User talk:Malcolmxl5/Archive 9

undelete - Abhinav Paatekar

Hello, I am a friend to the emerging Marathi Actor - Abhinav Paatekar and would want to request you to undelete the page. below are some links that should help out in verifying.

Times of India mentions about the Actor by his old name Abhinay Patekar in the article of actress / co-star Tejaswini Pandit Ticha Umbartha (Movie)

another few links - link link link mentioning the same.

And the movie trailer where the actor can be spotted at 2:30 sec

And trailer of another movie where the actor is lead.

And another movie with a mention in wiki and a soundtrack video

Kunjesh (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kunjesh, I'm afraid I must decline to undelete the page on Abhinav Paatekar as the sources you put forward would not sufficiently improve the article from the original so that the result of the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhinav Paatekar) no longer apply, and the page would be again deleted.

To meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for an article, Abhinav Patekar would have to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources that you put forward show that he exists but not that he meets the inclusion criteria:

1. Tejaswini Tejaswini Pandit to show naari shakti - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
2. Grand release of Marathi cinema 'Ticha Umbartha' - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
3. Ravi Dewan producing Tejaswini Pandit-starrer Ticha Umbartha - - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
4. Ticha Umbartha Movie Trailer - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar; it also appears to be a blog, which are not usually acceptable as a source.
5. Thicha Umbertha Trailer 6 - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.
6. Pyar Bhari Madhoshiyaan Official Trailer - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.
7. Jugaad - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar.
8. Tuzya Priticha Lala Lagala - - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.

Alternatively, if there were good quality sources that show that Abhinav Patekar has any of the following:

1. "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", or
2. "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", or
3. "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"

then it may be presumed that he is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. However, none of the sources presented show this in my view.

If you were able to find, for example, newspaper articles that are written about Abhinav Patekar then we can discuss this further. As always, if are unhappy with what I have written and you believe that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, you may raise the matter with the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm sorry not to be more helpful but this may be a case of it simply being too soon for an article about Abhinav Patekar. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Malcolmxl5, May be a case of it simply being too soon. Thank you for your support. Kunjesh (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

undeletion of Josef Shirdel

Hello Malcolmxl5, the article Josef Shirdel was deleted some time ago due to this discussion. The reason the article was deleted was because the subject didn't qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL, which it didn't at the time but does now has this person appeared in a professional match see here. As you were the closing admin to the discussion I am asking you to please undelete this article. Thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Inter&anthro, yes, appearing for his national team in a World Cup qualifier appears to satisfy WP:NFOOTY#1, Players who have played in ... any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA ... are notable.. I'll restore it shortly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, it's restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion

Hi Mr. 5! Regarding Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Page content Dispute 1, which you deleted G8, this actually turns out to be the talk page archive for Talk:Huang Zi Tao, so would not be expected to have a parent page. I was in the process of investigating this yesterday when Life happened, so could not follow through. I thought the creator was compiling a sub-page/archive for a specific dispute to centralize the history, but it now appears that he was just archiving off the contents of that dispute, and chose this name to reflect the only content that was archived. So if you would, can you restore this page, either to its current name and I'll fix the archiving and the title, or restore to Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Archive 1? Thanks, Crow^Caw 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: Thanks, Crow. I've done as you asked and moved it to Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Archive 1. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Clarawood

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Clarawood. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Clarawood123 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Clarawood123: Thanks Clarawood123. I'll comment there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Triumph of Love

That was a mistake. Why did you do it? Please reverse. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Hi Johnbod, this was the outcome of a {{db-movedab}} request made by Some Gadget Geek. The rationale was to move a malplaced disambiguation page per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. Why do you say that was a mistake? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a primary topic, but it has no article yet, though I intend to do one sometime. As it stands, it is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly none. If you would like to contest this decision further please go and tag the talk page with {{RM}} and your rationale. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can make a suggestion, Johnbod. When the article comes to be written, we can talk about moving pages to accommodate it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete Clarawood

Hi there. I recently created a page called Clarawood but several days ago another editor called CDRL102 made sweeping edits to it. I undid most of those edits (not all) and asked for any problems they had with the content of the page to be raised on the talk for it. Instead the editor encouraged another admin to move it to their sandbox, listed it for deletion and then you deleted it based on R2 ie a useless redirect.
The editor and the admin concerned both suggested that the page was simply trivia and unreferenced etc. This is quite simply not true as I had already argued. They also suggested the article was pointless as they had never heard of Clarawood. It was also suggested that I had simply reverted every edit made to the page - also not true. The other admin who moved the page accused me of not abiding by the rules of how to write a page. This is not true as the page was not only factual and encyclopeadic but clear, concise and referenced. I was also accused of writing a biased, promotional article as I am a resident of the area. This again was not true as a read of it will show that drug use, paramiltarism, deprivation and other detrimental issues were highlighted.
If my article was indeed unreferenced, badly written and of no value to anyone then I would accept the deletion. However the page followed Wikipedia guidelines, was well written and was certainly of value to anyone interested in Clarawood. I feel that the other admin moved it to a redirect as a ruse to get it deleted without proper discussion which did indeed then happen.
I would ask that it be restored to the state I left it in at my last edit on 22nd March at 21.21. Thank you
Clarawood123 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Clarawood123, in fact, the article has not been deleted, rather it has been moved and now rests at User:CDRL102/Clarawood. What I deleted was just a link from one page to that page, there was no content or history other than that link.

Looking into this a bit more, as far as I can see, you started the page in your sandbox on 4 March and moved it into the article space on 14 March. I see that other editors have reviewed and made some edits to it, which is the way of the wiki (work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone). Davey2010 nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarawood on 23 March expressing concerns as to whether the subject meets Wikipedia's 'notability' guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia and concerns over the sourcing. CDRL102 persuaded Davey2010 to withdraw his nomination and to move it into another sandbox, where it now rests, at User:CDRL102/Clarawood. CDRL102 appears to have acted with good intentions here to prevent the article being deleted and with the aim of improving it so that it can be returned to the article space without fear of it being deleted. I would suggest that you and CDRL102 collaborate to sort out issues with the article; this will mean discussing these and how to fix them, probably on the talk page.

