User talk:Deor/Archive15

Little Island (South Australia)‎
Hi Deor, I just noticed your edit of Little Island (South Australia)‎. The matter of 'missing coords' is puzzling because I included these in the infobox when I wrote the article earlier in 2014. Is there a problem with the infobox? Look forward to your response at your earliest convenience. Cowdy001 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When you use the the template location map, the coordinates tell the template where to put the marker on the map, but they don't actually display in the article. With that particular infobox, you need to include a coord template as well to show the coordinates in the article. (Many infoboxes are different in that they have both a "pushpin map" field and "latitude" and "longitude" fields coded into them, and when they are filled in, both a location map and the displayed coordinates are produced. The many differences in infobox coding throughout WP are enough to drive one batty.) I was just doing the minimum to remove the coord missing template there, but it's probably better to use the infobox's coordinates field so that the coordinates display both in the infobox itself and at the top of the article. I'll go do that now. Deor (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=615290156 your edit] to Nolay, Soria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re undeletion
Hello Deor:

"11:25, 4 July 2014 Deor (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grass it up [because] G13: Abandoned AfC submission" I am unfamiliar with much of Wikipedia's procedure, and have a hard time digesting the instructions for responding to matters such as this, let alone the issues raised in editing the article that I attempted to submit. And I guess that's the focus: what do I need to do in order to bring the article I submitted up to snuff for inclusion in the encyclopedia? Thanks in advance for your attention and assistance. Wymiller Wymiller (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Amatulić has already restored the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grass it up in accordance with your request at WP:REFUND. As he said there, you'll need to need to ensure that it satisfies the conditions outlined at WP:BAND, in particular the requirement for multiple reliable and independent sources that treat the group in detail, before you resubmit it. Otherwise, the draft is likely to be declined again. If you would like help with this, perhaps you should ask User:Anne Delong on her talk page, as I know that she is very much interested in bluegrass music. Deor (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Deor and . I spent an hour looking for information on the Internet about this band.  Aside from some local press about a local independent musicians' award, I wasn't able to find much.  If the albums were selling well, there should be album reviews, and if the band is touring there should be reports, opinions, interviews, etc., about it (written by journalists after the events) in newspapers and magazine articles outside of their home town.  I agree with Deor that the band may not be notable enough for an article yet.  Wymiller, for an example of a start-level article about a bluegrass band, see Dixie Flyers.  Note that it's not the amount of information in the article that makes it acceptable, but the fact that the information is verified by a variety of independent, published sources.  Unless you have access to some off-line or subscription based articles that I can't see, I'd suggest waiting a while before resubmitting. It's festival season again; although it's hard to get journalists to take bluegrass music seriously, maybe Grass It Up will impress the critics and garner some press coverage and/or album reviews this summer.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!


Atlantis
Last edit was the blocked IP editing through a proxy, see WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye, I assumed that it was the same person, but I don't know nothin' 'bout proxies or how to identify them. Deor (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Brennen Willemsen‎
You kindly deleted the above page as a hoax. This was the second time it had been speedily deleted. It has now been re-created (he is at least persistent!). Any chance of it being salted to prevent further waste of all our time ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've salted the user page, Velella, leaving instructions for the user should he want to create a proper one. Since I'm a new admin, it took me a while to figure out how to do so. Thanks for pointing out the re-creation. Deor (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Can u please just delete the username and account Brennen Willemsen permanently? I have no use for it now and there is no point of it being on Wikipedia. If u could completely erase this page completely into unexistence, that'd be great and I'm sorry for wasting your time. I just wanted my own page just for fun but I didn't realize it was taken so seriously, again I'm sorry and I have no intention on editing pages in the future. So if u could delete my account then I could restart and NOT make my own page and go on. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.232.58 (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Accounts can't be removed from Wikipedia, but you're welcome to just abandon the Brennen Willemsen account and create a new one if you think you have something to contribute to the project. Deor (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(Not a) Unicorn response
I just got your message. The picture was there when you caused it to be orphaned upon removing the info about two-horned unicorns being called bicorns while Twonicorn redirects to The Simpsons episode "Lisa the Drama Queen" which I assumed had a two-horned version of a unicorn (with the name also being used for the same creatures from Yin Yang Yo!) while the ''Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise had a two-horned unicorn card where it was called a bicorn as well as a three-horned counterpart called a tricorn. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you left something out. What does all that have to with whether the image is authentic? Or with how (assuming that it is authentic) it is appropriate in an article about unicorns? Deor (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The two-horned unicorns would've been in the same subspecies of the unicorns like the winged unicorns that are seen in heraldry and various media appearances. As for the image thing, I didn't know that there was a discussion you started somewhere about if it is photoshopped or not. I can't even say if the person either photoshopped it or found it somewhere on Google. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look at Reference desk/Humanities again (assuming that you've already done so). Will you perhaps consider reverting your edit to Unicorn now, or will everyone have to wait until the image is deleted? Deor (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The PENISS Prize
For many years of exemplary service. Well deserved, sir/madam. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

