User talk:El cid, el campeador/Archive 2

Self-Directed Education
"Self-Directed Education" is the page that should be kept. "Self-directed education" is the page that should be removed. Do you have the permission to remove it? If you do, please remove it. Thanks! Yuanliangliu (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: Omid Homayoun
Hello, ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia????. I wanted to let you know that references are now added. You can now go away and enjoy your wiki break.

If you don't understand this message, perhaps you should use my talk page with intelligence.

Thanks,

User: Navidcyir
 * huh ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Housing Crisis
Instead of reverting, please open a move request to move Housing Crisis (disambiguation) to Housing Crisis at Talk:Housing Crisis (disambiguation). Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 03:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how your version is better, considering the UK article does not even have housing crisis in its title, and assumes that the UK's issues are more important than those of other countries, but I am not going to lose sleep over it, cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I say, given that you are of the opinion that the British housing crisis is not primary, you should open a move request and gauge consensus.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Question
I saw you nominated the article on Abdulkareem Khadr for deletion.

The deletion rationale you offered was: "It's sad that he was injured, but that does not make him notable for WP. Other than that, I can't see why he would warrant an article, other than perhaps being related to some people."


 * 1) We should not have an article on him because he was injured in a war when he was only 11 years old.  A million kids get injured in wars that we never hear about.
 * 2) We should not have an article on him because he is related to people whose notability has already been established.  Practically every wikipedia notable person has dozens of non-notable relatives.
 * 3) We should have an article on him if he himself measures up to the wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

We cover people who, objectively, were not strongly active participants, or even victims, in the events they are known for -- when reliable sources nevertheless cover them in the kind of detail we look for. I think if you had taken a more thorough look into his background you would have found enough sources to satisfy you that he did measure up to our criteria. The corollary to that is that there are truly heroic individuals, or truly barbaric individuals, who, objectively, were strongly central participants in what, objectively, were momentous acts -- but who RS didn't cover, because there were no reporters present, or the enterprise was top secret, or whatever. We might have private knowledge of how momentous their participation was, but, without RS, they remain non-notable.

I've been contributing to the wikipedia for fourteen years now, and a phenomenon that really disturbs me is an alarming trend where some nominators ignore the advice of WP:BEFORE, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and nominate articles for deletion, merely because they are unhappy with the current state of that article.

, who drafted this version, in 2008, was an excellent writer and excellent researcher. That version certainly sailed far past the inclusion standards of 2008. I strongly suspect AKK would measure up to the more stringent criteria of today.

Stewart Bell, for instance, wrote that when AKK and his mother returned to Canada for his medical treatment former Prime Minister of Canada denounced the then current Prime Minister for the "limp and pathetic manner the Liberal government handled the case ... some of whose members took up arms in support of terrorism, and yet are welcomed back into Canada with open arms...". I suggest that when a former Prime Minister personally denounces your return to Canada, that goes a long way towards establishing your notability.

My request to you? Could you please perform another web search, and then tell me if you still think AKK is non-notable?

Thanks in advance for taking a second look. I look forward to hearing from you. Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Same for Zaynab Khadr. I have a google news alert on her.  Items about her pop up on a regular basis.  No, none of them are earthshaking.  But there is absolutely no question that reliable sources have been covering her, specifically, in detail, since at least 2005.  Her ill-advised comments in the documentary Son of al Qaeda are still fodder for the anti-muslim crowd.  We know she was denied a passport, for years.  We know she camped out in front of Canada's Parliament buildings, for a month, to protest her brother's on-going detention.  We know, when she finally got a passport, she traveled to Turkey, where she herself was held in extrajudicial detention.  We know she married a fourth time, bore two more children, and moved to Sudan.  We know that her brother Omar appealed to have various bail conditions lifted, and that the condition that was not lifted was that he remains restricted from visiting with Zaynab without his lawyer or some other trusted observer present.  All of this has been covered by RS.


