User talk:Bungle/Archive4

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercedes-Benz taxi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southend Pier
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southend Pier 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southend Pier
The article Southend Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southend Pier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Old man's car, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul (2nd nomination)
I reverted your closure at this AFD. I believe that with no keep votes, the article is eligible for soft deletion. I'd prefer an admin to close this one. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, an admin relisted Ali Faik Zaghloul and said it was not eligible for soft deletion in the relist comment. It didn't seem appropriate to relist a 3rd time with zero participation. Did you read the comment? Would you consider that statement to be wrong and it can/should be deleted regardless? That is the only reason I did an NC closure. Happy to be advised otherwise though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will seek out clarity on that point, but I would prefer an admin close it regardless. Thanks4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, in such cases it's at the discretion of the closing admin as to whether to soft delete or not per WP:NOQUORUM. Saying it's ineligible for soft deletion isn't exactly true. "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
 * relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');
 * closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);[1]
 * closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
 * soft deleting the article.

As such, an admin should close this.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I understand the case that if an article cannot be soft deleted because it has previously had a declined prod, or in this case a prior AfD for which it was not deleted, then this would not change just because the AfD subsequently did not have participation. I am not precious over this article or AfD in the slightest so I could not care too much who closes it or how, however I am keen to ensure that I understand fully if my actions are credible or not. As you suggest that Explicit said an untruth in the relist comment, then maybe its reasonable for Explicit to clarify that. Either way, I am keen to know what is appropriate and eligible in this scenario for my own curiosity. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see another uninvolved editor has also closed as no-consensus. I trust you will accept that accordingly. It's probably a fair observation also that you should not have reverted either of the 2 previous NC closures, particularly as you are/were the nominator but also regardless. There realistically was not another outcome. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Unaccepted edit to Linux
I unaccepted this edit to Linux which you'd accepted. Although the editor included an edit summary saying they were updating the figures, they did not include a reference for the new percentage. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually checked the existing reference provided which suggested the figure given in the edit was more accurate. In this instance and as the reference was unchanged, it seemed reasonable to accept it. Perhaps take a look too? The trend on the reference already provided does show a change from 74% down closer to 72%, which is what the edit was made as. Did you check this before reverting? Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Dart
I have to compliment you on the excellent edits you made and the suggestions you offered for this article. It is so much better now with these improvements. You can copy edit or review any of my GANs. In fact I am aiming for a grand total of 200 Good Articles by Christmas. As you can see by this GA counter I have 173 now. I have 20 GANs in the queue. At the end of my previous Good Article User:PinkElixir added Daniel Frank Gerber to the listing Good articles/Agriculture, food and drink at 21:33 14 August 2021. Should Joseph Dart be listed in a similar way at this project page? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, it's always welcomed to receive positive acknowledgement like that. While I only have around 15 GA reviews undertaken (albeit over a span of several years), quite a few could be considered very "thorough" as I don't think it's worthwhile unless you are really putting the effort in. This review was perhaps shorter by my usual standards! On the listing, yes, I guess it could/should be listed there. I personally don't get why it *needs* to be or why it isn't automated already, but it's no harm putting it in. I'll take a look at a few of your other GANs and see if any intrigue me. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point about why it *needs* to be or why it isn't automated already. As far as I am concerned It doesn'r make any difference to me, as what IS IMPORTANT is that I list it on my User Page and they show up as rows of green icons on top. FYI, here is a list of my 20 GANs in the queue. I also welcome any copy editing, as you do an excellent job. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

