User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2017/February

Happy
I'm happy you're doing a bio on Karl Meier I believe he's an important figure in gay history. My best... Ernesto erezlove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erezlove (talk • contribs) (Moved to own section. Original edit is   Jbh  Talk  01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletions
Hi, just letting you know that I declined your speedy deletion nominations for Simunition and James Barker Band, both under A7. Simunition credibly indicated significance with its one reference, and a Google search revealed more reliable sources that discussed the company's product. James Barker Band is signed to a notable label with a Wikipedia article, which is a credible claim of significance. Additionally, a Google search revealed more information about the band. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 01:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note. I will send them to AfD. All I could find on Simunition is a lot of passing mentions but nothing that gets them past GNG or NORG. I can see how being signed to a notable lable could be seen as a claim of significance but there is nothing about the band online beyond one article in The Boot [] which I'm not sure is an RS and a lot of blogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc. Nothing which gets them past GNG or BAND. If you found something more please let me know and I will withdraw the noms and speedy close them. Hope you are having a good weekend! Jbh  Talk  02:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooppss... I missed one of my search windows for James Barker Band. I closed the AfD, added a couple of sources and cleaned out the linkspam to their agent. My bad, sorry. Jbh  Talk  02:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your withdraw of James Barker Band and your assessment of Simunition (only trivial mentions); I've just commented as such on the AFD for Simunition. Thanks for letting me know, Appable (talk | contributions) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with page
I understand that notability needs to established with third part reliable sources. Your suggestions suggest adding awards. Does someone notable have to win awards in order to be notable. Also, there are plenty of third party sites referencing my subject and they are video sites playing historic videos of the subject such as YouTube users who uploaded and Facebook archive pages. Are those considered sources to establish notability ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flattonic (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested awards is because you had several unsourced claims about awards in the article and some awards may be used to establish notability. It depends on which one. Personal YouTube accounts and Facebook are not useful for establishing notability. There were a lot of links in the post I made on your talk page the most important are the general notability guideline and notability criteria for entertainers which discuss how to demonstrate notability, and identifying reliable sources. Essentially you need to provide a few independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. They must be about him, not by him. They must not be from PR agencies, press releases, from his employer or anyone in any related to him or his work. The sources must have solid editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I hope this helps some. Please remember to sign your posts with ~ . Jbh  Talk  01:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MOHAMMED SANI HARUNA
Dear Jbhunley, I noticed the page "Mohammed Sani Haruna" was flagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. Mohammed Sani Haruna, is the Executive vice Chairman/CEO of National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI) with Mr President of Nigeria as the Chairman and 8 Ministers of the federal republic of Nigeria as members of the board. The page is only intended to show the biography of the CEO and not for any promotional purpose. Kindly, restore it back for editing and tell me what needs to be taken out to avoid it seems promotional.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisozohu (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can no longer see the article since it was deleted. If it was speedy-deleted for promotionalism then is was unquestionably inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. For an article to be acceptable it must be written from a neutral point of view and must contain citations to independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. See the General notability guidelines for more on the notability requirements. Please click through and read the links. Those terms mean specific things on Wikipedia. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~  Jbh  Talk  16:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jbhunley:  Thank you very much for your feedback, having read that the article was written with no intention of promotionalism, what should be my next action to have it accepted and inclusion in wikipedia, moreover the article is also subject to and open for editing, can i have it reposted with links/citations and you may kindly guide me on it (on what to take out to avoid it being promotional). Francisozohu (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Francis
 * The admin who deleted the article is . You can ask them to restore the article, place it at Draft:Mohammed Sani Haruna. Make sure you have a few independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. Think newspaper articles, magazine articles, books etc. They must discuss the subject in detail - I usually look for at least three paragraphs of coverage and two to three sources. They must have good editorial control, have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, not be press releases or other PR material and be completely independent of the subject and his work. When you write do not write it like a resume, stick only to facts which can be verified by the source and make sure to cite the source where you got the information. I would suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process. This will have experienced editors review the article and make comments on how to improve it before it goes into Main space. This will give you time to make sure the it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without it being quickly deletes. All you need to do is add at the top of Draft:Mohammed Sani Haruna when it is restored and, when you think the article is ready, follow the directions for submitting it for review. You also may  want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages to see how to properly indent/thread talk page conversations. It will help you when you are discussing things with other editors and allow readers to easily follow the conversation.  Jbh  Talk  20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide a copy of the deleted article, provided Francisozohu is willing to undertake not to move it from the draft space without addressing the concerns of promotional content. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ::: Thank you very much for your understanding and responses, i appreciate and i undertake to abide by the rules to have the article properly edited to address the promotional concern. your guide and assistance to achieve it, is highly solicited too. Francisozohu (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping  Jbh  Talk  12:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but could you do me a favour?