 * Our inclusion criteria does not require that the in-depth RS coverage has to be about earthshaking events, merely that there has to be in-depth coverage -- which there is, and was, when you made your nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Same for Maha el-Samnah...  Geo Swan (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - On google news: No results found for "Abdulkareem Khadr". "Maha el-Samnah" gets 7 results, all of them about her relation to Omar. Zaynab Khadr gets a lot of hits, but are all for her relation to Omar and Joshua Boyle. None of these figures are notable to me. Being related to Omar Khadr does not make the subjects notable. All the details are covered generally in the Khadr family page. In any case I wouldn't take these deletions personally. If you are still unhappy, please see Deletion review about having the decisions reviewed. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bukhara
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bukhara. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: David Berger AZA
Hello El cid, el campeador. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of David Berger AZA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance and coverage in reliable sources, try WP:AFD if a redirect/merge is not possible. Thank you.  So Why  07:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Vince Mundraby Article
G'day El cidm el campeador ,, you have recently noted you propose to recommend the deletion of proposed article for which I am in the process of adding references, noting it has been a long time since properly creating an article and am first aseembling references in the talk page attached ..

It would be appreciated if you could wait a bit/ couple of hours will I better assemble the materials noting Vince was also the Federal Court applicant for Yarrabah native title claim/s .. as well as mayor of Aboriginal Council ,, also Chair of a Wet Tropics Management review committee and more ,, just need to collect and put together? Bruceanthro (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks El Cid for your note, explanation, and reassurance regarding policy and process for deleting potentially not to policy biographical/new article/s, will keep working on and recalling how to properly edit/create articles of this kind Bruceanthro (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malta convoys
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malta convoys. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, I just nominated an article for deletion that you PRODed. The PROD was removed. The article is 2018 in music. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

WP:Revdel
FYI, I prefer to do my revdel requests via e-mails to friendly admins. Helps avoid Streisand effect. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will do that from now on. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  21:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Feed them to me :-) Alex ShihTalk 16:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * hey, thanks! Will do :) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion of page "2017 UK Seniors Championship"
Hi! Thank you that you have noticed the empty page so quickly. I created the page because another user promised to fill it in with all the necessary information. He/She did not have a registered account here and therefore could not create pages. I believe that he/she is going to fill it in as soon as possible. I could have filled in the page myself, but I do not have the time at the moment. Besides, I see no point in deleting the page, as the tournament is currently running and the page will be filled in anyway. If it is deleted, then very soon someone else will create it for a second time.

NuclearMissile (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC) NuclearMissile

Thanks
Thank you so much. I have written the same brief article titled "Bun Turks" in English and submitted it for the review. Its Azerbaijani version, however, appeared on the English page. I am sorry for that. I searched for "Bun türkləri" on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia after your message. Apparently, there is already such a page in Azerbaijani language. So, I would like to delete my article in Azerbaijani language.

Thanks again.


 * No worries at all! I have requested deletion of the Azerbaijani version, and it should be taken care of shortly. Thank you, and cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Globophobia
Old deletion templates are useful for tracking history of dubious articles. (This one definitely is.) Sitting in talk pages, they are harmless. I will definitely agree with you if you delete this marker in the case when, e.g., an article created by a newbie was hastily prodded, but successfully rescued. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iyoki Station
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iyoki Station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for guidance
Can you tell me how best to cite a source that is not available online? You have twice removed a page I created for not having citations. My source material is a printed work, in this case album liner notes. Joesalzer (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Look at Template:Cite AV media notes. But you will also need some secondary sources for the album. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1999 Pan American Aerobics Championships
Hello. I see you keep deleting the results table from the 1999 Pan American Championships, based on the fact that there is only one confirmed result. It is an old competition and it is hard to find results online. The result available is the only medal Cuba has ever earned at the Pan Am Aerobics Championships, so it might be relevant to keep it displayed. It is better to keep it than show nothing. Besides, Wikipedia's main goal is to inform, and you decided to omit available information just because you feel like it. In fact, you decided to delete the information without properly discussing about it on the Talk Page just because you want to. This is not how things should work. Discuss it, then wait for a reply and reach consensus. I do not want to make it an edit war, so please learn to talk to other users before taking action. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? It's an empty chart. It does not provide any information. Don't condescend to me. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Years by country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Years by country. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Maulin Y Raval
Hi...according to this AfD, Maulin no longer holds that title...can you source who does? Subuey (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the deleted article, it appears that Ayan Qureshi is the youngest to pass the test. Search his name on google and there will be information. Cheers -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yummy
I highly appreciate your support. Please, accept my sincere gratitude for the yummy cookies!

