User talk:Exemplo347/Archive 3

Salina Vortex
Hi Exemplo347,

I am wondering if you will please reinstate my previous page information so that I can edit the content to be conforming to guidelines?

Thanks for any help you can provide me. Have a nice day.

VortexMKTG (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings . Have you read the Conflict of Interest notice that has been posted on your page? You should do this urgently, and follow the procedure it outlines. The administrator who deleted your article is who may restore your deleted article if they feel it is appropriate. They are under no obligation to do so, however, and if you do not address the concern regarding your Conflict of Interest then you may have some difficulties. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Exemplo347. I cannot seem to find a talk page for @SouthernNights. How might I alternatively contact them?

VortexMKTG (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you first confirm to me that you have read the WP:COI page? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the conflict of interest page. I have requested for a username change, pending approval. And I was mistaken by the functionality of Wikipedia's page creation tool. After reading through Wikipedia's guideline pages, I thought that by "saving" my page, it would make it so that I could return to the page and it would be saved in a cloud in the instance my computer had malfunctioned. Until the page had been deleted, I did not realize it had been published by my pressing of the "save" button. I had every intention to go back and polish the content with credible references. For the future, now knowing the functionality, I will incorporate all sources and content in one sitting. I only request the original content to provide myself a jumping off point. The content will undergo rigorous changes before it is again vetted by the Wikipedia administrative process.

Thank you for your continued collaboration. Have a nice day.

VortexMKTG (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you contact on their talk page (just click on their name in my comment, and then on the "Talk" tab to get to their talk page) then they may be willing to supply you with the deleted text. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Salina Vortex
Thanks for your help!

VortexMKTG (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Trout
All of that speedy deletion crap was uncalled for and unnecessary. President (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, the fact that the article has been Speedily Deleted kind of makes your Trout turn into a boomerang. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should spend less time trouting experienced editors and more time reading about the criteria necessary for a Wikipedia article. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a party on my Talk page and everyone's invited! Woohoo! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!
Now that's more like it! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Vats
Hey, thanks for editing on "Siddhant Vats". It's our responsibility to protect pages of fellow Indian entrepreneurs. Can you please look more into the article as to what references are being lacked to avoid its deletion?

As the article has so many articles by so many international newspapers.

I am trying to learn too and any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronks123 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