Thank you for thanking me for this. Is it safe to assume that you were tacitly approving of my removing the header you put on the hat? Another user has reverted me twice based on the claim that I shouldn't be "refactoring" your "comments", which seems kind of ironic when the user who actually wrote the "comment" in question thanked me for the edit. I know I posted a lot of other stuff and you may have been only thanking me for striking my earlier comments and abandoning the final warning proposal, but could I get your definite approval or disapproval on the removal of the hat title?

It seems really ironic that you explicitly hatted my proposal off so we could focus on the TBAN proposal, which is strongly opposed by DK, who apparently thanked Softlavender for "defending" your hat title, while you thanked me yourself for the edit that removed the title.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The thanks was for you saying you were backing off the ANI discussion and letting it run its course. I had already struck the "bickering" part of the header and do consider the section unhelpful however I have now struck the rest as a courtesy. I don't really object to the complete removal of the header but, per TPO I don't think is can really be straight up removed. Jbh  Talk  14:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! (By the way: I agree that, at least at the time you hatted it, it was probably unhelpful. But if the thread gets closed with no warning, sanction, or block, then ... well, a promise of a block on the next instance of IDHT would have been better than nothing.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually asked about this on WT:TPO and apparently it all depends on context. At least in theory, my outright removing the hat (and therefore also removing your summary) could have been acceptable as far as TPO is concerned. Given that apparently at least one editor is all too happy to edit-war with me over that ad nauseum, that would have been a really stupid move on my part, but TPO doesn't actually mandate said user's reverting. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. My preference is to just leave it struck since there has been conversation about it and it does explain my thinking when I hatted the section but if you find it, as it stands, offensive I can replace it with "Heading removed per request". I don't want to leave a hat with no header though. Jbh  Talk  15:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

RfA
Have you ever thought about getting the mop and bucket? I particularly like some of the essays you've come up with for managing NPP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had not really thought about RfA. I don't have any real content work so, from what I have seen, figured that would preclude a successful RfA. I do really like doing the 'back office' stuff here, like NPP, policy discussions and probably a bit too much time on the noticeboards. It fits well with my skill set and how my time is broken up. Thinking about it, I can see several places the admin toolset would be useful at NPP but, alas, I don't even have any stubs to my credit much less the GAs people seem to want to see. Jbh  Talk  21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Work at it - your skills are needed at  admin  level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need GAs. Sure, some people will vote against you because you lack content creation but these days the majority of the community is focused on whether or not you'll use the tools knowledgeably, wisely and responsibly. I had one stub-class article, NetMarket (humph, should be a Start or C-class), when I put in my RFA and the community gave me a remarkably easy time of it. Just make sure your contributions in the areas you work in are free from issues (e.g., personal attacks, pointy editing, failure to drop the stick, etc.) --Neil N  talk to me 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My well-documented standard is User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. GAs are not necessary; in fact they can be risky as a GA is only as good as the nominator and reviewer make it; I had to cancel a RfA nomination because the candidate's sole GA didn't actually meet the standards (not their fault, they were told it passed GA and had no reason to disbelieve it). A quick look through your mainspace contributions shows you doing plenty of non-automated gnoming on articles, and that's absolutely fine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the advice and encouragement. I think that RfA would be a worthwhile, and from your input not unreasonable goal. I will look into writing some articles - I can probably come up a couple topics I can get a few hundred words out of. I have read through Kudpung and Ritchie's guides but do any of you have advice on how I should proceed or things that you have noticed that I should improve? Jbh  Talk  02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing I've got is User_talk:RickinBaltimore/Archive_12, where I cobbled together a brief guide to beefing up an article and getting it to DYK. Writing better articles and related pages have plenty of information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will give it a read. Jbh  Talk  20:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk Ct
