes in the Notes column of the tables. But there are books out there that have support for numerous places (all they are is a list of place name etymologies), so I reused the footnotes that cited those books. For some footnotes, this meant a lot of reuse.

So should I remove the footnotes for entries where the facts are already supported on another page? What about the pages that state the fact but do not have a citation? Or perhaps I should remove all of these footnotes?

Thank you again for reviewing my submission, and I look forward to seeing your reply.

Dtilque (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * With the first point of rejection, I meant specifically the article title. It is too confusing in the aspect that the lede paragraph does not do a good job of explain the context of the article in simple terms, which would be preferable. As for the third point, I'm still new to reviewing articles, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know what I'm talking about, nor would I risk giving you ill-advised information. As such, I would suggest that you read some other list-oriented articles, and ask at the articles for creation help desk so you can gain a better idea of how the list should be correctly constructed, especially ones that rely on the same link for different portions of text. If it comes down the fact that I was incorrect in declining your submission, I apologize. Sorry that I could not be of more assistance. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the title is way too long as well. I had a somewhat shorter title in mind, but didn't know how to apply it. This is my first article and I was unfamiliar with the whole submission procedure. So someone else came by and moved it to the Drafts section and applied a title. What they did was take the first sentence and chop off the first three words. Not exactly the best way to make a title. I'll look into changing the title first thing.

Thank you for your reply.

Dtilque (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re your edit summary at User talk:Spencer12112
Well, the reason I "didn't both[er] to revert [the vandalism] once" is because I was actually doing something else first - reporting the vandal to WP:AIV. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if you didn't step on the toes of others, and cut corners. You also left a warning on their talk page, despite the fact that you didn't revert them a single time. That is what I am talking about. Not only that, but it can be extremely confusing to a new editor who was reverted by one editor, and subsequently warned by another. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 16:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK.... Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Play nice, guys, we're all on the same team here. No-one is obligated to revert every time they warn, nor is there any requirement that these things be done in a set order. It's very easy to accidentally duplicate warnings, especially when everybody and his dog has access to Twinkle these days. You're both trying to achieve the same goal (vandalism=bad), so how's about you bury the hatchet and move on? Yunshui 雲 水 16:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree Yunshui that my post above was slightly snarky but I thought the edit summary's tone was uncalled-for. I honestly thought that maybe BV hadn't seen in the meantime I was reporting the now-blocked editor.  I have subsequently realized that BV edited my AIV report, removed my account-name, replaced it with their own, edited the content and also changed the time-stamp. Going away to play nicely now. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually removed your report, and replaced with my own. Sorry about doing that, I only did it out of annoyance. Yet we are obligated to warn every time we revert. It is less confusing for any new editors who might have questions on why they were reverted. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Lol, well maybe I hadn't had a chance to go back and check the article that was being vandalized/reverted yet... but all's well that ends well. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

1949 Wilkes 200
The vandalize of the 1949 Wilkes 200 page was accidental, during editing I saved unfinished work and while I was fixing the info the vandalize report caused me to lose the new fixed info. I'll be more careful in the future, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.125.162 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I see that now. Apologies for reverting your edits. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

James M. Holmes
Change of command was yesterday:

http://www.acc.af.mil/AboutUs/ACCLeadership/Display/tabid/5767/Article/1109496/general-james-m-holmes.aspx

2001:7E8:D484:801:69D4:CEA2:229E:92A1 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah. I do see. Sorry about the revert, in that case. You should be using the edit summary, as to avoid attracting the attention of anti-vandalism editors. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

British War Crimes
Hello can I ask why you reverted the article to a misleading version and removed the warning POV and Original research tags. I believe I followed all the rules and justified the changes on the talk pages. The intro cites the Hague convention and the Hague convention wouldn't apply to either the Boer wars or the Irish insurgencies of the first half of the 20 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.109.55 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said in the summary of my edit, I was reverting the article to the last acceptable revision, until the mess is figured out. Since you are here, do you care to provide some sources to support the claims you made in this edit? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