>*FWIW - I tried to submit Cone Mills Corporation and Marsala Ship for GANs, but User:BlueMoonset just reverts my nominations and will not allow these to be reviewed by a normal Good Article reviewer. He considers them a quick fail and not worth the trouble to get them reviewed and just reverts my submissions. Will you take a look at them and any tweaking of copy editing would be appreciated. I would like to have a reviewer look at them, with the normal six point criteria standards -> because if I can get a report I believe I could resolve any issues brought up and be able to get these articles promoted to Good Article. What do you think? If you don't have the time, that's alright - as I have plenty in the queue anyway. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you considered putting them through a peer review (a reasonable route to getting a pre-assesment prior to a more formal GAN process)? I see that the Cone Mills article has had some improvements recently though I do accept the concerns raised regarding the ship article (even on the face of it, it doesn't visibly "look" at GA standard). While I appreciate your kind words regarding my copyedits, I wouldn't necessarily consider myself to be overly proficient or accomplished (although, my primary focus on wikipedia is on content creation so I guess my level is acceptable). Try not to be in too much of a rush to reach a GA quota though; I personally value quality over quantity. If I looked at your other GANs, i'd likely be applying similar principles as I did to Joseph Dart (which still has scope for improvement), so maybe also consider if they are all at the best standard you can be happy with? Just be mindful that a GAN is not intended to be a process whereby editors are assisted in elevated an article to "good" standard; rather, they should already feel confident in the article being "good" prior to nomination. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Peer review sounds like a good idea. I'll look into that and meanwhile try to do some more improvements on the articles. Thanks for advice. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Your GA nomination of Rhyl Pier
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhyl Pier 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhyl Pier
The article Rhyl Pier 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:Rhyl Pier for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tommy Burns (diver)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tommy Burns (diver) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tommy Burns (diver)
The article Tommy Burns (diver) 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:Tommy Burns (diver) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhyl Pier
The article Rhyl Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhyl Pier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tommy Burns (diver)
The article Tommy Burns (diver) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tommy Burns (diver) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fifteen Year Society
Congratulations Bungle! Looks to me as if you have recently become a member of this society.--Ipigott (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, earlier this year in fact. You'll observe I already amended my userboxes a few months ago ;) Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been six months late on this but for some reason you didn't start your user page until 23 October 2006. I had just been looking through your past articles and making some reassessments. Many of them deserved much higher ratings. Keep up the good work. Pity the Merseyside WikiProject is no longer considered to be active. Perhaps you could reactivate it.--Ipigott (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. To be honest, I can't really remember when I started a userpage or even much of my earlier edits, come to think of it. Editing interests can change in 15 years! I did observe my watchlist suddenly "bloating" with reassessment edits from you, even though some may be generous! I also observe you have recently become a fellow "15yr" member, just yesterday, so I can at least offer you a more timely congratulations on that! Regarding WPjt:M'Side, I did think it's a shame it went defunct (like the piers WP, of which I have invested a lot of edits in recently). WPs don't seem to have the same level of engagement as they did in the earlier days. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My reassessments were entirely objective, based in part on the tools available. There's certainly one WikiProject I'm involved in which is going from strength to strength -- wp:Women in Red. If you can spare the time, you should help us to reduce the gender gap by writing about some of those glorious Lancashire lasses. That might also explain why I am never too happy about seeing more women's bios deleted from the encyclopedia.--Ipigott (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You may observe I seldom build, start or expand biography articles and typically focus elsewhere (not exclusively though, as I have a few new bios to my name, as with general edits). I made an exception with Tommy Burns (diver), as I read about him during the creation of the Rhyl Pier article and was fascinated enough to create his article. This happened by chance. I sympathise with your concerns regarding the article gender gap, but i'd still point to my remarks in the Marie Warner afd that a subject has to be determined as notable - this goes for anyone, I guess. I am not likely to increase any focus in building bio articles unless I come across a particularly interesting individual in the course of other research. If we keep articles, they have to be able to stand up to scrutiny and be deserving of an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In regard to Warner, I accept your arguments. You'll see I've now called for delete. Thanks for bearing with me and being so level-headed in making your points.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite ok. I didn't want it to feel like I had any passion about deleting the article, but ultimately there has to be some objectiveness when considering the credibility of inclusion and each article has to be judged on individual merit and what evidence of notability is available. As old reference sources are continually being made available online, then it offers scope for identifying further notable individuals in future. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ian, you may be pleased to hear that, partly due to your suggestion about expanding coverage on female biography articles, I have spent the past few days doing just that (despite it not being a particular editing focus on mine in the past). I have focused on retired divers (why not?) and reasonably expanding some of Lugnuts articles, such as Cindy Shatto, Barbara McAlister, Betty Slade (diver), Judy Stewart and a new creation Linda Cuthbert to name a few. I know it's only a small impact, but it's a few more that are now meaningful. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly good work. You are obviously becoming an expert at writing biographies too. If you intend to continue along these lines, it would be great to have you as a member of WikiProject Women in Red. Thanks, in any case, for these informative contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I don't know really how long i'll stick at it, or just focus on those where there is reasonable historical content available. Bios have never really been my "thing", and while I have dabbled with a few over the years, it's never been a primary focus or special interest (though I have edited a very wide variety of article topics)! Expanding or creating articles on relatively notable historic sportspeople seems an achievable challenge, as often they are criminally underdeveloped and have a wealth of info if you know where to look, so I may persevere for a while yet! Maybe i'll end up becoming a WiR member by default if I continue as presently ;) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just the kind of commitment I look forward to receiving. Just let me know the next time you've worked on improvements to a bunch of women in sports biographies or -- even better -- created new ones. You nay or may not have seen on our WiR talk pages that up to 800 have just been deleted as a result of sock problems. As far as I can see there were no divers but one never knows.--Ipigott (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Expert advise on article creation

