User talk:CommanderInDubio/Archive 2

Psychological Testing
Thank you for your effort to stabilize the school psychology entry. I thought Karenwilson12345's edits were overdone. It seemed odd to me that a newcomer would perform so many edits in a brief period of time. I would appreciate it if you would review her rapid-fire edits of the Psychological testing entry. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:CommanderWaterford, Karenwilson12345, whose destructive edits of the school psychology entry you identified, has moved on to make wholesale changes to the qualitative research entry. This is in addition to the changes she made to the psychological testing entry. I add that it is unusual for a newby to make such a large number of changes with such rapidity. Iss246 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

user:114.31.15.242
The IP User mentioned above is engaged in unconstructive vandalisms. You sent him a warning but he is vandalising in full swing, especially in Bangladesh-related articles. Just 2 hours ago, he vandalised a page. Please block this IP user from engaging in further unconstructive edits in Wikipedia. Ppt2003 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the Information. I have warned him again. If he is vandalising again he will be blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying
You should not be draftiying pages two minutes after creation. Additionally, pages like Draft:Dutt Swapnil should be speedy deleted by WP:A7, not given a slow death in the draft space - it is not a backdoor to deletion. Please be more discerning in your draftifications. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Town of Ladenburg
I'm currently working on this article. I removed the content because it was a left-over and so basically a duplicate. All of the of the information is still there. Teng 2A02:8071:AAB:B300:742B:81FE:58F:1A0A (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about "close paraphrasing" notice
Hi, I saw the notice you put on Samuel ben Aaron Schlettstadt, but it's my understanding that the source referenced is in the public domain. Am I misunderstanding the policy about this? Thank you! Dov ben Avraham (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am pretty sure that is not free, there all rights reserved by the website. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dov ben Avraham (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Montreal School of Theology
Hi CommanderWaterford, thanks for picking this up. I have made the necessary edits so that the sections in question are now original, and are no longer in infringement of copyright. I decided to create a Wikipedia Article for MST over a year ago, before I had joined the Wikipedia community, and so was unaware of the copyright rules when I first wrote the proposed article. When I returned to the document to upload it today I did not realise that, when I had originally written it, I had violated the copyright rules, about which I am now well aware. Anyway, thank you for flagging this - I found it useful and instructive. InklingScholarWycliffeHall (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hello! Thanks for asking for the speedy deletion of Shah Abrarul Haque for G12, copyright violation. Your request was perfectly reasonable and many admins would have deleted the article, but I thought that the subject was probably notable and that there was enough non-copyvio text to make it worth saving. So I removed the copyvio and rev-delled the history, and this is an option you might like to use if you come across a similar position in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Akmal Khan Tiger
Just restored your speedy tag. Some pretty obvious sockpuppetry there, with the page moves to and from draft. Thanks, 82.132.214.106 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction to the trully first A.I. based cephalometric system
Hello,

you cancelled an edition I've made today in the article "cephalometric analysis". I don't know if you noticed that I put the proper reference (29) that you revert also.

Did you think that the reference I gave was incorrect? Was it because it's in portuguese?

How can I do to properly validate the article?

Thank you. FabioMatosinhos (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you did not give reference for your last statement, that was the reason why I reverted it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Darcey & Stacey
Hello CommanderWaterford. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Darcey & Stacey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been rewritten, initial violation was trivial anyways; most of the earwig score was due to a quote. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 17:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for letting me know although 80% of text violated I wouldn't call trivial ;) Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The earwig report I saw listed it as 46.8%, with only one sentence being an actual violation, but ok... Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 17:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Allison Harding
Hi I added a few more links to the article. Can you please to remove your note about sources?

have a nice day, Negreydens (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you should read the tag more carefully - it was not a matter of the number of references, you did not cite them in the article itself.
 * , you should read the tag more carefully - it was not a matter of the number of references, you did not cite them in the article itself.



I made the article more neutral and cited the links inside it. Can you please to remove your notes?

Negreydens (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Excuse me, may I have an answer at least? Or some explanations, what kind of sources I should add? Anything, please

Negreydens (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review your behaviour
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Al Imran, you may be blocked from editing.  