Best,

Ramin Lev

Foreign language redirect
Hi El cid, I noticed the author of सिंधूदुर्ग just deleted the redirect you had set that replaced the A2. I have reapplied the A2. In cases where articles with foreign language titles are created and both the English and foreign language WP versions exist, a deletion is preferable to a redirect as per WP:FORRED. After all, we have the interwiki links that connect English and foreign language at metadata level and wouldn't need to mirror this within the project at storage/maintenance cost. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - ok, thank you for the info! I didn't mean to go over your head or anything, I just wasn't sure if you realized there was an article on the topic because our wires sort of crossed. Will follow this advice in the future. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing
I'm not sure how you can accept and review The Jesus Experience when it was nominated for AfD six months ago, and the version as you reviewed it was unreferenced. This type of article should be taken directly to CsD, not accepted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as unreferenced, and since it is not BLP that's the apropos action. I don't see why an artist with a substantial WP article shouldn't have their studio albums as stand alone articles. Guess it's a difference of opinion, cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  22:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If they don't meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, there's no reason to create an article for the subject. The album was released 22 years ago and it didn't chart. It wasn't widely reviewed. It fails any notability criteria. That's why the studio album doesn't have an article:not ability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 00:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - I need to be more careful about checking past deletions, I'm not denying that. I was just giving my thought process, and I was assuming good faith based on the 'apparent' notability of the band. Not arguing the album's article should be kept, just defending my actions. Cheers -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt
Re this diff - - this article was created long after I knew there was a coup attempt in Zimbabwe. There were reports on tank movements around the capital on the Evening (Zulu time) of the 14th November - that were picked up by several RS. Regarding "and that the military denied it was a coup" - that is actually a strong indication it is a coup. The military almost always denies (or stays silent) - the fact the question has been asked is a strong indication of a coup.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Giannis Antetokounmpo
Hi El cid, el campeador. I see you made an edit at Giannis Antetokounmpo, moving the Nigerian descent info to early life rather than having it in the lead. I'm just letting you know that there has been much contention of this topic in the past and much discussion on the matter at the talk page. Many editors have wanted Nigerian listed as his nationality, either listing it in the infobox or in the first sentence of the lead i.e. "Nigerian-Greek" or "Greek-Nigerian". After much debate, a compromise was agreed to, to at least have the "Nigerian descent" part listed in the lead but not in the first sentence. I'm just letting you know this as further contention could come of this in the future. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - oy, thanks for the info! I did not realize it was the result of a compromise, it just seemed a bit out of place where it was. If someone (including you) moves it back to the lead I will not protest. Apologies, and cheers! -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Unsigned request at Manzanar
Hello. Can you go back to the talk page for the above and sign your request? I think you can reach it at Talk:Manzanar. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for the note. Per WP's official RfC guidelines, the requestor can either sign their name and the date, OR just sign the date. I prefer not to sign my username because I believe it is supposed to be a nonpartial process, with as little influence on the result as possible. So, if it is alright with you, I would prefer not to. If this is an issue, please let me know and I will consider changing my view. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your move to Disappearance of Matthew Leveson
Hi, you moved the page from Death of Matthew Leveson to Disappearance of Matthew Leveson, but his skeletal remains were found in May 2017. He is confirmed dead. Can you please move the page back? Melonkelon (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back, thanks. Melonkelon (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, my apologies, I did not see this in time. But, for the record, the article clearly states (unless it's been changed, I haven't checked back) that his remains were never found. That is the reason I moved it. Sorry for the misunderstanding, best ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  05:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

