User talk:TheGracefulSlick/Archive 3

About Azerbaycan'ın geleneksel kıyafetleri - not a WP:G1 candidate, but pretty sure it's a copyvio
Hi Graceful, I have declined the WP:G1 speedy deletion. It's in Azerbaijani. I immediately recoginised it was in that language from "Azerbaycan'ın" and the dotless i in the text... but I'm hellaciously nerdy about that sort of stuff, so don't worry too much about the speedy decline. It does appear to meet the WP:G12 criterion, as a simple google search (same as what I found declining the WP:G1) finds a lotta websites with the same text. I guess I'm WP:INVOLVED now, so I'll leave it to you to it. Pətər ın Australıa aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello TheGracefulSlick: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

DYK for J. P. Crawford
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Have a kitten, and happy holidays! =)

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC) 

December 2017 Melbourne car attack
I am in favor of talking about deletion before going through with it as this will get most editors on the same page. This event may very well be nothing but I feel we should give it the benefit of the doubt so future deletion rationales are stronger. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just needed to leave that AFD and cool off; it was clear no one is there to discuss notability. I do not approve of the "wait and see" tactic WP:RAPID uses, especially since we can apply it to any news story that garners coverage for a day. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for the present yet I'm being told time and time again they can be disregarded when the event is hot off the presses. And oddly, I only ever see RAPID applied when terrorism is in the conversation; however, an article like this, another recent event, is easily deleted within the same timeframe.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An article isn't worth getting worked up about as sources and words can always be placed back in. I don't know how or why some articles are kept while others aren't, but to be honest I was irked in this case about a discussion being ignored for outright deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

YouWillRegret
If you can find a valid guideline on what constitutes a valid "claim" of notability, I'd be interested. I also think the article should be deleted, I'm merely extra obnoxious about speedy-deletion criteria. I found a credible "claim" of notability per an interpretation of NMUSIC #5. Most artists who appear on a label as significant as Republic I would presume to be notable, I find it odd that no suitable sources were found for this artist, the label must not believe in this artist much. As I have no interest in the genre, I wouldn't know where to begin to look for sources myself, mostly because I don't know which rap sources are hype, and which are reliable. There's certainly a lot out there. Anyway, I wanted to explain the decline since it may have caused you irritation. All the best, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, I was not irritated. Your understanding of NMUSIC would apply to artists or ensembles but it makes no claims for their recordings. That is why we have WP:NALBUM. Anyhow, it is no biggie and I appreciate you sparing some time to explain your action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I would certainly NOT make that argument at the AfD. If I could, I would delete the article as advertising, since it seems all the "sources" are to sites selling the album, but it doesn't quite qualify as G11 either in my estimation.  I had not seen the AfD for the artist, no excuse as I probably should have.  Odd in that discussion that no one mentioned sources in an attempt to meet NMUSIC #1.  One would expect the usual wall of social media links.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Beaumont children disappearance
Hi. I'm asking around whether people can do a grammar check/proofread/NPOV check on Beaumont children disappearance. If you could go over the article it would be good. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_28
You are invited to join the discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_28. Rusf10 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, TheGracefulSlick!


Happy New Year! TheGracefulSlick, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

-- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

1RR
Heads up that the following: are all reverts (either in full or in part) - putting you at 3RR on a 1RR article. I'm not sure I'm inclined to file AE over this, but other editors might be more "trigger happy".Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Latest revision as of 09:20, 1 January 2018
 * 2) Revision as of 07:49, 1 January 2018
 * 3) Revision as of 03:06, 1 January 2018 (revert of removal - Revision as of 02:50, 1 January 2018)
 * I think much of your last edit is constructive (though I'm not sure it is appropriate to try an wiki-voice events here as the army and Tamimi family do differ), however if you want to play it safe in terms of ARBPIA, self-reverting the last 2 would place you in the "safe zone".Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * these ARBPIA, despite my several read-throughs, are both conflicting and confusing. Despite your disagreements with me, you realize I am making constructive attempts to improve the article. Yet, these rules seem constructed so editors can say "haha gotcha, now revert or else" and restrict even well-meaning editors from contributing. I honestly cannot understand how my first and third edits are reverts in the scope of 1RR; the second one possibly. Can I just reinsert the (honestly pointless and obvious) information about the camera depicting females?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Editing under 1RR is.... a pain... at least on an active article (as long as you are editing alone - the whole edit-chain (uninterrupted by other editors) - counts as 1 revert). As to why each one is a revert:
 * you remove quite a bit of text, and you it isn't that you copy-edited it, there were some complete redaction, e.g. - The army said that one of the soldiers filmed was a company commander, and that their investigation determined that "conducted himself professionally by not responding in kind", and that the women could have been arrested as they " were physically violent and were disrupting the soldiers from carrying out their tasks" (that I had just added) was removed all together. There are a few other bits that were totally removed.
 * Clear revert - you removed a block of text (after another editor re-added it).
 * Again clear revert - DePiep removed this text 16 minutes earlier (which is why I supplied the diff of his removal) - you added it back in.
 * You could maybe wikilawyer #1 - but it would be a stretch as you actually removed quite a bit. If you were just paraphrasing/copy-editing while leaving the same information in there - it possibly wouldn't count as a revert (but you could be wikilaywered at AE - it really would fall under admin judgement there - but in this case it is a clearcut thing).
 * Some people are very eager to push cases into AE. I'm not against most people (though if I think someone is really disruptive - I jump the gun sometimes). I agree that the 1RR thing is a pain - but it does serve a purpose (basically slowing down everybody to one redaction (or re-addition of challenged content) spree a day). The "female coverage thing" (that I agree should be in) - isn't something worthwhile skirting 1RR to edit-war in - if it goes in the next day or next week it isn't a "big deal".Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , not trying to sound deceptive, but no one seems eager to press the issue or bothered to track my edits so would it be alright to keep edits 1 and 3; three may be a "clear revert" but I think it nicely describes the divide in public perception without a lengthy, unnecessary quote essentially saying the same exact thing. I don't know where the sentence describing only females in the frame could flow with the paragraph but I can certainly reinstate it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd be risking it. Assuming I'm not filing AE, I noticed this some 25 minutes after your third revert (#1 above. I might have notices #2 &#3 earlier, but I didn't drop a note, so not sure). Others might take longer to notice (the two edits at 07:49 and 09:20 scream revert just by the byte-count diff). If I were you, I would self-revert, as the risk of going to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (and the drama there) isn't worth it - particularly since this a clear technical violation of the red-line rule. Arguing it's a revert but it is constructive (you are not in the listed exemptions at WP:3RRNO). is a perilous argument and in this case only applies as a borderline argument for #1. In short - you'd be "at risk" for AE for next 48-72 hours at least (as no one expect editors to react within minutes of 1RR violations).Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding edit3 - which I wholeheartedly agree should be in (maybe in a different location in the text, and quite possibly in the lede) - the way to keep it in - is to build consensus on the talk page. Either as a full fledged RfC or by discussing this and having clear support for it. I'll support it on the talk-page.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC) (But if you are self-reverting, you'd be self-reverting reverts 1 & 2 so it would stay in - but regardless you should talk-page this).Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted two of the edits. I think I understand 1RR now (fingers crossed) so hopefully this is the last time we speak on this issue. My apologies, when I work on expanding articles or writing GAs I never have to deal with such a restraint.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi
hi sister. as answer to your comment i know about English media about ahed but i think this kind of notability which media created is fake because there is hundreds of Palestinian girls who do much more activities than ahed do but media does not mention them because they don't want to appear in media. i can say if we asked about ahed's notability after 10 years i am sure that she will be a non important topic. regards---مصعب (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing
The article Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Victoria O'Keefe
Victoria O'Keefe has been tagged for Notability for nearly three years. I think you should nom for AfD. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * any particular reason why I should? I don't think it's entirely appropriate to ask another editor to nominate an article for deletion on your behalf.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi
If this happens again, should probably be posted to WP:BLPN. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- for this and removing what was obviously undue rubbish.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you doing this, is it really necessary?
Hi why do you feel the need to delete my articles which are well sourced and belong on the list just as much of the other articles do? I can surely say the more unnecessary deletion like this there is the less people will want to write anymore in fact that is the reason why I don't write much anymore as what is the point if is going to happen all the time? Just think about it how would you feel if you spent all the time writing an article just to have someone else delete it because they don't agree with you that it is worthy of inclusion. I was told that I may have a complaint of harassment, and I just might file one, but like I said I'm pretty sure a lot less people will want to write articles anymore, as I know I sure won't and don't much anymore anyways. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . My nomination statement pretty much sums up why I believe the article should be deleted, but I have no pressing "need" for its deletion. Please, I encourage you to file a case at ANI if you have an actual case of harassment. Beware of the boomerang, however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CRIME which discusses the notability of disappearances. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction, WP:NCRIME. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not encourage editors to take routine content disputes to ANI. There are many levels of dispute resolution that should be tried first. ANI is for otherwise intractable issues requiring administrative tools. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment at the AFD since you left out: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines (which is WP:EVENTCRIT) and those regarding reliable sources". All you really proved was the disappearance is mentioned by the guideline, not that it is notable. Anyways, I believe I encouraged David to report alleged harassment, not a content dispute. But thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well before this gets out of hand, I'd just like to point out (hopefully to provide perspective): how would you feel if you spent all the time curating the encyclopaedia to keep it clean and encyclopaedic just to have someone else accuse you of harassment for doing so? Arguments from emotion aren't good arguments. There are better ways of dealing with issues than levelling threats. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those of who freely choose to "curate" this encyclopedia must learn to defuse or ignore the emotionalism of less experienced editors, rather than to point people to ANI immediately. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that David directly threatened to report Grace for harassment: I was told that I may have a complaint of harassment, and I just might file one (emphasis removed). Also, David, with more than 22k edits and five years tenure, isn't a "less experienced" editor. More importantly: Those of [us] who freely chose to "create" articles on this encyclopedia must learn to temper their emotionalism. We can have this back and forth on repeat forever. Each argument can be directly countered with the exact same argument. David shouldn't act on emotionalism, and should temper it rather than going to somebody's talk page to threaten them. That is my point. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