I think you are causing the disruption. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess you made a mistake sending this to me, no !? CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you made the mistake JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not see any mistake. But you are templating experienced editors and removing content without explaining adequately why and obviously not for the first time. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need to explain in the edit summary what you did and why you did it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI , I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users. Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

VP-40 (1951-present)
Sorry, it was a mistake I made; still learning the ropes. Davidsmith2015 (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, CommanderWaterford is blocked and cannot give you attention right now. You may wish to seek help at WP:TH. ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 03:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Proposed deletion of Tanjaret Daghet


The article Tanjaret Daghet has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NBAND"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

2011_Indian_anti-corruption_movement

 * Good job, thank you very much although next time would be perhaps better to do fewer edits on the article. ;) CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I do as much or as little work as I think necessary when I c/e an article. This one needed a fair bit of work to knock into shape for the GAN review. I also tend to edit paragraph-by-paragraph, which makes it easy to track down any problems with my edits and avoids edit conflicts. I don't see your username in the edit history but good luck with your planned GA nom anyhow. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —— Serial  12:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure you know that you are being discussed too; I'm about 1 more screw-up short of proposing you not be allowed to use RedWarn anymore. You should not ignore this thread thinking it is just about the other editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting me Floquenbeam. Not quite sure what you expect by threatening me to block from using RedWarn but anyway, have a nice day. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable response. Until you address this at ANI, I will block you if you use RedWarn again.  No further warnings.  Turn it off until this is addressed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I already told you - I don't have time for your well-being or what answers YOU might find acceptable or not. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to stick my oar in CdrW - I can't commend your approach here. If an editor with Floquenbeam's level of experience told me he thought I was screwing up, my response would be something along the lines of 'Shit, sorry, please can you explain why so that I can learn how to do things better?' A response like this is not likely to give people confidence in your willingness to develop as an editor. You don't need to take my advice, of course, but if you want it - take a breath, have a relaxing beverage of your choice, and in your next edit, accept that some of your recent RedWarn editing might have been problematic and ask Floq whether he'd be willing to explain. Don't use RedWarn again until you have done that, and discussed the problems. Do with that what you will Girth Summit  (blether)  15:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I already told this will be discussed on a different level - perhaps this sysop has high level of experience (in other words he has registered loooong time ago) but his tone and threatening a user who has done 14,000 edits for this project (in other words many, many hours) with blocking are clearly against the Wikipedia guidelines - his (and there are 2-3 others more) only goal is to get me out of this project! Some sysops seem to be that much bored in life that they only wait for a mistake (which clearly in this case I do not see as a true mistake) to get onto the scene, you can be sure that if the arbcom does see my edits exactly the same way as this sysop obviously does i will never ever waste one single minute on this project. I made 14,000 edits and I have a revert quote of around 3% and of those 3% were 2% because of deleted vandalism pages!! So we are talking about perhaps 70 edits (of 14,000 in 3 months) who could have been problematic. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think this will be discussed on a different level? I suppose you are referring to Arbcom, but they don't take simple cases such as editors not listening to good advice. Just do so, or you will be blocked and laughed out of court if you try to make such an obvious case into something that should be considered by Arbcom. And I simply don't believe you when you say that you have made only about 70 problematic edits. I see one of your problematic edits most days, and I usually don't spend more than an hour or two editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 - CommanderWaterford you'd do well to listen to Floq & Girth's advice here, "Not quite sure what you expect by threatening me to block from using RedWarn" really does you no favours, Admitting your mistakes and stating you'll learn from them goes a long way and is certainly much better than being dismissive and not bothered. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Unasked for advice assuming your block is lifted
After many years wikibreak I came back here and rejoined WP:AFC. You and I first all but coincided in one of either the first post break edits I made or one of the first drafts I accepted or rejected. I did not mention it to you or anyone at the time, but I felt crowded by your edit immediately after mine. I got the impression that you had not seen me before so assumed I was new. But the edit was not in a spirit of helping me to understand whatever point it was. It fet like an "I'm right, you're not" edit. IT was intimidating.

I chose to set it aside.

In your talk page archive 1 I left a note about a warning message I disagreed with. You made no reply. I think you then removed the warning message from the editor's page, but at no point were you communicative.

I chose to set that aside.

Perhaps, had I not done so, and instead talked to you about this unfriendly behaviour you might have saved yourself this block. There was enough of an impression left with me that you were doing your own thing, in your own way, speaking to no-one, and clicking things from your talk page directly into archive as soon as disliked and/or done.