your user page and that extraneous }
I have your talkpage on watch since we were chatting recently and noticed that you were having that extra bracket issue on your User page. Well, guess what? - I figured out where that extraneous } came from. There was a triple }}} instead of a double }} on }. Anyway, little coding things like that drive me nuts especially because I am not any kind of a Wiki-coder, all I know is what I've been able to pick up during my editing here on Wikipedia - I thought you might want to know. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. My being unable to find that character was driving me up the wall. Isn't it weird where it ended up being located in relation to the actual text source? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yay! And I know what you mean about the placement, it's the kind of thing that would drive me nuts too - trying to find the oddity. What I did was I opened up the old page (before the most recent version) from within the editing history, then did a page search for }}} and went through all the }}} on the page and looked for the set of three that didn't belong, that didn't match up with another set of {{{.  When I found the extra } I eliminated it and then hit Preview for confirmation.  Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with plot summary expansion of fictional works
I was thinking of doing some plot expansion for the series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and I was curious as to the stipulation regarding plot expansions of fictional works, and original research. I read over the manual for plot expansion, but found it too confusing to make heads or tails of. Sometimes it's better to ask another more experienced editor. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume that's Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)? A good place to ask for expert advice about the amount of plot for that article would be WT:WikiProject Star Wars. Personally I would say the "Episodes" section already gives quite a good overview of important plot lines, though some expansion may be possible. Huon (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, more what I wanted to know is if watching an episode, and then filling in plot summaries based on the events of the episode is allowed. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 23:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's merely a "what happens in the episode" summary, then a primary source (like the episode itself) is acceptable. However, for an interpretation of what happens in the episode (for example, "This foreshadows events in film X") we'd need secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot is not archiving, or at least not in order
I noticed that the archive bot is not archiving older inactive discussions on my talk page. I've tried a few times to change the day parameter to make it archive, but it still does nothing. Can someone help me set the archive bot so that it will archive the older discussions, say 120 days or older. I stress the or older part because I want to make sure that all of the past discussions are archived. Thanks a bunch. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As what I see currently, "algo=old(30d)" means it will archive once a month (30 days), so have you changed it so far? if not, it may be something else. SwisterTwister   talk  03:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the day parameter to 60, as well as 120 to see if it was simply skipping over the older discussions. No luck there. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The archive bots typically need valid timestamps in signatures (e.g., "05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)"). If a section doesn't have a timestamp, it won't automatically be archived -- slakr \ talk / 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What Slakr said, auto-archiving won't happen without those darn timestamps (complete with the "UTC"). AND - I figured out another reason why the Bot isn't archiving correctly.... The counter was set to 18 late in the day on March 15 but Archive pages 4-17 don't exist & so User talk:Boomer Vial/Archive 18 got established kind of by accident.  I think you'll need to get an admin who is super-familiar with page-moves to come in and clean up the errant pages.  In the meantime, changing your counter to 3 should help.  If your talkpage is getting a lot of posts you can set the archiving frequency to 14d to keep the size trimmed down. The last archiving date to Archive 3 was on March 10, the first post to Archive 18 was on March 16. Shearonink (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to 3, and moved the discussions from archive 18 to archive 3. I wasn't fully aware of what this parameter did, thus my decision to alter it. Stupid mistake, I will add. Thank for the help Shea, Slakr, Swis, and Rotideypoc41352! Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol, it's only stupid if you keep doing it y'know. 1st or 2nd or even 10th? not stupid. 100th?...wellll....*maybe* so. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

code for external links
How to do those,

You can put google and a random diff

And it comes out like this;

You can put google and a random diff

86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Re "code source slips my memory" - mmm, me too. A good thing that's easy to remember though, WP:CHEATSHEET. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving others' talk pages
Boomer, I see you're archiving others' user talk pages. Unless you have permission from them, you really shouldn't go messing with others' talk pages per WP:NOBAN. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was assuming good faith until I saw these two edits:  Given the ridiculous number of edits you made on User talk:Jtdirl, it appears you're trying to pad your edit count as a member of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls.  I suggest you stop.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing content on their talk page is not the same as archiving, and I failed to find anything that states that archiving is not allowed, or even frowned upon. I was also following the instructions, and closely paying attention to possible active discussions, as well and sizing the page down to under 75,000 bytes. A large majority of the discussions I archived were image deletion notices, or inactive discussions from up to ten years ago. Assuming good faith is not jumping to conclusions, so I suggest you read WP:AGF again. I'm dabbling here and there in different aspects of Wikipedia to see what I find most enjoyable. Thank you for mistaking my eagerness to help contribute to Wikipedia in an constructive manner, as someone who is here to earn titles. I know that I'm still a long way from even being considered for sysop, but there is no harm in showing an willingness to show potential commitment to the site. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Making 100+ edits each on several users' talk pages and another 100+ on each of their archives you created, then updating your edit count badge is about as transparent as it gets.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you should read WP:AGF. I have been updating my LiveEditCount userbox for a while now.. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't hide behind AGF when you're clearly WP:GAMING your edit count, quacking rather loudly.  I suggest you find something much more constructive to do than Editcountitis.   Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