kharenhill
how do i get the article page kharenhill back so i can work it on a sandbox as i didnt have a copy and have lost my work. Please advise if you can get me a copy and if you can put it on my sandbox. I didnt think it would be deleted. ThankyouRhyH (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I see you have already contacted the Administrator who deleted your article. They are the person you should talk to regarding this issue, although you should bear in mind that while it is highly likely they will restore your article into your sandbox, they are under no obligation to. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you confrim how I contact this person officially. I have not had a response on if they can reinstate the page on my sandbox. I had put a lot of work into it and dont want ot start from scratch. I appologise as i am learning how to do this at the same time as tryng to create a page. Thankyou so much. is it possiblefor you to access it being an administrator. it seemed from his page that he was taking a break from Wikipedia and i would like to keep on with getting this right. Thankyou RhyH (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They HAVE responded to you, the answer is on their talk page. Any further correspondence about this issue should take place there. I am unable to assist with this, as the Administrator you are already dealing with IS responding to you. Please direct your questions or comments to them, as there's nothing further I can do about it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou. I will look thereRhyH (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I cant find where you are talking about? I looked on the persons page and cant find the talk page. Am i missing something.Can you point me in the right direction?RhyH (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Okay, look - you've been posting on the Administrator's talk page - see here - so clearly you DO know where it is. They may not respond straight away, but they have been responding, and I see you haven't answered their request to provide them with proof of reliable sourcing. They are the person you should be dealing with, and as I've already pointed out, I'm unable to help you with it. Address all questions to them, not to me. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OR
The CLAIM is not sourced per WP:OR. Please redo my edit. Subuey (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has a reference. Are you the subject of the article? Exemplo347 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Strange question. The claim is that he got the problem wrong. The reference does not address that. PLEASE redo my edit. Subuey (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, is that a yes or a no? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What happened?
I noticed a flurry of activity in my absence on my user page this morning, ending with a notice that I was somehow the subject of an investigation, but with a red-link where the link to the investigation should have been. I reverted to the last known good page. Do I need to do anything else? Am I somehow under suspicion? I noticed that one of the actors was a "Ubiquity2", with whom I have no known connection. I am asking you because your name accompanied one of the restorative actions. Thanks for your help. ubiquity (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you had the ill fortune to become an object of interest to a rather malicious sockpuppeteer, who enjoys creating deletion discussions for random articles and for other editors' user pages and user talk pages. The "investigation" was deleted as an attack on you. It sucks, but fortunately the admins tend to be very quick with the block button when this person is concerned. I think he must be at well over 500 socks by now. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was typing. - I don't think you're under any suspicion so you shouldn't worry. I spotted the attempt to delete your talk page (yes, really) and ended up adding the two sockpuppets to an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, unfortunately it's still going on. I found this: Articles for deletion/User:Ubiquity. No notice on my own page, of course. Anything I can/should do about this? Or just wait until all this guy's stuff gets cleaned up? ubiquity (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like has Protected your talk page for 3 days, so hopefully the boring sockpuppeteer will get bored & go bore someone else with his boring socking! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Best course of action for this puppet is ignore...there's 0 chance of them being successful at getting your article/user space deleted :P CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your help. Will take the given advice and ignore in the future. ubiquity (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Andreas aase
OK, but nevertheless not capitalising the surname is a very plausible thing for a reader to do and therefore it isn't an implausible term.  Hut 8.5  20:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding previous nomination for Deletion of Hochschule für jüdische studies
@User:Exemplo347, I forgot to mention that one of the reason for nomination of deletion of that article was editing done by the subject of the article or by a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., public relations employees) WP:COI. If you can see the creator of the page Hochschule für jüdische studies, you should have noticed that. The article seems like a blatant advertisement of the institution rather than providing its importance of being at Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the article has more usage of a foreign language (I suppose German). So the article will better suit with improvements on German Wikipedia, rather than in the English one.

Bishal revenger (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read WP:DELREASON you will see the list of reasons that the Wikipedia community has decided are valid - a Conflict of Interest is not a reason on the list. If you scroll down further, you will see a list of alternatives to deletion, including cleanup - which is what the article requires. Hopefully that clears it up (and please don't quote bits of policy back to me). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the doubt. And I didn't intend for picking on you. Apologies if it looked so. Cheers Bishal revenger (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, that's what Talk pages are for! Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what you get
For submitting your user page to AfC, and then abandoning it. I hope you've learned your lesson. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What the... may your unshod feet find a floor filled with lego. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Meh. My daughter isn't even one yet. It's megablocks all the way down. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The lego will come. One day, when you least expect it.... bam! You're hobbled. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Biokinesis
you made me laugh so many times! :) Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should probably have acted like I'd seriously considered the article for inclusion before deciding "delete" but... what the hell, it just made me chuckle more than the time I saw a content dispute about the list of characters in "Thomas & Friends" appear at the Administrator's Noticeboard! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Habitat
Hey, I'm not sure why you undid the recent revision I made to the Habitat (video game) wikipedia page. It was mentioned in the edit summary that it had already been discussed in the talk page that a revision was needed. The creator of both of these virtual worlds technologies stated that it should be seperate and they previously existed for many years as seperate pages. The recent merge was done by a user unfamiliar with the intimacies of the technologies and I am acting on the creators blessing. Can you please undo the undo that you made? Thank you.

