User talk:Elahrairah/Archive 3

Nemanja Latinović
Hey; I've declined the CSD here, because he clearly asserts significance (a lower test than notability). As you point out on the talkpage, this doesn't mean he meets the inclusion guidelines, and you're welcome to PROD or AfD the article. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :). Ironholds (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No Gods, No Masters
Excuse me, you deleted content from this article with no good reason. There were citations coming for all these references. You say you support "in popular culture" sections but apparently not on articles you nominate for deletion? So which is it? Please give an explanation as to why you are REMOVING CONTENT on an article. Thanks. TurtleMelody (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Citations coming" isn't good enough. If you write random stuff on wikipedia and don't supply a source you can't cry foul when it gets removed. So to summarise, the reason I removed it was because I, as a reader, had no way to verify that you didn't just dream it one night and then put it in a wikipedia article. You're right that I support trivia sections, but I don't support unsourced content; refrain from lazy straw men please. As it happens I didn't see this for ages because you posted it on my userpage instead of my talk page, and in the end I ended up adding all the references you apparently had but were just hiding away. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

GNG guidelines
Thank you for the note regarding your A7 nomination of Rangoli Restaurant. The subject fairly easily passes WP:GNG, based upon the significant international coverage in reliable secondary sources, and as such I would encourage you to reconsider your nomination of such. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kabbage UK


A tag has been placed on Kabbage UK, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the page that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 86.149.252.182 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) ==

Hi - please will you let me know whether I've revised the entry sufficiently to remain on the wikipedia site? If not, perhaps you can give me some advice, there's an entry under "Kabbage" which is the name of my organisation, so perhaps I should simply add my details to that one? Any advice you can offer gratefully received, I really don't wish to be in breach of the rules for this site, nor exploit it for commercial purposes, I simply wish to have a voice in the same way that other companies do.

Thanks,

Kabir


 * Hi there. Don't add material to the Kabbage article because that appears to be a different company based in the US. I'm afraid I don't think your company merits an article on wikipedia because it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. I appreciate you're probably a new user and so you're probably not aware of this, but simple truth or existence is insufficient a standard to merit an article; the subject must be notable.


 * In addition to the problem of notability, since you've stated that it's your organisation, you probably have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing a subject area within which you have an ulterior motive, and I would suggest you do not try to create an article about yourself or your organisation. If such an article is appropriate, someone else will eventually write it for you. Hope this helps.


 * Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

86.149.252.182 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Types of cities by geographical region

 * i work heard to find some information sources to write this article so i am ask to not delete anything so I could expand the article !, this is not personal commentary by me !, maybe it need to change the name of this article. פארוק (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of Sarah Bakewell article
Hi Basalisk,

I do not understand why you are being so destructive to the Sarah Bakewell article. If there are words or sentences you think are 'cruft', that does not justify deleting 90% of the article and all the references. There were two book reviews cited in the article in well respected newspapers, which you deleted. The NYT review gives quite a bit of biographical information too. Please await the outcome of the AfD before deleting the article. Sionk (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, I've just noticed I did mention the word 'vandalism' in my message on the Talk page. I apologise, that was probably inflammatory on my part. Hopefully this can be sorted out amicably! Thanks for your explanation on my Talk page. Sionk (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions for the Xentax Foundation page
Hi there,

Thanks for working with me on the Xentax Foundation page. I appreciate and welcome your suggestions. You've identified a number of citations needed. I understand that you refer to c64.org as not a standard. However, I do believe that http://noname.c64.org/csdb is the closest thing to a database that lists the most accurate timelines. For example, http://noname.c64.org/csdb/group/?id=6138 is the page for USB. The software listed there shows dates of creation when started in an emulator. I would like to understand better what kind of citation would be needed to confirm this, other than this CSDb which lists +100,000 software products? Thanks again! Theageofchaos (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. You're right that there is a lot of information on the c64.org website. The problem is that it is all the information on that website is user-submitted, and so it cannot be relied upon. On this page, it is stated that all the information on the website is submitted by registered users and is not checked by the staff of the website, and thus the website would not be considered reliable. This is important - the amount of information on the website is not relevant to its reliability. Even if it is consistent with what you personally know to be true, this still doesn't make it reliable as this is, in effect, original research.


 * Other sources which would not be considered reliable, for similar reasons, would include blogs (essentially the opinion of a single writer and not checked by anybody else). In order for a website like this to be considered reliable it would have to have an editorial team to check on facts. In terms of suggesting suitable sources, I'm afraid I'm of little help as I have little knowledge in the field.