Looking at the article itself, it does seem to me to be short on sourcing. Articles on Wikipedia are built upon sources, that is, we gather the sources about the subject and then summarise what they say. There are a lot of facts in the article that do not cited sources, for example, "The go ahead for a new housing development at what was known as the Clara Park site was approved in March 1949 and inspected by the Housing Committee of The Belfast Corporation in October that year."; it's not sourced but there must be a source and the article would be improved if that source was cited. The sourcing should be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and are needed not just to support the facts but to show that the subject meets the 'notability' guideline for inclusion.

You may find Wikipedia:Your first article helpful reading and editors at the Wikipedia:Teahouse will be glad to help with any questions that you may have.

Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Malcolmx15, this is the whole point - there is a very clear reference in the article to multiple sources at the Public Records Office - in other words published references for everything in the article. This is in addition to the multiple particular references. As to notability I have reviewed the guidelines on this and the article as it stood was very clearly within the guidelines. Not all notability info or reference info or attributable sources are online. So if someone with no knowledge of a subject does a quick online search as their only justification for stating something is not notable, they have made a mistake. This is also very clear in the Wikipedia guidelines. CDRL102 has a history of pointless edits to pages which they have no expertise in as a quick perusal of their talk page shows. Out of 12 items 11 are people saying please do not change this page again or your edit was useless or something similar. The Clarawood page was actually published in February and had been active for some weeks, the Clarawood page has been deleted and what is in CDRL102's sandbox is different and indeed non factual as it stands due to some of their supposed improvements. I would doubt very much that CDRL102 would be able to improve on the article I wrote and I have a number of reasons for saying that, considering that I probably have literally no peer in terms of Clarawood expertise. I had previously asked them to raise issues on the talk page rather than blankly edit. I should also mention that Davey2010 took it upon himself to delete comments of mine from talk pages and that due to their ruse in listing it for speedy deletion rather than a proper discussion I was unable to rebuff their - false - assertions of bias, non notability and non referencing. I was also accused of writing a promotional article and acting as if I owned the page. These assertions were also false but I did not get a chance in the deletion discussion which should have lasted a week to talk about this or defend myself. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that whilst it is an open editing site, edits should be constructive and made from a position of some expertise and that editors and admins should be very careful when undertaking any edit especially a substantial one. They are even clearer on proper procedure when listing sites for deletion and it does not seem to me that these were followed. If you are unwilling to help it looks like I will have to raise a deletion review instead Clarawood123 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you really want, I will re-instate the article, we'll submit it for review and see what happens. CDRL102 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a helpful suggestion, CDRL102. It seems though we are overtaken by events as deletion review has been requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cielo24

Hi, could you please email me Cielo24 page that you deleted. Thanks.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Cube b3, no problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am going to work more on the page and create it in my sandbox and present it to you before moving it to the site. I hope you will proof it for me.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Cube b3. The sourcing will have to be sufficiently improved from the original that the AfD result no longer apply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote that page I modeled it after another similar company Vocapia Research. I figured since Vocapia is notable enough, my article is 10 times better. Subsequently, Vocapia was also nominated for deletion and deleted. However, as you can see it is back online. I don't want to nominate an article for the sake of it, but other Wikipedians may be confused and create another article for a similar voice recognition company thinking their preferred company is more notable than Vocapia. I don't know I just want to bring it to your attention.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cube b3, I don't think the new Vocapia Research article would pass AFD, the sourcing doesn't look good enough to me. I'll keep an eye on it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Toilet Partition

I must commend you. It must have taken considerable self control not to write "the result was flush". Anmccaff (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:. Ha ha, yes, I pulled the chain on that one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Suppressed edits to my user talk page

Could you please email me the contents of the suppressed edits to my user talk page and user page? Thank you. Kailey 2001 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kailey 2001:. Hi Kailey, virtually all the edits that I suppressed contained pictures of a graphic nature so I shall decline to email them to you. I see your talkpage has been semi-protected, which ought control the situation for now. Do ping if you have any more problems. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard d'Anjolell

A rather complex issue regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell: The page was moved from User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell to the article namespace (It wasn't moved by the author in whose namespace it resided). The guideline on such moves WP:STALEDRAFT states "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". The user nominating it, who also moved the page, states in the nomination "Several editors insist that MfD can not consider WP:GNG so I've moved the page to mainspace to allow a wider discussion on the merits of this article." Two issues: By nominating the page for deletion, the user clearly implicates they didn't think it was suitable for the mainspace, which makes the move inappropriate; Because of this, WP:AfD wouldn't be the proper forum, MfD would.

So, that leads to my request, would you restore the content to User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell? Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy:. Yes, a bit complicated. I take your point that the guideline says "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". Plainly this was not suitable and ought not have been moved to mainspace so I'll restore it as you request a little later. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: I have restored the page to User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell as you requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been well established that there is no rule against moving to mainspace and AfDing it. You should not read the guideline in reverse of what it says, ie it is permissive, but does not bar other actions or options. Even if you disagree with the move, restoring material deleted via xfd does nothing to help the project. Now we get to delete it all over again and Godsy has no interest in the page [1] or cleaning up his mess. Also, I was not notified of this request or your response to it, even though it constitutes a direct attack on my actions and will be used to tar me as bad. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to the accusations and falsehoods in Legacypac's comment, but I will make a statement: If Malcolmxl5 hadn't restored the content, I would have taken this to WP:DRV (discussion with the closing administrator is required per WP:DELREVD), where the deletion would likely have been overturned anyway. Graffiki (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki, which is very similar to this circumstance, looks like it will be overturned. My actions are all within proper process.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Procedural Query