RenoProject (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, can you explain very specifically what your connection is to the creators of the products in question? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am talking to them directly right now on Slack as part of the Habitat revival project mentioned in the wiki. http://www.renoproject.org/habitat/evidence.png RenoProject (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read through WP:COI firstly, and then WP:OWN - if you want to suggest a major change to an article, the correct procedure is to discuss it on the Talk page of the article in question. Wikipedia articles are not changed at the behest of people who are involved with the subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the criteria for allowing the major change to take place? I have listed an explanation on the talk page of the article in question but what needs to happen in order for a major change to be allowed through? Do other wikipedia users also have to comment on the talk page agreeing or disagreeing and giving evidence as to why? RenoProject (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The process is, you should propose the change on the talk page of the article in question. Experienced editors will then discuss the change and will make the changes they feel are appropriate - this can take time, but there's no rush - Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. As you'll have read at WP:COI, you should make it clear what your conflict of interest is when you're proposing the change. Any further answers to questions about conflict-of-interest-related editing can be found at WP:COI. Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is my name an issue?
How is the user "DayanaFabiche" advertising or implying any association to any organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DayanaFabiche (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the entire notice? The part about names is just one small section. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I did read the entire section it just seems that a lot of the information does not pertain to my case. Is this just a copy and paste warning? I will get the sources fixed and make sure to improve the content's notability, but other than that your assumptions are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DayanaFabiche (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if ANY of the information does pertain to you, you need to follow the procedures outlined at WP:COI. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Tips to Creating a Page without it being sent to Speedy Deletion?
Tips to Creating a Page without it being sent to Speedy Deletion? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNovaPrime (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with your article is that it's an advertisement, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. I'd advise you to use the Article Creation Wizard in the future - you can create a draft that way and submit it for review by experienced editors. Good luck with your future editing! Exemplo347 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

SOUNDKODE speedy deletion
Hi there Exemplo347,

I contested the speedy deletion as the page was indeed not created to be a promotional tool. Could you please review my response? If there are certain items which need to be changed, I will be happy to make them. Best regards - TimeForTruth (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. There are actually three issues with your article. The first - and most serious - is the issue of copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept articles that are copied & pasted from elsewhere. Secondly, the article is promotional and Wikipedia is not a place to promote people. Thirdly, the article gives no indication of significance - why should there be a Wikipedia article about this person? These problems are so serious that the article, in its current form, has no place on Wikipedia. I'd advise you to use the Article Creation wizard in future - that way you can create a draft and submit it for review before it is published. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote why the article is not a promotional tool in the contention. Did you have time to read that?  I will change the structure of the information immediately.  Thank you for advising me on this issue.  I was unaware of the copy/paste issue.  TimeForTruth (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, let me emphasise this - you need to start again, using the Article Creation wizard. Your current article is eligible for Speedy Deletion and this can happen at any time without warning. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done just that. I have a rewritten article with references and a discography which aligns with Wikipedias requirements for relevancy.  The draft is submitted. TimeForTruth (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's excellent, hopefully the editor that reviews it will help you to get your article accepted. Good luck! Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice
Is there a reason that you left only me advice about edit warring, while you left no similar advice for User Smallbones? - 2001:558:1400:4:4D0F:38FF:2E09:A9DF (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you log into your account so I know who I'm talking to? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD Susana de la Puente Wiese
Hey, I saw you nominated my article for speedy deletion. I have to disclose I have no connection to said person. She is about to be appointed Ambassador of Peru to the UK and my job as a government worker is to create a wikipedia page for all officials. She already has a Wikipedia page in spanish for being a notable banker and I just translated it to english. No promotional, mumbo jumbo, corporate stuff. Please reconsider the request for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookyseamawn (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you're a government worker? That means you DO have a connection, because your job is to create the article. Please read WP:COI and reply to me when you have read it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Just disclosed article on COI and disclosed it in my user page.
 * As you will see at WP:COI, you are not allowed to edit the article any further. You are allowed to suggest changes on the Talk page of the article but you must not edit the article itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

comment on your comment ref: Sheika randa Al Banna's page
Hello Examplo 347 ( if I am not wrong ) Your resume is impressive! you seem to be polite as well, ( i like how you said if I upset you please share) In a way not that you upset me, but your comments were hurtful towards notable ex-wives.. ( I am one of those that you seem to dismiss and diminish) anyway back to your comment on Sheika Randa: She is NOT just and ex-wife of the extremely notable Sheik Mohammed Bin rashid Al-Maktoum, Emir Of Dubai, but she is the mother of his first born child Sheika Manal Al-Maktoum Al-Nahyan, wife of Sheik Mansour Al-nahyan from Abud-Dhabi ruling family.