 * I hope this clarifies why I don't feel that c64.org is a reliable source. However, I'm not always right, and if you would like a few more opinions I can make an enquiry at the reliable sources noticeboard? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks for being understanding. Your constructive attitude is appreciated. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL
 DBigXray has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

 For your comment on Articles for deletion/Haji Yacoub (Al Qaeda) LOL -- D Big X ray  16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

False accusations
Hi Basalisk, I appreciate your intense concern in this matter but be careful with wrong accusations. I did not expect being accused and even threatened to be blocked. What a community! And for those who do not know it, I did NOT post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube. It merely illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey hey, I'm not "threatening" you with anything! Apart from anything else I'm not an admin, and so you'll get no blocking from me. I was, as I said in the post on your talk page, just offering you some friendly advice because I don't want you to get blocked. If you check the ANI post you began you'll also see that I was the one pointing out that you probably didn't author the youtube video. I'd still recommend you stop linking to it though as it would probably be considered harassment. I meant no offence. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Basalisk! Yes, I included a link to the video once in an edit. Let's see how this will be resolved. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Need your take on this
Hey there, Rinpoche is continuing to be a grossly disruptive nuisance, and has made my real name public and is continuing to out me. I filed an WP:SPI against against his IP address and he's been blocked. Another thing I'm looking for is an opinion on an WP:ANI thread:. Care to come and place your opinions? You can come there if you like. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Capsule of funeria
Hi thanks for taking the time to read my edit summary, the longer point was that although Capsule of funeria is a hopeless article at the moment it has enough context to clearly identify it, so it is not a speedy delete candidate. I hope I have not distressed you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the response. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 11:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

SmartDefrag AfD
Hi Basalisk, I noticed that SmartDefrag article has been marked for deletion. I am currently testing a number of defragmentation tools and i believe that SmartDefrag (with all its unpleasant characteristics like the advertising pane at its bottom or the slowness starting...) may be notable having similar functionality to "set it and forget it" to DiskKeeper not found in other tools freeware. If you have other reasons why it should not be mentioned in Wikipedia, I'd like to know. Thank you.--Parsec09 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm not entirely sure I understand all of your comment above, but I shall try to answer in parts:
 * The reason I nominated the article for deletion is because I do not believe it meets wikipedia's general guideline for notability. For a more specific outline of what might make a piece of software notable you could take a look at WP:Notability (software). If you look at that page you'll see that SmartDefrag doesn't really meet any of the criteria listed there - it's not covered by third-party sources in an analytical way, and it hasn't really made any lasting or historical impact on its field.
 * Whilst I've given you my reasons for believing SmartDefrag isn't a notable subject, you should note that I have merely nominated it for deletion. I have little further impact on the process; the article will now be discussed by the wikipedia community (you can find a link to the discussion in the banner at the top of the article) in an attempt to form a consensus, and this consensus will be enacted by an administrator.
 * As for DiskKeeper, I'm not familiar with that program, but the circumstances surrounding it and governing its notability may well be different. Even if they are not, the existence of an article about it does not constitute a reasonable argument for keeping the SmartDefrag article.


