User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 70

Arbitration request motion passed
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:


 * By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel
Salvio, thank you for your message and your concerns regarding my Angela Merkel talk page statement. As evident from the content you have removed, I have not accused Volunteer Marek to be "a sockmaster", per se - but have put emphasis on the fact, that in regard of the edits done by Elizabeth Cumberbatch - I have encountered similar editing patterns of users in support of Volunteer Marek's agenda, who later turned out to be a sock (e.g. Skoranka) of a tag team member (e.g. Space Cadet); IMHO meatpuppetry can not be ruled out, of course - with the latter being less likely. Of course, I will respect your admin action and not restore the content in question, however I do feel that I have raised valid concerns - that had to be pointed out. Thank you for your understanding. (P.S. Get well soon!) --IIIraute (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Marek previously edited under a different username. IIIraute, you have a fairly silly username yourself, but were you informed of Marek's previous username under which he was sanctioned by arbcom? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he is aware of the VM's previous identity, because he mentioned it on the talk page... That said, Illraute, I perfectly understand your points: the Cumberbatch account did indeed look suspicious; I ran a check and asked a fellow checkuser to run another, just to make sure. I received the results this morning and *it appears* that the account is not a sock (at least, not one the checkuser tool is able to catch). Meat puppetry is possible, but it's much more difficult to prove... A general suggestion, however: when tempers are already frayed, it's better to keep discussion concerning behavioural issues separated from the content dispute at hand; if you suspect an account to be a sock, you should report it to WP:SPI, while you keep discussing content on the article's talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your help & advice. Thank you for your efforts! --IIIraute (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Singahi Bhiraura
Since you are around, please could you take a look at Singahi Bhiraura‎ and the last couple of sections of the talk page. The IPs seem to be in IDHT mode and I think the article needs protecting. Letters, diaries, official communiques etc quite clearly fail our sourcing tests. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Semied for a fortnight (there should be a template somewhere, which would make it look more professional, but meh...). Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And for inserting the omitted heading here also ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Koimoi
Why did you close this? It had just been reopened as the conversation had just got started and people were making comments. That is premature. Please reopen it. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought about relisting the AFD, but it has already been open for a month and relisted thrice and, nonetheless, it has seen very little participation. The person who restarted the conversation had already expressed an opinion earlier, so it's not really like the AFD was getting fresh opinions. So, no. I will not reopen the discussion; however, if you want, you can renominate it in future without waiting too long (as it is customary for AFDs closed as no consensus).. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine but did you see that it had just been reopened (at my request) within the last 24 hours? You should at least have given it 48 hours to see if it reached a conclusion. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I admit I didn't see the AFD had been closed and reopened about twelve hours ago; had I seen it, I'd probably have waited a little longer. Then again, the fact that two people independently closed the discussion could also be seen as an indication that the AFD actually needed to be closed... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

India sanctions
I see that you recently added a sanctions note at User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya. I'm at my wit's end and have just told them this, having felt it necessary to collapse a thread here. This rubbish, which is basically a campaign being operated by the Vishwakarma community to get themselves accepted as being Brahmins, has been going on for ages. They may have a point but it is not one that is generally accepted outside their own community and this is reflected in the various articles per all the usual things, eg: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc.