* To present this award to others, simply type   on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.
 * Why, thank you. You are, dare I say, the only person who's used "penis[s]" and "prize" in the same context with regard to me. Deor (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates
Note that east longitudes are considered positive. This edit therefore rendered the coordinates incorrect. If you did the same thing to any other articles, can you fix them? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do indeed make mistakes from time to time. Thanks for catching that one. Deor (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Irish pub
Hi -- I've reverted your revert of my edit, and I'm here to explain why. The general convention categories is that their members should be either articles about what the category name suggests -- in this case, individual public houses in Ireland -- or sub-categories with the same property. If an article is about the topic, it should have a sort key that is empty, or a character other than a letter, to distinguish it. This is really useful for semantic analysis of Wikipedia's category tree, as it allows the cases of "instance of", "subclass of", and "related to" to be distinguished. -- The Anome (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have been dozing off at the time. I was under the impression that I was reverting your bot's addition of coord missing, not noticing that you had already done so. Mea maxima culpa. (In general, you don't need to inform me when you correct one of my stupid mistakes, unless, of course, I'm making a series of the same ones and need to be stopped.) Deor (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OpenHAB
Thank you for closing Articles for deletion/OpenHAB. I would actually also like to work on OpenHAB article. Could you, please, restore it to Draft:OpenHAB? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deor (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898
Hello Deor. Would it be possible for you to reopen this AfD for comments? The most relevant WikiProject (WP:Elections and referendums) wasn't informed of the AfD, largely because AAlartBot has not updated the elections and referendums alerts page for some time. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really inclined to reopen an Afd discussion that's been closed for five days, especially since it was the creator of the two Pontypridd election articles who himself chose to merge their content elsewhere, in implicit agreement with the argument that the articles should be merged and redirected. (There's also the problem that the account that created the articles is currently blocked as a sockpuppet, but that's perhaps of less relevance, as the primary account wasn't blocked when the article was created.) That said, I'll start a thread at WP:DRV, asking whether the AfD should be relisted or reopened. I'm a rather new admin and unsure of the proper procedure to follow in situations like this, so I'll appreciate others' opinions of the matter. Deor (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

George Bednar
Hey, Deor. Would you have any objection if I create a redirect from "George Bednar" to "Harvey Wallbanger?" The reasons were outlined in the AfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no objection at all. Deor (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

G3 Speedy Delete requested in AfD
Hey, Deor. Could you take a quick look at Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abdelqader? This a blatant hoax, and should probably not be allowed to linger. Someone is laughing at Wikipedia, and the joke is on us. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deor (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Count of Luxburg
hello Deor, wanted to know why you deleted the page because since beginning the discussion on deleting the article and improved it and included most reliable sources on the reputation of Friedrich Count of Luxburg, serious kind enough to guide me or help me to prepare this article for not be erased again; I thanks for reading this post and I hope your grateful response.--Dbianchir (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles Friedrich Ulrich Count of Luxburg and Friedrich Count of Luxburg were both deleted because the deletion discussions (of which I closed only the second) concluded that there was not sufficient substantive treatment of the subject in reliable secondary sources to support an article. A new article is also likely to be deleted unless such sources—new, different ones rather than the ones present in the deleted articles—can be supplied to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability. If, however, you think that I misinterpreted the discussion at Articles for deletion/Friedrich Count of Luxburg, you may file a request for the discussion's closure to be reviewed at WP:DRV. Deor (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * hello Deor, and obtained more reliable sources of Count notiedad all works are carried out in Venezuela are a 8-15 aproximadamende sources Might you help me. --Dbianchir (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Jakob. Deor (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Coords
Solapur district has two coords, so I got confused. Could you help me in filling more such coords for Andhra Pradesh districts?--Vin09 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Our system of providing and displaying coordinates doesn't really work well with ranges of coordinates; we usually just provide a single set of coordinates that indicates a location near the center of a region. (You can see how I've changed the Solapur article if you need an example of how to provide coordinates in an infobox.) With regard to the articles about districts of Andhra Pradesh: If they already contain coordinates, but you want to use them in the infobox field, you can just copy the existing coord template into the infobox (and then delete the original °N, °W template), formatting it as I have in Solapur district. If they don't already contain coordinates, you can obtain coordinates by using the GeoLocator tool, positioning the marker at a point near the center of a district. If you need further help, feel free to ask here. Deor (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of Kindness UK
"22:39, 5 July 2014 Deor (talk | contribs) deleted page Kindness UK (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kindness UK)" Hello Deor, I would like to request for the page Kindness UK to be undeleted and restored. I understand this page was deleted because it was deemed to have a lack of sources. Kindness UK is a not-for-profit organisation based in the UK and is and authority on kindness. This organisation is unbiased and neutral with the sole aim of sharing kindness and uniting people in kind acts. Please could you restore this page or place it as a draft for approval, on condition of good sources being cited? See below of a list of sources for this organisation:

Kindness UK held the 7th General Assembly of the World Kindness Movement which can be cited on 3 different websites

