User talk:Omikroergosum

Nomination of Fayrouz Saad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fayrouz Saad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fayrouz Saad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mohamad Barakat
Hi. I've moved your article to draft space because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please submit for review by more experienced editors before recreating. Deb (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not so concerned about the references as about the lack of content in the article. The previous version was better referenced but it wasn't good enough. You need to expand it. Deb (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you believe it will pass review, then submit it for review. That's all you have to do. Deb (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mohamad Barakat
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Jbh Talk  16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mohamad Barakat, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That article had about 20 sources from top quality reliable sources such as Globo, Veja (magazine) and ARD, and even after you deleted those that referred to the doping scandals he is most notable for there remain 11, which is more than for many other articles, and the English Wikipedia even allows stubs which have much less. If you don't like the content that does not justify a move to draft. Given that a user objects it has to be moved and a deletion discussion needs to be started. Omikroergosum (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Júlio César Alves for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Júlio César Alves is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Júlio César Alves& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jbh Talk  20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Draft:Mohamad Barakat, you may be blocked from editing. Several people have pointed out that our biography policy requires solid and conservative sourcing of negative material about living individuals. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything I added to this article is based on reliable sources. Your assertion that what I do is disruption is scandalous, in particular given that I showed you you broke Wikipedia rules given that it is not allowed to circumvent a deletion discussion by moving to draft (and even protectin from creation). I put a complaint at the Administrator's noticeboard. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to familiarise yourself with our policy on reliable sources. You can ask for guidance here. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be specific in your complaint. I know the rules on reliable sources very well. The sources I used like ARD, Globo, and Veja are of absolutely top quality. Please make use of the article talk page instead of my talk page. And revert your circumvention of the deletion discussion by moving to draft, which is in clear violation of wikipedia rules as I pointed out at the Administrator's noticeboard. Omikroergosum (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Information regarding editing biographies of living people
Jbh Talk  22:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not broken any rules on biographies on living people and as you write yourself you are not an administrator. Please edit constructively making use of the article discussion page rather than putting such notices on other user's pages. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019


A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Mohamad Barakat is not an attack page, it is very well sourced, a deletion discussion had already come to the conclusion that the article was to be speedily kept and as I showed the WP rules clearly say draftication is not to circumvent deletion discussions. I protest your action that is in violation of wikipedia rules and bring this to the adminstrators' noticeboard. Please stop using different names as it obscures the fact that you about whom a complaint was already submitted act on the case in which you are accused yourself. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

AN versus ANI
Regardless of the perceived urgency, we do not have an AN + ANI reports on the same topic. Please do not revert again. El_C 08:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not use terms such as "blatant lie" — it fails to assume good faith and comes across as an attack. An editor can be mistaken without a bad faith act such as lying, which you should always assume, by default. Please try to express yourself with greater moderation. El_C 14:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain, how can it be good faith to claim no notability has been established for an article if there are dozens of reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that have been discussed? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, again, it could be a mistaken notion — what do you not understand about that? El_C 14:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry, this guy has flagrantly broken the explicit rule that draftification is not to be abused to circumvent a deletion discussion. He never justified his draftification (which may very well have been in good faith). It has now been overturned by two administrators. He then keeps making a false claim without any justification and even claims that I make "_repeated_ personal attacks" without giving any evidence for this. My interpretation that he was blatantly lying may very well also be a good faith misunderstanding. Could you please finally sanction the three single-purpose vandals and restore the article that was deleted in violation of due process? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with the case, but no, you may not cast these aspersions, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And it is not a casting aspersion to claim that I made "_repeated_ personal attacks" without giving any evidence for this? For unknown reasons you only comment here, not on Deb's page. I was also personally attacked to be "outright lying" by user Iridescent here. Thanks for letting him know about aspersions. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought: maybe work on getting along with other editors instead of getting into these confrontations, including this conversation. El_C 15:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your suggestion how to work together with editors who speedily delete an article based on 17 reliable secondary sources, some of them international and most from top quality media, in spite of a deletion discussion that resulted in the decision to keep and who don't even admit they are wrong when overturned by two administrators who confirmed what as I showed is clearly stated in the rules, that due process was violated? Omikroergosum (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is for you to remain civil and assume good faith. If the page was deleted in error, someone will undelete it, eventually. El_C 15:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I remain civil, contributed with high quality sources. Was threatened to be blocked, treated in a condescending way repeatedly. While you warn me not to say others are lying (although I presented evidence their claims are wrong) others can claim I was lying without presenting evidence and without receiving sanctions. Others can break the rule not to circumvent deletion discussions by draftification without sanctions. The page is not recreated in spite of two administrators overruling the decision to delete. Those who violated the rules keep denying their wrongdoing. Even the single purpose vandals who posted advertisement in Portuguese are not sanctioned. What do you do here instead of where it is needed? Omikroergosum (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Mohamad Barakat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohamad Barakat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mohamad Barakat& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all thank you for opening the deletion discussion. You will have seen in the deletion discussion that I find your blanking of an article for whom a draftification was used to circumvent a deletion case, violating explicit Wikipedia rules just wrong because it does not allow users to make an informed decision of the article. I also find wrong that neither the three single purpose vandals who tried to convert the article into a Portuguese advertisement nor the administrators who circumvented the deletion discussion have been sanctioned in any way and the administrator who circumvented the deletion discussion as well as a user who behaves like an administrator can threaten me with a block here for just pointing out the rules. I will not write anything else on this as your actions made the outcome forseeable and I have better use of my time. Omikroergosum (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please no longer write me here as I will not read
Feel free to contact me in the French or German version. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Au revoir. Deb (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Auf Wiedersehen. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"188.com" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 188.com. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)