If this is not notable enough?? what is?? If you don't know much about her biography it's because it was suppressed for years. Don't Suppress us ( the exes) anymore than that please!!! be nice! if you feelit is your duty to discourage the page, do so; but please don't hurt us more than we have been hurt though the years by the NOTABLES! I hope that you will re-consider and I pray you will encourage such a page to post! Us, the so-called ex-wives are hoping and praying it stays.. some dignity back for us as well along the way thank you for your time. REGARDS Mrs. X P.S Wikipedia has a page of a similar case much less notable than Sheika Randa ( jinan Hareb) was able to post a wikipage just because she had some publications in which she claimed to have been one of the wives of King Fahed whom I have known... So if notability comes through some prints? through he said she said? then Wikipedia is unjust in their postings thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.2.15 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S from the exes. ( sorry new to talk) BTW,
Like I said this is our first time on wiki talk etc.. I hope this reaches you. Just wanted to bring to wiki's attention that sheika Randa has had publications as well.. if that's what wiki relies on ( example the "Jinan Hareb page) as recent as september 2016; Arab times among them wrote huge articles few others as well in Arabic, French and English all make references to her being the ex wife of the ruler and mother of his first child. Maybe some of the  wiki editors are really missing the point here.. Yes! people can gain notability through marriages.. in this case it is much more than just a simple marriage! thank you dear for your time.. sorry we are not professionals exes... let's hope we wrote in the correct page. we have no way of checking your replies but all said and done we wanted  you, the editors and Wikipedia to know about these factors as well. regards from all Mr.s X's  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.2.15 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Despite your message on the neutrality guideline of Wikipedia, user:Utk2 is still removing sources and making POV edits. I presented my rationale on the talk page as well. Thank you.--45.123.13.164 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC Closure
In your recent closure of the RFC at List of Mahinda College alumni you state "No support for the proposal except from the proposer." However clearly supports the view that the list should be converted to a table, if you read his comments. I accept that there is no consensus but disagree with your reasoning. Dan arndt (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's what you think he means, but he definitely didn't say he supports it. In fact, he says the opposite - he supported the use of lists. You're making an assumption, while I, when closing the discussion, assessed the consensus in a dispassionate way using only the comments in the discussion. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I intend to seek clarification from those editors who participated in the discussion as to what their exact position is, as it would appear to me that their intention was to support the conversion of the list to a table. If there is an indication contrary to your closing statements then I will be seeking the RFC be re-opened. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely believe that "convert to list" means "convert to table" then go ahead. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an error on my part - I meant to say "convert to table" which is what I've said in the comments.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the outcome stands - converting a list of that nature into a table would make the article barely readable, and there's no reason why it's necessary. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you Jump in when the tea house discussion is on
Revenge and retaliation is reserved for Cowards...?

Can't you wait for those gentle men to respond...

If the system moves in this direction then it is probably heading towards DOOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I assume that message was sent to me because I declined your draft. As an Articles for Creation reviewer, that is what I'm supposed to do - review drafts. Direct your bad temper elsewhere - focus your energy on improving your draft and then feel free to resubmit it in the future. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I did spend my energy on improving my draft... But why would you hurry...?

>>Independent,

NO wonder there are paid services which offer services for getting content published in wiki... There are more than one person so they compliment each other well...

>>reliable sources are needed that specifically discuss this hypothesis in detail...

You already have links for my books from a well known publishing house...

Cowards dont have room in comercial spaces, but DO have lots of space to rome around here in WIKI...!