 * I hope this has clarified things a bit; don't hesitate to ask me further questions. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Basalisk, thanks for your reply. I realize to have a lot to learn about Wikipedia... :)--Parsec09 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any time. I realise how complicated it all seems at first, I was pretty daunted when I first showed up! Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
BO &#124; Talk 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Specs112  t   c  16:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your request
I'm sorry to have to decline your request. As a Glaswegian, I am only too aware of sectarianism, which spills over here, and I avoid Northern Ireland related issues like the plague. Frankly though, I think the claims of "water boarding" are bullshit, Paras are just not that subtle. See the Five techniques for the sort of thing that went on at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy
I'd like to point out that the only reason Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents became a content dispute is because the subject himself successfully hijacked the discussion by pasting in a flood of his content-related comments from article talk pages. The ANI thread was opened because of complaints by several editors about violation of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and especially WP:CIVIL. The content disupte comments are off-topic, and should be struck from AIN, but the thread should not be closed until a decision is made. The overwhelming consensus is that the decision should be block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I can see where you're coming from. I indicated in my closing statement that I recognised it was a bold move, but I just felt that by that point the discussion was going nowhere. Feel free to re-open/start a new discussion, I won't object. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've take all the pages related to Bridge Boy and his controversies off my watchlist. It's obvious to me that he's going to go on attacking anybody who crosses him, but I'm tried of doing the heavy lifting necessary to put a stop to it. Bridge Boy will attack some other editor, that editor will go to ANI, and the whole circus will be repeated, without me. He's somebody else's problem now. Cheers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sayers Croft
Hi Basalisk, just thought you deserved a little note re Sayers Croft, your A3 tag of it after twenty minutes was in my view perfectly correct. But as we'd come across it during a training session I was running we managed to rescue it. Not that I can guarantee that the Sayers Croft we wrote about was the one the newby had in mind:) Cheers  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I had taken a look and figured it out. Sometimes NPP gets a little twisted up I guess. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, six people edited the article in well under an hour and it will probably now go for months between edits...... And for all we know the original editor was planning to write about a croft in Scotland. But it did make for an excellent training session, I even got to show Kat an edit conflict. Cheers - and feel free to remind me of this incident if you ever run for admin.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Feel free to remind me of this the next time I make a mistake so glaring it's funny! Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
22:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Need any help"? Why, yes!
Hi Basalisk, remember here where you said to let you know if we need any help? Well we sure do! We could use some outside opinions at this WP:RSN discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Your honest input would be very appreciated. Thanks! 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sammy Harper
Can you please leave my article alone please?Sammyharper91 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but it's not "your" article. Articles on wikipedia do not belong to any editor; when you added the article you agreed to release it to be edited by anyone, any time. Also, please see the message I've left you on your talk page. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OkSammyharper91 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Adf.ly
Please remove the sppedy delete template as I now established notability.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No you haven't. Please read WP:N, as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Protip: this isn't one. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You call Alexa liers?!TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but simply being popular doesn't make a website notable. See WP:N. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Scholarism
Use your brain. The page is now a redirect to the main page Moral and national education, not a recreation. The group may fail some wikipedia policies, but the issue certeinaly does not. Redirecting a relevant group to the article on that issue is "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" on WP:R. Let me put it this way, if the page Moral and national education had been created before Scholarism was deleted, the deletion result would probably be "Redirect to Moral and national education" instead of Delete. Amend your deletion reason please. --Jabo-er (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't just unilaterally claim that you know "what would have happened" if xyz and use that as an excuse to do whatever you want. You're right that now I've reverted your attempt to sneak the scholarism content back onto wikipedia, the Scholarism page now just redirects to the education page. But that isn't appropriate at all, as that page doesn't even mention scholarism at all. If someone typed "scholarism" into the search bar, they'd end up at a completely alien page with no relevance to what they were searching for. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, do not try to reinsert the content into the education article. You're not at liberty to do this - we had the debate at the AfD, and the decision was made to delete the article. You don't get to re-add it wherever else you feel like and make people run around after you to clean up. If you revert again, I'm going straight to WP:AIV with diffs from the AfD discussion. I strongly urge you to let this go. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I let the admins to judge.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Hotel Osijek
Hello Basalisk, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hotel Osijek, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to buildings. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  15:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Types of cities by geographical region
hi. where is my article that you delet ? .... i want to try to edit him again please. if you can please put this in my Sandbox. Thank you פארוק (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I didn't delete your article, I simply opened a discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. That discussion can be found here. The result of the discussion was a decision to delete the article, and it was then deleted by an administrator. A copy of the article has already been transferred to your user space as a subpage, and you can find that here. Feel free to work on it there, but it needs a lot of work before it can be re-created as a proper article. Be sure to read WP:OR thoroughly before you continue your work. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OR noticeboard
I felt I should update you on the result - an admin blocked the user for a period of 72 hours, to reinforce an indefinite topic ban from the area.

Thanks for your concern though! -- Activism  1234  01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to: Please remember that this user right:
 * Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
 * Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
 * Administrate article feedback.
 * Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
 * Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
 * Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 26 August 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: About deletion

 * Sorry about having added to a closed review, I had misread the note on your talk page and thought that your editor review was due to be closed on the 26th of this month, rather than last month - I didn't realize that review pages don't get closure notices placed on them like AfDs do.


 * I didn't tell you to get lost, and explicitly said that I hadn't seen what I was describing in your editing history; to quote myself, "you ought to put a fair percentage of your time into creating content to Wikipedia standards if you are also going to be spending lots of effort evaluating and deleting the work of others." Fully conditional and not under any reading saying you must spend all your time creating content - by all means devote yourself to trimming policy-violating material out of the encyclopedia, but I personally think it's a bad thing when people who are focused on deleting others' work always have the time to improve an article or the encyclopedia overall by deleting a bunch of stuff, but never seem to have enough time to work similar improvements by preserving others' material and spending a few minutes or hours doing research and writing.  The tendency in the project to judge editors' efforts by the number of edits the system has recorded reinforces bad habits like that, so I think it's important to say these things out loud at every opportunity.


 * If you would like me to make a further comment in the review re-emphasizing that this was advice responding to your stated goals and interests in the project rather than the result of a thorough evaluation of your editing history, I'd be entirely willing to.