 * Hi User: Bungle! As you’re a Wikipedia veteran could you please clarify to me why my draft article which is about a designer who made international headlines is getting declined for notability while there are so many approved articles of unnotable athletes such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruwantha_Ekanayake. I’m not writing to create a dispute with those existing articles but to understand how to improve my wiki writing skills and to focus on what’s important… as you can see I’m quite new here and I have been learning a lot from experts such as yourself… Sorry to bother you with my inquiries hope you have an awesome day! :) Liyamu21 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Liyamu21. I see you have made efforts to address concerns raised by the page reviewers and for all intends and purposes, the article is well written. However, fundamentally, a subject must demonstrate that they are notable enough. This is a fairly broad term, "notable", and not necessarily easy to explain in few words, but typically, the subject has to have significant coverage in multiple sources (newspapers, books, reputable websites etc). These should be sources unrelated to the subject that discuss it, not primary sources created by or supported directly by the subject. The "awards" section is probably the closest the article gets in trying to ascertain notability, but are those awards in themself notable? The article essentially discusses what this person has done and what they have achieved, which is fine when it supports a subject who is already determined as notable, but the sources are not necessarily sufficient to validate that.
 * Furthermore, comparing to other articles which you question is not wholly relevant as a counter-attempt to determine notability of this subject. There are many articles deleted every day on wikipedia for many reasons, often because the subject is not notable, so don't always assume that because similar articles exist, then others should too. That's a flawed logic and each article must be able to stand independently in itself. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ado Campeol AfD
I was about to comment on the nominator's response to my keep vote, when you closed Articles for deletion/Ado Campeol. Your reasoning was that "The consensus is that the individual's notability is insufficient to justify an independent article, beyond mostly copied obituaries." This might be more accurately desrcibed as a false consensus, as it runs counter to policy. For a start, one of the votes was from the nominator themselves, and should have been struck. Furthermore, I am puzzled as to why we would not wish to keep an article for someone who has had "full obituaries in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Financial Times" (to quote my keep vote). That ought surely be enough to meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Are we really going to gainsay their judgement, and decide that all three are mistaken? As to the nominator's claim of "a flurry of obituaries of Campeol, all pretty much copies of one another", of course, obituaries will tend to cover much of the same ground, but did you confirm these "copied obituaries" for yourself or merely take their word for it? It seems to me highly improbable that such newspapers would plagiarise each other. I look forward to your thoughts on this. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that if we strike the nominator's vote, I make it 3 redirects vs 3 keeps. Hardly a clear consensus. Edwardx (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thank you for being prepared to engage dialogue regarding this. Secondly, I see you're passionate as the article creator, but despite the AfD having been running since 2nd November on first listing, not a single other editor, besides yourself, advocated to keep the article. Putting aside all of your expressed concerns, if I were to self-revert, do you believe that there is a reasonable chance of the article being kept? The article amounted to a short bio about this individual and information on Tiramisu itself. Your only actual case expressed rested on the obituaries which, irrespective as to how many outlets chose to run with this (and an obituary can't really be different between media sources, so of course there is similarity), what exactly is the notability resting on? I am not against self-reverting, but what reason can you offer to reopen or relist the AfD that would credibly allow for a likely turnaround towards keep? Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the other potential keep you may be alluding to by Dietcoke3.14 was not an outright expression of "keep", but merely "not delete". The history is retained in the current scenario and I openly suggest the possibility of recreation with appropriately sourced future expansion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bungle. I am fairly sure that this is the first time I have sought to overturn an AfD decision, and have never taken anything to Deletion review. I will endeavour to raise this at today's London Wikimedia Meetup, and seek views as to what might be the best course of action. I would not say that I was particularly "passionate" about this one - perhaps if I had been and voted sooner and done more work on the article then this situation may not have arisen. But, having started Jim Delligatti and Sam Panopoulos, I do not see why we should not also have an article on this dish creator/populariser. Edwardx (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In essence, to look at reopening the discussion would ideally require additional evidence beyond what was provided, to demonstrate clearly that the individual can pass notability criteria. When numerous editors advocate redirecting, I tend to look upon that as saying, "This person is a useful search term. Lets keep the history as it may have scope in the future to expand or if better sourcing is located to pass WP:GNG, etc". Maybe look upon it as to whether there is anything you missed in your own !vote that may help support your own view. Of course, if you found something credible and I did revert the close for that to be considered, you'd need others to also support it too. Feel free to drop me a reply if you think there is anything you missed that would warrant a relist? Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have thought any more about this and found anything further that may be worth consideration? I must say, I have done some searching too (as I have been writing quite a few biographies the last few days as you may have seen), and can't see any significant coverage on this individual throughout their lifetime. Nothing evident in newspapers etc. Are you still keen to reassess this or let it be? Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Bungle. On balance, I think it best to move on. After all, there will never be any shortage of biographies to create and expand, and the "drama" boards are all too often a time sink. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind, thank you! It perhaps won't be recognised on any considerable scale as these divers are now mostly obscure, but it's interesting to research and write about them, particularly as many were local celebrities during their peak and I even managed to write a new article on the back of it! Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto from me. Great work!--Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on Emmerdale pages