Kindness UK’s global partners in kindness include partners in the US, Life Vest Inside, cited

Kindness UK blogs for the Huffington Post cited

Kindness UK were the authority on Kindness for a Random Acts of Kindness feature on Mike Sweeney’s BBC Manchester radio show cited and can be heard at citation

SWLondoner featured Kindness UK in an article 13/11/2013 cited

Sweedish Good News Magazine have written two articles which include Kindness UK, the first, 21/11/2013, is cited and the second, 01/07/2013, is cited

Kindness UK wrote an article for Training Journal, 01/04/2013, cited

The telegraph wrote about Kindness UK, 13/11/2012, cited

ITV daybreak asked Kindness UK’s founder, David Jamilly, to appear on the show as an authority on kindness, which aired 11/02/2014, cited

The Colchester Gazette have featured Kindness UK in articles, cited

Kindness UK has appeared on a number of BBC radio shows; BBC Radio Newcastle 19/11/2012 cited, BBC Radio Kent 13/11/2012 cited , BBC WM 14/04/2012 cited , BBC WM 28/11/2011 cited , Radio London interview 13/11/2011 cited

Any guidance you may be able to give to get this page back up on Wikipedia will be greatly appreciated. Please advise. Emehtwiki (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC) {{reflist-t
 * Greetings, Emehtwiki. The article was deleted because the participants in the deletion discussion agreed that there was insufficient substantial coverage of the organization itself in reliable, independent sources to support an article on the topic. (Admittedly, the deletion discussion didn't attract many participants, but it couldn't really have been closed in any way other than "delete".) I've examined the sources you've cited above, and I'm disinclined to restore the article merely on their basis, as they mainly consist of "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources", "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization," press releases, "material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly", and other types of coverage specifically excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for establishing notability. (The one possible exception is the SWLondoner article, but even that contains little about the organization itself.) If you think that the AfD discussion was closed incorrectly or that there are sources that weren't taken into consideration in the discussion, you are welcome to initiate a deletion-review discussion in which Wikipedia editors will determine whether the article should be restored. Deor (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings and comments appreciated. On consultation we can certainly understand your sentiment and the wiki philosophy/protocol. The BBC interviews (unsolicited and not press release) and Telegraph/SWLondoner/Good News Magazine articles would support notably. Also the 1,200 written responses from UK schools (we appreciate this is not on-line but it is a substantial body of national institutions). Also the hosting of international peak body conference, 7th Assmebly (please see above references).
 * Criteria are universal on wikipedia and we are struggling to see differences from other UK Wikipedia pages for kindness organisations like UK Kindness Movement and The Kindness Offensive. Emehtwiki (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Emehtwiki}} I've been turning this over in my mind and am ambivalent. (I came close to explicitly specifying a WP:SOFTDELETE in the closure of the deletion discussion but decided against it.) Therefore, I'd really prefer to get additional opinions. I think your best way forward is to present your additional references at deletion review, so that we can both see whether other editors think that they justify the restoration of the article. Deor (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Deor}} We appreciate your comments and thank you for considering restoring the article. After consulting the deletion review page, it is clear, Wikipedia stresses many times that it is preferable to resolve deletion disputes outside of the deletion review process with the closing administrator. We would certainly prefer to resolve this with you and avoid going down the deletion review route and feel that this would be most efficient. If you were to review/delete all other kindness organisation articles with similar or fewer sources/citations and not single out Kindness UK's Wikipedia page, then this would be understandable and be enough to end our discussion. We would of course prefer all kindness organisations to stay on Wikipedia and for the Kindness UK page to be restored as we feel it is notable and worthy of a listing (according to the Wikipedia guidelines) and is of value to Wikipedia users. Therefore as Wikipedia goes to such great lengths to advise resolving the dispute of an article with the closing administrator, we would very much appreciate your time to consider our comments and hope that you will restore the Kindness UK page (would it help if we edit the page with your approval?). If not, regretfully we will have to take this to a deletion review. Emehtwiki (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Emehtwiki}} As I said above, I recommend deletion review in this case. I'm not willing just to restore the article in despite of the AfD discussion, and I personally don't think that the sources you've adduced above are sufficient to establish the notability of the organization. It's because I recognize that others may view the sources differently that I've recommended deletion review. I could "userfy" the article (restore it in your user space or in the Draft space to allow you to improve it), but I think that a deletion review would still be advisable before it was returned to article space. With regard to the articles dealing with other kindness organizations, see the essay Other stuff exists. Deor (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Deor}} We will be taking this to a deletion review. Please can you put the deleted article for Kindness UK somewhere that we can see it so that we are able to refer to the relevant points in the deletion review process? Emehtwiki (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {{done}}: Kindness UK. Deor (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kindness UK
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kindness UK. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Emehtwiki (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Family friend Elmer Fudd
Thanks for the help at RD. There's some term for the form, "County Prosecutor Elmer Fudd". Or, to eliminate the issue of title, "family friend Elmer Fudd". I remember reading that many people object to the use, or to excessive use, of that form. But I can't remember the correct term (it was at least two words, I remember that). Do you know it?&#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's what you're thinking of, but we have an article False title, which gives various terms for the usage. Myself, I plan to use anarthrous nominal premodifier whenever I can work it into a sentence: "In 2004, anarthrous nominal premodifier Rupert Murdoch announced that he was moving News Corporation headquarters from Adelaide, Australia, to the United States." Deor (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow I'm not surprised. :) Thanks again. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates tools
Hello — I noticed you just added geographic coordinates for High Ridge, Maryland. May I ask if there is an automated tool you prefer for that, and if so, which one? Thanks for any information you care to share. Unician &nabla; 18:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The tool I use is GeoLocator. When you know where a place is, you can just position the marker (by dragging and dropping or by using [Ctrl-click] to position it where your cursor is), then repeatedly zooming the map (by double clicking) and refining the marker position until you have it where the thing is located. In the case of High Ridge, Google Maps doesn't label it, so I had to first confirm its location on a USGS topo map. The description of its position in the article—bounded by the Patuxent River, Maryland Route 216, and I-95—certainly helped; when such indications are lacking, I often find it difficult or impossible to figure out where an obscure place actually is (or was). Deor (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! Unician &nabla; 18:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Deor, I saw you inserted coordinates at railway stations in Pakistan. I am really impressed and thankful to you. I was inserting one by one. :-) Now i want to create page of location where these railway stations are located. If you have coordinates data in excel file or in some other form, please share with me. At geolocator i have this error @todo replace cancelled Google Local Search API with GeoNames or Google Places API. Thanks. Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just been using Karachi–Peshawar Main Line and the Google map on GeoLocator to follow the Karachi–Peshawar railway line from station to station, adding the coordinates for each one as I come to it. I'm taking a little break from that at the moment, but I'll return to it. Deor (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hi, and you've absolutely deleted the page that I created was copied from Wikia that goes by CC-BY-SA. So thanks for deleting it as I might have to add a copyrighted content to Wikipedia as it applies from Wikia. -- Allen  talk  21:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what your second sentence means. Yes, I deleted the article, as the consensus of the opinions expressed in the deletion discussion was that the material, wherever it came from, did not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It come from here that I copied the content to Wikipedia should meet the criteria, it goes up with WP:TVINTL. -- Allen  talk  21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Varda Kotler
@Deor About recent article Varda Kotler, no sufficient time given for other users to present their oppionions about the new evidances in the reaserch, nor the prize also mentioned in other places as in Habima Theatre site - which is honorable independent theatre "Victoire" French, whereas other artist honored by it have articles.Guillaume261086 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion was open for more than the standard seven days; and even after you presented your links, the only opinions expressed—which I assume took those links into account—were in support of deletion. (I also note that you have no edits to the English Wikipedia other than your participation in that discussion.) If you think that my closure of the discussion was faulty, you are welcome to request a review of it at WP:DRV. Deor (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