Hi Malcolmxl5,

A question: I noticed you closed debate on the AfD for Pierre Fitch (2nd nomination), citing consensus that subject failed PORNSTAR/GNG, which is true. But I noted that subject clearly passed the "cult following" requirement of WP:ENT and no one disputed or even addressed that. People just saw a pornstar who failed PORNSTAR and !voted to delete. But since !votes aren't just a vote count and are supposed to consider the quality of arguments presented, I wondered about closing debate in favor of deletion when such a substantive opposing argument went unrefuted or discussed. Everyone agreed subject failed PORNSTAR and some felt GNG too, but no one claimed a fail of ENT as well. I'm not defending the article, which I think is actually pretty poor (and probably contributed to the delete !votes.) But from a policy and procedure perspective, I just have concerns about a delete decision, albeit with consensus, that is reached without that consensus addressing and/or considering all the relevant issues raised. Then it does just become "a tally of votes," instead of being based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: Well, the discussion was open for ten days. The nomination was made on the 21 March, I closed it on 31 March. The discussion had come to an end on the 27 March, four days earlier. It was reasonable to assume that all arguments that were going to be made had been made and that it was an appropriate time to assess the consensus. My reading of the discussion was that valid arguments were made that the subject failed Wikipedia's PORNSTAR/GNG guidelines. The argument, also valid, that the subject has "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" was made but it gained no traction, I saw no support for it. The rough consensus was clearly to delete in my view and I saw no other way of closing the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malcolmxl5, thanks for your response. Please understand that I'm not shooting the messenger. Your closure was within your discretion. My concern also wasn't about the length of the debate, nor the unanimous consensus that the subject failed PORNSTAR, or the rough consensus that GNG also failed. My concern was that no one addressed the fact that the subject clearly passed ENT, which you saw. Passed it by any reasonable or objective standard. Whether there was "traction" or "support" for ENT, misses my point. No one ever even addressed it - suggesting either that no one saw it, or no one cared - because their minds were already made up. But unless I'm missing something, ignoring a policy or standard doesn't make it simply vanish. If a subject legitimately passes ENT - or any other standard for that matter - whether it passed another standard or not; it seems that subject should have been immune from deletion. We don't just delete weak articles. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And also: "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it." Otherwise, you open a Pandora's Box of people willfully ignoring "inconvenient" standards, in favor of standards that support conclusions they want to reach. It's just not in the best interests of the project to reward that behavior. I would have just relisted it. To direct people to discuss the merits of ENT saving it. By the way, I don't have a vested interest in that BLP. My interest is in saving articles that policies and standards dictate should be saved; and only deleting those no policies save. X4n6 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We rarely get a perfect discussion at AfD. I assumed in good faith that all those who took part in the discussion, except possibly the nominator, saw your arguments and chose not to support them, choosing instead to cite PORNBIO & GNG. I bear in mind too, that meeting one or more criteria for WP:ENT does not guarantee that a subject should be included in the encyclopedia, it doesn't make an article immune from deletion. Could the discussion have been relisted? Possibly. Nobody made that call when the seven days for discussion were up and with discussion having ceased for four days, and the consensus seemingly being clear to me, I chose to close it that way. But thank you for your comments and I will bear them in mind. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to thoughtfully consider my concerns and address them. So, thank you for that. And I completely understand your rationale for closing it. I suppose I just operated under the assumption that AfDs function on the merits of the arguments, not just the vote count. But I get it now, and again, I appreciate and accept your explanation. In future, I'll just try harder to be sure that all important perspectives are at least acknowledged, if not considered, during the debate. Thanks again. Regards. X4n6 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

IP editor "Claudia" actually banned a fourth time

Thanks for your table of admin action against Claudia at ANI. Below that table I have provided a link to a further block, that one was for a month. BlackCab (TALK) 05:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added that and another block to the table.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing things

Hi, Malcolmxl5. That you for squaring things up on National Guard of Russia. There is one minor correction to the copied notice that I will leave to you to attend to. Here is the correct copy diff. I was confused by the current one, but I figured out what was wonky. Nice work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Checkingfax. Hopefully all is sorted now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

IP block

Please unblock ip range 49.196.0.0/22. It is a dynamic Optus mobile phone service range, the 2nd biggest telephone company in Australia. Or at least put me back on the IP block exemption list, as I was caught by it for a while this morning.

Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider it done, The-Pope. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Schmitty

I'm going to suggest that IP 2.244.158.181 focuses on sources as I describe above rather than individuals.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey there, be careful who you help out. This Schmitty User is the most dangerous and radical user ever. He deleting all written words by himself and leave just the negative Things , that people like you believe that he is a good wikipedian. check out deep his work here.[doing trouble with users] check out all the sites and discussions. than you will face the hard truth. he is laughing also about the engl. wiki and spain and others. He is a cold german and hate everything, when someone doing not what he wants. So please get away from him. Better you listen. Don`t be at the wrong side, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.158.181 (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC) The Duckzoo is going public: http://www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-mit-benutzer-schmitty-ganz-weit-vorne Theres is no "Britta Rahman" It is stalking at its best. Also on Amazon http://www.amazon.de/review/R1MCBWDJAKCZHL/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=386445123X#wasThisHelpful Schmitty (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC) These links are now broken, because the sitehosters deleted themSchmitty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Viliumes

what ist Viliumes? --Tabbelio (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea, we don't have an article by that name. Did you mean something else? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for helping clean up after my fumble with the merge template! giso6150 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem, giso6150! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Rottweiler

Good morning,
How has this IP been able to edit [2] following the protection placed earlier [3]? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones:. Hi, Gareth, there was no change to the existing pending changes protection, I just fixed the template on the page after an IP tampered with it and the bot replaced it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting to blank page

Thanks for the explanation. I will advise my student to not delete the redirect until he can replace it with content. That should happen soon. Oaxacanalia (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oaxacanalia, when the draft page is approved, let me know. I'll delete the redirect and move the new page in its place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Update: Mmcao has replaced the redirect with a re-edited draft--with an unreviewed tag--in hopes of getting more feedback. Oaxacanalia (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, Oaxacanalia, I'll watchlist it and see how it gets on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Kept edit warring

Thesandboxuser Keeps edit warring at me, Can you please revoke talk page access? KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just done so, KGirlTrucker87. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hope that user don't return as a sock. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

He will be very obvious if he does! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism at the sandbox and my talk page, I seen lots of IP-hoppers vandalizing my talk page, now you semi-protect my talk page and blocked many IPs, Keep it up! Otherwise, cheers. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping troll back?