Please see the note I put at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Emmerdale task force. Aithus (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Closure at Articles for deletion/New Afrikan Black Panther Party (2nd nomination)
Hi - just a good faith comment; in this case, it was possible for another relisting (3 is acceptable), or better yet, contributing to help solidify consensus (or not). I'm not quite in agreement with your closure; agree that clearly there was no consensus for delete, but given the contributions since the nomination removed the sourcing issues, I would have seen this more on the keep side than no consensus. Just to be clear, not asking you to change anything, just leaving a comment. Nevertheless, thanks for your work. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the AfD in question, being "possible" to relist it not necessarily always the right course of action. A third relist is typically not encouraged unless it is considered likely that a consensus will be reached by doing so. In this instance, there had not been any comments at all following the previous two relists and the discussion had not progressed in over three weeks. Furthermore, if the consensus could have been reviewed as keep, either of the two relisters could (and would) have closed as such. I am uncertain why you chose to raise this with me when the outcome is effectively what you advocated, which is the default of keeping the article where there is no clear consensus. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret your reply as seeking a response from me. In terms of precedent a "no consensus" outcome produces status quo ante, which is substantially different, especially in terms of subsequent process, from a keep result. I was suggesting that among the options available to you, I felt a better option would have been to contribute a !vote; you were prepared to consider the discussion and (I assume) examine the article. Without doubt another editor would have come along for closure.  My impression of AfD is there is no shortage of closures, but there is often a lack of discussion; I'm simply advocating for prioritizing the building of a stronger consensus.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No disrespect, but this seems a bit pointy and not wholly necessary, in my view. There are many instances where I contribute meaningfully to an AfD; similarly, many editors choose to help towards closing discussions without getting involved in it. The fact is, after two relists, there was no further contribution at all. One of the keeps was weak and the nominator is in effect a delete !voter and so there was no clear consensus. Whether I close it like that, or someone else, is academic. 3+ weeks without any comment is a long time, and long enough for anyone else to chip in, which they didn't. This doesn't need a follow-up reply as it's just more an acknowledgement to you. Hopefully when our paths next cross it can be more meaningful. Regards. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies that my tone and/or purpose came across in a way wholly unintended. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine, I say we can leave it at that. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Bungle, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ABungle added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * That's absolutely not a problem, don't worry about it :) Reflecting on your closing comment, I actually don't mind doing "grunt work" on researching article content, as may well be evident by looking at my contributions (I don't make a significant number of edits, but I do make a number of significant edits, if that makes sense)! I only a few days ago saved Aswang (1994 film) from AfD and have now nominated it for GA after developing it from this state within 2 days, so as you see, I don't mind too much. Happy editing (and my tea is with one sugar)! Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Diving at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Diving at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I must confess to being a little perplexed by your decision. I had observed the tag was added (curiously), and intended upon adding some well referenced prose (just like at Diving at the 1970 British Commonwealth Games and Diving at the 1978 Commonwealth Games for example). It wasn't necessary to draftify this list article. I would wonder if you would now do the same for other similar articles that have existed in mainspace for over 10 years without referencing, such as Aquatics at the 1990 Commonwealth Games, Diving at the 1994 Commonwealth Games, Diving at the 1998 Commonwealth Games, Aquatics at the 2002 Commonwealth Games, Aquatics at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (the list goes on). Alas, I will seek to enhance it however a personal message may have been more suitable to understand my intent (i'm not unfamiliar with notability guidance). Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for your message. I came across this article as a new page patroller. Personally I would prefer to move older but unsourced articles to draft but that is against policy. For new articles the aim is to have them all supported by multiple independent sources. I’ll try to remember to send you a personal message if I come across one of your new articles in future. All the best Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aswang (1994 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aswang (1994 film) 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 Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aswang (1994 film)
The article Aswang (1994 film) 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:Aswang (1994 film) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aswang (1994 film)
The article Aswang (1994 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aswang (1994 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito
Hello how are you? Figured I would include you as well on the note I left with Geschichte page since I saw you helped relist.