Good luck, J
 * I reviewed your draft because you pressed "submit to review" - if you don't want anyone to review your draft, don't press the "submit" button. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Exemplo347... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have evidence
Ika Wong is up for discussion of deletion. You can't redirect it without a consensus.

````musicalorange6
 * Yes, it happens all the time. And I know it's up for deletion because I put it there. I have no idea why you think that person should have information about them in more than one article, but I doubt that anyone is going to agree with you. Now, I'm not going to discuss this here - the deletion discussion page is the appropriate venue. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is only one article about Ika. What are you talking about. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalorange6 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The redirect pointed to an entry about that person contained within another article - which is the standard thing for reality show contestants. Now, further discussion about this is not going to take place here. The deletion discussion page is the appropriate venue and any further replies here from you about this issue will just get deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting a RFC
Hi, even after relisting a RFC, the main poser/question should always be visible in dashboard,RFC listings etc.Accordingly, I believe this is the way, the relisting should have been done.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 16:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, I've given myself a slap on your behalf! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Lazarus Defense
Hello, I don't believe the page above should be subject to speedy deletion. I wrote it using 5.11 Tactical (another tactical gear manufacturer) as a template to base the page off of, which is cleared by Wikipedia.
 * Greetings. If you wish to contest the deletion, you need to press the "Contest this speedy deletion" button on the article. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi I read your notice and I forgot about the conflict of interest policy. Who would I talk to ask for a page to be made? SCUAUO (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. You should create a draft in your Sandbox, and then submit it through the Articles for Creation process - being sure that you openly disclose your conflict of interest following the procedure at WP:COI. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rejected article
Good afternoon and thank for taking the time to immediately review my first article. I wrote it following the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder entry as a 'guideline' / example. I also see several lists like for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_search_firms and in my eyes all entries there are promotional too with the same logic.

So, if you could please help me understand why my article is promotional and all the other listings are not, it would be greatly appreciated. Also if I know how to modify or what to delete from the article, so it becomes more neutral (give me please an example of a neutral company page), your advice and guidance will be most welcome. Even if you reject me newest edit, at least I understand clearly the why.

Thanks again, Spiros Tsaltas (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsaltas (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The main differences between your draft and the example you provided are the total lack of any promotional language in the example, and the quality of the references. Please read through WP:COI and follow the instructions on that page before you edit further. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Inquiring about my page- Perturbation Training
You have reviewed the page made by me- PERTURBATION TRAINING. It shows that it is nominated for deletion, but does not mention until when it will be deleted. And it is not viewed by public if you search via Google. Please let me know about the same.

Thank you, Riddhipanchal981 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see by the notice on your Talk page here, there is a deletion discussion taking place because the content you added is a dictionary definition of "Perturbation Training" and is not sufficiently notable for its own article. I redirected your article to an appropriate place (Balance (ability)) so you could add your content there, but you reversed my action. My suggestion is that you comment at the deletion discussion about this, as it is not appropriate to discuss this in two places at once. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

New Question
I am writing regarding the article "Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones." Two things, please: 1. Would you please tell me which text is objectionable in terms of copyright. 2. It appears the article has been deleted. Where can I retrieve it to continue editing.

Thank you.Wednesday 0008 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your draft was deleted by - they are who you should contact with your queries. I must warn you though, they may not be able to provide you with the text of your draft because it was a copyright violation, but they will advise you of the steps you should take. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response.Wednesday 0008 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347,

Can you tell me specifically what text violated copyright in the Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones? All the writing was mine. I did include a direct quote for which I provided a citation. I assume that quote is what caused the deletion?

I haven't heard back from RHaworth regarding retrieving the article. Makes me nervous because it contains the only record of my edits since December 2016. Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll need to wait for them. We're all volunteers working across different time zones. Don't worry, there's no rush. They'll get back to you when they can. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your tag on a article I created (Huang Qiuyuan)