FYI: I think the IP hopping troll is back on a different range, this time 31.55.x.x. I have opened an ANI discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Steelpillow , I checked out activity in the range and KrakatoaKatie has applied a rangeblock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

82.99.38.67

Hello. There was one edit from 82.99.38.67 that you didn't revdel. Can you please revdel it because I don't want anyone to see that picture? Thanks. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Qpalzmmzlapq, I missed that one. I've revdel'ed it now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

176.179.24.141

176.179.24.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi Malcolmxl5,

Did you mean to block this one indefinitely? The one you blocked afterwards was for 6 months...

NinthTail (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NinthTail, no, I didn't. I've changed it to six months like the others. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Revdel Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

Hi, Malcolmxl5. Since revision 716115155 of Wikipedia:Sandbox has the same content as revision 716114684 and revision 716115597 of Wikipedia talk:Sandbox has the same content as revision 716115580, you should also revdel revisions 716115155 and 716115597. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GeoffreyT2000, I've done those. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFP/C

Hi again, Malcolmxl5

I have requested permission for autoconfirmed rights here (due to the current protections). Since you were the one that protected my userpage and my talkpage, I'm not sure whether or not it'd be appropriate for you to accept this request, or leave other non-involved admins to decide. Just throwing this out there, take it or leave it... Thanks! NinthTail (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, NinthTail, but I've left a note to support your request. If you want the protection lifted earlier, just let me know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that was quick! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it sure was, thanks for the support though. :-) NinthTail (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

hello

could you open the site from the artist Stuart Styron or write an article together? Thank.--2.243.198.61 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@2.243.198.61: I've had a look at the Stuart Styron page. It has been deleted multiple times for a variety of reasons but most importantly, it has been discussed twice by the community and found not to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. The key to meeting Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Unless such sources are forthcoming, an article on Stuart Styron is not likely to be written. Has the mainstream media written about Stuart Styron? A cursory glance in English and German doesn't reveal anything. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkuser performed: de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43,_Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2 Schmitty (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, Schmitty. Herzlichen Dank! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

1017 Records

Hi there, Malcolmxl5, I noticed your edit on the article 1017 Records reverted some instances of possible vandalism (non cited). I had just brought that to attention on the Admin boards earlier, dealing with a related yet separate issue of mine. Supposing you may be familiar with the subject(s), I'd really like your input on the matter, as I'm at a stalemate for the most part. Please see here: [4] Thank you. DA1 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A further elaborated version here: Talk:Frenchie_(rapper) DA1 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, DA1, I saw it at ANI and was having a bit of a look around (and also at the incident reported below yours). I'll comment at ANI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RFD G6

Uncontroversial redirect deletion requests have always been done via G6, so I'm confused as to why you said it's not a valid criteria. It says so on WP:RFD: "If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves". Why did you say that's not a valid deletion criteria? I'm attempting to do some housekeeping at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject and I have identified at least two dozen redirects that are orphaned, useless and some of them absurd. I do not want to waste everyone's time at RFD with dozens of different deletion discussions that cannot be more uncontroversial and would be valid deletions under G6. Feedback 22:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Feedback:. Hi, Feedback, the issue with this redirect is its age, it was created in 2005. You will see from Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F: The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful [include]: ... if a redirect is reasonably old [...] then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect. and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_not_deleting#4: "Links that have existed for a significant length of time [...] should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.", that we do not usually delete old redirects. This is thus not an uncontroversial request and ought go to WP:RFD in this instance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Lou M. Jacobs

This article was recently deleted. The deletion discussion came up on my watchlist, but I don't know why. I've worked on articles about people with similar names, so maybe this fellow was one of them. I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me a bit about who he was/is. None of the deletion discussion makes sense to me, but of course I'm not familiar with the (former) article. Lou Sander (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lou Sander. Lou M. Jacobs is a businessman, a co-CEO with his brother Jerry Jacobs Jr, of Delaware North, the family business currently chaired by his father, Jeremy Jacobs. He was born in 1964 and educated at Harvard. He married Joan Babcook in 1989. He and his family have contributed to the Martin House Restoration project. He was named in the Sports Business Journal's annual "Forty Under 40" list in 2003. Does that help? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I did a lot of work on the Ice Capades article. His father or grandfather was one of the founders. All the founders became wealthy and were involved in sports. I might have started the deleted article, but I think not. Somebody from Delaware North was working on various aspects of the company. Lou Sander (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection of BLP noticeboard?

Hi! Just a quick query regarding your indefinite semi-protection of the BLP noticeboard. I note that quite often explanations are provided by new/IP users, and they are prevented from doing that currently - just wondering what the rationale was for making the semi protection indefinite (though was obviously required at the time to deal with the block evading user)? Thanks! (NB entirely possible I've missed something obvious here, in which case apologies in advance!) Mike1901 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike1901, any admin can lift the protection at any time; it's not forever. I've lifted it now as the moment has passed, User:Nsmutte has stopped his activity for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User page

Hmm, I missed the excitement on my user page this morning. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please delete this obscene image

There is no possible way that [[File:Me Locked and Plugged.jpg]] could possibly be encyclopedic. I don't need to see that every time I go into WP:SANDBOX. Yuck. PLEASE delete!--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the bad image list and deleted the revisions, Mr. Guye. Thanks for alerting me to it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the help. Here's a barnstar for your efforts against image-based vandalism. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your anti-vandalism work! :D Linguist 111talk 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Why the short block?