Hello, this is Mario Cerrito. I am a little upset about what just happened. As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Wikipedia : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns with you since you were the username who "kept" and then relisted." I wouldn't normally do something like this but felt I should since it's my name and livelihood. Thank you. Mario Cerrito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As you rightly pointed out in the first sentence, I just fixed the relist by Geschichte as it was not formatted correctly. It was the decision by Geschichte to originally close and then subsequently reopen/relist the discussion, not mine. I have no desire to contribute to the discussion, so the remaining 95% of your essay is not relevant to me. I simply performed a clerking action which in no way was a decision around whether to relist or not. Your expressions of concern should be raised on the relevant discussion page, not on a user's talk page, and certainly not on my talk page when I am not involved in the matter. Regards. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Continent/Complex
Template:Continent/Complex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Continent/Tectonic
Template:Continent/Tectonic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think these are referenced in a script as part of Template:Continent/Transcontinental? They aren't linked to directly but via a switch statement. The continent template code I used from elsewhere a number of years ago so can't say if it could be made differently, but the script does have this (and the "complex" one above) as switch options. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Metas Opas-iamkajorn
Hello, Bungle,

You closed this AFD discussion but the draft page still has an AFD tag on it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I am so used to xfd closure's automation that I forgot it wouldn't have linked to the draft page. Alas, the author moved it back to mainspace and restarted the afd so I guess it's moot now. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Many thanks Lugnuts, much appreciated! Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cindy Shatto
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cindy Shatto 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LCSR
Template:LCSR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cindy Shatto
The article Cindy Shatto 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:Cindy Shatto for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cindy Shatto
The article Cindy Shatto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cindy Shatto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your AfD closure of Alliance for Veneto
Please go back and revisit your close to Redirect as this is not a reflection of the consensus. Not one of the participants indicated this was a preference.  HighKing++ 13:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi HighKing, happy to reconsider this if there is a fair reason for doing so. The basis for me adjudging redirect was based on the view I expressed in relation to the prose verification, as duly noted by P1221. Generally if an AfD ends in "merge", that is typically "merge and then redirect", as redirecting is the ultimate conclusion once any suitable content is merged (unless there is consensus to delete after merging). I gave a rationale in the close that, as a redirect, anyone may still merge what they consider "viable" and attribution can still be provided as the history is in-tact. However, the merge !voters didn't express consideration that the majority of the prose was cited to a blog, nor expressed any specific part to be merged (and why that would be suitable). You !voted merge yourself, so maybe you could elaborate what you would merge and why? If we looked to reopen the afd, I would think that should only be done if it's likely the ultimate consensus could end either keep or delete, as the current situation doesn't hinder what you consider the consensus to be. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly, I'm just being pedantic about the actions available to a closer - which is only to reflect the consensus reached by the participants at AfD. You cannot "supervote". If your concerns are that there may be a possible copyvio then the article may be deleted - see WP:COPYVIO. If your concerns were that the article was not sourced using WP:RS then perhaps you should have participated and !voted, not reached an entirely different outcome than decided by the actual participants. Sorry for being pedantic, but there are lots of reasons why retaining attribution might be important and this would be lost if someone other than the original contributor added material into the redirect target.  HighKing++ 15:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @HighKing: You're quite within your right to raise concerns and I will always respond as best I can, if they are directed to me. I would respectfully disagree about my action being a supervote, insofar as the result adjudged allowing an action of the position you expressed (and that you believe was the consensus), without materially deviating from the overall expressions of opinion. I don't believe I raised any copyright violation concerns though, only questionably cited material as fairly raised by the sole delete !voter? As noted, a result of redirect is by-and-large what a merge consensus ends with - afterall, once any viable content is merged (and I do emphasise viable), we don't keep the article - we either delete or redirect.
 * Lastly (and I don't think you're being too pedantic, but I am happy to clarify), you !voted to merge which surely means you supported the migration of at least some prose to the target article by any willing editor, yet you seem to contradict yourself by saying attribution might be important and this would be lost if someone other than the original contributor added material into the redirect target; the article history is already maintained, yet there was not a convincing argument by the merge !voters that there was anything viable to merge, unlike the delete !voter who gave a fair rationale. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds reasonable and well reasoned, thank you. I've learned my understanding of the merge process was flawed.  HighKing++ 18:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Walker Park
This isn't a good no consensus. Nobody was advocating an outcome other than delete or redirect, yet the no consensus keeps the article as was despite nobody advocating that. A WP:Bartender's close was needed there. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Hog Farm, in my view there wasn't actually a consensus here to take any specific action. I observed this had dragged on over 3 weeks without any further input. No consensus is just that, an implicit outcome. If I reopened, what would you expect, based on policy, to be concluded? I think WP:Bartender's closing is a fair essay where there is considerably more expressions offered without a clear indication of preferred outcome that is not to keep, but this AfD saw little participation. I symphasise with your concern though in that the status-quo was not supported either, but I am sure there is no prejudice against renomination? I am not averse to reverting if NC can be avoided, but it was over 3 weeks without input. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think renomination would accomplish anything, I don't see a reason why a second one would miraculously get attention the first didn't. Generally a close for one like this would have to weigh the arguments for and against the redirect, and the closer will have to either delete with a note that a redirect can be established through normal editing processes or redirect with a note that the redirect can be further challenged at AFD. A NC close is only viable if there's support for keeping the content as-is, and there's no support for that here. NC isn't good for situations where there's a consensus that something had to be done, as NC by definition does nothing. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: That's not a problem. While I observe you didn't expressly request me to reconsider, I agree with the position that "no consensus" is never an ideal outcome in an AfD and, while I don't think I necessarily made the wrong call when factoring in the little participation and length, if there is an opportunity to wrap it up conclusively rather than go through the motions again, then i'll happily self-revert for that to become an option. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Daisy Belmore
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Henrybuilt
You tagged it for G11 while I was writing it up for AFD. I think it is a judgment call by the reviewing admin whether to speedy it, because it is mostly just advertising. We will see what the reviewing admin does. If they decline the G11, I have already nominated it for AFD. If they speedy it, then the closed AFD will be there for the record when the author tries a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon: I noticed this a few moments ago. It does not seem materially different to the version was speedy deleted just a few days ago. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the previous version. We agree that the present version needs deleting.  Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dnt delete my articles
Dnt delete my articles (Just remove the objected lines/text/link ) but dnt delete my articles Or Delete all of my contribution in the last 10 years