1rr Ahed Tamimi
You broke 1rr with your last edit. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder)
I have removed the tag from Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder), which you proposed for deletion. There were some sources listed at Talk:Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder); i'm undecided on keeping, but an AfD seems justified for a deletion here. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi - Lede
Regarding this edit. (1) If sources in the lede bother you, then the expectation is that you'd remove only the sources, (2) Having sources in the lede may be ugly, but the issue remains a style guideline, and not a violation of a policy to justify complete removal. By removal, you've just treated the material as though it is dangerous. (3) Some of the content could have been moved to the body. I think it is important to note the family's response to the accusations of the apartheid regime and its people, brought forward to the Tamimis by foolish white reporters under the illusion that their try hard attempts would come off as "balanced", but the reality is that everybody knows they were repeatedly pressured and shamed into doing it. (4) The POV tag was added for a separate issue (the Oren crap). And not related to the content removed from lede. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Look at Your Game, Girl"
I see that you are interested in Charles Manson's music. If I were to spruce up the article for "Look at Your Game, Girl", would you be willing to review it for GA status?MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
 * sure. Just drop by again when you are finished and I'll get right on it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article.MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 30, 2018 (UTC)
 * allow me until tonight, when I can fully invest in reviewing the article, to point out its strengths and any concerns I have. Thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of your concerns. MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 23:20, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * yes you did. You should receive a notification shortly. Good work and thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick question: "Look at Your Game, Girl" was recorded in 1968 and released in 1970. Should it be under the category "1968 songs" or "1970 songs" (I ask because in the list of GAs, Wikipedia sorted the song into the category of "1970 to 1979 songs"). MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 23:20, February 1, 2018 (UTC)
 * technically, because it was released in 1970, it is a "1970s song".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! I was wondering, if I were to greatly improve articles about songs by Elvis Presley or other classic artists, would you be willing to review them for GA status? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 23:20, February 2, 2018 (UTC)