Why the short block for the anon? It's a clear and self-admitted sock. I wish there was a way we could block the entire range and direct all the good users thus inconvenienced to his specific location, so they could fix his wagon but good. Wishful thinking, I guess. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He will have already moved on. He's used seven or eight IPs today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Schooling these days - they just don't keep a kid busy... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Travelling

Guys, I have been travelling this week but will get back to you soonest. Sent from my iPhone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As Cities Burn EP (2002) and As Cities Burn EP (2003)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As Cities Burn EP (2002) (2nd nomination): Similar issue to User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell, though the same mover didn't personally nominate these for deletion. Would you restore the content deleted at As Cities Burn EP (2002) and As Cities Burn EP (2003) to User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2002) and User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2003) respectively? They were userfied per request a few years ago from looking at the logs. Furthermore the nominator (an administrator themself) is actually aware that the moved content wasn't suitable for the mainspace and states so in their comment (i.e. "I don't see any reason these EPs should have been resurrected here." and "... both userified to an active editor, both untouched (except to remove the non-free album image) and then brought back [to the mainspace] in February for some reason."). I know they're aware of the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline due to their recent involvement in discussions regarding it. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Godsy, I have userfied the pages as you ask. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, they were then moved back into mainspace and made into redirects. I don't particularly care but I don't think we need a third nomination to again be argued that it should be userified after which point it will come back again while no one actually finds evidence that this is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop your gaming and foolishness Godsy. Restoring pages that have been 2x deleted at AfD to the userspace of a long gone user when you have no interest in working on them? I've analysed all the screwing around with my page moves and found you have done nothing to improve any page you asked to have userfied. Moving pages back into stale userspace makes no sense. These two are valid album titles for the band. This time around I moved them to mainspace and immediately redirected. If someone wants to build out the pages they will see the limited info under the redirect at the album title. That is a far better solution then leaving them as userspace drafts. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: "Restoring pages ... to the userspace of a long gone user", that is false: Jax 0677 is active, Special:Contributions/Jax 0677.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Alive and kickin'! --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In this case the user is active, generally the users are not active, so Godsy's actions are a form of stealth deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Heyy Malcolm

Greetings -

I hope I haven't given myself a bad first impression to you. I really did mean well when I restored the messages. I knew that users were allowed the remove messages from the page, but I didn't know about the three-edit revert rule, and I'm glad you're willing to give me a second chance. Gilliam showed me the OW template, which I can use instead. I've reverted edits on the same page WAY more than 3 times before, never being punished or noticed :O. I'm glad this happened now so I can take this in account in the future. I hope that in my past few hundred edits, I haven't made any other mistakes.

Thank you very much for your time and assuming good faith in me.

3primetime3 (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back, 3primetime3. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Station to Station in Open Source Films

Hi Malcolmxl5, thank you or your amazing work on Wikipedia, you're a hero! I was hoping to find out a reference for why Station_to_Station_(film) was added to the List_of_open-source_films, I can't find a another mention of it being open source online. I was looking at the edit history of the page, and though that you may have edited the page to include it? Apologies if not. Cheers! Nhudell (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nhudell, it looks like Station to Station was introduced by IP 83.249.228.143 on 3 March 2014[5]. For what it's worth, I don't see any mention of it being open-sourced either. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

ChopNotSlop

Confused as to why ChopNotSlop was deleted... You all stated not enough notable sources Well what are these sir?

<ref>http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6627332/drake-new-remixes-beats-1-show-skepta-wizkid</ref>
<ref>http://www.thefader.com/2016/04/07/og-ron-c-dvsn-sept-5-chopped-not-slopped</ref>
<ref>http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/02/mike-g-mike-check-volume-2/</ref>
<ref>http://www.adultswim.com/music/little-dragon/</ref>

Just a few links. If you search ChopNotSlop under news in Google you will see many more! Nawnsens (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nawnsens, the page was deleted after a short discussion by the community at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ChopNotSlop. The page can be recreated but it would have to be sufficiently improved from the original so that the result of the deletion discussion no longer apply. The need here would be for good quality sources that discuss ChopNotSlop in some depth and not just show that it exists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

social work

Would you be open to check your recent article lock. Editors jim and softlavender are presistent disruptors of the article.(i dont know where to report them or to block their specific attempts on the article) Edits made to elevate the article into FA status are stalled. The recent edit summary given by jim is false, this can be confirmed checking the reverted edit by the editor. Falsified and constant disruptions by these editors are visible in the edit history. Even talk page is blocked, if any chances are given for this editors to explain there actions they quote irrelevant policies or leave and appear inactive and initiate blocks. If any edits are made to the article these rv warriors appear active. All this is identifiable through article and talk page edits.106.208.127.234 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I protected the page because there is a history of disruptive editing there; the page has now been protected five times this year because of this. What is needed now is for people to talk about edits, to find consensus and to stick with that consensus. I realised it is difficult because the talk page is protected, seemingly because another IP kept changing other people's comments, which is considered a no-no, but you could propose your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Social Work for discussion by members of the Wikiproject or if you care to propose your edits here, I can place them on the article talk page for you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your protection has definitely stopped article disruptions. Taking a look at this [6] explains what happened (the source of disruptions) and what is happening. The initiated previous blocks were also filed using similar deceptive tact by involved experienced editors that are mentioned in ANI. The reason for the cited ANI Request can be seen here: [7]59.88.209.117 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue here seemed to be a person using multiple IPs geolocating to Kerala who is editwarring to include content against consensus and, yes, looking at the history, the protection seems to have been successful in stopping that disruption. Consensus is a cornerstone of editorial decision-making on Wikipedia and if this person cannot respect that, then the article is likely to remain protected for as long as it takes. I see that the talk page is now open; this may be used to discuss improvements to the article and to reach consensus on these. Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Turner (soccer)

Matt Turner now has 2 professional starts for the Richmond Kickers. Can you please revert your deletion? Stagophile (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stagophile, the page has been recreated. Would you like me to restore the deleted history to it? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malcolmxl5, that's okay. No need. Thanks. Stagophile (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, Stagophile. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