I will say goodbye to wikipedia Sana Ul Haq Swat - Pakistan (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sanaswat: See my comment on your talk page about this. I would strongly recommend you create a draft article and have an experienced editor look over it before it's then moved to mainspace. This would usually avoid any issues around deletion as concerns will have been picked up and perhaps addressed during the draft creation process. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I dnt know

You may correct that which needs to be removed but dnt delete the whole articles Sana Ul Haq Swat - Pakistan (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Saptagandaki multiple campus
Hi I'm sprupak Previously you reverted my edit about saptagandaki multiple campus I think now i added enough fact and resources check this page. Now it can be added or not ??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saptagandaki_Multiple_Campus If any query regarding this topic feel free to contact me. Sprupak07 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sprupak07: The article did not demonstrate any indication of importance or notability so I redirected it to a suitable target. Looking at the draft article, this issue remains the case and the only "references" are primary links associated with the organisation. You need to demonstrate the institution has been published significantly in secondary, independent sources. I'd also suggest you keep it in draft for now and work on it there, then submit for assessment so that a reviewer to review it (once you think it has been appropriately sourced). Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

August 11
Hello! @Bungle, I have something to ask you, please don't delete the article I made (Mahabang Parang National High School) on wikipedia. And let me tell you why I did that because I want to show her that this school is beautiful and well organized. I want to be proud of the school I attended before. Thanks Wazzup   Carl  13:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Wazzup Carl: It isn't enough for a school to just exist, you have to demonstrate why it is notable and worthy of having an article. There was a time when schools, particularly high schools, had assumed notability and wikipedia was flooded with uninformative stubs, but that is no longer the case. There is no indication on the article why this school is notable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Don,t delete
[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PVR] Raja Earlier when this article was deleted I was unable to log in for some time due to my personal reasons, this article was deleted, Again now notice for removal has been given. Please let this article be, because the reason is, he has worked for 200 films as a music director, and has received recognition and appropriate state and national awards. The list of films he has done as a music director can be found in INDB. and In the year 2011, he won the Andhra Pradesh state level award in the guitar category in the National Youth Festival organized by the Indian Government. Please do not delete this article. Prabhakargoud.indicwiki (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Prabhakargoud.indicwiki: It was previously deleted less than a month ago as per the result of a deletion discussion. I will not make the decision if it gets deleted again or not. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Ana Kuchava
Hello Bungle. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Ana Kuchava to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I would have done this, but upon seeing that a draft already exists, my other option would be to move to Draft:Ana Kuchava (2nd draft), which seemed somewhat pointless. At what point would we carry on doing that, if the same material is recreated after being draftified? It's disruptive behaviour by the article creator and we now have a situation where we have a draft of an article what could be developed and accepted, and a mainspace version we have to wait a week to be deleted, but could be contested by the creator? WP:CSD I believe applies here regardless, unless you think that the entirety of the article being Ana Kuchava is a Georgian chess streamer, player and coach. She is a WFM (Woman FIDE Master) sufficiently asserts the importance and notability of the subject? I'd suggest perhaps reconsidering? Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't need to be asserted for A7, just be credibly claimed. To me, being a titled chess player passes that, and even more so does She has been the champion of Georgia several times in the draft. If after the likely deletion of the article through a deletion discussion (not PROD) the content is recreated, the page will be deleted under G4 and the may creator will be blocked for disruptive editing. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @DatGuy: I still remain of the view that a PROD here, which allows the creator the opportunity to contest, doesn't respect our protocols, when they clearly didn't respect the draftification by the previous editor (and there remains no suggestion of any "indication of importance"). Maybe it should have been draftified a 2nd time and then deleted as redundant? I also thought that if a PROD is proposed on a BLP, it should be a WP:BLPPROD? Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BLPs can be both PROD-ed or BLPPROD-ed. The recreation after it has been draftified is indeed worrying, but not eligible for G4 since it hasn't undergone a deletion discussion. I remain of the opinion that the mention of being a national chess champion credibly claims significance, but feel free to raise this at WP:AN so we can get a third opinion. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it warrants needing to go near AN.. I think that may be a little overkill! I do think there should really be a better process though if a draftified article is recreated without any improvements. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Totalvision
You might like to look at the latest development. Deb (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Deb, the author does appear to have made efforts to ensure they aren't falling foul of copyvio like before. I have compared the translated prose and I don't see this as an issue now (indeed, reasonable paraphrasing seems to have been attempted). Can't say I am convinced by the referencing for the Italy section (insofar as the citation not supporting the prose) or the use of IMDB as a ref, but I think that may be a matter for an afd discussion if someone raised it. Ideally they would have still gone through AfC but alas I wouldn't view it as needing to go back to draft again? Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, as long as you're happy. Deb (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think my personal satisfaction is grounds for deciding the article's worthiness, but I appreciate the sentiment ;) Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Kayadu Lohar
We had a race condition (known in Wikipedia as an edit conflict). We will see whether the admin deletes the BLP, and closes the AFD, or lets the AFD run for seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon: Given the AfD already has 3 deletion endorsements, including from me, and it's only been 10mins, i'd say speedy delete is entirely viable. Either way, I'm fairly confident it will be deleted one way or another! Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