From the Reference Desk: "Western European families prior to the 16th/17th centuries"
I have noticed that my Reference Desk question is a bit too broad; however, if you allow me to explain how I approached the state of mind that I was in while writing the inquiry, hopefully you will understand what I mean and what I want to know.

Recently in my spare time, I've decided to take on the Family values project, because the previous article was too political and did not even talk about the term "family values" used in the academic sphere. As a matter of fact, the term "family values", as used by many social scientists, has a specific, clear, and explicit meaning that contradicts one line from a previous version of Family values (saying that "family values" is a "vague" concept, when in reality, this term has a specific meaning) and that is not so far-fetched from the popular conception of "family values" (families providing elderly care, children respecting their elders, etc.). There is even an entire academic discipline devoted to this study; it's called "Family Studies". And I avidly read them, using them as credible sources for the introduction and "In culture" section of the "Family values" article. Just yesterday, I came upon this article. [Panasenko, N. (2013). Czech and Slovak Family Patterns and Family Values in Historical, Social and Cultural Context. Journal Of Comparative Family Studies, 44(1), 79-98.] I don't know if you have EbscoHost, but I found it on EbscoHost. Then, the following paragraph caught my attention: "The bourgeois family is understood as a family structure arising out of 16th century and 17th century European households, in which the family centers on a marriage between a man and a woman with strictly defined gender-roles. The man typically has responsibility for income and support, the woman—for home and family matters (Family in the West. Family types)."

This is why, unfortunately, I cannot pinpoint the exact country or culture in Western Europe. However, it seems to me that the author has cited this Wikipedia article. So, if you know anything about the cultural backgrounds of some Western European families prior to the 16th and 17th centuries (it'd be great if you know the specific culture), then feel free to contribute to the Family values article.

In summary, we are talking about the "bourgeois family" that arose out of the 16th century and 17th century European households. This family centers on the marriage between a man and a woman with strictly defined gender roles. (In the literature, it is written that modern-day Chinese families focus more on the one child in the household, so you can tell how this family structure is different from Chinese families now and in the past.) The husband typically has the responsibility for income and support, the woman for home and family matters.