fixing Georgia First Offenders Act page now. Please review and advise.
I think i addresed the copyright issues. Please review and advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - hello, to the best of my knowledge, my deletion tag was removed by a third party, but the article still ended up being deleted. I am not sure of the details, but please discuss with the deleting admin, if you have not already. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  05:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fasson
Hi El cid, el campeador, you reverted on Fasson the disambiguation. Now the link to Tony Fasson (1913–1942), British Royal Navy officer, which I added, is no longer available. Fasson is now again only a redirect to Avery Dennison. Why did you do that? Best wishes, --OS (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Hello, my apologies! I meant to make it a redirect ONLY to Tony Fasson, not the other way around. I fixed my mistake. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Boruto: Sumire Character
Hello, I just fix the issue in the character. please clarify your information. Talk to me if you need to put in those information. 100.12.86.34 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I am sorry. I know that you want to change back to past statement. I correcting the statement and you seem to be bother with it. I don't mind that your fix grammar but put those statement that is false is misleading to people. I'm not robot and I do understand. I try to be more general. It's best that no one put their interest in this.

Sumire Kakehi (筧 スミレ Kakehi Sumire) is an Academy student from Konohagakure, and a representative of her Academy class. She has purple pigtails and has high anxiety. She always respects her classmates and her teacher(Sensei). She is close friends with Sarada and Chocho. Sumire has inherited of a man from Danzo's foundation. She was given a curse mark on her back to execute Danzo's legacy. Her summon beast is Nue. Sumire has graduated to Genin. She is voiced by Aya Endō in Japanese.

Please be free to fix my grammar.