81.171.81.85

81.171.81.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Looks like the image abuser is back. 2601:1C0:4901:2191:512E:6290:9161:703B (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note, the images they've used should be added to the 'bad images' list and RevDel on their edits. Hope this isn't too much of a burden... :-) 2601:1C0:4901:2191:512E:6290:9161:703B (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian IP

Hi Malcolmxl5, thanks for the block. Unfortunately, sicilian IP is a crosswiki vandal, see in italian Wiki here and here. Ciao! :) --Euphydryas (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Euphydryas, thanks. I've been keeping tabs on this one at: User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian IPs. How are our Italian colleagues handling the vandalism? Block on sight? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see. Anonymous Sicilian uses a dynamic IP Telecom, and edit are sometimes innocuous, but many times they are incorrect: is very insidious!, then rollback and Block on sight. Ciao, --Euphydryas (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malcolmxl5, vandal now also here! I requested global block. --Euphydryas (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the global block, Euphydryas. That will be helpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Brother Andy

I have some reliable sources pertaining the notability of Brother Andy. How should I proceed to add those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccchambers (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ccchambers (I've moved your comment to the bottom of the page, which is where they normally go.) Sources were the problem at the AfD. Would you like to list the new ones here and we can chat about them? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruption at Bopomofo and related articles

Good afternoon, LjL & Zanhe. I'm just following up on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#Disruption_at_Bopomofo_and_related_articles. Has there been any further disruption of the Bopomofo and other article since the report at ANI? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spotted any! LjL (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, good to hear. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

redirects

Thank you for deleting them this is no attempt to WP:CANVASS because with full disclosure you may or may not know there is a case open at WP:ANI#SimonTrew It must be as boring for you to delete them as me to list them and a thank you never hurt nobody. Sincerely Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Si Trew. I remember seeing a report at ANI but that has been archived now. I did decline a couple that had previously kept at RFD and another that had 16 incoming links, which I felt would be better to be discussed, but I was happy to delete the others. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well presumably I survived it. I deliberately did not look because I would be an interested party (well, essentially the defendant) so haven't been keeping track of that discussion no point me butting in would just hurt me own defence. Just mentioned it as full disclosure.

One of the best things I ever did many many years ago is contest a parking fine I had parked on some street and there were no signs saying what the times you could park etc. I took it to Manchester Crown Court. It was kinda double or quits if I won I didn't need to pay the twenty quid and if they won I would have to pay forty quid. I knew there was no sodding chance when the traffic warden who had issued the sticker turned up with his right arm in plaster. Now that is the difference. We go to court and argue civilly (I mean in a normal sense technically a parking fine is a criminal offence in the UK). We were standing outside the courtroom while the magistrates considered their verdict, and quite happily chatting and I said how did you get that oh someone bashed me up yesterday. That is not fair. I may have disagreed with his decision (I lost of course) but I am not going to cause him a load of personal injury because of that. WP:CIVIL essentially. Well WP:RESPECT which we need to have but don't have. He's doing his job and I'm doing mine. I can defend myself but I am going to do it politely, civilly, respectfully.

It taught me a lot about the courts and a lot about how to prepare a case and make sure you are prepared. It was the best forty quid I ever spent. Never been in trouble with the law but I have on occasion had to go to courts to defend my rights and so on and it was the best forty quid I ever spent. Thanks to that traffic warden. I hope his right arm is better now (it was about twenty five years ago, might be all right by now). Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A nice story. I would hope that his arm is better now! :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blimey that was pretty swift deletion. Thanks for doing it. I was quite proud of that limerick

The old Inclosure Acts

Have left us with some kind of facks

But this one don't make sense

If it's some recompense

Then one of has to then acts

That wasn't how I put it but not every admin is as kind as you and I have a boring job as much as you do so I sometimes send them in a bit of doggerel in the hope it will not swindle but amuse the closing admin. 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you are taking some of them yourself because I hadn't got round to nominating them. No prob I leave you with those I will scout others out. I stay off that section. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no. I see your speedy delete nominations (and those of other people) pop up on the list of short pages, which I keep an eye on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yay the Anomie list #5 is 98.5% complete the rest are the ones i have stacked at RfD.

As Will Cuppy says "you can't say there ain't no progress, because in every war they learn to kill you in a new way".

Genuinely you are the only other editor who has ever helped me get through these Anomie list redirects. I can't thank you enough. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree with me, disagree with me as much as you like. To know there is another good faith editor out there trying to make the encylopaedia better means such a lot to me. I really thought I was on my own. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I do see others nominating these redirects for deletion so you're not alone. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm told that the um the progress bars on the top of the things are updated manually by other editors not by a bot. But I think well I would give you a high five or a handshake whatever you prefer. That means pretty much all of list five is done! The only remains are just things outstanding quite rightly at Rfd for WP:CONSENSUS. Well I would not have got there without you. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor without the experts I call on User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead are brilliant at taxonomy, User:Mjroots popped up unexpectedly the other day I was not sure if that user was active to do a railway one, User:Lenticel does the East Asian ones, I tend to take the European languages, User:Ivanvector and User:Tavix well I dunno (Personal attack removed, eh?) they both do a lot of general mopping up, User:BDD is good in the background. It is starting to sound like an Oscars award ceremony I know but I think they should have some credit too because well we have got it done. They thought we'd never get it done and we did. I have probably missed a few so I apologise for that. User:Steel1943 is a stalwart, all the regs at RfD. TOGETHER WE DID IT. WE DID IT LIKE WHAT WIKIPEDIA SAID WE DID AS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO MAKE THE ENCYLOPAEDIA BETTER. We did it.