CRF Sept 16, 2022
My son, Florin, has a rare disease called Choroideremia. Choroideremia is an X-linked disease effecting the Rep1 protein created by variations on the Xq21 gene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choroideremia

Florin's grandfather was misdiagnosed with another rare retinal dystrophy, Retinitis Pigmentosa. This is a common problem for Ophthalmologists, and an important part of the CRF mission. This desease exists. The researchers, patients and their family deserve to be able to find each other.

I am not on the board or serving on CRF staff as anything more than a volunteer. This is my first Wiki article, but this organization and disease are too important for my novice skills to stand in the way CHM patients and researchers finding each other.

I respectfully ask that you re-consider the new text of the proposed CRF article viewable in my sandbox at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toddbeckett/sandbox

If I am doing this all wrong, I am sorry. My son, Florin, has a rare disease called Choroideremia. Choroideremia is an X-linked disease effecting the Rep1 protein created by variations on the Xq21 gene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choroideremia

Florin's grandfather was misdiagnosed with another rare retinal dystrophy, Retinitis Pigmentosa. This is a common problem for Ophthalmologists, and an important part of the CRF mission. This disease exists. The researchers, patients and their family deserve to be able to find each other.

I am not on the board or serving on CRF staff as anything more than a volunteer. This is my first Wiki article, but this organization and disease are too important for my novice skills to stand in the way CHM patients and researchers finding each other.

I respectfully ask that you re-consider the new text of the proposed CRF article viewable in my sandbox at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toddbeckett/sandbox

Todd Beckett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbeckett (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Toddbeckett: Respectfully, I have no idea what you're talking about or why you have opted to discuss this on my user talk page. As far as I know, I have not previously been involved in anything related to what you raise query about. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I now realise it's probably do to with the speedy deletion tag placed on Choroideremia Research Foundation due to being deleted via discussion earlier this year. It was a community decision to decide upon deletion and it was speedily deleted to upload that consensus, in the absence of any significant material difference in the new article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been completely rewritten in an attempt to take the feedback onboard. I apologize that the original article had as many issues as it did, but I honestly believe the original defects have been addressed. Is there some way to request re-review? Toddbeckett (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bungle. Your username was on the Speedy Deletion notice:
 * If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 September 2022 Toddbeckett (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Toddbeckett: That is a standard message to notify an article creator of the intention to delete the article they authored. If you recreate an article that is the same or broadly the same as one deleted through community consensus, you have to expect it will itself be deleted. May I suggest you instead consider creating a draft article that you may then have reviewed by an experienced editor, rather than creating straight into mainspace? Providing it is appropriate sourced with reliable, secondary significant coverage, I would expect a reviewer in that scenario to consider it more favourably. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a draft mode! Did I mention this was my first contribution. I am sorry to waste your time. I will learn and utilize the draft mode to make sure that all of the feedback can be vetted prior to making the article public. Thank you very much for teaching me to fish. Todd Beckett. Toddbeckett (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Toddbeckett: Hi, it isn't wasting my time, I don't mind offering advice. Any article you create has to include sources which discuss the subject to some degree of significance, as well as being reliable, neutral and secondary in nature (although some primary sources can be used with exceptions). That is really the only way an article will be able to exist as if notability isn't established, someone will at some point flag it for deletion. Make sure you read WP:GNG too. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again Bungle, we will work through the draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Choroideremia_Research_Foundation Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbeckett (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Bungle. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- Amanda (she/her)  04:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