Other songs
Thanks so much for your help on "Look at Your Game, Girl"! I was wondering, if I were to greatly improve articles about songs by Elvis Presley or other classic artists, would you be willing to review them for GA status? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 23:20, February 2, 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my slow reply; I have been using more of my free time for reading. I can review more articles, but I have just one condition: a limit of one review a week. I simply would be too overwhelmed if I tried handling more than one at a time, and I also need time to write articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Popkov
Gatoclass (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

pending
Hi - I accepted something you removed, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Hochuli&diff=824529322&oldid=824522907 I made a small change to it and checked the detail was in the weblink provided, you may know more about the subject than me, let me know and I will revert. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Brandi Wells
I noticed purely by coincidence that your recent AfD nomination of "Disappearance of Brandi Wells" was successful in getting the article deleted.

I don't blame you for nominating it, based on how poorly the nominated version was put together, but all the same, it's a real shame, because even though the article completely failed to establish its subject's notability, it was notable.

Brandi Ellen Wells' disappearance was the subject of the very first episode of the Investigation Discovery series Disappeared. That, had someone had the knowledge to put that in the article and bring it up at the AFD, would probably have led to a keep, as it kicks notability up to national level by virtue of being the subject of an episode of a nationally cablecast series (In fact, I think being the subject of said series' first episode makes a slightly stronger case). I don't think anyone's even nominated an article about a single other disappearance that was the subject of a Disappeared for deletion.

I'm certainly not blaming you—I've noticed you've nominated a bunch of these non-notable-yet cases for deletion, and based on how poorly the sourcing was, I don't blame you. But it still feels like such a shame that it happened this way when it didn't have to ...

I had actually thought of starting that article myself in time for the case's 10th anniversary back in 2016, but as I had a pretty busy schedule at that time of year (i.e., other articles to write that also went with anniversaries) and the only really interesting aspect of the case is the condition of the car when it was found (it's possible someone else drove it and dumped it there), I passed. Maybe in 2021, then.

So I would ask that if I (or someone else) recreates it in the future, that it not be nominated for deletion again, not if it's recreated with proper sources. (As I've suggested above, however, it won't be any time soon, not if I do it, anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not be keeping close tabs on whether the article is re-created or not. I do not believe being a subject once in a television series would have swayed any voters because notability is not inherited. I take a firm stance on upholding WP:NOT, especially for victims and BLPs, which is why I nominated it. However--with no offense to the original article's author--you are a much better writer and, if more sources pop up in a few years, you could create an article appropriate for such an issue as sensitive as someone's disappearance and possible demise.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goo (album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goo (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goo (album)
The article Goo (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Goo (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Input
How's it going?

As someone who's contributed to music pages, I was wondering if you'd care to put some input in this discussion. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FBI raid of Michael Cohen&. Since you had some involvement with the FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Your talk page is protected, so listing here instead, if it doesn't bother. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

FLC nomination review
Hello,

I can tell you're very active with sports projects, so I wanted to reach out and ask for a review on my FLC with Mr. Show-Me Basketball since it could use additional reviews.