Best regards,

71.79.234.132 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD needs Speedy Keep
Hey, Deor. You may want to take a quick look at this one: Articles for deletion/Enrique Ecker. Slam dunk Speedy Keep. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. BOLD move to WP:COMMONNAME also accomplished.  We won't see this one at AfD again.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/FreelyCall
hi, you missed File:FreelyCall logo.png -No.Altenmann >t 15:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deor (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Miss Grand International 2014
Less then two hours after your removal Miss Grand International 2014 and the completely in Spanish 2014 Miss Grand International were recreated... The Banner talk 13:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've salted that title, and Miss Grand International 2014 has already been salted, so there should be no further re-creations. I'll watch Miss Grand International 2013 and 2013 Miss Grand International for any re-creation of that one. Deor (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627166228 your edit] to M. R. James may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * described More Ghost Stories of an Antiquary as containing "first-rate stories". E. F. Bleiler|Bleiler, E. F. The Guide to Supernatural Fiction. Kent, Ohio: Kent State

Damien High School
Thanks for protecting this. We've had about 15 blocks so far. I think the only ones missed were User:Bigguyvolleyball and User:198.72.199.248. The IP only made one bad edit and immediately self reverted. It could have been an honest mistake, but I doubt it since the edit content was the insertion of a name that some of the other vandalism edits had mentioned, the edit was made in the middle of the night (in the school's area), and the edit was made just 3 minutes after one of the now-blocked vandals had been reverted and warned. It seems quite possible that this is the home IP of the master and that he made a mistake. Meters (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. As I said at RFPP, if the nonsense starts up again after the protection expires, just drop me a note here and I'll see what I can do. Deor (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

CommonWealth Magazine
Hi Deor,

Thank you very much for correcting my error on the First Church in Salem article. I had questioned the name, but when I looked a little further, I found that CommonWealth Magazine is a commonly cited source on Wikipedia articles, so I assumed that she just had a strange name. Do you believe CommonWealth Magazine to be disreputable in general, or do they simply have a joke column? If the former, we should blacklist external links to their website and remove the other citations referencing that magazine. Any further aid you can provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's just a (supposedly) humorous column in a generally serious magazine. But the "information" you included does illustrate one of the drawbacks of an uncritical reliance on Google for article sourcing. Deor (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will certainly attempt to be more critical in the future. Thank you again for your help. Neelix (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack Straw's Castle, Hampstead
Nice copy edits, thanks a lot! Cassianto talk 20:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Even I, who have a high tolerance for boredom, get a bit tired doing a long string of nothing but adding geographic coordinates to articles. A little copyediting provides a welcome break. Thanks for liking my edits. Deor (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Highway 233A (India), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramnagar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you review this AfD closing to make sure it is error-free
Hey, Deor. I just did a non-admin closure here: Articles for deletion/List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations. Can you review the closure to make sure that I did not screw anything up? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I did screw up.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I undid your closure as a procedural matter. A nominator's withdrawal calls for an immediate closure only if no "delete" opinions have been offered (see WP:SK, point 1), and a discussion shouldn't be closed by someone who has previously offered an opinion in the discussion, even on the side opposite to the closure (see WP:BADNAC). I appreciate that you were perhaps trying to close the discussion to save time, but I think it's better to allow it to run for the standard seven days. Without having looked at the article itself, I think that further input might be welcome. Deor (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning up my mistake. I wasn't trying to save time, but to memorialize a negotiated withdrawal of the nomination, without prejudice to resubmit later.  About half of the "delete" votes objected to the article as a list that lacked explanatory text and context, reflecting the listed institutions in unfair manner.  At the time of the withdrawal, the !vote was 6-6 (excluding the nominator).  Never dawned on me that I had a COI (having supported deletion), when closing "keep".  I would be grateful if you would keep an eye on this one; it's scheduled to expire tomorrow.  Given the evenly split !vote and reasonably equivalent pro and con arguments, I would expect that the AfD would now close as "no consensus," and that would accomplish the intended purpose of the nominator's withdrawal.  Re-listing would simply delay the negotiated resolution of the article's issues, which a clear !majority seems to favor (if possible).


 * Even after participating in 300+ AfDs, I apparently still have some learning to do. In penance for my botched close, I will be spending some time reviewing the AfD guidelines and policies again, and reading the wiki closing procedures cover to cover.  My apologies for the screw-up.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629997892 your edit] to Hoërskool Sentraal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SouthAfrica-school-stub

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630506954 your edit] to Klareboderne may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * at least 1518 when a document mentions "Albritt van Gocks bod her, som nu kallis Clare bodher" "Albritt van Gock's houses which are now called Clar'e houses". Later in the century the street was
 * coord|55.6810|N|12.5784|E|type:landmark_region:DK_add

