User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 3

Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction
Hi Tony, can you please restore the edits you made regarding my article "Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction." I didn't intended for AfC review, and don't consider the article a draft. Many thanks! Rh Mosstrooper (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rh Mosstrooper (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction on Danilo Velasquez Reference
Tony, my entry is in error. I need your help. I just want to forward the Danilo Velasquez entry on the 'USP Hazelton' page to the 'MS-13' webpage. Please help. Thanks......Cocoruff.
 * , thanks for the message. That can be pretty easily done as a redirect or with piping. A concern with the redirect option would be that since he is a living person having a redirect of him directly to a notorious gang for anyone who is searching might not be ideal. You could also use piping in the article text itself to do that, but the article already has a link in the summary to MS-13 so it is probably unnecessary. If you really want the link to go to MS-13, I can make the quick fix for you, but the better option might be to just not have it as a Wikilink on his name, and let people click on MS-13 directly. I also think letting the article be deleted makes sense at this time too rather than changing it to a redirect. Let me know your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Theological virtues
I fell across this article recently, and it struck me as an appalling mess (and I say that as an atheist). This is a major topic (to say the very least!) in mainstream Christianity. Is it just me, or does the article as it stands have a Calvinist bias, mixed with some touchy-feely New Age stuff? IMO it needs a total rewrite by someone who knows their theology - which isn't me, and may or may not be you, but you were nearest when I started rolling this ball. Narky Blert (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Narky Blert, thanks for the message. Glad you somehow found me! I haven't looked too deep at the edit history here, and to be honest don't really want to because that rarely does anything to engender good faith. The issue with this article, and with a lot of religious articles on Wikipedia, is that religious register is definitely a thing and difficult to control for.


 * Quick thoughts: the lede is definitely written in a Protestant register, and the section on the Bible reads similar, though the only citations are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it has the Douay–Rheims Bible cited, which is not something you would expect given the register of the article before the Catholic theology section. The Bible section can probably be excised since it is all primary sources to the Bible itself and I would be willing to argue is an original publication of scriptural exegesis, which violates WP:OR.


 * Catholic section could be expanded to be a multi-volume book if someone wanted to, which raises the question of how to balance it with any Protestant views. It would be more difficult there because the term Theological vitrue, has a very strong Catholic connotation, and while I'm sure you could find some Protestant sources calling them that, you're more likely to find it under faith, hope, and love there. Anyway, I'll see if I do some work on it. Any thoughts you could provide would also be appreciated. The best professor on medieval Christianity I know is agnostic, so the atheism doesn't really affect your ability to offer insight here! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking through the article history (against my better judgement), it seems to have been originally written as an article on Aquinas' views, which make the Calvinist undertones of the language very interesting (to someone who actually finds religious register an interesting topic...) Odd. I've removed the Bible part as OR. My new best guess without going through every edit is that someone said "Hey! Other Christian traditions have faith, hope, and charity" without realizing the article was about the Thomistic understanding of the terms, and introduced their own religious vocabulary into the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I found you, because you had approved an article I had just written - and I took a look at your user page.
 * I know what little I know from my Anglican upbringing and from reading Dante. AFAIK, RCs and Anglicans are as one on 1 Cor 13. IDK if the Eastern churches have a different view on it - but I suspect not, because for me that chapter is rather central to anything which I would call Christianity. That said, it's the sort of topic where even a non-edit by an Orthodox believer could be of value, in the interests of WP:NPOV.
 * I am a "weak atheist" - I can get along with anyone who follows the golden rule, and will cheerfully argue the time of day with anyone else who does. That also means, that if I see something which looks as theologically unsound and as WP:POV as the article in issue, I get the vapours.
 * "Hey! Other Christian traditions have faith, hope, and charity" 
 * Feel free to ping me. I'm no Thomist, but at least I know who you mean. Narky Blert (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. NPOV is key here. I'll definitely look for sources on I Corinthians 13. I'm not a fan of direct citing the Bible in Wikipedia, it just begs for original exegesis unless you have scholarly sources. Edits may be a work in progress for a while, but it'll stay on my to do list. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For amusement only - have you ever heard of Cardinal Sin (Filipino bishop) (yes, really). Narky Blert (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is competing with WP:HAPPYPLACE for most hilarious redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sumsuma
Thank you Tony for your kind help in assisting me with my Sumsuma article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFunmat (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning my page
Hi there, I felt he was notable enough (since he debated with someone as well-known as Carrier). He's written quite a bit of books too, and has engaged with many debates with some notable figures (such as Raphael Lataster, James White, to name two).However, If it does not meet the site's standards (for whichever reason) I completely understand why it will be deleted.