Thank you. Re: Editing war article viz. Norwalk, Connecticut. I agreed to work with those editors and I do not like editing wars. Yet they engaged in a crossfire rampage on my past contributions placing deletion tags randomly at will. Then their claims to be experts and trying to tell me about unwritten or non-existent Wikipedia traditions that had to be adhered to. I did ask for advice (19:28, 9 February)  and began what I believed to be the correct protocol for resolving disputes. Nonetheless, among the threats, harassment, insults and such I guess I caved and began doing what they were doing to me. For that I am guilty but now it seems the steam in their engines has cooled a bit. I hope to go on with my work. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 17:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sir, I call your attention to the Norwalk, Connecticut and my user talkpage. They (M,JJBers and Ceoil) are at it again.  What should I do?  I did not start this.  I need help here!  Thank you!——→StephenTS42 19:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first thing I would suggest is to stop reverting and edit warring against the current consensus. Regardless of the rights or wrongs or things it is disruptive. Remember it does not matter what the other editors are doing, you are responsible for behaving properly. Second, you should address the complaints at ANI, that is where this discussion should be taking place. If you all can not work out your disagreements go start dispute resolution. There seems to be a lot of your behavior, particularly on talk pages that is, at least, questionable - your edit summary here was unhelpful as well. Finally fix your signature. Per WP:SIGLINK "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". Jbh  Talk  20:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page
It seems I deleted Draft:Miss Tara at the exact time that you edited it (since the author requested deletion), somehow it left your latest revision there, but deleted all previous revisions – should I delete yours too, or undelete the history? Κσυπ Cyp  19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * please ask the original author. I think the article may pass notability on a technicality and I think they were requesting deletion becuase it had been declined for lack of notability earlier. Thanks! Jbh  Talk  20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miss Tara has been accepted Not my article
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Miss Tara, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Jbh Talk  21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * I...uh...did you just post a message on your own talk page telling yourself that you approved your own AfC submission? I'm confused. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * hmmm.... that is weird. The author of the article is . There was some odd delete --> lose history --> restore history that went on so that might have done it. The other thing is that once it was restored I resubmitted and approved it since the prior decline had been done in error. Jbh  Talk  21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe there is a work around for that, unless something has changed you can choose to submit an AfC draft as the original author, at least normally, although the delete restore may have mucked it up. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an author parameter in but I do not know how to do the equivalent using AFC Helper. I am not very familiar with it and probably missed the option.  Jbh  Talk  21:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen
His last comments, especially the one he just posted now, show why I recommend(ed) an indef block. No amount of reasoning will cure this. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * People tend to vent after they are blocked and, in this case, he was poked but, in general, I agree with you that he is heading for a long block if something does not change. Beyond the blocking admin I do not think that there are really any admin eyes on this situation though. The next time, and it is looking like there will be a next time, I suggest that you make the ANI report concise and clearly illustrate, with diffs, the disruption caused. For example;
 * Persaonal attack - accused editors of socking with no evidence (diff) and doubled down when challenged (diff)
 * Violations of WP:TPO (diff) (diff) (diff)
 * Slow edit warring (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff)...
 * Talk page disruption (diff) (diff) (diff)...'
 * Attempted to resolve the issue (diff) but (diff) (diff)
 * etc.
 * Also, never engage in back and forth with the editor you take to ANI. It makes the thread long and greatly decreases the chance someone will look at it. This almost always leads to no action especially if this happens before an admin gets involved. (Not saying you do this. Just general advice on what I see at ANI) I hope that he will modify his behavior. He has been around since 2009 and does not seem to have had any real issues and does a lot of content work. Some people just do not do well when they are in a conflict situation and lose the plot a bit. Hopefully that is the case here and after the pressure of the current situation eases so will his behavior.  Jbh  Talk  17:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion. Why?