Brian Costello
I came in on the back end after the Brian J. Costello article was deleted as non-notable. I'd like to make an attempt at fixing the article and demonstrating notability through sources other than only Google. What I'm seeking is to get whatever information was on the original Brian J. Costello article without necessarily undeleting it. I'd like to resubmit the article, but only after some serious rework. I also plan on contacting the author himself for some of this information. I noted in the arguments of him being non-notable that he is listed as only being notable in one particular parish. As some of his books deal with American Civil War topics, he is notable in quite a few historical societies, mainly in the southern United States. Sf46 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can restore the article either in your user space or as Draft:Brian J. Costello if you'd like. Then you can work on it at your leisure. Deor (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Either option would be great. I appreciate the help. Sf46 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Page is now at Draft:Brian J. Costello, Sf46. Deor (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting
Thank you for deleting Chionophobia, which I had proposed but lately had no time to actually doing. NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Primetime Drama
Hey, Deor. I need a little help from an admin to complete some post-AfD/post-merge clean-up work. Articles for deletion/Primetime Drama closed on July 6, 2014, with a "merge" result. A careful review of the three merge target articles (Florida–LSU football rivalry, 2007 Florida Gators football team and 2007 LSU Tigers football team) shows that all of the essential facts from the AfD'ed article have been incorporated into game summaries in the three target articles. I think it's now time to complete the AfD process and delete Primetime Drama. Please note this was a non-admin close; otherwise, I would go to the closing admin to complete the AfD process. Please let me know if you have any questions about the AfD, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't need an admin for this. Indeed, if any of the content of Primetime Drama has been merged to another article, its history needs to be preserved to maintain the proper author attribution, so I can't just delete it. All you need to do is follow the instructions at WP:MERGETEXT, replacing the article with a redirect to the most appropriate target and using the edit summaries and talk-page tags specified there to provide attribution. Deor (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There has not been a direct merge of text from the AfD'ed article, but I agree that the spirit of the AfD "merge" result would be to preserve the AfD'ed article's history. I will redirect the AfD'ed article to the Florida–LSU football rivalry, which strikes me as the most appropriate of the three targets.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Dirtlawyer1. You may want to redirect to the section specifically about the 2007 game. It would also be helpful if you link to the AfD in your edit summary, to make it clear to any passer-by what went on. Deor (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Completed as recommended. Could you double-check my work, to make sure I didn't muff anything?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. I added a sentence containing the term "Primetime Drama" to the target article so that people who get there by searching for the term won't wonder what the heck the connection is. Deor (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Primetime Drama" is one of those made-for-TV names where someone is trying to create a form of notability/notoriety where it does not really exist much beyond the Saturday when the game was played. We see a lot of made-up CFB game names where a newbie editor is trying to justify a stand-alone article for a regular season game; it's usually pretty obvious, as this one was.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two problems with this. First, the Florida–LSU football rivalry page is now incorrect as this game is not referred to as "Primetime Drama" anywhere outside of Wikipedia (I did a quick google search for this, and the only non-Wikipedia related "Primetime Drama" reference in relation to this game that I could find was a partial headline on one article from the LSU athletic site - hardly an independent source). So, IMHO, "Primetime Drama" is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME for this game, and, in all honesty, using it associated in any way with this game borders on WP:OR. The second problem is, obviously, that readers who are searching for information about TV soap operas are now going to be redirected to an article about Florida and LSU football for no reason at all. I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but I do think it's a problem that should be addressed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that made-up names for football games (or even individual plays, such as the "Immaculate Reception") are pretty stupid and that anyone looking for the sort of TV show exemplified by Dallas will probably be ill served by this redirect (though we don't appear to have an article dealing with primetime dramas as a genre), but, as a procedural matter, I don't see any other way to resolve the "merge" result of the AfD. (I also found some other indications that the game is so denoted, at least among LSU fans, as here and here [p. 51].) I suppose you could take the redirect to WP:RFD, but I wouldn't like to speculate on the result. Deor (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Might this not be a situation where WP:IAR could apply? None of the "sources" calling this game Primetime Drama are anywhere remotely near reliable or independent, as they are all either tied directly to LSU or very fan blog-ey in nature. At the very least, the Florida–LSU football rivalry page should be corrected to remove the reference, IMHO. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case where I'd personally choose to IAR, but perhaps you can find a more accommodating admin. As I said above, if there is to be a redirect of Primetime Drama to Florida–LSU football rivalry, the latter should contain some mention of the term, or else people redirected there will have no idea why. Deor (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another redirect for this article, 2007 Florida vs. LSU football game, already exists, and that would be the usual and proper name for a regular season CFB game in the absence of a widely recognized nickname for the event. In fact, the original name of the now redirected "Primetime Drama" article was "2007 Florida vs. LSU football game": .  The simple solution may be to rename the "Primetime Drama" redirect as such, delete the redundant redirect, and thus preserve the edit history of the Primetime Drama article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I'm rapidly losing interest in the matter (especially since I'm actively hostile to big-time college athletics). You're certainly welcome to retarget the redirect and to revert the edit I made to Florida–LSU football rivalry. The only thing I won't do is delete Primetime Drama, as it's my view that doing so would conflict with the consensus in the AfD. As I said in one of my posts above, another admin may perhaps be more accommodating. Deor (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to try your patience. My major purpose was accomplished with the AfD result; I'm content to leave it where it is.  I was trying to accommodate EJ's concern -- he's welcome to pursue the redirect resolution I suggested above, or virtually anything else that does not restore the article content, and I will support it.  Thanks for your time and assistance, Deor.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and slapped an "R from incorrect name" tag on Primetime Drama. Beyond that, I really don't care to push for anything more, as it's just not worth the time or effort. May bureaucracy (and apathy) ever prevail!!!! Cheers, Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632128696 your edit] to Phool Nagar may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kasur-geo-stub