I know that you and the rest of ArbCom have a lot on your plate digesting, for example, the Austrian Economics case but I thought it best to let you know, bearing in mind your prior note to the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, over the next couple of days I'll have very limited access to Wikipedia, so I don't think I'll be able to review Ganesh J. Acharya's conduct. However, since he's already been alerted, you can report him to WP:AE; the admins there are usually rather quick to deal with disruption. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's ok. Thanks for the suggestion and I hope it is something good that limits your access to WP (like the vino from DarknessShines. Hic.) - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no wine: I have just been invited to a conference. Granted, there'll be a cena di gala (a banquet), where hopefully there'll be booze, but I'm not sure the game is worth the candle... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Am I still banned from filing SPI`s on Nangparbat? I ask as I think this is him. Based on the usual copyvios, and cherry picking only the bits from a source to make India look shite, dunno why he does that, the armed forces do a good enough job themselves an J&K Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember; then again, you've just reported him to a CU... I have run a check and I'd say it's a  match. Indeffed.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly my good man, and it was not really a report, just a question Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Block the socks?
Hi, Salvio. I've blocked Lalithshastri for two weeks for sockpuppetry per Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri. I kind of assumed the named accounts, that you confirmed as socks, would be indeffed, but they haven't been so far. One of them is posting on my page now. Er, was your CU report a definite finding of socking? Should I indeff and ? tomorrow (I'm going to bed now), or is there a reason nobody's done it yet? I noticed Drmies blocked one of them for 31 hours, so maybe there's some wrinkle I don't understand. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Howdy Bish. Yes, usually, for a first offence, the socks are indeffed and the sockmaster is given a short block (a fortnight, generally). However, this is left to the discretion of the patrolling admin: when an editor is reported to SPI, the CU who ran the check is not the one who issues the blocks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. No, I knew it's not your job to block the socks, but I had a sort of impression that somebody generally rushes to do so. I very rarely deal with socks, so I felt a little insecure about doing it myself, in case smarter people were holding off. But I've now exercised my discretion and indeffed them. I don't have the impression the three accounts are necessarily one individual, but certainly collaborating IRL in the sense of WP:MEAT. I've even seen one of them explaining somewhere about how they chat at the BM and discuss their edits... can't find it now, but if it should become an issue I'll do a little research (oh, groan). And it's clear to me that they've been collaborating to harass Sitush. Thanks for explaining, Salvio. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check your email
Icarus4 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a weird one here
New editor, Yet has managed ot find a userpage of user:Awaaz-e-Kashmir from 2 years ago which they pasted into an article, and another one here. Sock or what? I have no idea on this one. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed, Awaaz-e-Kashmir gave Nangparbat a barnstar, this is probably them. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That was indeed a sock; technically speaking, the account is indistinguishable from Nitishkumartn. Now, I am unfamiliar with that sockmaster and with Awaaz-e-Kashmir, so it's possible they are related or even the same person (the fact Rebecca was able to post a verbatim copy of a now deleted draft written by Awaaz would indeed point in that direction), but since the accounts are all blocked I don't think it matters that much... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Arb case against AGK
I completely agree that AGK bad a bad decision and its not his first. He has a long history of being abusive and I for one questioned his being voted in as an Arb. I didn't vote for him (unless it was by accident). However, indefinite block of the editor was strange, but then again, Kumioko got indefinitely banned from the community too and so did Nina Green by Jehochman for equally questionable reasons. It seems that indefinitely blocking useful active contributors is a common and accepted practice these days. Given that AGK is not only an admin and is exempt from policy but he is an Arb too so people are going to justify any bad decision he makes and nothing is going to come of out of the case. I would have commented in the case but its restricted to IP's and I don't want to use my real account for fear of reprisal fr AGK later. I want to make it clear I am not Kumioko but I expect this to get deleted anyway just in case since he is so despised. I just wanted to post it somewhere to an Arb I did trust. 208.54.35.213 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't closely follow the actions of other admins; as I've often said, I consider it a principle of natural justice that the person tasked with adjudicating a case should not be the same person who started the process or gathered the evidence (I'm quite fond of showing off my Latin, so I'll drop the following maxims here: ne procedat judex ex officio and nemo judex sine actore), so I'm not aware of any other cases where AGK's actions may have been questionable (and I'm not even sure they were in this case: at first glance, the impression I get is negative, but there may be something I overlooked). If you know of cases of abuse/misuse, please let ArbCom know. Also, I find it quite sad that you should be afraid of criticising an administrator for fear of future retaliation. To be entirely honest, I don't think that such a risk is present; admins are frequently criticised, their actions are reversed and sometimes they are the subjects of ANI complaints where their decisions are examined and their judgement is questioned... Nonetheless, I respect your fear. So, you probably can post the evidence you'd like submitted on the talk page of another person who has commented on the request, making it clear that you have an account but don't want to disclose it and that you're asking that person to post something for you by proxy. Also, this case in my opinion is nothing like those of Kumioko and Nina. Both those editors were editing disruptively (although in different ways) and both were repeatedly warned but failed to heed those warnings... Not that it matters here, but, personally, I find both Kumioko's ban and Nina's block reasonable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Prime Focus Technology's deletion
Hello Salvio,

Hope you're doing great!