I'm sorry I failed to talk to you about this behaviour, a behaviour that has led you to this pass. I hope you will understand what I am talkng about. It gives me no pleasure to see you blocked because you have the makings of a fine editor, but I respect the judgement of the admins who have agreed to it.

Please make a good unblock request and change your behaviour. Fiddle  Faddle  12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Block IP 175.143.28.53 from editing and reverting changes
This IP user constantly reverting changes from Pakatan Harapan without reason. Hope you can do something with him. Qaidul (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry bro it will not be repeated and tell me can i create a page for a registered company. Zwani technologies (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well gave you already info on your talk page and I left you also a tutorial a couple of minutes ago there what you will have to consider. I am by far not an expert in COI editing, I am sure at the Teahouse (you already have an invitation on your talk page, too) you will find more expertise. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock advice
CommanderWaterford: more un-asked for advice. Feel free to tell me to knock it off if this isn't wanted, and I'll stay off your page, but here are some tips on what you should do should you choose to request unblock: If you make an unblock request that ticks those boxes, I expect that it will be granted. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  11:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't go to the press, and apologise for threatening to do that. You're probably just blowing off steam, which is totally understandable in this situation, but if you follow through with it and show that you're genuinely willing to try to drag Wikipedia's reputation through the mud because you're annoyed about how you've been treated, nobody is going to want to work with you.
 * Acknowledge that there might have been some issues with your editing, even if you're not sure at this stage what they are. Above, you talk about a revert percentage - that's really not a good measure of whether or not there were issues with what you were doing. You might have made mistakes that haven't been reverted - they may have been undone in other ways, or they may simply not have been discovered yet. Show us that you are willing to ask what the problems are, and learn how to avoid making them again.
 * Indicate that you recognise that you don't know everything yet. This one is very important. I'm an admin, but there are lots of areas where I'm fairly inexperienced, and I recognise that even in the areas where I am quite experienced, there are lots of people who know more than I do. When I said that Floq was experienced, I did not just mean that he registered his account a long time ago - I mean that in his time here, he has done a lot of good work, he understands how a lot of things work, and he has gained the trust of a large section of the community. (I mean, he was on Arbcom - getting elected onto Arbcom requires that a lot of people trust your judgement.) Does this make him infallible? No, of course not - but it's a good indication that if he says there is a problem, there might well be one. If Floq ever came to my talk page and told me that I was screwing up, I would definitely want to know what he thought the problem was - I might end up disagreeing with him, but I'd want to know hiw views and talk to him about them. Saying 'Not interested, I'll take it to Arbcom if you block me' was pretty much the exact opposite of what you should have done there.

Distributed SQL
I would appreciate if you would read the Distributed SQL article a bit past the title about a class of database architecture before suggesting it be merged into SQL which is a description mainly of the SQL language. I had barely finished the top (but posted the stub to save to avoid loss) before you suggested it was merged (and thus couldn't have read the article). Reboot (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I read it before tagging and now once again and I still think that it should be merged but this is only my HO and I do not insist at all if other readers are not of my opinion, the article discussion page is the right place to discuss this. You can peacefully finish your article before publishing in your User Draft space btw. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

