User talk:EoRdE6/Archives/2015/January

Reverted Edit
Why did you undo my edit? I know how this plane went down and nobody will know the truth. Did you know that the helicopter that Seal Team 6 was on was hit by the same malicious code. The government just covered up the truth. A single satellite image showed a copy and pasted RPG being fired, but the real images just show it falling out of the air. Plus, the engine on my plane got cut off, too. I was flying through O'hare. The only reason why my plane didn't go down is because President Obama or Biden was flying through the area at the same time. The plane was delayed and I was on the ground when the engine cut off. The malicious code was produced by NSA agent Brian Miller... If my confirmation number goes through Delta, then launch the rest of the code. I'm known as John Connor, but my real name is David Thorsen Buikema. I solved almost all of the Millennium Problems. I know who is reading this, too. Have a nice day. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.129.44 (talk • contribs)
 * Your original IP just got blocked. I would recommend steering well clear of articles about this subject for a little while, and if you return remember one important thing, Content MUST be sourced. No ifs ands or buts. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bulk Jupiter
I'll let you expand the article for now. WP:SHIPS/R may be of use. World Maritime News and Shipwrecklog have both covered the sinking. A useful tip is to search for the name of the ship and add the figures from her IMO Number. Reveals quite a bit that way re past history. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources are quite useful, thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thornhill, Maple Ridge de-PRODed
your PROD was out of line; User:Braches is an 84-year old Whonnock resident trying to work on and create community articles in that area; there's only one cite so far, true, but geez this is brand-new. If anything you should have RMd this - and you would have lost as I and others would fight it, and there's sources out there yet; overkill with the delete button about a place you don't even know anything about. He does, and I do too.Skookum1 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why is was a Proposed Deletion which is simply suggesting an article for deletion and nothing more. I don't know how on earth you expected me to know what situation the creator was in, or why that should matter. More importantly, per WP:DEPROD this conversation belongs on the article talk page, with a ping if necessary. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that he's 84 was just a comment, people like him are valuable to Wikipedia and are often disconcerted by "rules" etc and sudden deletions and such. Myself, I see no reason why that was prodded at all; it was brand-new, had at least one cite, is easily googleable; I realize you're a new page patroller, but suggest you learn some discussion and in this case try googling, or looking at the host city's neighbourhood pages or other online mentions; PRODing is "proposed deletion" sure, but it's a deletion without discussion and could have seen this wiped today, instead of being given some time to see how it grows.Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I would recommend drafting in the userspace to a article creator like this, but as you continue to remind me and tell me he is 84 that may be over his head,so I'll let it be. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to AfC!
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Files for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful: Once again, welcome to the project. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
 * The reviewers' talk page is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
 * Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
 * You might wish to add AFC status or AfC Defcon to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
 * Several of our members monitor the IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
 * The IRC channel is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the Articles for Creation process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for Creation namespace.
 * The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.

Talkback
Dcheagle  &bull; talk &bull; contribs 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Abhi Subedi
Eorde6, I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean, but this was not a good edit. The IP's edit was positive and improved the article; you reverted without even giving an explanation/edit summary, as if you didn't actually look to see what happened. Please don't make a habit out of this. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite confused at this. He didn't remove any spam at all. All he did was mess up the intro, remove refs and wikilinks. A quick look in his editing history and you would find he is vandalising quite a lot right now. I am quite tempted to revert your revert as I see nothing better about it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He even added a misspelling. I am honestly not quite sure what you are seeing right now, but it's not what I'm seeing. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already blocked the IP. But you should look much more carefully at that one edit, which removes ridiculous wikilinks, a totally promotional paragraph, the full text of a poem, and a ton of spam links such as this one. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello EorDE6
Apologies if I was rude to you, but I hope that you have at least recognized the actual issue that I am/was having with the banned user. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I should apologize too, sometimes its hard to tell what's going on from an outsiders perspective. Next time I'll trust your judgment and let it pass. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far
Hello EoRdE6,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

J. R. Smith
http://www.nba jersey.biz/cavaliers-jr-smith-new-garnet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intruder007 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 January 2015‎
 * - nbajersey.biz? I think not. It won't be long until a reliable source confirms it and we can add it then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