Only another four lists to go! Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Oiyarbepsy has been busy too. :) I've updated the counter on Neelix list/5, it's now at 98.7% complete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for G-Worldwide Entertainment

User:Bello96 has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 12# Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Worldwide Entertainment |deletion review]] of G-Worldwide Entertainment. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Bello96 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bello96. Requests for deletion review are made at Wikipedia:Deletion review. These are usually focused on whether the process was properly carried out and you will need to show that it was not for the page to be restored. Alternatively, if significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject have come to light, you can present these sources and request that you be allow to recreate the page. Let me know if you need help to make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. There's an issue with Lowercase Sigmabot, Please feel free to join or you can apply emergncy shutoff and block the bot. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 00:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You online?

I need an edit deleted. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, still online ATinySliver. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Tag-team (apparently) vandalism at Matthew Garber. The first edit at exactly 02:30 needs to be wiped. Thanks in advance. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks ATinySliver. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, I wanted to use what seemed to me to be the fastest method of removing an edit that would be libelous if it referenced an actual person. Now that I've had a moment to read REVDEL, it almost seems my method was faster: to look at the revision history of an admins' noticeboard for a sysop who appeared to be actively editing. Is there a better way, or did logic serve me well? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the admin noticeboards is a pretty good way to find an active admin. That's seems like good thinking to me. There can't be a much quicker way.  :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it, ATinySliver, you could check the deletion log (or the block or protection logs) for admin activity. There's almost always something going on there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

your block of User:Onlyone1won

Please block talk page access due to personal attacks. Meters (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Done by User:Huon Meters (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good work Huon. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Afd Guptara

There's also this file needing to be deleted. [8] Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And these files which also are only about the nn Guptaras.[9][10][11] Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Edward321. I have speedy deleted the image of the book cover per CSD F5, an orphaned non-free use image that was only used on a deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. The others I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 29 as they are free use files. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find a speedy deletion rationale for the files and had missed the files for discussion board. Edward321 (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

That IP keeps falsely that I challnged its unsourced content, Please see the page history of Haliwa-Saponi to check. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of IP editing there. Widr has semi-protected the page for one week so hopefully they will start talking about the edits on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

On my talk page, IP just to starting questioning me per WP:IRS. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, they've explained their edits, which is a good thing. They claim that the IP 184.0.x.x is editing disruptively; I can see that, particularly in the history of the talk page. 184.0.x.x claims there is misinformation; that is going to have to be settled by discussion on the talk page. The 140.156.x.x IP is largely reverting back to what was a fairly stable version in January (there are some intervening edits and additions). The controversy is sourced though not in the familiar way. The Daily Herald and The Warren Report appear to be reliable sources though WP:RSN is the place to test that out. The 'State of North Carolina investigative report' is a primary source, which is OK to use for verifying facts though reliable sources should be used to provide the interpretation of the source. More generally, the article would, I think, be improved with more citations and a look at the tone. There is a question in my mind whether the controversy section is weighted unduly compared to the overall significance to the article topic, WP:NOTNEWS may also be relevant here. These are all editing concerns and should be addressed on the talk page given to and fro on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir.

Hi Malcolmxl5, thank you for the fast response on my request at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31 page. I really appreciate your contribution. Once again, thank you so much. Tiktomoro (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Tiktomoro. I've looked through User:GunturIrawanSub contributions and I think all the page moves have been reverted now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-instated

I was not properly notified that the article I wrote for the song "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" had been nominated for deletion. No message was ever sent to my talk page. I did not have a chance to defend the article's rationale for being kept. Authors of articles should be properly notified when an article is nominated for deletion. I could have mentioned in the discussion that the song was included on the 1998 Nuggets box set, which would demonstrate its notability. Nuggets is the most high-profile garage rock compilation of them all. Generally, songs included on Nuggets are deemed to be "cream of the crop" and once a song has been included on Nuggets it becomes familiar to a large audience. That song is now familiar to most followers of garage rock, and it is a song that is well-regarded. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, I have restored the article, undone my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man and relisted the discussion page so that you may have an opportunity to make your argument. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am deeply grateful. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Population of selkirk

is 10,000 RightAutistic editor (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Autistic editor. This is Selkirk, Manitoba, yes? The best way to check will be to have a look at Statistics Canada census data. I'll have a look a little later. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No need, I've reverted to the correctly-cited info. (2016 census data will be released in February 2017, so sticking with the 2011 census data.) Mindmatrix 17:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW: Autistic editor created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mindmatrix, claiming that you and I are sockpuppets. Fun stuff. Mindmatrix 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

lol. That's a first for me! I'm out and about this evening so on the phone (I'm sitting in on a celidh) and consequently not very responsive at this moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, User:Autistic editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of someone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper from ARCA Sim Racing '08

AmericanStockCar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there! Not sure what to do with this one... it's the IP hopper from before that Eik Corell reported to ANI and you frequently dealt with. Since this is the first actual account I'm aware of, no SPI to file easily... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

wait I think I found the sockmaster... Racernv EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind... had it backwards. Ignore me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, EvergreenFir, duly ignored! :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Opps E Daisy

Hi Malcolmxl5, sorry for the extra work on Creating Philbutler/sandbox. As you probably suspect, I hit "yes" at the wrong time. I got confused about publishing a draft. Philbutler (talk) ... a budding Wikipedia editor, making what he hopes are normal mistakes. —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Philbutler, it is a very normal mistake and I mop up these all the time! Happy editing.  :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Antilohyrax, Elephas recki recki, Stegotetrabelodontinae

These text (and plenty of similar ones) misinform. Please verify what you help.Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xx236 :), how are you? I'm afraid I would not know where to even begin to find sources for specialist topics such as extinct mammals so I am restricted to adding categories and stub tags, and later when I revisit them, unreferenced tags if no sources have been added. But if you or other editors want to fix them or nominate them for deletion, do feel free to do so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please help me in a time of great need?