July 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for concerns about competence and unwillingness to engage with others. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The responses above don’t give me much hope (cc: ) and considering you’ve already been warned to slow down and engage with others in a way that’s less combative, I don’t think a final final warning will be much help. There also seems to be some support for this at ANI, so I don’t mind going ahead and pushing the block button. Any admin who thinks this block is no longer needed is free to lift it without any further comment from me (they can ping me if they want, though.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was inclined to consider everything since my comment about being blocked from using RedWarn to be venting; I note they haven't used RedWarn since. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to take your approach instead, Tony. Some kind of change in approach is required; whether it is in response to a block or not is a matter of degree. I don't support or oppose the block, but I definitely support something to cause change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the response by CommanderWaterford to Floquenbeam's intervention was lacking and deflective. I find Tony's indefinite block, forcing a resolution to this through the vantage point of WP:GAB, to be a proportionate response to repeated disruption which CommanderWaterford needs to acknowledge and correct. El_C 20:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that CdrW would have been able to back down and reconsider. I still hope they will choose to do so in an unblock request. But yeah - as things stand, this block is justified. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, they’re currently saying they plan on going to the “tech press” about this block via email. That’s fine. I think they’re familiar with this type of case. Anyway, I also hope they can address it via an unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CdrW should probably sleep it off, appeal the block and continue fine and dandy, sparing a few conditions. Being angry and stressed and all hot and bothered threatening to call the press in doesn't really solve much. Ed 6767   talk!  22:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I understand where the block and your concern comes from, but I think it's a bit too much to block indefinitely, given the responses can be interpreted to be because out of temper. I don't know enough precedences to make a good judgement, but I personally felt like a severe punishment is not in proportionate to the mistakes they made. . I felt like for indefinite block, at least a consensus on the ANI is needed. Unless I missed it, last time I check the discussion was still open on ANI, within 1 day of the ANI discussion. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They’d already been warned, and blocks aren’t punishment, they’re technical means to prevent disruption. As noted above, all this does is require discussion to occur following WP:GAB, and it can be lifted when it’s no longer needed. We don’t require consensus for indefinite blocks and most are made without a formal discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see,, thanks for explanation xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * - this unblock request has been open a while. CommanderWaterford does appear to have acknowledged that their behaviour was out of line, and indicates that they are willing to stay away from automated tools. I'd be open to accepting this request and monitoring them for a while, if you were comfortable with it. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  16:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections if you’re convinced. No thoughts on the merits either. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK CommanderWaterford - I'm prepared to unblock if you will commit to staying away from Redwarn or similar stuff (but I'd be fine with you using Twinkle). I'd also like you to confirm that you'll be OK about me keeping tabs on your editing, and to take advice if it's offered. Sound good? Girth Summit  (blether)  18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all thanks both of you. I sure commit staying away from Redwarn for a long while (well, not forever of course, I am sure that we will find an agreement of when and how), and I am pretty thankful if you keep an eye on my edits (although I am pretty sure that there will be lots more that will do so ;-)) and point me if I am doing something wrong. Once again - thanks for your confidence.CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Tubelightcommunication


A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Tubelightcommunication, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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. Pahunkat (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , are you sure you are in the right place with your tag !? ;-) The User Talk page of this user is not MY :) page :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, twinkle notified you as the creator of the page. Thanks for reverting them, BTW. Sorry to bother you :-( Pahunkat (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no prob :) Have a nice day. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a nice day too :-) Pahunkat (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Prods
Hi. I noticed that you added prod tags for a number of unsourced articles. Now, prods are intended for uncontroversial deletions, not a mass removal of unsourced material. There is no policy that says that Wikipedia articles lacking sources must be deleted (with exception of WP:BLP), so just a lack of sources is not a valid deletion rationale. The better option would be to add sources and thus improve the encyclopedia. --Soman (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , as far as I understood articles can be challenged by PROD if they are without sources. IMHO articles w/o sources (after several years) should be cases of uncontroversial deletions. I just tagged those for which I could not find any sources at all and for which last edit was more than 8 years ago. Conversely, this would mean that any nonsense w/o any source given can be written and remain stored here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

, see also WP:DEL-REASON VI :"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" and and VII: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (??!)
 * Then you understand wrongly. Deletion of articles is only uncontroversial, as required for the WP:PROD procedure, if they cannot be sourced, not if they are currently unsourced. If they have been unsourced for years then the reason is usually that nobody has tried, not that sources do not exist. If you do not try to find sources yourself, such as by performing simple searches that only take a few seconds, then you are very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the kind clarification. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bamboo Organ
Thank you for sending me message for my edit, I just want to add that air bags the real name of it as I heard from the local news here in the Philippines, they really call it "bellows" from GMA News.

And about that Altar Knights, what I am thinking is how that flute like bamboos make sound and how did that air bags sustain air pressure going to that flute like bamboos If there are no external force applied to the air bags. And for a long time history there are no mechanical or electrical source to put an air to that AIR BAGS.

Thank you, and I wrote this for that is what i thought about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanbaldecanas (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mato Alto
I rolled back your PROD at Mato Alto due to it's surviving the AfD at Articles for deletion/Fazenda da Bica. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure. CommanderWaterford (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thank true friend Whamrockers (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

“Thanks” Whamrockers (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Clevedon Wikipedia Page
I made an edit earlier that is accurate and it’s been removed. Gr0ovygrace (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you added obviously first anonymously unreferenced content which now was reverted twice, one edit was done by me, the other one before was reverted by the User:Materialscientist. You will need to provide reference for adding it. Please have a closer look at the messages we both gave you on your talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoela14 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Waldmann article
Dear CommanderWaterford

Thanks again for your help. I am Robert Waldmann the confessedly conflicted author of the article on Thomas Waldmann. As you mentioned, this is my first article, and I don't know anything.