CSD G13 Discussion

 * If you have difficulty with understanding the nomination criteria, please let me know as I'm somewhat of a Subject expert as I helped craft the CSD criteria in additon to being the operator of a bot that does the great majority of the nominations for G13. Hasteur (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got the criteria figured out but had a question of sorts. Is there a way you could get your bot to help nominate the a lot of articles at Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template? They were all tagged in Dec 14 by a bot which makes them appear recently edited, and none of them have AfC tags either. However a lot, if not a majority are abandoned AfC's, created long ago which is why they aren't in the Draft namespace and don't have AfC tags. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, it was actually your bot I believe that tagged them all in this category. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean User:HasteurBot, the one that I run?  If you had bothered to read the WikiProject AFC talk page discussion you would have seen that I had the bot intentionally flag every single one of those members of the category because they are significantly defective. To quote from the actual text of CSD:G13  Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's AFC submission template..  It has been my understanding (and that of admins who patrol the G13 nominations (such as )) that the page must have at least one AFC submission template on the page and must have not been edited in the past 6 months in order to qualify for G13.  We're supposed to give every submission at least one attempt of being reviewed by a volunteer.  Because it is difficult for a automated process to figure out if the page has ever been submitted, the AFC submission templates been stripped from the page, or if there's some other oddity that needs fixing it is best to have a human set of eyes to look at the submission to determine if we need to submit the page for at least one good faith review by a AFC volunteer, if we need to flag it as a draft and start the 6 month clock, or if we need to apply one of the other CSD rules besides G13 to it. Getting an AFC submission banner on the page enrolls the page into a subcategory of Category:AfC submissions by date so we can later navigate down by date to drafts that have potential to be successful G13s. Hasteur (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misread your own quote however. "This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's AFC submission template." It applies to all AfC's in the project talk space (like the ones in the above cat), but just the drafts with an AfC template because some people use the draft namespace for drafting without submission to AfC (like myself). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm the subject matter expert on G13 and it's common use. I'd prefer to not have to bring your actions up for discussion (as it never ends well) but if you continue in this line I will do it. Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a formal warning: Do not knowingly nominate for Criteria for Speedy Deletion: G13 unless you are absolutely sure that the page has not been edited in over 6 months. Nominating from the AFC submissions missing AFC template category is absolutely wrong (as the pages that make up that category were recently tagged by my bot). Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again I don't feel like I agree (or the other admins who have already deleted 20 of them). A bot edit doesn't make the page unabandoned, the original editor has obviously abandoned them. The admins deleting the pages I have tagged agree too. I will happily take this to a discussion if thats what you want but as you say those tend to end badly... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been asked by a user (me), and an admin to not nominate invalid G13s.  I have raised the point on the WT:AFC talk page to determine if there is a change in consensus.  As it stands, it is a local 2 to 1 against you, therefore you are required by the consensus model to stop pending a consensus supporting your viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And admins and  agree with me. Also  deleted many of the articles recently edited by your bot. I woud say you are actually outnumbered a bit here. All of these pages were tagged by your bot and just deleted. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * G13 is tricky. As I remember it, I along with Hasteur originally came up with the idea,and I think we can take equal credit. We also both recognize the problems of ambiguity. The deletion was deliberately made easily reversible, just like PROD, because whether an article has some hope for it is very much a matter of judgement,and because there can be drafts at very different stages.
 * When it was devised, we did not yet have draft space. My and I think 's intention with the proposal for draft space was for it to supersede all afcs and most or all user page drafts, but I do not think it was fully defined what would and would not be covered. I personally would prefer to move all userspace drafts into Draft space, possibly without exceptions; others disagree, and I do not think the matter is settled.
 * I personally have been interpreting the 6 month rule as applying to everything in draft space, tagged or untagged, and as applying also to everything in user space that is intended to be a draft. That does not mean that I am sure this is the correct interpretation, much less the interpretation that we ought to have. I am much less sure about this and other things involving draft space and G13 than some editors seem to be. The more I work with drafts and afc, the more variations I see, and the more unsure I get.