I saw you tagged that to the article I created, if you don't know Professor Huang Qiuyuan, then check out here https://www.huangqiuyuan.com and https://www.imea.nyc, check out his son here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_Tiange. Please remove the tag ASAP. Thanks!:)Mobyvonrobot (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not be removing the tags, and neither should you. The article you have written - well, copied - is eligible for Speedy Deletion and this can happen at any time without warning. In the future, I suggest you use the Article Creation Wizard to help write your drafts, and then submit them for review before publishing. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Linda Lloyd Jones
Wednesday 0008 and I would both like to know whence draft:Linda Lloyd Jones was a copyvio. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to point it out because I can't see deleted contributions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see your "long list of copyright violations" comment. Please approve the present state. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo,, just to answer your question :) it whence not. This is the condition of it at Weds0008's last edit; 45% copyvio, which was (as I think you've spotted by now) a direct quote. Was it tagged WP:G12? If so, it should not, as that tells us that '.' And, indeed, as WP:COPYQUOTE tells also that ',' it was probably OK to retain the material. Cheers!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fabergé egg closing
Can you please revert your close of the Fabergé egg discussion. I think you totally misread that there was consensus. Option 3 had way more opposes than Option 1, which has only one oppose. Option 3 is contrary to policy and how all articles on WP are named (see my comment on the talk page). If you don't revert, we'll have to go to Move Review, and I'd rather not. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 03:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see you're not even an admin. You had no business closing such a controversial and complicated RM discussion. --В²C ☎ 03:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand consensus, not do you understand the Non-admin closure guidelines. By unilaterally undoing 's work, you've gone against consensus. The discussion went on for a long time, and was closed over a month ago. If you had any knowledge at all about procedure, you would have opened another RfC discussion BEFORE reverting the changes that has implemented. Your actions are what I'd expect from some random I.P. vandal, not an experienced editor, and I'm within a hair's breadth of raising your actions at AN/I. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but in twelve years of Wikipedia work, much of it involving resolving title disputes and related policy and guidelines, I can't recall a more egregious misreading of consensus, and I've seen some pretty bad ones. Deciding option 3 is favored by consensus when it has much more opposition than option 1 is simply unreasonable, especially when that opposition to option 3 is grounded in solid policy-based reasoning consistent with title decision making all over WP.
 * But never mind the consensus of those participating, what about WP:CONSENSUS - the evaluation of the arguments with respect to relevant policy and guidelines? Well, trying to make titles recognizable to people who are unfamiliar with the topic is a common and understandable RM newbie error. But it's not consistent with policy, guidelines or conventions, and for very good reasons. And yet this was the explicit basis for the decision given in the closing statement.
 * And the whole thing was mostly decided by people interested in the topic of Fabergé eggs, not necessarily editors who are very knowledgeable with title decision-making on WP. Creating an RFC instead of a multi-page move at WP:RM demonstrates that, not to mention not announcing the discussion at WP:RM or in any of the affected pages but one. An experienced closing editor would have noticed this problem. The lack of announcement at WP:RM is why you had so little participation from title experts. Note that the previous attempt to move one of these titles which did go through RM went down in flames, because in that case enough people were involved who knew what they were doing.
 * There is no requirement to have a discussion prior to a revert of a change when the change was made without consensus in the first place, as was the case here.
 * Anyway, all is not lost. If consensus truly exists for adding unnecessary disambiguation to all these titles, then a proper multi-page RM discussion will demonstrate this. Good luck with that. --В²C ☎ 06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Blindly following your interpretation of guidelines to undo things that have been carried out in good faith does not make you a good editor. The fact that you chose to do it without waiting for discussion just makes it worse. Participation at Requests for Closure is thankless enough already, and having someone who claims to be some sort of policy expert undo the work (an act that is itself contrary to policy) isn't helpful. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the work was done in good faith, but it was misguided. The discussion can and maybe should continue, but hopefully with better understanding about how titles are chosen on Wikipedia and why. If every group of editors with a shared interest in some topic area decided unilaterally how to title "their" articles our titles overall on WP would be chosen incoherently. To prevent that, many editors over many years have hammered out policy, guidelines and conventions, mostly laid out at WP:AT and WP:D. The idea that only some titles within an area are disambiguated might look strange if you look at just those titles, but it's a common practice. In fact, I have a section about this on my home page: User:Born2cycle. --В²C ☎ 07:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I both know that you shouldn't have acted without discussion. How you proceed is up to you. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from referring to me as "inexperienced" or "misguided." To be frank, opening this discussion a couple of weeks after consensus was reached simply because you don't agree with it reflects poorly on you. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (I moved this from the new RM - it doesn't belong there). I fixed it per your request. Let me know if that's better. I didn't identify you. But striving to make topics identifiable from their titles to anyone unfamiliar with the topic is the hallmark of inexperience with WP title decision-making. There was no consensus and it was a discussion about titles that was not filed at WP:RM. --В²C ☎ 21:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I don't have any sunshine to share, so here's a kitten!