I coped the draft article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert.waldmann/sandbox

Which I guess isn't the right place.

I will try to find how to put it in drafts to be edited.

sincerely yours, Robert Waldmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.waldmann (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert.waldmann, the article is public Thomas_A_Waldmann and I - personally - do not see any further conflict of interests since the article seem not be unbalanced=neutral and you already disclosed your COI. Please have a closer look at Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide for further editing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Dispute?
Hi, u said on my talk page that i vandalized and that i had a dispute regarding Baykar. This is false. The Baykar topic was already solved with user Provilium, the dispute was about the strength of the PKK, where i added a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by InellectualThinker (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are wrong here :-) - you received several warnings and since I did not edit the Baykar Article I guess you refer to the warning received from , you will need it to address your concerns at his/her talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

-> Hi i don't think that was regarding Baykar but regarding Turkish land force equipment as Armatura already fixed everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InellectualThinker (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Second time ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoela14 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi
You removed my edit re Nimrod Ping re his gravestone. I have a photo of it which I can send you if you wish (but I'm not sure how - do you have an email address?! - David Pollock, david@david-pollock.me.uk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.165.115 (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to upload and add an Image to an article on Wikipedia please have a look at Help:Introduction_to_images_with_Wiki_Markup/1 how to do so. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to put a photo in the article: I offered the photo as proof of the accuracy of my edit. Please say whether you removed the edit on grounds of lack of authentication (in which case I offer you the photo) or for some other reason (say) triviality (which I would contest: it plainly throws a light on his character and that of his circle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.165.115 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello! Why don't you actually read the edits to The Scorpion and the Frog instead of  assuming they are vandalism? If you are too lazy to check contributions to this encyclopedia properly, maybe don't bother. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:D82E:5800:7C1D:5639:BB9D:B9F2 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "The exact interpretation of the fable is left to the reader." was your addition without given any explanation in the Help:Edit summary. 1. No Edit Summary 2. This lies in the nature of a fable that the reader can interpret it the way he thinks. That was the reason why I undid your edit. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, CommanderWaterford, but that won't do. You reverted this edit without saying why, which means that you reverted as vandalism, and, if you believe your second point, why did you restore content telling us how to interpret the fable? Just stop claiming that good-faith edits are vandalism. Your own behaviour is more akin to vandalism than anyone else's. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
I noticed that you tagged Weiyin Chen with prod blp for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am pretty aware of the policy - "Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a *reliable* source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. " -- the only given source - external link - links to her own personal homepage which is not a reliable source. Furthermore I found absolutely nothing notable about her. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in order for an article to be eligible for the process in the first place, it must contain no sources whatsoever, not even a link to the subject's website or social media. There have been many attempts to expand BLPPROD to include such poorly-sourced BLPs, but they repeatedly fail to gain consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , allright, took it now to AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I treated your BLPPROD as a CSD nom and A7'd it. It clearly qualifies under that criteria as it doesn't assert significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Polly Batic
Thanks for intervening on the former article where I forgot to fill the talk page. But, now, can you wait at least 30 seconds before I switch from the article to its talk page ? LouisAlain (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Rona Nadile
Thank you so much for looking over the new entry for Rona Nadile. It was actually more challenging to write than many pages I've done, and I am unsurprised that there are issues with tone. I wonder if you might give me a bit of feedback -- perhaps highlight for me examples of the issue with tone. I am still a pretty new editor, and appreciate the opportunity to learn. And fix my mistakes. Thank you Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are welcome, I would not call it mistakes at all :) You did good but sometimes the article reads more like a prose - e.g. "Though she grew up in Samarai, Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea, schooling soon took Nadile to new places."
 * Encyclopaedic would be "She grew up in Samarai, Milne Bay, Paul New Guinea." etc. pp. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, I am feeling better. I remember wondering about that as I wrote that sentence. Listen to internal compass -- check! Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Waldmanns user space etc
Dear CommanderWaterford

I have copied the conflicted draft article on Thomas Waldmann to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert.waldmann/Thomas

I am editing it there. I have added a reference for the early biography and family stuff