 * It is not settled how much of an edit prevents a G13: whether the time refers to time since the last edit of any kind, or the last substantial edit. For practicality, I think the bot wisely does not attempt to distinguish. It is not settled whether the review of an article or placing a comment on it, resets the time period. It certainly does not make sense that placing a G13 warning notice on an article should reset the time period, because then the purpose of a six-month warning given as it should be at 5 months is defeated. Whether placing a submission notice on an unsubmitted article resets the time period is I think ambiguous.  I can see an argument for either interpretation, and the best place to deal with it is not here, but on either the AfC talk page or the CSD talk page. I suggest WT:AFD, as it gets much more general attention.  In the interim of the discussion, it would probably be a good idea not to delete them.  DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with the idea all drafts should be in the Draft: space, it just makes everything simpler. I would start a discussion at WT:AFD but I feel I may be very harshly judged as I was at WT:AfC. Feel free to start one and ping me if you do. (You also may want to link in this discussion, the discussion on WT:AfC, and the admin noticeboard discussion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here from the administrator's noticeboard. What is the process for raising a proposed change to the CSD criteria? I believe that it may need to be clarified i.e. I do not believe that bot edits should count as an 'edit within the last six months'.  T K K ! bark with me!  03:26, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * The process is to propose it at WT:AFD. But it would be well to discuss the interpretation there first, before making a formal proposal.  And  think first exactly what  it is that you wish to suggest. Do you mean all bot edits, or this particular bot? If you mean this particular bot, it would probably be better to have an interpretation than to try to get all details into the G13 statement--these things are notoriously hard to word exactly.
 * Do not be afraid of going there, or anywhere here, if you keep to the point, and do not let others goad you into making things personal. Remember that no individual here has authority in such matters, but that a consensus usually can be found--often by compromise.  Nobody owns a process any more than they own a page, any more than anyone owns a page, and many proposals come out quite differently then the originators intended, and change further over time. That several of us here had significant input into this does not mean that our responses are definitive or our solutions better than yours. All I can do personally is state my own views for what consensus appears to me, and also my own opinion about what it should be--they are often quite different. Neither Hasteur nor myself can enforce our own opinions even when we agree completely. :::But as I said, it is not wise to insist upon performing disputed actions without getting agreement. What consensus means is that it matters more that we find a rough agreement on what should be done in the situation,  than just what it is that we agree on doing.
 * I will take a look there tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After a lengthy discussion at the administrators noticeboard where some people tried to make it heated, the consensus appears to be post a discussion for the idea over at WT:CSD and maybe notify the affected people and projects. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please move your discussion to the newly created conversation at WT:CSD as requested by an admin. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot discussion
We don't discuss about bots on WP:ANI, they are discussed on WP:BON and this "Bot owners' noticeboard" is actively handled by the admins who are specialized in botting, bot approval, and deflagging the bots. They don't really participate in the discussions of ANI. You may want to look at the varieties of discussions that have been made on WP:BON.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, thanks for telling me! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Alexander Gribinets
Hello EoRdE6. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Alexander Gribinets, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: page has been edited within the last six months, so G13 does not apply. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry don't know what I was thinking... But I just tagged several others that haven't been edited for over 6 months (excluding bots) if you want to take a look.
 * That's why we have two pairs of eyes for deletions. I have done some of your others, but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AIM9Nation and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aiyana Dixon are also not yet 6 months abandoned, please check more carefully. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm disagree... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AIM9Nation was last edited in September 2013 or 15 months ago... And the other one just got deleted. May I ask you to check more carefully too? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Touché on AIM9Nation, you're quite right and I have deleted it; but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aiyana Dixon was edited Sep 14 and is still here. Once again, that's why we have two pairs of eyes. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Question regarding your BOTN thread
Is it your contention that this still needs to be dealt with? After a week of being closed and being stale, a user has re-opened the discussion which I feel is best left closed. If I do not hear back from you in 24 hours, I'm going to assume I have your authorization to re-close the thread as Stale and Resolved over any objections. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bot_owners%27_noticeboard
 * You can not close a discussion that you are involved in yourself. JMHamo (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called unopposed consensus JMHamo. If Eo doesn't object then it's just T13 disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT which is more disruptive than closing a discussion I'm "involved" in. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see this? "EoRdE6 is taking a short wikibreak to get ready for exams and will be back on Wikipedia once the exams are over." You might be waiting... JMHamo (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The precise diff is which highlights. —Sladen (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Accounts
Please could you help me understand what's going on here, the metadata shows and the signature shows. Cheers, —Sladen (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check User talk:EoRdE6. EoRdE6 had opened a thread on ANI, and I had moved it to WP:BON.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ralph O. Allen

 * as reviewing admin, I did not delete the article. Saying someone is a professor at a university is at the very least a claim of significance, and usually notable . The actual criteria for notability are at WP:PROF. But the article need not meet notability requirements to pass speedy, because the very statement of the position is an indication of possible significance. The requirements to pass speedy are deliberate much less restrictive than the standard for actual notability. (And FWIW, we have almost never deleted the article on a full professor at a research university for lack of notability). Please Re-read WP:Deletion Policy and WP:CSD  .    DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ✅ EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)