Thanks for letting me know about this, appreciated! AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your contribution. All I could find when I did a search on Horn was non-independent or non-reliable sources. I don't really consider debating someone such as Carrier a reason someone might be in an encyclopedia. Carrier is high profile enough that a lot of places will put up anyone against him so as to host. If you are interested in Catholic topics, I could think of some articles that might need help being improved if you are interested. Typically it is easier to improve articles as compared to writing them from scratch. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I'll do that then. I'm a relatively new user here, I guess I'm just getting used to some of these standards, LOL.AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine, we've all be there at one point. I've left a note on your talk page with some more suggestions. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for block review". Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, bring it back
Dear TonyBallioni, you speedy deleted the wiki page of Incomlend, that I have recently created. I kindly ask you to bring it back. The information is unique and brings value to the readers. I have put a lot of efforts, first, to create it and then to post. Thus, I believe it should be revived. Thank you, in advance! Diana.yakimchuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana.yakimchuk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did not delete the page, because I am not an admin, so I also don't have the ability to bring it back., an administrator here, reviewed the speedy deletion tag placed on the article, and agreed with me that it did not meet our inclusion criteria because it did not explain why this is significant, and why someone would expect to find an entry on it in the encyclopedia. Rick would be the first person to contact about the deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page because there was nothing in the article that showed how the company met our guidelines for the notability of a company that is required for any article. Also, the page was vaguely promotional as well, which could have led to also using that as a reason for deletion, that being promotion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reponse for speedy deletion
Hi, just a response for my speedy deletion. I know that that page wasn't good enough, because I did not have much information. I will look for more details, and try to contest the deletion soon. Thanks! ;) Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , might I suggest creating the article through our Articles for Creation process? It is designed to help new editors with feedback and allow them to develop their articles before they are moved into the main space of the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I missed your message, and the article was created myself. I added new features, however. I will be sure to make this article better! Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a message on your talk as well, but I went ahead and moved this to a draft article for you. It will give you more time to improve it, and then more experienced editors can give you feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Vision vs Mission article
Hi TonyBallioni! Thank you for input! I am deeply studying separate topics of Vision and Mission and was reading corresponding articles in Wikipedia. I found these articles incompatibe between each other and with duplicated or unsynced parts about Vision vs Mission comparison. So I decided to cut materials from both articles and put them into separate article, hoping that someone knowing English much better than me will correct or rewrite this new article. I would do this if it were in Lithuanian language, but not in English.

I'm sorry but editing of nowadays Wikipedia and reading it's rules is too complicated for me. I was very enthusiastic and active 2004 (few years after launch of Wikipedia), but later Wikipedia became too complicated and I quit as editor. User:Fivetrees
 * , sorry for not getting back to you! I thought I had, but I had actually just left a message for Bearian seeing if he thought a draft would be better. I did nominate it for deletion again, because it looks a bit like an essay more than an article. If your first language is Lithuanian, you might be interested in contributing to the Lithuanian Wikipedia if that is easier for you. You are of course always welcome on the English Wikipedia, but I just wanted to point out that we have sister projects that work in your mother tongue! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice
I just read all 3 sources on the line for Mark Dice, there is nothing in any of those articles saying Mark Dice has anything to do with Satanic rituals. —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * was about to add another source, also, could you please self-revert? The article is under discretionary sancations and it is best not to reinstate a challenged edit before discussing it on the talk page. I'll start a conversation there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding closure of Talk:Fengshan_District
Hello. I don't agree with your closure of the above requested move. Per WP:MR, I discuss the issue with you here.

Both users who opposed did so on the grounds of WP:PINYIN, to which I have countered with the following arguments: Neither of these arguments were further addressed by the opposing users. Also, there are just as many supporting users as opposing ones.
 * WP:PINYIN states that exceptions apply if a non-pinyin form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources. I have demonstrated that this is the case.
 * It is questionable that WP:PINYIN applies to this case. At the top of that project it says: "To write and edit China-related articles", with a link to the PRC which Kaohsiung is not a part of.