Hello, is Garagepunk 66. I want to thank you for re-listing the article. I am facing a serious issue of harassment from User:ALongStay, who nominated that article and one other for deletion. While there is nothing, in and of itself, wrong with doing that, he is trying to pass himself off as someone who I lave long considered a cherished friend TheGracefulSlick. I cannot rule out there to be a connection, but my wish is the give TheGracefulSlick the benefit of the doubt. But, sadly this incident has caused serious strife between us. TheGracefulSlick thinks that I was accusing him of being behind a sock-puppet ring, and I have to admit that I made the suggestion, but fell short of a full accusal. GracfulSlick asked me to contact LongStay, so I did in an effort to smooth things out. But, to no avail. Sadly I feel that, in an effort to make peace, I have been having to play along in a game. I cannot rule anything out. But my deepest hope is that GracfulSlick is innocent, so this is not to impune him. ALongStay was blocked at Christmas time, for doing the same thing. It created tension between GracefulSilck and I then, but nearly as bad--we got beyond that. LongStay had a twin editor, ABriefPassing, who was doing at that time too and got indefinitely blocked. ALongStay should also be permanently blocked. He has also threatened to do damage as an unregistered user, but that should no keep him from getting a permanent block. I need intervention in this situation, because it threatens my ability to continue to do work here. We may have to get check busters involved. Is there anything you can do to help me right now? Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Garagepunk66. My first advice when the temperature is rising and there is conflict is to advise participants to take a step back, to step away, for things usually look very different when things have cooled down. On the specific issues you raise, I do think you will need to apologise to TheGracefulSlick for making the the suggestion of being part of a "sock-puppet ring", I'm sure that is not the case and this is not something to jeopardise a friendship over. As for the other, a charge of harassment is a serious one and will need to be backed up with evidence in the form of diffs, it would be best to present this on the admin board at WP:ANI where more eyes will look at it. For now though, it would be best if everybody disengage, for things may look very different in a few days time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I never went the full way to accuse him , but the language that LongStay used was cryptic and even certain things GracefulSlick said at times troubled me. By, suggesting the possibility of his possible involvement, I only wanted Gracefulslick to clarify himself and categorically deny it, so that I could be more at ease. I did not want to get outside people involved, so it was my way of trying to clear up the situation at that level. I have sent GracefulSlick a message explaining why I had suspicions, but I apologized for any hard feelings the mere suggestion might have caused and that I lean to believe that LongStay is an impersonator, not him. But, this whole situation has put me through a lot of pain and stress, and I have finally gone to get outside help, because I need to be able to do my work in peace. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, Garagepunk66. I hope you can rebuild your friendship with TheGracefulSlick. Cherished friendships are things to be valued and I appreciate you were under a lot of stress. I hope that the ANI discussion has resulted in a satisfactory outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is going to take a long time. I think that we have worked together and fought together for so of many the same causes. We both have shared a vison and worked together to make that dream come true here at Wikipedia. There is so much respect and good will there which is irrevocable--no amount of disagreement will ever take that way. And, I thank you for your kind words. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Was I right to revert the blanking and CSD tagging? I believe its existence has been established, though its notability is another matter. Is it worth an AfD? Adam9007 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ponder the rights and wrongs of the situation, Adam9007, I wanted the to-and-fro to stop and for people to start talking. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

New pun, maybe

Have you got this pun yet?

Once I had a trumpet. But I blew it. ;) East Anglian Regional (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol, ah no, but I did rather like: I was planning to visit Santiago today, but it's too Chile.  :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Đại Cồ Việt

• vi:Đại Cồ Việt
• zh:大瞿越

--223.137.190.48 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Make your case at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Requestion Reversal of Deletion for Hannibal Tabu page ...

Hello! I hope I'm not breaking protocol by posting here -- I'm new.

Hello!

I'd like to ask that the page referring to Hannibal Tabu have its deletion reversed.

The deletion note said "Non-notable writer. Currently there is only two links in the article, both to primary websites. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR"

The following links are included as notable references:

... thus satisfying the "significant coverage in reliable sources" query in the notability guideline.

Likewise, the works created ...

- Aspen Universe Sourcebook (July 2016) - Executive Assistant Iris Sourcebook - Soulfire Sourcebook - Fathom Sourcebook - Watson & Holmes Vol. 2 (full length comic book story) - New Money #1 (wholly original, http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2015/02/04/month-of-african-american-comics-new-money-1/ and https://www.comixology.com/New-Money-1/digital-comic/127892)

... fulfill the "WP: Author" requirements for "Creative Professionals."

As well, Hannibal Tabu is referenced on the following Wikipedia pages ...

Please reconsider the deletion of this page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibaltabu (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hannibaltabu. No, that's fine, the first thing you should do is to talk to the deleting administrator and that is what you are doing (I've tidied your lists of links a little, just click on 'show' to see them). I have restored the Hannibal Tabu page and relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannibal Tabu so that you may have an opportunity to make your argument there. If you are able to show that Hannibal Tabu has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) or that he meets one of the additional criteria for creative professionals (WP:AUTHOR), you are more likely to persuade the community to keep the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Username change

Now I change my username to KGirlTrucker81 at meta because tuttermouse have requested to do so and people are so confused about my two identites, Well hope to see my new username. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint about IP editing of Because You Left

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.84.132.125 reported by User:Igordebraga (Result: ). You recently applied PC protection to this article. If you wish, you could close this edit warring report. Perhaps you would consider if semiprotection would be better, if (as the reporter claims) there is a long-term IP-hopper who has been reverting the article since 2011. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have closed the report. I'll keep an eye on the page and will up the protection to semi-protection if the disruptive editing persists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tarkus block evader

Hi Malcolm. Edits like this are so trivial that we might save time if we just changed it to suit the block evader! Or are we boldly defending the honour of Wikipedia here? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, we do not usually encourage people to evade their blocks by allowing their edits to stand (though I have not reverted their edit to Speak Softly, Love or their five edits to Emerson, Lake & Palmer (album)). If there's an alternative that will not reward block evasion, I'm all ears! :) Occasionally, I take responsibility for an edit myself and it wouldn't be a problem, I think, if we did that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Malcolm. Looks like you have got a good handle on this evader. I really don't know what else to suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)