 * Actually carrying out guidelines and policies via deletion is certainly important, but creating AfDs under false pretenses (or at least pretenses that can be seen as false if any effort is spent actually researching the topic, such as the AfD we interacted over where three sentences of information clearly not novel at all and published elsewhere were nominated as original research), then dropping the original nominating rationale when it is challenged and tossing out any alternative rationale that can be found is in my experience an indicator that the nominator has gone beyond concerns about policy and are in the realm of pursuing deletions to suit their own personal preferences about article length, importance of topics, and other frequently cosmetic things.


 * This is an extremely asymmetrical struggle because something that can take hours of effort in tracking down sources and composing prose can be deleted in the flick of the wrist. The policies are there for good reasons and it shouldn't be taken lightly when they or Wikipedia processes are being used as a smoke screen for some editors to just get their own way.  It shouldn't be easy or painless to eliminate from the encyclopedia material that isn't violating policy and simply does not agree with some editor's taste.  (Though unfortunately, for all but the most closely-watched articles, it usually is pretty easy and painless.)  -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin candidate review
I have completed your review for a possible run for admin. You can view it at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Basalisk. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, and thank you for your input Anthony. I agree that 3 months is a max time, not a minimum, but adding a few more article edits will dispel a few concerns.  If he insisted on running today, I would support and nom, but think just a little prudence and preparation would be beneficial.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, Basalisk, I have recommended you be at the front of the line for new SPI clerk trainees. It would probably be good work there as a non-admin patroller some, to get some basic experience.  SPI is a great but difficult admin training ground, and I see you already requested training there.  Being visible and helpful would help keep you at the front of the line.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your helpful input and support. Thanks in particular to Dennis for his review - I didn't expect such a thorough analysis. I have given it a good read and agree with the things you've suggested; I am eager to give it a shot but I agree that it's a good idea to spend a little longer getting myself ready.


 * I've always found SPI interesting, and have been observing more than one would probably realise from a review of my contribs there. It's a really complicated area and I've always been cautious of diving in and wreaking havoc, but I'll do my best to help out on the queue, providing diffs and opinions etc. I'm grateful for trainee recommendation. As I've said before, I don't consider content creation my forte, but I realise that an RfA would benefit significantly from me being able to demonstrate I can write articles. As for your recommendations in terms of my percentage of article edits, I've always felt my relatively low percentage is just symptomatic of the areas in which I like to contribute, and I hope I'll be able to explain that adequately at an RfA. I'll bear in mind your advice about automated communication with others.


 * Overall, I'm clear on the things that I need to do to increase my chances of passing, and I'll focus on them over the coming weeks. It's a busy time of year for a junior doctor in the NHS (as I'm sure Anthony can appreciate!) but I'll be working on things as best I can. If you have any further advice at any point, please let me know. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * i have just retired so, thankfully, am now out of the NHS cauldron; but I well understand what you mean. I think that, always assuming that nothing unforsen happens, your chance of passing RfA is excellent as from now, or indeed, from when I earlier suggested it. But I look forward to co-nominating when you decide you are ready.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to ping you at that time. The decision is Basalisk's, of course, but I'm sure he would be open to you and I nominating him.  Until then, a few tips from both of us along the way would probably be helpful.  RfA can be stressful, I know because I waited over 5 years to do mine, which was just this last April, so a little prep is always good. I know he will make a fine admin, I just want to make sure the journey there is smooth. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just ran across another issue that Basalisk might be interested in. At WP:AN, there are a number of RFCs that require closing, and many do not require an admin to close them.  This might be a worthwhile place to cut your teeth on admin duties.  Closing RfC's is not my specialty, so I don't do them much (I make up for it by handling a lot of personal disputes, which no one wants to touch either).  It is a common admin task that non-admins can do in over 1/3 of the cases.  I suggest taking the most obvious and easy cases to start, learn the methods, and help out by closing one or two a week.  This gets you exposed to the concepts of determining consensus, a needed admin trait, and experience worth pointing to.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dennis, I'll definitely be giving those a look. I realise that RfA is an inherently stressful experience, but I'm used to being criticised and part of the reason I requested a nom is because I've decided I'm ready for the possibility that I'll take an absolute beating and have to work on highlighted weaknesses. Either way, I'd appreciate a co-nom from both of you in the not-too-distant future. Your help in the meantime would also be appreciated. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to be away for two weeks. After that I remain delighted to co-nom; I am certain that with your history here you will be a shoo-in when nominated whoever does it. As we have only had, I believe, one nomination in the last five weeks can I suggest you do not wait too long?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been very active recently. My hospital coordinates the medical on calls in big blocks, rather than spreading them out through the rotation, and I'm in the middle of my block at the moment. I'm on ward cover this weekend and then 09:00-22:00 on the medical intake Monday to Friday next week, but after that, I'd say I'm ready to just give it a shot. The worst that can happen is I get totally rinsed, and I'm braced for that. Thanks for the support Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)