I wanted to understand why was the Page 'Prime Focus Technologies' deleted?

Please help me out with the same!

Thanks and RegardsProonaldo (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article you mention because of its tone, which I found overly promotional. Wikipedia's articles should be written using a neutral tone and sentences such as PFT brings together a unique blend of Media and IT skills backed by an understanding of the global media and entertainment industry, for instance, are entirely inappropriate. Also, there is the possibility that some of the editors working on that article may have had a conflict of interest; while that's not a reason either for deleting an article or blocking an account, editing articles about subjects with which a person has a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged per WP:COI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI of Kbabej
Hi Salvio, I was hoping you could point me to the SPI for Kbabej. I noticed you tagged these accounts, but couldn't find the SPI. Curious because an ip has used this information at an AfD. I thought it was perhaps an improper accusation, but see they have been blocked. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no SPI for Kbabej, because the IP did not report the socking incident there. It's only by chance that I came across the IP's allegation, while perusing the AFD log to see if there were discussions that needed closing, investigated it and, after running a CU check, I concluded he was right. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. I didn't check the timestamps and got the causality backwards. All the best, Storkk (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DRV
Hi Salvio - I opened a DRV on an AfD you recently closed, here. I would've provided the sources I put up in the DRV in the AFD, but I've had a couple incredibly busy weeks, was paying no attention to the Afd, and assumed at least one other participant would bother using Google. I literally don't think I've ever seen an article that didn't fall under something like BLP1e that has so many easy to find sources successfully AfD'ed before. There were seriously all from the first few pages of google. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Article on Akbar Golrang deleted
Dear Salvio Giuliano,

(Because of a link from the address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salvio_giuliano/Deleted I seem to have sent this message to JohnCD. Sorry!)
 * Erik, no worries, not your fault! This is quite funny. Salvio, when you copied User:Salvio giuliano/Deleted from my version, you didn't change the link in the very last line "feel free to leave me a message by clicking here" to point to your talk page. That explains one or two messages that have puzzled me over the years! I have taken the liberty of changing it now. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for the correction. And, also, I apologise if my error has caused you inconvenience. I had entirely missed that link...  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You have deleted the article on Akbar Golrang. I don't quite understand why, maybe because I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia rules for inclusion. Is it because he isn't "notable" enough? What is demanded to have the article on him included in Wikipedia? There is a presentation of him in Swedish in a database produced by the Swedish Immigrant Institute, http://www.immi.se/kultur/authors/iranier/golrang.htm, and another one in Swedish in the author database Alex, http://www.alex.se/Forfattare/2705. Seven of his books are in the Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=golrang&all=true&st=list, three of them being different editions of his Swedish-Persian dictionary. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akbar_Golrang Tokyogirl79 has already mentioned the reference to Golrang in the book "A Swedish dilemma". There are also references to books by him in two Swedish studies, http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:213503/FULLTEXT01.pdf and http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:326763/FULLTEXT01.pdf. There is also a misspelt reference ("Golang") in a Norwegian-language study, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2167315&fileOId=2167325.