I do need help. Thanks for your generous volunteering and offer to help me.
 * Hi Robert Robert.waldmann - help is on its way :) You accidentally now published a draft of your father on your user page which is not allowed, I asked a sysop to delete it. In resume: You do not need to do create a new article, the article about your father is online and there are already editors working on it. If yourself want to edit it please head over to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Editing for the first time and after studying to the article over here Thomas_A_Waldmann. I will also invite you to the Teahouse on your User Talk Page where you also can get help from other editors. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Henk Borgdorff (February 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Henk Borgdorff and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Henk Borgdorff, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Henk_Borgdorff Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Henk_Borgdorff reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, please check the tagging :) I did resubmit it for the original author, so now its being on my talk page :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are you using the AfC script? If so just make sure you select the page creator from the drop down when you resubmit it. Also, why would you resubmit an article for someone that is a 100% decline? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , have a look at the history, of course I am using the AfC script. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

2HDN CE
Yo! Thanks for the CE at 2 Hours Doing Nothing. However the CE seemed odd: the prose now becomes weird, and some things have been removed, such as the icon of the game. Can you explain the changes? The reference for "it has been downloaded 100,000 times" seems to have been removed too.  Gerald WL  14:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure although I do not see nothing weird at all - the icon for the game is completely unrelated to the subject of the article itself, so it had been removed. The section of the video game seems to be more like being promo for it. The video game would (perhaps) need to have an own article but is has almost nothing to do with the article subject itself. Indeed one sentence only like e.g. "there has been a video game of the name xyz imitating the video) would have been sufficient cover. I would suggest discussing this rather on the discussion page of the article. Hope I could clarify things for you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarification, it absolutely makes sense. However could you address the removal of the reference on "As of August 2020, it has been downloaded over 10,000 times"?  Gerald WL  15:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure, done. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that!  Gerald WL  15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Serving His Children
Hi, as you know you recently tagged Serving His Children with multiple issues. The first regarding notability and the breadth of sources I believe I have fixed. The second on viewpoints remain, as I wish to get your input. I've added relevant comments on the talk page for you to interact with. DMT biscuit (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi
hi commander water ford why my page has been criteria for speedy deletion ?--Omarsultann (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is explained in the deletion notification. All sources given at the article were written by the subject of the article itself. In the current state I do not see why its subject - a mechanical engineer - is important or significant, a quick google search also only gave me self-published articles of him. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent PROD
Hello CommanderWaterford, thank you for rescuing the article that I'd tagged recently under BLPROD. Apologies for the quick tag, I should have probably waited for a longer time. I've just started reviewing articles (not as a patroller) but just like how I review drafts at AfC, and have made a few wrong tags here and there. I'd appreciate any advice that you'd like to give me for future article tags. Thanks, -- Ashley yoursmile!  13:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , honestly I was thinking about draftifyng this article but a 2 min Google Search gave me several good source so I just added them. :) No prob at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your talk page
I note that you have a habit of very quickly archiving discussions on your talk page that you don't like, rather than replying to them (such as this), but leave discussions that you like around, such as those that are visible here. You can (within reason) do what you want with your own talk page, but please be aware that such selective archiving only invites further scrutiny of your edits, rather than avoiding it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I saw no question and I archived it after 12 or so hours but I am glad that you demonstrate such interest for my talk Page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The question preceded the question mark, as usual. Please stop characterising non-vandalistic edits as vandalism, or I will ask for you to be blocked for doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Placing A7s
Hi CommnaderWaterford. Please do not place A7 on an article 1 minute after creation as you did here. General practice is to wait at least 15 minutes (but an hour or two can't hurt). Such a quick placement of a tag may be considered WP:BITEY. Please let me know if you have any questions, by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw several sysops and other experienced editors e.g. the last days doing the same but I will sure take it in the future into account. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am happy to have this same word with anyone, even sysops. Feel free to give me a diff or two here or via email. Again thanks for taking this into account going forward. Best, Barkeep49

This isn't an A7 but is related. I was once again patrolling speedy deletions and saw your nomination of Woodrow Wilson and race as a copyright violation. In looking at this, it is clear that the content originated on Wikipedia and indeed this was even noted in the edit summary by the person who made the page. Additionally, the site that you gave is pretty clearly (from its name) a Wikipedia mirror and so when you find a potential COPYVIO for something like that it's worth checking. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on Draft:The 1220 to 1224 Camas, WA Mayor
Thanks for your edits to Draft:The 1220 to 1224 Camas, WA Mayor.