03:14:28, 14 March 2017 review of submission by 36.75.139.63
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. The playwright concerned has written over 20 plays that have been performed all over the world and he is a well known advocate for the arts in Australia who has chaired numerous committees and advised peak bodies. His work and advocacy have appeared in countless newspapers, TV current affairs shows and radio programs and he is a published author. So, I'm really not sure where I'm going wrong. Are you able to take the time to guide me through this listing to give it a better chance of being accepted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lachlan_Philpott


 * See the message on the draft that Primefac left when he declined the article. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I made the changes he requested, and added much more primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.139.63 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Reliable secondary sources are needed, so that notability can be established. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay multiple secondary sources are now added, addressing that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", and that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" and that "created a body of work" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.139.63 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking now, stand by. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "The Australian" reference is a good start, but the other sources are not reliable. Such as, "Oberon Books", "abc.net.au", or "Currency.com.au". Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for your time and help. I've removed the Oberon books section (they are a reputable publishing house, so I may question why that isn't a reliable thing to include - the subject's work has been published by a commercial publishing house so I thought that was quite relevant to notability) and expanded the references from The Australian newspaper.

I just want to question: abc.net.au is the web presence of the ABC, the Australian national broadcaster (the equivalent of the BBC in the UK), so can you help me understand why that is not a useable citation?

Thank you again and I look forward to your feedback on this revised edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You would have to ask. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this ABC page, it's not that it's unreliable, it's that it's literally one sentence. That's fine for fact-checking, but completely useless for notability purposes. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've revised that section to expand all references, quoting from the transcript of the program and then also from various other peers of the playwright who spoke to publications of record. I've also expanded the next section in the same way, and included a new paragraph that also contains more substantial text.

How is it looking now?

I really do appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

any chance of another look at this? I've taken your notes on board and made substantial edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.149.122 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Shah Aqeeq Baba
Hi, Boomer Vial. In response to your request at User talk:Hammadsaeed: A review shows that the Simple Wikipedia page of Shah Aqeeq Baba (now recreated at Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari) is not an exact duplicate and has more citations than the AFD'd version. I can't speak Hindi, Punjabi nor Urdu -- so I have no opinion about the validity of the sources, particularly, the videos posted on YouTube which are possibly copies of news programs (?). Like I said, I'm not sure. If you want to pursue it than I suggest you contact an experienced editor who is skilled with those languages. Perhaps might help you with that. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sufi saint is indeed notable. I have checked some references. BBC Urdu has also written about it. The article required major improvements. Maybe, I can help in that. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking on that, Satdeep. Your assistance is very much appreciated. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Satdeep Gill. Your help is really appreciated. I left a message for you on a page that was either created by a sock/meatpuppet of Hammadsaeed, or a replica of the article here on this version of Wikipedia which was deleted. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Boomer. I replied to your question on the talk page. Essentially, it is this: you are correct. The new page is mostly a duplicate, but that could be because it is a translated copy duplicated on several other language sites. Hammadsaeed contacted users on other language sites requesting that they recreate the article, so this probably was created in response to one of those requests. However, random meat puppetry is more difficult to establish. Hammadsaeed is now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia and essentially banned -- and their socks continued to be blocked. Another one just today. The question then becomes: should we continue to delete a referenced article on a notable subject (as confirmed by Satdeep) because of the misbehavior on this one individual. Although its frustrating that a serial violater seems to get their article despite continuing misbehaviors -- I have learned over the years to examine articles for own their merit and disregard the personality of the person creating it. IMO, this is one of those times. I want you to know, though, that your diligence in pursuing this case has been great. Thanks for keeping on top of it. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What??
I removed bad, spammy content. I did not ADD anything. How can I fail verifiability? Why do you kids always revert without even reading the edit? Explain yourself. 109.149.246.203 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my mistake. I had multiple tabs open, and must've reverted on the wrong one. Apologies. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Hi, Thanks for your help with the IP editor. He/She is a long term offender and hops IP's using a VPN. You can find more information here User:Mfb/Taiwanese_articles. Feel free to help out or add content. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I could tell by their continued inappropriate attempts citing WP:V in their attempts that they were both not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, as well as having an axe to grind. I'm not sure where it would belong in the list linked above, but I think Research Centre Imarat should be added as well. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added the article you mentioned and the originating IP of these edits. Also, I have put in semi-protection requests for those pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)