Per WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments." I don't see how you have done the latter. Szqecs (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll relist it, not a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the kind post. I've been approached by others recently as well. I am open to the possibility, but think that I probably need more recent experience before an RfA, and think it makes more sense to do the poll closer to a time I would be considering an RfA rather than now. Again, thank you for your message, and for the work that you all are putting in to encourage people to take the poll! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Fair enough. I'm very happy to hear that you are heading toward an eventual RfA. That's great news. All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anna! Good spotting. I concur with your suggestion, and with his response. But hey, I asked him first! :-P Wanna co-nom when the time comes? Or are you more interested in recruiting candidates, rather than necessarily nominating? --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello dear Melanie. I think I must pass on the nomming. I have my plate rather full at the moment, both on- and off-wiki. I'd better stick to recruiting and let others do the in-depth reviews and noms. All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then, thanks for all the recruiting you are doing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome, Melanie. Now, can I recruit you and Tony for the Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I already do a certain amount of freelance admin recruiting, mostly offline - and often in partnership with User:Ritchie333. I will make more of a point of suggesting the candidates take the poll before they take the plunge. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Melanie, that is great that you recruit like that. Kudpung and others do too, and say it is a really good source of new admins. Cheers to you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that my first recruit, just months after getting my own mop, was Ritchie. I think that success went to my head. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you buy him a nice high grade mop on success? I hear the cheap ones need to get replaced more often ;-) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
You need to rethink the changes you made to this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any changes. I just commented on a requested move. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bullet Force AfD
Tony i do not understand what u have against my Bullet Force article why do you even care about it i just wanted to make a new article stop trying to delete it cos im pretty sure you have better things to do. Why cant you just stop proposing for it to be deleted its not bad, I just started it and there is nothing offensive. What is your problem? Hyperion2242
 * Hi, I'm suggesting it be deleted because it does not meet our normal standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You are free to comment on the deletion discussion to express your views as to why it should be kept, but the best way to do this would be to bring [WP:RS|reliable independent source]] to the discussion to establish its notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdel on "Joan Gregor"
Hey! I saw that you posted a revdel tag on a page I had edited recently. Thanks for that! I'm not very familiar with revdel policies, but I think revision and  of page Joan Gregor may also be suitable for deletion. I thought I might consult you so that you can make the necessary changes since you are more experienced in this regard. Jiten Dhandha •  talk  •  contributions  • 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Template:Copyvio-revdel does the job. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

First Cameron ministry
Can you please relist again? I regret there not being consensus, but neither was there one to keep the status quo. There was not a consensus against the proposed title either. The current title is utterly inadequate and fails both WP:UCRN and WP:NPOVNAME. The proposed title was also backed by reliable sources. It's completely bizarre that this discussion wasn't relisted.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , no consensus results in the status quo being kept by default. I disagree that there wasn't a consensus against the original proposal upon reading the entirety of the conversation. The reason I decided to close this time rather than do an additional relist was because people who had taken part in the conversation in the past had the option to review your alternative proposals and either rejected them or did not comment on them and still opposed the move. The discussion was long enough and touched on enough details that I felt a full discussion had taken place, and that additional relisting would not have resulted in a clearer consensus for the other alternatives. That being the case, it feel it is better to close the move at this time, and let you proceed with discussion on the appropriate pages for the alternative proposals you presented. Your stated preferred option did not even require an RM, and could be handled as a simple talk page conversation and then added by simple editing if consensus existed for it. I'm normally very open to relisting after closing if queried, but in this case I think a close was the most appropriate option. If you would like outside review of my close, you are free to request a move review. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have opened an RFC on the matter. Thanks for clarifying why you closed though.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Like I said, I am normally open to what I phrase as a "courtesy relist" but this had been going on for a while, and I think the close was best at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also see that closed this before I did as no consensus, and that it was reverted without approaching him or taking it to move review. I'll let him decide if he would prefer to revert back to his closure over mine. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I had wanted to reply to the comments made by other editors, that's why I reverted his closure.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. It is normally best to make the comments in a new section and/or ask the closer to reopen. I wasn't aware of his close, so I'm open to him reinstating his original close if he prefers it instead of mine. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have restored my close except that yours was identical to mine so it wouldn't make any difference. In any case it was highly disruptive to the RM process for User:Neve-selbert to make this revert. I trust it will not be repeated. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Caldecott
Dear Mr. Ballioni, although the mention of the Paideia Prize was originally located in the Tablet the actual material is from the Circe page: "The Consulting and Integrated Resources in Classical Education (CiRCE) Institute in America, posthumously award Caldecott the 2015 "Russell Kirk Paideia Prize" for “lifetime contribution to classical education and the cultivation of wisdom and virtue”, called him “one of the greatest thinkers of our time”. " There were additional edits after the copyvio run that provided the original sources from which the Tablet derived their information. I would be more than happy to remove the quotes if that is what you want, however the information that he was posthumously awarded the 2015 Russell Kirk Paideia Prize is from Circe. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the message. I've removed the direct copying already and requested revision deletion in line with our copyright policy. I'm not at my computer now, but when I am, I'll compare the quotes and update the revision deletion request accordingly. Thanks again for the message. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, feel free to peruse my sandbox page where I have listed the changes fr what I believe to be edit 776888221. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I do not wish to compromise the work done on this page by CharOster, please advise as to the current status of this page and what needs to be done to render it adequate to be submitted. I cannot "undue" the disputed edits because of subsequent edits unless it is done manually. I would attempt to remove my edits, but am not entirely sure how to proceed. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've removed it from the draft and the sandbox to be safe. I'm asking for an opinion from an admin who is good on this type of stuff so the rev del can be dealt with if need be. Since the content has been removed you can edit as you wish so long as you don't introduce copyright material. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Saint Dominic in Soriano
I don't think this article has been patrolled yet. Whether or not it has, it occurs to me that you might find it of interest. It's one of those almost-forgotten topics about which you can find a surprising amount if you do some digging.