Primefac (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 
 * Well, it's not a beer but it'll have to do! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aw darn, and I was debating between the beer and a kitten. For next time! Primefac (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hamish Blakely Article Deletion
Dear Exemplo347,

May I ask for the content of my deleted article to be retrieved so I can use as reference to avoid similar errors in future articles?

I have contacted C.Fred also, requesting the removal of all the speedy deletion notices.I accept that this is in the public domain now but would be very grateful if this removal would be considered.

Many thanks for your assistance. Kind regards, Goldentundra 08/05/2017 Goldentundra49 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The person who deleted your article was . If you contact them, they might provide you with the deleted text. It is important for you to realise, however, that the content was purely promotional in nature and therefore the Administrator can justifiably refuse to provide you with the text - Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself. If you truly do meet the standards Wikipedia demands of article subjects then why not wait for someone completely unrelated to you to write an unbiased article? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page - Maggie Tallerman
Thank you for your help on the new page I created. It's my first time so I'm working a little slowly. Hopefully over 2000 citations on google scholar begins to establish notability. 04cah (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have a read through WP:RS, you'll see the types of sources that articles require. As Wikipedia has notability standards for academics (see WP:PROF), you should focus on sources that provide evidence to support the notability requirements. Good luck with your article! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring factual information
Hello! I just received a message that the edits that I made for a page on The Icarus Project were removed due to lack of neutrality. I completely understand and respect why you have these guidelines, but the information on the page is actually objectively incorrect and there are many factual errors. How can I address these factual errors? Judging by the content of the current page, much of this content was written as a smear campaign effort and includes information that is incorrect, highly biased, and selective information that is misleading. I would love to restore the truth. Thank you! Sadasiangirl (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read the notices on your talk page - specifically, the Conflict of Interest notice? Please do read it, and follow the procedure it outlines. The links in the notice will answer any questions you may have. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply! Where can I send a draft of my edits for you to proofread? Sadasiangirl (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first, and most urgent, thing you need to do is to follow the instructions at WP:COI - you need to declare any conflict of interest that you have. It's not optional, and editors who fail to do this are routinely blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you're open and honest about your connections, editors will be more than happy to work with you. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I work for The Icarus Project as the Operations Coordinator. I am more than happy to work with an editor to ensure that the content is neutral and only reflects the facts - not promotion. Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasiangirl (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. The procedure for formally declaring your conflict of interest is outlined at Paid-contribution disclosure. Once you have followed that procedure, have a look at WP:PAY - it lists the process that editors with a conflict of interest must follow. Again, the procedure at Paid-contribution disclosure needs to be followed before you do anything else. The answers to any further questions you may have can be found at the links that I have provided for you. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Smith (singer)
Can you remove the speed delition tag., There are allot of evidence, He was on big national tv on Curacao , in the top chart op NPO radios wich is one of the biggest in Netherlands. He was on cover of magazine's. ronaldbaas (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. I have no involvement with that article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy's Wikipedia page
Hello Sir goodafternoon, as I edit the bio about Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy, I know this man, I've been following Him since a long time ago if you didn't know, so kindly please as I make any changes on Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy's page please don't change it again, thank you very much. May God bless you!


 * Please read through WP:OWN and WP:COI. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
Hi, I am not sure what I did wrong.Kreematismos (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty self-explanatory really. Your recent edits to Recovery Version are not neutral. When I have more time, I'll be going over the article and removing the parts that are not neutral or unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The article before my editions was just advertising. My additions are from Witness Lee's writings. The comparison of Jn.14:6 is to counter-balance their adv that the version is unbiased. Theophilus did the removals of my additions. Are you the same editor?Kreematismos (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The quotes from Witness Lee himself, contradict what had previously been written.Kreematismos (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to argue with you. Are you going to reverse your deletions or not? Saying (on my talk page) that this article is to be "concise" is a red-flag indicating bias. This article is one of the smallest in all of Wikipedia -- AND the deleted info contradicts the existing pretend-scholarship. Bottom line, please reverse or say NO, so that I then appeal your edits. ThanksKreematismos (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:2605:E000:3017:3600:3CF6:576A:730B:33B0 Kreematismos (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read through WP:COI before you edit further? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Please be more specific. Thanks. Kreematismos (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the entire page. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article delted