Dear @Jbhunley, I really dont understand why the article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion from Wikipedia. This man is a one of Ukrainian heroes, who is defending Ukraine from Russion aggression. He serves in Special Forces and after contusion he started to make films about conlict and Ukrainian people who were engaged in it.

One of his film Debaltsevo was shown in London Film Academy and University of Oxford and in Ukrainian Club, Holland Park this January. Here is a link: http://www.ukrainianlondon.co.uk/en_GB/debaltseve-narrative-donbas-war-ukrainian-uk-media-film-screening-panel-discussion-24-01-2017/

I realy dont understand why he doesnt deserve to be in Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna uapershiy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one deserves to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the specific notability criteria for artists. Typically you need maybe three reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject that have about three paragraphs of material about the subject. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgement about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article. Please click through the . Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or ping  from any talk page. (Please remember to sign your posts with  . This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)  Jbh  Talk  15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. Please, help me to make the article appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. As I understand I have to include in it some related links, but all information about this person is on Ukrainian, so what should I do? Write related articles in Wiki? User:Anna uapershiy
 * There is no requirement that the sources be in English, only that they are completely independent from the subject and they meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources. Nominally, per Wikipedia's policy of verifibility all material should be citable to a reliable source. Material which can not be cited to a reliable source can be challenged and removed. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons, where extra care must always be exercised. Again, please remember to sign your comments with ~ . You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.  Jbh  Talk  16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ive made corrections to the article and added 3 links to the reliable source. Is it enaugh for the article not to be deleted or should I found more sources?
 * Thank you for understanding and patient. Anna uapershiy (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the sources in the article #1 is written by him and is not about him, #2 is simply a listing about an event which is neither a reliable source nor something which would contribute to notability, #3 has potential, it is actually in-depth coverage about him. I have a question about zaxid.net though. What kind of site is is? In order for it to be considered a reliable source it must have strong editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy ie it must have professional journalists who write articles and an editorial board. Alone that source is not enough, however it is a good start assuming that zaxid.net can be considered a reliable source. I would also suggest that you trim out all of the material that can not be cited to a reliable source. In particular the filmography is not really encyclopedic. If he has works which got coverage in reliable sources they can be noted - depending on the amount of coverage they might even merit an article of their own. Jbh  Talk  18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I will be away for most of the rest of the day/evening US/East time, I do get email when someone posts on my talk page but I may not answer until tomorrow US/East. Your article subject looks very interesting. Don't give up! Cheers. Jbh  Talk  18:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank You a lot for your support and I am sorry for wastinng your time with numerous stupid questions. All can I say that becuaseits my first article for Wikipedia) So, I added more references. Can you, please, look at them and say what should I do next? Thank you in advance! Anna uapershiy (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! I must have been writing a note on the AfD page while you were writing this... Anyway the "screening" sources do not really contribute to notability. The interview is, in my opinion, marginal because it, again, is not about him and looks to be part of a promotional tour. In general we discount material that is generated by public relations campaigns for books, movies, exhibits etc. It might be better to create an article about the movie and give him a small section there. Documenting film notability is much easier for instance WP:NFO#2 says a film's notability can be demonstrated if "[t]he film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". (PS the ~ should go at the end of your comment rather than the beginning.) Jbh  Talk  13:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, as I understand the article about person will be deleted anyway and I should to write another article about film? Because, I find more information, but not sure if it is enough to make the article relevant(talk) 14:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is very likely the article will be deleted. Before you write about the film though please read, carefully, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NFILM and WP:WEIGHT (any coverage of the person must not out weigh the coverage of the film). The independent reliable source requirement is the same - PR material, screening announcements etc are not useful for meeting notability requirements. In the case of recent films what you need are reviews from national or international newspapers, magazines or other outlets. You may want to consider using