(I started off from an ambiguous link to Soriano which had been picked up by User:DPL bot. I solved that problem without too much difficulty, and turned up the Bocanegra painting (which imo is a dreadful daub). I was thinking of leaving it there, but mentioned my findings to an online friend - and he found the Providence College citation. With a .edu reference as basic evidence of notability, I decided to get stuck in. I began to realise I had not only a story, but a gallery including several much better paintings.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Thanks for sharing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it :-) It was one of those topics where I felt there had to be something out there; but it was remarkably difficult to find until I started constructing search strings in Italian and Spanish (and eventually thought up a good way of searching WikiCommons).
 * That art historian who can't identify a St Catherine, and who thinks that there were such things as Dominican monks, needs a refresher course. I suspect that the "dream" story (which is an attractive one) is an attempted reconstruction of the miracle from the paintings, without investigating why they had been painted. Narky Blert (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its actually somewhat funny how many sources refer to mendicants as monks. The best way to deal with the monk/friar distinction in academic text is to simply use mendicant on the first mention and then use the name of the order afterwards. Thanks for your work on this! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of GroupRaise
Hi Tony,

I appreciate you reviewing the article I created for fundraising platform, GroupRaise. It was my first time creating a Wikipedia article so I wasn't entirely sure what sort of content I could include that would be interesting for the encyclopedia. I actually thought when I saved it, it would be reviewed by someone for feedback so I could make any appropriate changes. I would really appreciate more time to work on the page so I've contested the decision to delete. I would also very much appreciate it if you could give me any tips on best practices for writing an article like I was trying to - so it doesn't come across as promotional. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blletts (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi the article has been deleted by, an administrator here, as being promotional. My advice to you at this point would be to consider creating the article through  our articles for creation process. Remember, it can't seek to promote the company. Also, if you are in anyway paid by the organization, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to disclose that. We also discourage editors from writing articles about things they might be connected to. I'm not sure if either applies in your case, but I wanted to let you know in case it is the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you that information is very helpful.

Draft:Causes of Islamic Terrorism
Please do not delete it permanently. As most of the content is unique. Aziz Tarak. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) −
 * , the vast majority of the content I removed was a copyright violation taken word for word from the Islamic Supreme Council of America. Some of the text was original, but it was also uncited original research, which Wikipedia does not allow, so I removed it as well. I think you're pretty new to Wikipedia, which is fine! We all had to start at some point. If this is your area of interest, that is fine, but I would recommend starting out slow, making minor changes to articles like Islamic terrorism. Remember though, anything you do needs to be cited by reliable sources and in your own words. The revisions the copied text came from are going to be deleted, but the draft will remain in place for now for you to edit in your own words. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you for moving my essay. I messed up on titling, and didn't have the tools to fix it. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I actually just moved it back into user talk. It wasn't registering as a sub page (likely because IPs don't normally have user pages). I'm pinging to see if he has thoughts on this. The page is question is the essay User talk:68.233.214.74/IP editors and wikihate. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Den-O

 * The info came from the redirected Wikipedia page Imagin, which was set up in 2007.70.126.15.181 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did a Wikiblame search and the exact content copied seems to be from around January 2008, which predates the blog by 2 months. So it was reverse plagiarism on Wikipedia. It came up as a blog from March 2008, and since the page was a redirect, it did not appear in any of the copyright searches. As an FYI, in order to be in line with Wikipedia's copyright and licensing requirements, you need to attribute copying within Wikipedia in the edit summary. This is legally neccesary to comply with our license, but it also helps prevent people on copypatrol seeing content form an external site in 2008 and treating it as a copyvio. I've gone ahead and restored the content, and did the attribution in the rollback. Sorry for any confusion! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