About the Avalon page
I wanted to ask you what you consider good secondary sources so this article can stay up? A western site like Gamespot, a eastern one like Game Watch are there, a personal blog, primary sources are actually not that much Dop55 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My concerns on this article's sourcing is that much of the citations seem to link to fan sites or personal blogs/wiki-type pages which isn't the significant coverage that is generally needed to sustain an article. Being foreign language isn't a problem in itself, as pages can be translated in a browser, which I have done here so can see the nature of the sources used. Referring to the gamespot one you mentioned, this is essentially more just a very brief announcement with 90% of that article being a gameplay brief rather than discussing the game in detail. The latter citations are all to amazon which demonstrate only the existence of the merchandise, so when you take all these out of the equation, I do have concerns about whether notability has been sufficiently established. I am not advocating for this to be deleted as it stands, but citations to wiki sites and youtube videos i'd generally be weary of using, the latter only in very specific circumstances. It's obviously harder finding significant news articles with these older games, but a reputable website discussing this in detail, or a magazine, or newspaper etc, regardless of language, would help a lot. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this source, its a secondary source that broadly explains the game
 * https://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20030807/about.htm Dop55 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still looks broadly like a fan site to me with user generated content, which I think isn't necessarily a strong reliable secondary source providing significant coverage. Whether many of these collectively would carry some weight, I am not sure about, but refs that just discuss how to play the game I think are not what is needed to assert notability. The likes of gamespot for instance would be ideal as a good example if it discussed the game to greater detail, full review, impact/development etc. It's plausible this could still be found in jp language which is why I am not necessarily advocating delete.
 * As an aside, my talk page is probably not the best place to have this conversation though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ted Heaton
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ted Heaton 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard which may be of interest to you. The thread is Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Link ifexist
Template:Link ifexist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop vandalism
Stop vandalizing articles and stop doing this, this is a warning, if it happens again your account will be banned. Thank youAzadizan (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For anyone that sees this and wonders, this editor is a new account (probably a WP:SOCK) and evidently a WP:SPA in relation to Articles for deletion/Javad Safaei discussion. Not much more needs to be said. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ted Heaton
The article Ted Heaton 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:Ted Heaton for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Replaceable fair use File:Kenneth Grove 1969.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth Grove 1969.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Marchjuly. In relation to WP:NFC, please can you suggest why the following would not apply, as per your suggestion for deletion:
 * For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
 * The picture in question is a historic photo, from the 1960s of the sportsperson during their career. If you can find an equivalent free photo of this individual during that time that equally portrays the subject in a similar manner, then great, we don't need this photo (as per the rationale and further comments I provided on the file), however the criteria makes allowances as per the above quote, as far as I understand. Please can you offer your own view on that? Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that this is an historic photo as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. There are lots of old photos of individuals like Grove that were taken years ago when they were most active, but they're not necessarily historic photos unless the photo itself was the subject of some sort of critical commentary either at that time or in the years since then. Moreover, Grove seems to be have mainly Wikipedia notable for his accomplishments as a diver than for his physical appearance, which is primarily what the wording in item 1 of WP:NFC is meant to address. Of course, a Wikipedia notable athlete will look differently now than when they did at the peak of their careers, but "how they looked at the time" is typically not the reason why they have Wikipedia articles written about them. If that in and of itself was considered a sufficient justification for non-free use, then there would most likely be no or very few imageless BLP articles about athletes at all. Finally, the default isn't to use a non-free image until a free-quivalent can be found absent any other strong policy justification for using a non-free file. Once again, if that was the case, then there would be no BLPs of any type with at least an infobox image. You of course don't need to agree with my assessment and you can challenge the speedy deletion nomination as explained in the template I added to the file's page. You can also seek additional feedback at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. If the administrator who reviews the file for speedy deletion feels further discussion is needed they will decline to delete the file and suggest WP:FFD instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marchjuly. When I said historic, I wasn't literally meaning as per WP:HISTORIC in a policy sense, but just that it's a photo taken far enough back in time that the number of years which have elapsed since this athlete was notable would mean a contemporary photo would not serve the same purpose, as per the caveat of WP:NFC. I have no doubt this is likely to be a policy area you have a greater understanding of than me, so I am not going to make any suggestions as to whether you're right or wrong, but I can respectfully disagree with the judgement if I think the policy allows for such a photo. However, I can't say with conviction that I know this to be the case, so i'll absolutely take your advice and post a dispute on the file itself with a similarly worded rationale and we'll see what comes of it. I am not precious over whether the photo remains or not and if it doesn't, it won't be of particular consequence to me. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:School-leaving age
Template:School-leaving age has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 103.38.5.226 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Bungle. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 04:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Your GA nomination of Ted Heaton
The article Ted Heaton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ted Heaton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ted Heaton
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one! Opera and Advent choral music on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"That Certain Smile"
Regarding "That Certain Smile", how come this is seen as none-notable when it had made the top 30 in two different countries?

Best, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Joe Vitale 5: Top "whatever" is useless unless the single has been significantly covered in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, sufficiently to pass the criteria set out in WP:NSINGLE. Top 40, or 30, or whatever you claim it reached is not an indicator of notability, not even close. Top 10 means it may get some media coverage, top 3 means it probably will, and it is that coverage which helps assert the notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Lisa Golm
Hello, the article of actress Lisa Golm is lacking of information, could you please help me improved? 181.179.30.5 (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added some factual information and verified to original document sources, but this doesn't help with her career or firm up notability. Definitely many roles but not a great deal of WP:SIGCOV during a cursory newspapers search. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Patricia Donahue
Hi, sadly the article of American actress Patricia Donahue is lacking of information, could you please help me improved? 190.140.147.233 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added two addition refs with some expansion. Plenty of historic newspaper mentions yet not a great deal of WP:SIGCOV, but I am sure enough that the article can be justified. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Bobby Ray
Hi, sadly the article of American silent film actor, comedian and director Bobby Ray is lacking of information, could you please help me improved? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I can, but I have a fair few other articles I am waiting to expand and add content to, so unsure when i'll get round to looking at this! Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)