Yours faithfully,

Erik Holst 83.248.168.19 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik, the problem with the article was that it did not show how Mr. Golrand is notable. Notability, in Wikipedia's parlance, is different from "real-life" notability, see WP:N; in general, the rule of thumb is that, to be considered notable on Wikipedia, a person needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, see WP:GNG, although, for biographies, there are also other criteria listed at WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Now, I don't read Swedish (much less Norwegian) and, so, I can't determine whether those sources are what we call reliable sources. Anyway, I have recreated the page and moved it to the draft namespace, to allow you to work on it at your leisure without the fear that it may be end up deleted; you can find it here. Do add all the sources you can find (even if they are not in English) and, when you are through, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll ask at deletion review whether they believe the article now shows notability. If it does, the draft will be moved back to article space. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Salvio, Now I have added links to the two bibliographies in Swedish. Does that make the article show notability? Yours faithfully, Erik Holst 130.241.17.25 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlogger Award

 * Oh, thank you. This is much appreciated!  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

John Tabler deletion
Hi, I can't figure out at all why the page for John Tabler was deleted. I am him and am in multiple movies and did the page just like the other people on 99 Homes for instance. Most of those actors do not have any references listed at the start and they've been there the entire time. I listed references but for some reason it was still deleted. I have been credited by John Tabler and Jonathan Vane and Jonathan Vane Tabler. Jonathan Tabler had a starring role in Timepiece with James Earl Jones, a recurring role on Orleans and the comment on the page that the billing was way down has nothing to do with billing but with the weekly starmeter count. Return was a short film. 99 Homes is upcoming with Andrew Garfield. Dallas Buyers Club is easily viewable here addressing the hospital board... https://vimeo.com/84264974 and Bonnie and Clyde is there too. Can you help me please? Thank you.Timers123 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because those who commented at the AfD concluded that you do not meet our requirements for inclusion. To be included in Wikipedia, you need to be notable and, in turn, to be notable, you need a. to have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject (cf. WP:GNG) or b. to have had significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions (cf. WP:NACTOR). It was determined that you did not meet either of the criteria, because your roles were not considered significant (though it's likely your role in Timepiece qualifies as a significant role, the criterion requires multiple roles). It's probable your notability will increase owing to your starring in 99 Homes and, as a result, you will qualify for inclusion, but until then I'm afraid you don't. I am sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you for your response. I appreciate your help. I could say being content to wait would be fine, but other actors near the bottom of wiki listing on productions I've worked on are not deleted and are exactly the same circumstances so I created a page also using them as a template... with no references either. I looked at one on 99Homes as an example when creating. Why is there selective deletion with respect to that? The actors on 99 all have pages for a long time just like mine that have not been deleted and that's why I put one up... and separately, what defines significant? Watch the reel and let me know what wiki determines as significant. I have had starring roles in Timepiece with Naomi Watts and James Earl Jones, Mosaic Project, the upcoming Appleton, and supporting in Dallas Buyers, Bonnie and Clyde on History, 99Homes, Vegas on CBS, and recur on Orleans with Larry Hagman on CBS. https://vimeo.com/23937483 https://vimeo.com/84264974 or imdb page. Also, it was said by another admin that imdb isn't a reliable source. It is THE standard for the Entertainment industry to determine factual information with respect to talent, and it's impossible to get a credit on there if it's not factual. If the Entertainment industry uses it as the gold standard while not being credible to wiki, I'm not sure what "credible" means. Also, maybe there was a problem with finding press because I used to go by Jonathan instead of the current. Thank you for your previous reply and also for looking into this. I certainly don't want to spin wheels trying something that won't work, but I'm at a loss on the rules/definitions and how other pages are there with what seem to me to be exactly the same circumstances. Thanks.Timers123 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Article draft on Akbar Golrang
Dear Salvio,

Now I have added links to the two bibliographies in Swedish. Does that make the article show notability?

Yours faithfully, Erik Holst 130.241.17.25 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started a new discussion here. You are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Salvio, I'm curious about your closure of this AfD, there seems no consensus for deletion (two keeps and one delete) and no compelling deletion reason.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC).