You start fix my grammar if there is grammar mistake. 100.12.86.34 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Carter (EastEnders)
Hi, I believe redirects for discussion is the correct place, and I was about to respond there when I saw you had reverted. I've seen a few AFDs that are actually "article or redirect" discussions and it's always being pointed out that AFD is not the place. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  17:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - hi! After almost breaking WP I ended up putting it back to RfD. Thanks for your advice, and sorry to mess you up. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  17:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the 1RR restriction currently in place on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * - I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR (in my defense my edits came 20 hours apart on different calendar days, but that's not the point), but I do not see how my reversions warranted a discretionary block. After my edit was reverted in violation of the Arbitration decision regarding re-adding challenged information, I notified the editor of their violation, and of why I was reverting their edit. In essence I was myself attempting to enforce the arbitration decision. While we both violated the policy, I do not believe that discretion served you well in blocking two editors. You were within your rights and powers. But I do not believe that you improved WP by becoming involved in the situation and blocking. As I said I was explicitly attempting to enforce the arbitration decision by removing the challenged information, and I was not showing any sort of edit warrior behavior. I do not think that blocking was a proper remedy in either case. The next time I see such a violation, does it serve WP better to report it to a different authority and have a block handed down, or simply revert the improper edit myself and notify the editor without any sanctions becoming necessary? In my view the situation was already handled. But these are just my thoughts. The blocking does not change anything, but now I have a (second) black mark on my record, and as far as I can tell I did not perform any actions with malice aforethought, and in fact was doing my best to improve WP (which is always my goal). I guess this tells me again to not get involved with political articles because you will end up getting tied up in some incident, but I truly acted only with noble intentions, and now I feel like I have been marked as a sort of bad editor. Anyway, that's my piece. I love editing WP and things like this really take away some of my tenderness. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  05:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who reverted your initial edit, and although we disagree on the content under consideration, I am in full agreement with you that invoking Discretionary Sanctions and dumping us both in the DS log was heavy-handed and unnecessary. I was shocked to discover the block for the single edit I had performed. I am considering taking the matter to WP:AN and requesting a review of the matter, with a view to having our "black marks" rescinded. Let me know if this is something you agree with, and I will get the ball rolling later today. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - I would support such a move, and thank you for suggesting it. I am sorry for causing this, and my opinion on the content is certainly not strong enough to lead to any real dispute. Thank you ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! And no apology necessary. I think we both just misinterpreted the letter of the law. I have opened a request for review at WP:AN, so you may wish to monitor that page if administrators have any questions for you. Thank you for the pie! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are following the conversation at WP:AN, so I thought I'd give you an update. Opinions seem very divided on the actions taken by Coffee with respect to our blocks, but the general consensus (which I happen to agree with) seems to be that Coffee was perfectly entitled to act as he did, but perhaps didn't really need to. Some administrators have indicated they would've probably engaged in discussion with us before blocking. Others suggest these blocks are necessary to maintain a consistency that discourages undesirable outcomes. Irrespective of the result of this particular review, it seems there are technical reasons our block logs cannot be modified, and the dual purpose of the discretionary sanctions log means our entries would not be removed. Since I don't anticipate violating DS again, I'm not all that bothered by this. Anyway, the discussion is actually quite absorbing (it has some tangents!), so I recommend you read over it if you have the chance. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - hey! I apologize, I have been terribly sick for the past week or so and did not manage to get online much. But, I did take a look, and it's clear to me that almost no one agrees with the blocks, but recognizes the admin's authority to make the blocks. However, I noticed that the admin did acknowledge a willingness to forgive your block (or something of that nature) so congratulations! Apparently my behavior was 'blatant' and part of a history of edit-warring (?) so I won't get the same treatment, but what can you do. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Skylab albums
Hello. You left a comment on User talk:Anonymous from the 21st century regarding independent Skylab album articles being created on Wikipedia here. The sources provided by this user do not seem adequate and I doubt any adequate sources are available at this time. So, I also left a comment on that user's talk page here. I have suggested these pages be changed to redirects to the main artist page per WP:ATD-R. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind being an extra set of eyes for this situation and we can see how it turns out. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Hi, I have been out of action for a few days, so I apologize. I will take a look now. Thanks for the heads up! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NPP/tagging
Can I please ask you why you tagged Santiago Montagner (I have since cleaned it up; look at the history)? Although it is certainly ok to tag things, I don't think that it is a good idea to tag BLPs without any footnotes/inline references as being such. I say this because a lack of inline sourcing in this article is a huge issue, but one that can easily be cleaned up. Although it may slow down reviewing a bit, it increases the quality of Wikipedia far more than just tagging an article with a cleanup tag would do. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I tagged the article as not having footnotes because it did not have footnotes. And one source is not enough for a BLP, so removing the ref improve tag is incorrect on your part. You further left a bare URL. I'm not sure why you would consider this message necessary. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I should have left a BLP improve tag there (sorry about that). But, otherwise, I think I'm fine. A bare url is much better than nothing (and I will go back and expand it relatively soon). I'm saying that instead of tagging the article as having no footnotes, you should have improved it, or just left it for somebody else to review. I'm supporting this on the basis of this, from WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As far as consensus goes, though, it doesn't seem like there is a consensus against banning the tagging for non-BLP articles, so you're fine there. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 18:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting what new page patrolling means. I see a problem and am tagging it as such. By your logic no templates should exist, and instead users should just fix every problem they see. Sure that would be ideal, but where do you draw the line? Should NPPs never template articles, and instead just improve them to the point they do not need any improvement? Templates are there for a reason. Until they are taken away I don't think your viewpoint makes sense. Templates identify problems to be fixed, generally speaking by the article's creator. I fix formatting, bare urls, grammar, etc. Sometimes I will improve an article from a single sentence into a viable one. In any case, thanks for the advice but in the future don't critique how I volunteer my time just because you would have done it differently. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)