Articles for deletion/Shock site (4th nomination)
Would you please state your analysis and reasoning for this close. You left no indication of why you think the article should be kept or not. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When closing an AfD, my job is not to indicate why (or whether) I "think the article should be kept or not"; it's to judge the consensus of editors participating in the discussion, taking into account their opinions' conformance with Wikipedia policies and practices. In this case, you—the nominator—were the only participant who favored the deletion of the article, and those favoring keeping it did not appear to be doing so for reasons out of accord with our policies. There's really no way that the AfD could have been closed in any way other than "keep", and I don't think that any admin would have closed it in any other way. You are, of course, entitled to take up the matter at WP:DRV, but doing so would appear to be a futile exercise. Deor (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. Under the Accountability section of the Expectations of Administrators on the main WP Admin page its states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."


 * The section goes on to explain that "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:"
 * Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).


 * And so I ask again, please explain the basis for your closure at the AfD page. Thank you, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The basis for the "keep" close was that all the participants in the discussion, except you, advocated keeping the article. As for communication, that's what I'm doing in this thread. Deor (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll ask a 3rd time, IN THE AfD here, please post your explanation for the closure for me and everyone else on the site to read. Thank you, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reclose a discussion that I closed three days ago and that everyone has, no doubt, removed from their watchlists already. When the consensus in an AfD discussion is obvious, it's customary for an admin just to note the consensus in the closure, without appending an otiose explanation. Such an explanation is necessary only when some of the opinions are being ignored for one policy-related reason or another or when the reason for the judgment might be unclear without explanation. Neither was the case in the AfD in question. If I had wanted to give my own rationale for keeping or deleting the article, I would have contributed to the debate rather than closing it. Deor (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * SC, I am a Deor talk page stalker, and I've been following this thread since you started it three days ago. I have been a participant in over 400 AfDs during the course of the last 4+ years, and I see no real basis for pursuing a DRV nor demanding a detailed explanation for the administrator's closing rationale.  There was a strong 6:1 !vote for the "keep" outcome, and the basis for doing so was a clear statement that all participants other than yourself thought the article subject was a notable one supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  Badgering Deor for a detailed closing rationale beyond that is not helpful, nor is it going to change the outcome.  In such circumstances where the consensus is supported by a strong !majority and the rationale is clear, very few admins elaborate more than Deor did on the AfD page, and his explanation here on his talk page is succinct, but appropriate.  In closely reasoned AfDs, I would expect a greater elaboration of the closing rationale, but not here.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

G.T. Wilburn Grist Mill
This is my first time to use a talk page. I am new to this forum and this site. I am trying to make an historical page on the Grist Mill located at Fall River Leoma, Tennesseee. Someone proposed it for deletion and I oppose this. It has a very historical contribution to the south and I am currently researching and finding more information each day. This is a work in progress and I would appreciate any help I can receive from you. There is no copyright violations on this page. Pwilby14 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. The main problem is that much of the material in the article was copied verbatim from pages on another Web site, such as this one, which has "Created and maintained by Patricia Wilburn / Copyright 2014" at the bottom. Wikipedia can only accept material that is released under a free license, such as the CC-BY-SA license. Any material on which copyright is claimed elsewhere cannot be used here. Now, it's possible that you are Patricia Wilburn, in which case you have two options, as described at WP:DONATETEXT: You can either remove the copyright notice from the bottom of the pages on the Historic Wilburn Grist Mill site, replacing it with a statement that the material is freely licensed under the terms of CC-BY-SA and GNU; or you can send Wikipedia an e-mail, from an address associated with the site, releasing the material for use here (suggested wording for such an e-mail can be found at Declaration of consent for all enquiries).


 * I see that you've added the material to the article again, so I'll have to blank it again. If you can establish that you hold the copyright to the material and are willing to freely license it, it can be restored, but please don't re-add it unless you do so. You've also added references that do not support the statements made: This page, for instance, says nothing about the mill or Fall River, and this one says nothing that verifies the content of the paragraph to which you attached it. Don't do that; references need to explicitly support the material to which they are appended. Your other references are also deficient, in that they don't clearly describe the works cited and the location in the works where the cited information can be found. You may want to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Deor (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am the owner of that information and will send you the letter. I wish you had warned me instead of deleting the content as I have to rewrite it all once again. I am trying to learn and to follow the rules. Where do I send this information to? Pwilby14 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As the WP:DONATETEXT page says, Pwilby14, you send the e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If the OTRS agent accepts your declaration, you won't have to rewrite the content; all prior versions are saved in the page's history, an you can just copy the material from there. Just don't include the bad references. Deor (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done! and thank you so very much for your help! I am learning! Thanks again, Tricia

Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination)
Hi Deor. You closed Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) as "delete" on 15 November 2014. I think a close as "no consensus" would have been more accurate. The sources and I provided clearly demonstrated that the subject passes Notability.