Dear Exemplo,

My article which you marked for deletion was deleted even after correcting it for the tone, adding sources and citations. ALso, I;m unable to find the content now, please help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaphorist (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see from the notice at the top of this page, any queries about deleted articles should be directed at the Administrator who deleted the article. In this case, it is - feel free to ask them if they can recover the text for you, but they are under no obligation to do so, particularly when the article is unambiguously promotional. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Highly appreciate the help. Unable to contact, can you please help recover the article? Sorry for the trouble.
 * I'm afraid you'll have to wait for to reply. Please direct your future queries to them. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thank you.

New section
Dear Exemplo,

One article Samrat_Raichand which you marked for deletion, continously adding sources and citations. Kindly google that subject, tons of reference is there, you just can let past affect someone's present and future, article was delete for twice in past, cause of those user was new, kindly consider it as keep and remove from AfD. Thank you.--Sriramvats (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I won't be removing this article from AfD. Please read WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:COI. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:36:18, 11 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Xkxo
hi,

Why my article XKXO is not getting accepted ? Please help me out to get it public.

Thank you.

Xkxo (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the rejection of your draft article are noted at the top of the draft - specifically, there are concerns about notability. As the note at the top of the draft says, you need to read through WP:GNG. If you feel that the subject of your article (is it you?) meets the notability requirements, then you will need to provide proof through the use of citations and references. The note at the top of your draft contains instructions and links to pages that may help you. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Worldview
This page is not "unambiguous advertising". It is simply a reflection of the company which is notable per Wikipedia's policies. Hotelpool (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the Speedy Deletion template from an article you have created. It is considered disruptive. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347 I am concerend about your bias regardoing the subject and I thin that you have a conflict of interest. I am bringing this matter to WP:ANI. Hotelpool (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, please do that. I'd really like it. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hotelpool (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it Wednesday already? Timothy Joseph Wood  14:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It must be! Once again, I find myself accused of horrible things despite the fact that obviously I'm a delightful ray of sunshine. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah. This edit summary got a good chuckle... til I realized they weren't talking about you and BK. Darn. Now we'll never know. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, nobody will ever uncover the extremely long-term co-editing conspiracy that BK & I are involved with - it goes all the way to the top! Exemplo347 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * *ahem* -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll confess - full details can be seen here. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 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 a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Healthdirect Australia page for review
You recently added a comment to my User talk page about the Healthdirect Australia article which was deleted. I have created a new draft page Draft:Healthdirect and would appreciate if you could review it for me.

I work as a consultant and am contracted by Healthdirect but not sure where I should state this fact within Wikipedia. Do I add it to my User Talk page?

Thanks for your help. Dneilan (talk) 00:04, 21 July 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) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 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 a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * 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.

Re: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Igorevich_Gurevich
Dear Exemplo347,

You once kindly reviewed the article about my former professor Vladimir Igorevich Gurevich, so I'd like to ask you for advice, as I'm not as experienced in Wikipedia, as you are. I subsequently translated that article into Russian. Almost right after the article appeared in Russian Wiki, one of my professor's long-time opponents started spamming his page with demeaning language and references. He makes his edits anonymously as 185.72.227.2 My question is how to block this user as a spammer in Wiki.

With kind regards, Vvkrivtsov (talk) 20:59, 28 August 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) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 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.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * 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.