 * I disagree with your assessment; as you know, AfD closures are not based on head-counting, because the closing admin has to weigh the various arguments put forth by the participants. Well, let's examine the two keep votes:
 * Keep It is a harmless list
 * which is one of the arguments to avoid during an AfD, cf. WP:HARMLESS
 * and we have plenty of lists on ethnic groups.
 * same as before, this is one of the arguments to avoid, cf. WP:OSE
 * As far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason for this deletion nomination
 * and this is inaccurate; both Sitush and Smsarmad put forth good arguments justifying deletion. The former argues that the subject has not received coverage in reliable secondary sources and adds that the article is basically just a transcription of a primary source while the latter argues that the article is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, covered by WP:NOT. Both are policy-based reasons to delete an article.
 * Keep Agreed with Mar4d, no policy based reason for this deletion nomination.
 * this statement is, again, inaccurate.
 * Bearing in mind that [a]rguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted (cf. Deletion guidelines for administrators), the only policy-compliant outcome was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us then look at the "policy based" arguments
 * Eh? WP:RS, for starters. WP:OSE also. RS is a guideline, and OSE an essay.
 * a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization - this is part of WP:NOTDIR it does not forbid discussing (or reporting on numbers) of cross-categorized groups, merely listing them.
 * basically just a transcription of a primary source has some validity, but the key point in WP:PS is Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. There is no "novel interpretation" going on here. A case for failing notability could be made (but wasn't).  Moreover the distinction between primary and secondary is blurred, and in some cases primary sources are to be preferred.  In this case it would be absurd prima facie to expect that the numbers of the various Jat clans would be listed in secondary sources, if they were it would likely be piecemeal (directly transcribed from the primary source) and a large (and unnecessary) task to re-compile the figures with possible errors and biases.
 * Also
 * Keep It is a harmless list
 * Has not appeared from nowhere, it is a rebuttal to the implied harm of an article based on misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. If it were demonstrated (even in an uncitable, but convincing way) that Risley had instructed the census takers to determine clan by anthropometric measurements, then we could, without qualm, discard the data. As it is we have no reason to believe that the data is inherently unreliable.  WP:NOTCENSORED might have been a more wikipedian response.
 * The crux here is that ignoring !votes to keep that disagree with the deletion rationale is not the same as ignoring arguments that are not policy based. Consensus seemed to be that the deletion rationale was invalid, albeit less eloquently expressed.
 * I am far from convinced that these articles should be kept, but I am also far from convinced that they should be deleted.
 * All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
Two years ago, you were the 76th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Request restoration of Alonzo Holt per step one of instructions at WP:DELREVD
The AfD already showed that this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO point 2. It also meets the requirements of the WP:GNG and should be restored as I have found reliable sources at allmusic.com, acharts.us, and mtv.com to name a few. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus emerging from the AfD was clear; those who commented overwhelmingly supported deletion. Also, this kid is only known for his cover of Wrecking Ball, which is why I believe that having him mentioned in the article about the song is more than enough. So, no, I'm not going to restore the article. I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SOCK PUPPET
Hi darknessshines told me i am about to be blocked for sock. after that i checked all investigations; At first i couldn't find my name anywhere then i came to some imran guy sock where its written by you that you are having technical evidence that i am their sock. i can't remember which page but at some time i have seen whistle writing in persian or arabic or urdu script.(unfortunately i don't remember where i saw that). i don't understand whats going on. sometimes i surf through my office computer during tiffin breaks. lots of people use that place. There is also a cafe near my home where i go for scanning or taking printouts and end up surfing(as i don't have printer or scanner in home).If you found same IP then its not my fault.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that does not stand up to scrutiny at all, you figure the only time you have seen Whistlingwoods is when he has written various scripts? But do not recall where? The both of you where all over Talk:Total Siyapaa a week ago, backing each other to the hilt against LX socks. You & Whistlingwoods, which is a SPA account, whose only edits were to help you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ye, I agree with DS. I don't consider your rebuttal convincing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

re: recent SPI and AE thread relating to ZORDANLIGHTER
Hi Salvio - I realize that as a checkuser you're precluded from going into details but if you have anything you can say (about patterns of behaviour or anything else you see as pertinent) it would be useful to have your input here-- Cailil  talk 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD missed two
My fault, sorry somehow I had listed them with capital S, song not : Cinematic (Jessi Malay song) Bougie (Jessi Malay song). Thank you for closing that bulk AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And now they're gone. Cheers.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your thoughtful participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)