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: 1RR
Please explain what's my second revert.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Toussaint Jackson
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Melanie Melanson
User:The Gnome has asked for a deletion review of Melanie Melanson. 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. —Cryptic 11:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Markelle Fultz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Markelle Fultz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Junius George Groves
Hello! Your submission of Junius George Groves at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Markelle Fultz
The article Markelle Fultz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Markelle Fultz for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Markelle Fultz
The article Markelle Fultz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Markelle Fultz for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Junius George Groves
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK help?
I see that you have quite a few DYKs. I wonder if you may be willing to walk me through the process with one of the GA articles that I developed? The subject matter is somewhat grim, so I'm not sure how to approach things. I.e.: Did you know that Arthur Nebe, an SS death squad commander responsible for 50,000 murders, was described as a "very mild Nazi" in post-war apologia? :-) --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , gladly. But am I correct when I say that this article was listed as a GA in January 2017? Unfortunately, if that is the case, it cannot be nominated for DYK because it will fail one rule instantly: "DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days...". If you have another subject in mind, I can help with that. I apologize, I have been bitten by this rule on two occasions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I knew I needed help :-). In any case, I do have one article currently in GA review: Erich Hoepner. Not the most exciting subject; perhaps you have some ideas? Perhaps something can be done around this :
 * "[Hitler] stated that "wanted to see the impending war against the Soviet Union conducted not according to the military principles, but as a war of extermination" against an ideological enemy, whether military or civilian. Many Wehrmacht leaders, including Hoepner, echoed the sentiment".
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps: "Did you know Erich Hoepner shared Adolf Hitler's sentiment that the war against the Soviets should be conducted as a 'war of extermination'?" Reclaiming his pension, despite Hitler's directive, and refusing to commit suicide after the 20 July plot are also both potential hook topics.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you could have a look, to make sure I've done it correctly? Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Erich_Hoepner. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the DYK itself was completely correctly. Depending on how stingy the reviewer is, they may have issue with the fact that the hook is found in two sentences in the article. That, however, could easily be fixed with a semicolon if it comes up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'll see how it goes! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin Ladraa
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