Tagged with G3 as vandalism. Aasim (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On a different note, with regards to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia it would be more helpful if you explained your positioning. I think Voice of America is an appropriate source because even though it is funded by Congress, it still largely relies on independent reports from CNN and NPR (see NewsGuard Nutrition Label (newsguardtech.com)).  That is just my two cents.  It seems as if this editor you are dealing with is a new editor, not a problem troublemaker, so explaining will take some time. :) Aasim (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , honestly I was not aware of any further discussion on VOA, I will have a look later on. PS: Tthis editor btw is not new IMHO, their seem to be an experienced editor on the Myanmar version and know exactly where and from whom to look for help here, how to tag etc etc. but I will sure check later on. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

PRODs for places
I notice that you recently PRODded several articles on places (settlements and geographical features) on the grounds that there were no refs. Could you take a bit more time over your WP:BEFORE checks, including checking the available interWiki links, which for almost all those articles produced entirely adequate references. Perhaps take it a bit more slowly? Ingratis (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes that was a mistake I made a week ago or so which another editor pinged me, too, I saw you now added sources to all of those articles, thanks for that but will check my PRODS of this day again today. If I am PRODing nowadays I searched for sources w/o success. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, great - thanks.Ingratis (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was my article Deleted?
Hello !,

Sir, I recently submitted an article on popular youtuber Ani. K. Aniyan with the all adquate references and with a lot of hardwork. i dont see any fault in tbat article. Could you please accept it?

A7s on old articles
Hi. I've seen you putting A7 tags on a number of articles that have been around for a long time such as Max Longin. The problem is, I have to go through every revision of the article (remember that a CSD only applies if there is no possible revision to revert to - this stops somebody blanking an article they don't like and then putting on it) and it's quite a time consuming task, and in a number of cases I've decided it's easier to put a PROD tag instead. Can I recommend you do this as well; if the article is abandoned and nobody cares about it, I can't imagine a PROD being controversial in the slightest. Plus it's easier for admins to delete as an expired PRODs can just be deleted without having to think about them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I totally understand and see your point, I will give it a try with PROD although my experiences the last couple of days are making me feel that PROD is going to be easily removed and the articles will remain in almost the same state as before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Helping me with an article on an Indian Model/ TV Personality
Hi CommanderWaterford! You've recently moved my article on the Indian Model/ TV Personality Scarlett M Rose to drafts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scarlett_Rose). Could you help me out with this article? Because I can't be writing an article on her as she is my employer. I will provide links to articles about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HashtagCJ (talk • contribs) 06:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you would need to have a look at CONFLICT and perhaps might be an Idea to ask for help at the Teahouse, I saw you already have an invitation on your talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

is wikipedia a super reliable source
hi commander i need to talk about dogs for my speech and the source needs to be very reliable so is Wikipedia super reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoymous604 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Bands include people
Because bands include people they have been considered BLPs. Why are you removing the project from band articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Because the template says "a living persoN" and not "persoNS" and because there are running DB reports on this issue. Groups of Persons cannot have a biography as far as I learned it in University. But I found now WP:BLPGROUP although I must admit this still does not clarify.CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I had not seen running db reports on the issue that bands and groups of people were tagged as part of the BLP project. I'd be interested to see those.
 * The issue is that BLPs have more rules governing certain statements and so band members need that protection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And to be fair, I was initially opposed to the idea of adding them, but I have changed my opinion. Others have not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , IMHO this makes no sense but still I have not found any essay/policy saying this. Anyway for any editor this would be very difficult to understand, I have no problem stopping this immediately (and I did in good faith) but there need some kind of clarification. Report: See here, one example Database reports/Potential biographies of living people (1), lots of groups and bands listed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How does bands include people and as people, they need BLP protection not make sense? If you check the history of the band articles you're changing, you should see when they were added to the BLP project and who added them. Follow-up on that level. You might also want to discuss with the musicians project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Atari 800 (Homecomputer)
The article Atari 800 (Homecomputer) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Atari 800 (Homecomputer) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Cyprus amateur Radio Society
The club is recognized at an international level from ITU,IARU,UN.

Why is the article deleted? I mean we are compliant with all the sources. We provided articles from several News Papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephmsallam (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello ! Thanks for that warm welcome and for the tips I can use to improve around here. Chinogrids (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)