the Articles for Creation process so you have more time to gather sources without the article being deleted and to get input from other experienced reviewers. Also, if you would like, you can put a request on the AfD page to have the article moved to DRAFT space so you can work on it as more sources become available rather than having your work deleted. Jbh Talk  14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, can you watch new references? I found new materials. Or there is no chances to save the article at all?))Anna uapershiy (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can not judge the videos, I understand a bit of Russian (6yr old children laugh and think I'm dumb so a very little bit) and I can pick at Ukrainian text with a dictionary but judging audio/video sources is far beyond me. This source may be good, what section of site is it in? Is it an article that was published in the paper or a blog entry? I will ask another editor who I believe speaks the language so can give a better opinion. Pinging  would you please take a look at Eugene Stepanenko and give your opinion? The two sources which I think may be good are  and  but I can not really get enough from them to tell if they are part of a film public relations drive. Thank you.  Jbh  Talk  15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping  Jbh  Talk  15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on input from some editors who have a command of the language and who located more sources I have withdrawn my deletion nomination . The AfD will still run the full seven days because another editor !voted Delete. Jbh  Talk  18:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you and all editors who joined this conversation for help! You are doing a great job! Have a nice day!Anna uapershiy (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive
Please forgive the WP:OVERCITE in Miles Doleac. It was caused by insurmountable resistance from AfC. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Please, just delete the filmography section. It is sufficiently covered in prose. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is so loaded with what appear to be irrelevant cites that it is hard to see his notability. For instance he definitly does not pass WP:NPROF for his academic work, I do not see that his movies get him past WP:FILMMAKER and his roles are all seem pretty minor so not WP:NACTOR either. Maybe there is a case for WP:GNG but most of the articles seem to be hometown boy does good type stuff. It frankly looks like a bunch of sources were thrown up to see what sticks. There might be a couple of good ones in there but just looking at it is screams 'paid promotional editing'. (I see from the article history that you are not the first editor engaged to write this article) The Village Voice article is the only thing, so far, keeping this from WP:AFD but I will look more later. I am very unimpressed with the AFC reviewer's work on this. They did you a disservice passing this to article space in the condition it is in. I'm going to wait a day or so before finishing my review until I am in a better mood (unrelated to Wikipedia) so it does not splash over, unjustly, to your work. May I suggest that when you start an article that you get three good sources and write everything you can write based on those three sources. After that, to flesh out the biography, you then can go to the second tier sources. You should always be able to write a basic article that passes Wikipedia's guidelines with three good sources. Also, never link to a site where the subject's books/films/whatever are offered for sale. Jbh  Talk  22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple GNG sources: hollywood reporter, Los Angeles Times, LA Times again, SF Weekly, Village Voice. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have requested a CSD for the early draft first. Then started fresh. You live and learn. I will keep sales sites out of my articles in the future. That was a dumb move on my part. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those sources. I think the article would most likely pass AfD since he has a couple of films getting theatrical release and national press coverage. The local paper coverage adds depth which helps focus the notability on him rather than his work. Jbh  Talk  14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sudden new edits to "Bar Keepers Friend"
I hesitate to mention another editor in a negative light, but...does that "North America 1000" account now padding the above article with refs seem kinda suspicious? Like, "paid editor" suspicious? Yukimura (restaurant), Ramen Street, RigWorld, Hello Curry, Social Tables, Grovo, Bye Bye Birdie Live!, Skytap, Netmeds all seem like WP:PROMO. Most of those appear in their contribs after they deleted "PROD" tags. Sorry, I suck both at assuming good faith and knowing what the hell to do when I suspect someone is here to do others' bidding. Oh, and sorry for leaning on you for this. The blocks you see on my talk page (one of which was legit; the other, bullshit) apparently turn other editors' critical thinking faculties to mush. Or something. I'll shut up now.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, is a well known and well respected Wikipedia administrator and editor. They are simply doing their best to save an article they think worth saving, as we all do.  Jbh  Talk  03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have visited their page before posting that. Nevertheless, the articles I listed all seem fishy. I stand by that, though knowing the hoops I'd have to jump through to get them deleted, I'm likely to just keep my head down and do pedantic copy edits until my eyes bleed. No other kinds seem to be encouraged, or even tolerated, of IP editors who messed up once (and was blocked twice, notably involving two admins from today). C'est la vie.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)