2017 Clovis library shooting
Well, I renominated this for deletion as you suggested but unfortunately the killer's trial is upcoming, creating the usual flurry of news coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, unfortunately the encyclopedia is going through a phase where the usual group of editors will always defend these newsy types of articles. The difficulty to delete these articles increases when the suspect survives and they can claim there is "ongoing coverage" by ignoring its routine nature. The only thing you can do is continue to follow policy the best you can and choose your battles wisely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really a battle! the article in question is still on my watchlist, so when somebody edited it so attracting my attention I slapped in the second nomination. Time will tell. maybe.TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crippled America
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crippled America you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crippled America
The article Crippled America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crippled America for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Crippled America
Hi. If you would still like this assessing for GA could you ping me and I will try to start over the next few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * yes I am still up for going through a review. No rush, so we can start it whenever you are ready; I appreciate it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the article's promotion! Not sure if you're interested or not, but there are several other Trump book articles that have been expanded and may meet (or be close to meeting GA criteria). If you're interested, but not familiar with which articles, I can share more detail. Either way, thanks for your contributions! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * my interests are all over the place. One day I'm writing for GA status on a legendary album, another day I'm writing on an an important man in baseball history. I have been meaning to finish my draft on John B. Magruder, but I would be happy to look at these other Trump books and see what I can do. I appreciate the commendation!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure!, I understand. I work similarly. 'Twas just a suggestion, if you enjoyed the process of promoting Crippled America. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides
The article 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2017 Sierra Leone mudslides for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Moody Blues songs
I've voted to delete "The Sunset", but that leaves us with three songs from Days of Future Passed that still have unsourced articles and probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia: "The Day Begins", "(Evening) Time to Get Away" and "Twilight Time". As there are no issues with disambiguations, unlike "The Sunset", should the three tracks be boldly redirected to the parent album, rather than just bundled together for AfD? Richard3120 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You broke 1rr with the quds day edit
You have to wait 24 hours from the last revertShrike (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless I am missing something, my first edit was at 14:40, 12 June and my second was at 14:46, 13 June -- six minutes over 24 hours. Regardless, if there was any doubt, it is now well over 24 hours. Are you really going to make me self-revert to cancel the alleged 1RR? I am just going to revert it seconds afterwards. Perhaps you could, you know, help build consensus at the talk page?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We will ask the admins please see this AE--Shrike (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As a sign of goodwill I have withdrawn my request please be very careful in the future.--Shrike (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring without discussion
Re this edit, perhaps you missed my discussion on the talk page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghosh&action=history, which is not surprising, since you yourself are conspicuously missing from any talk page discussion. This kind of behavior is frowned upon. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope did not miss a thing. Two editors disagree with you and one agrees. Thus, the content is disputed yet you continue to reinsert the material, forgetting that onus requires you to seek consensus.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That material has been in the article for years, and thus has consensus. If you want to show that the new consensus is to remove it, the onus on you, That would require that you actually participate in the Talk page discussion, something you have yet to do. This kind of behavior is frowned upon. Attack Ramon (talk)
 * Yes, I read you thought it was frowned upon the first time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you also read about how you misunderstand the consensus process ? Attack Ramon (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple funny little things about silence and consensus. It is the weakest form of consensus and you can only assume you have it until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. Anything else you need answered?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed that little notice at the top of that page: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Conversely, WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, clearly states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. " and "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit 01:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attack Ramon (talk • contribs)
 * A collection of your usernames has pointed to the language in WP:ONUS, a part of WP:V. There clearly is no longer a consensus, and coming here to threaten one of the three editors who now challenge that instead of establishing a consensus on the talk page is cute but not much more than that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how consensus works, go read the relevant policy. Attack Ramon (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Quds day
The article is protected in favor of warriors and the admin says the wrong version is a joke. -- M h hossein   talk 18:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am sorry, I did not intend for that to happen when I submitted my request for page protection. Per my understanding, "the wrong version" is decided through consensus, not the opinion of a single admin and edit warring. The talk page showed that there was no consensus to change the image.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Balance note/request
Please do not make totally one-sided claims about user behavior at AE or other noticeboards. A quick review of the context of the post you considered a heinous and block-worthy personal attack shows it to be in response to something twice as bad (the same kind of "your country is an armpit" kind of comment, plus a term, "Zionist", that at one time (until ca. 1950) referred to a socio-religio-political movement (and in very constrained language and context still can be) but today is primarily used as a epithet, basically meaning "crazy Jewish-supremacist Arab hater" by those who hurl it accusation-style at others. Which is what happened; it was not a comment on re-establishment and defense of Hebraic culture in the Levant.

I generally don't have any issues with what you raise at AE (though how frequently you show up there and at other noticeboards may be something to reconsider), nor other editing by you (I don't think we're in conflict anywhere). But that was just really egregious. The purpose of noticeboards is dispute resolution, not nailing people to the wall with "do not look at the man behind the curtain" tricks. Given the first post, it was entirely reasonable (though not fantastic judgement) to respond with a "don't be hypocritical" counter-criticism of national human rights track record. It was not a personal attack at all. As an American, if a Russian responded to me with "Your view doesn't matter because you're an Ugly American from a country that waterboards people in a military prison", I'd be well within my rights to say something in return like "Um, your own country's history has far worse skeletons in the closet; just ask the millions it killed for ideological reasons while it was using that Soviet monicker. Can we get back to the content now, please?" That's really all that happened here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost a month later, a re-read compels me to say that this was more strident than I intended, and unnecessarily so. Sorry about that.  (And it's perhaps funny or at least ironic, given that it was a response to something I thought was too strident!)  I was probably on a bit of a caffeine jag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * it is no trouble. I did not have anything nice to say in response at the time so I did not feel it was productive to reply. Unfortunately, that editor’s “work” begs for improvement, especially in an extremely sensitive and contentious subject area, but I try to busy myself with other projects. For what it is worth, I also have not been to AE since that case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've been there too much! It's like I woke up on the other side of the planet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Sierra Leone mudslides/GA1
Hi, are you still interested in continuing with the GA nomination for Sierra Leone mudslides?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for my inactivity. I have been going through a bit of a rough patch so a lot of my editing as of late has been mindless busy work to keep myself distracted. Anyways, I am starting to get back into a groove; I just finished addressing your latest concerns. As for your first point, the “Impact” section does in fact mention flooding with this sentence: from August 11 to 14, Freetown faced three consecutive days of rain, which led to severe flooding in the city and its surrounding suburbs. Thank you for your patience.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit
Hi -- You reverted my edit on Jim Harbaugh in which I removed wholly irrelevant "See also" links to Charlie Weis and Bret Bielema. There is no reason I am aware of to be linking to these individuals in Harbaugh's "See also" section. Can you please explain why you reverted my change? Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * it appears you were an intervening edit. I have no issue with your change; I was reverting the unsourced content added by an IP. I will amend it now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