Two merge arguments:


 * 1) "There just isn't enough to say about these malware programs individually to justify a separate page. There would be very little left if all the HOWTO stuff was taken out, and virtually nothing beyond the generic description of spoof security software." – this "merge" argument was refuted by my rewrite of the article and my explanation that reliably sourced, encyclopedic information would be lost in a merge.
 * 2) "It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop." – this was refuted by my undue weight argument here that you mentioned in your close.

These two merge comments thought Windows Police Pro should be covered on Wikipedia beyond just a listing in List of rogue security software. The current situation results in no coverage of Windows Police Pro on Wikipedia, which is against their wishes. I interpret their comments as supporting retention of the material over deletion.

The editors supporting deletion mostly did not make policy-based arguments so should not be given much weight. Their weak arguments were addressed by 's strong refutation here.

Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I obviously disagree with your reading of the AfD; as I said in the close, "The consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article," and I see no reason to change that interpretation of the discussion. Not everything that may satisfy the GNG needs a separate article, as WP:GNG itself says ("... significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article ..."), and in this case the consensus was, I think, that the topic doesn't merit one.


 * One thing that I have noticed is that the WinFixer article says (in note 1) that "Windows Police Pro" is another name for WinFixer. I don't know enough about the topic to determine whether that's the case, but if it is, you (or someone else) may want to take up the offer of userfication I made in the close, with an eye to merging some of the material there. Alternatively, someone may want to redirect the title there. If you don't find either of those options attractive, I guess the next stop is DRV. Deor (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a good find. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/article-5-software-titles-you-should-definitely-not-install says, "WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer." Please undelete Windows Police Pro and redirect it to WinFixer. Please also add a followup note to Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) pointing to this discussion to explain to anyone reading the AfD why the page has been undeleted. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to undelete the article's history if nothing is to be merged, Cunard. Just go to Windows Police Pro and create the redirect. Deor (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of history undeletion under a redirect was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review (permanent link). The encyclopedia does not benefit from keeping the history of Windows Police Pro deleted. Windows Police Pro has good sources and content that any editor could merge to WinFixer. That should be sufficient reason to restore the history and update the AfD with a link to this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After consultation with a more experienced admin, I've decided to let my close stand. You can create a redirect, I will userfy the article for you (if you think the material would provide useful hints for expanding some other article), or you can take the matter to DRV. Deor (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Signpost
Can you link me to one of the broken pages? I know what would cause the problem, but I need to see which of two possible causes it is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, they're all listed at Category:ParserFunction errors (under R and W). A random example is Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/Dispatches. Deor (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Okay, I did NOT expect that to be the cause: It's passing the value of as the date of the next issue, and the variable's undefined, it's literally passing that. I should be able to fix this, though, by moving my check later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This should fix it. They haven't left the category yet, but think that's just an update issue, but they don't show errors now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I do a null edit to one of the pages, it disappears from the category. The others should do so once the queue catches up to them. Thanks for looking into the matter. Deor (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just was expecting good code or nothing, not... that. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Template
I am working on Template:Navbox subgroup, this template allow 20 subgroups, I have more than 20 entry in subgroups. Is there any other template like this, in which i can insert more than 20 subgroups?Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my knowledge of templates in general (and navboxes in particular) is pretty much limited to "They exist". This appears to be something you might be able to get a useful answer to at WP:VPT. Deor (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI
User Logos has accused you of being a sockpuppet at Sockpuppet investigations/Bender235 Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! They'll never take me alive! Deor (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Robert Louis Stevenson
Hey - just noticed you inserted an extra 'is' in an edit, which as it stands doesn't make grammatical sense. Perhaps it requires an extra comma? Or maybe this is a typo....? I've undone it for now. Thank you! Mediavalia talk 12:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence with two is's in a row is in fact what Stevenson wrote. The first is in "what is is best" is the verb in the noun clause "what is" (i.e., "that which exists" or "the way things are"), and the second is is the verb in another noun clause, having the first one as its subject and best as a predicate adjective. When dealing with a direct quotation, it's always a good idea to check the source before "emending". Deor (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. I was just flagging it as syntactically it reads poorly whether Stevenson wrote it that way or not. I haven't been able to find the quote easily elsewhere, so I thought it best to flag. All in good faith. No hard feelings. Mediavalia  talk 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI
I have just filed sockpuppet investigation against Logos at Sockpuppet investigations/Logos. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound
Not a very impressive relattialtion. A bit patethic really. Typically pedestrian and ho-hum. I assume you have a plan-b. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)