1RR
Please note that this is a violation of the original author provision in ARBPIA 1RR. You've recently authored the content in this version.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * are you going to self-revert then? You cannot simply delete an article (which is what the “redirect” is doing) without discussion or an AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. Redirecting an article preserves the previous history, and does not generally require discussion - particularly when this is a clear newly created duplication. I actually mulled CSDing on WP:A10 but did not mainly since the title was a plausible redirect to the main article. Constructively - I suggest you retain the redirect, and attempt to edit-in changes to Asher Weisgan from your new article. There is perhaps a discussion to be had on the appropriate title - Asher Weisgan or 2005 Shiloh settlement shooting - but we should retain the edit history on the Weisgan article (i.e. if there were a RM discussion resulting in a move, then we should move Asher Weisgan with its history.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * no I will simply restore the content if you fail to do so. I was going to start a merge discussion, but, as usual, you seem to have a keen, immediate interest only in articles I create in the I/P area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am interested in many things, and saw this article linked from a page I have watch listed. A merge discussion here, for a newly created duplicate article, would be a waste of editorial time.Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the content is not an exact duplicate (different sources and more content) and Weisgan should be merged to the article on the event because he is only notable for it alone. I am not going to waste time with you because it is clear you will not self-revert for discussion. I will simply wait and discuss with collaborative editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well - someone else AfDed it. There is perhaps some content worth porting over to the existing article - however one would expect that the author of the newly created duplicate article would do so of their own volition.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why we should merge the article I authored—on the event—to a smaller bio article that would then need to be altered to an article on the exact same event? Weisgan clearly is known for one event; you should be targeting that article. Instead, you want to go through all these extra steps, for reasons I am all too familiar with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion to be had on title. However both articles are of a similar length and cover the same topic. The merge target should clearly be the pre-existing article, which has had multiple editors over the past 12 years, and not the newly created article from today.Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK help?
Hi, I wonder if you'd be willing to review / suggest hooks for these two articles:
 * Ronald Smelser, a recent GA:
 * ... that Ronald Smelser is the author of The Myth of the Eastern Front, a book described by Jonathan House as a "tour de force of cultural historiography"?


 * Police Battalion 306, a new article:
 * ... Police Battalion 306 was one of the 23 Order Police battalions created in preparation for Operation Barbarossa the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union?

Any other suggestions would be appreciated? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both hooks suit their respective articles. Jonathan House is a noted name so his description carries weight; the second hook introduces the Order Police which the casual reader may have never heard of before. I do not anticipate any issues with either article, but Smelser, as a GA, will be the most straightforward.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides
The article 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2017 Sierra Leone mudslides for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring
The best way to solve content dispute is to discuss the content on the Talk-Page. The matter of Huldra's deletion of vital content for fear of it possibly not being RS was uncalled for. She should have first discussed the matter on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * are you accusing me of edit warring? Frankly, I am not a fan of your rhetoric at the ANI thread which I, again, urge you to close. So what if Huldra is “pro-Palestinian”—if that is true? It has not made her a negative influence. By the looks of your userpage, I could argue you are “pro-Israeli”; should that be criticized? Certainly not. So comment on the content, not the editor, and please close the report before it comes back around.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)