G.C. Nonyelu
Hi Tony, I noticed you edited the G.C Nonyelu article. I am new to wiki. Can you please review it as well. There's a message at the top saying it needs to be reviewed. Many thanks.JayWK (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)JayWK
 * , sure. I moved it last night because it was quick and easy to do and didn't do much else because I'm not that comfortable with Africa-related topics in terms of knowledge base. I'll try to look at it later today, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great thanks. am I to find an expert to review it? I referenced the sources and his profile is well documented on google. Thanks again for your prompt response.JayWK (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , generally no, you don't need an expert. I just prefer not to review articles in areas that I am in some ways very unfamiliar with late at night. I can do a basic review later and bring it up to snuff to anything that might be missing from a Wikipedia formatting or sourcing standpoint and give you feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, great, many thanks JayWK (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the cleanup. Looks really good and thanks again for the feedback. I tried to upload a picture (I own the copyright) but it says error, do I need rights to be able to? Thanks again. JayWK (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Boleyn. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Regional AIDS Interfaith Network (RAIN), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know it would automatically do that. I unreviewed it so hopefully it won't be indexed by Google before it is deleted. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , not a problem. Deletion tags in theory adds the no index tag.  In this case it doesn't matter either way. It's well past the 90 days so Google has it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

S M Imamul Huq
Hi you recently requested a speedy delete for the above article; You may not have noticed but there was an In use tag on it that I had placed; I was in the middle of rewriting the article, maybe before requesting the speed delete you could have pinged me first to see if I was correcting the copyright violation problem. i have just lost a great deal of time. Domdeparis (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that. The page was basically word-for-word copyvio of the entire history of the article. The solution after a rewrite would have been to revision delete the entire history. I saw the in progress tag, but given how blatant the copyvio was, I felt that G12 was the only option at that point, since fixing the copyvio would have essentially required the writing of a new article. I'm sorry for not having checked with you first. I thought you probably had missed the copyvio and would be working on the prose issues instead. I'll be sure to keep this in mind in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Ole Miss Rebels football team
Tony, I am trying to complete a class project by stating the NCAA's role in the Ole Miss investigation, but keep getting denied for copyright infringements. I did not mean at all to infringe on the copyrights, I felt like I sourced it correctly. What can I do to include the investigation in the terms that were stated by the University, without infringing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Spencer (talk • contribs) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thanks for your message. I'm not sure where you are in your schooling (and please don't feel the need to tell me), but have you ever taken a tutorial on plagiarism? Without getting over specific, almost anything that would constitute plagiarism would constitute a copyright violation unless it was under a free license, and even then, it would need to be attributed properly in most cases. The content you added was copy and pasted from another website with a copyright symbol on the bottom. This is clear cut. Even though you cited it with a footnote, it isn't allowed because of the length, and also wouldn't be allowed in those formats in virtually any academic class on plagiarism grounds.. Wikipedia is what is called a tertiary source. We retain our value because we are a summary of reliable sources. This means when you copy and paste, it's also usually bad writing for the style and tone Wikipedia wants. The best thing to do would be for you to summarize the sources in your own words and cite them. Hope this helps. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Friends Like These (play)
Hi Tony,

Thank you very much for jumping on my new page earlier today. I appreciate the responsibility and purpose you fulfill for the community. I was under the impression that my page was in a draft state on my account and therefore not live or publicly visible. The content was incomplete, and I only stepped away from my computer for a few hours to sleep. Waking up this morning and finding most of the page deleted due to alleged copyright violations was rather frustrating.

First off, I am the original creator of the material in question, and can provide evidence to that fact.

Second, it was my plan to go in and re-write those sections, and had only pasted the material in question into the article as a guideline. Again, I was under the impression my article was in a private draft state, and I had not requested any sort of third-party review on it. I had every intention of removing it before publishing the page and making it public.

As this is my first original Wikipedia article, though, I have to say this is pretty frustrating. Are all articles in a draft state publicly viewable, or editable by admins and other third parties before they're finished?

Any insight you can offer here would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you! theatrerat81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry for your frustration. Drafts are given a lot of leeway in terms of content, but copyright violations are not something Wikipedia can allow, even in drafts. This is because every time you save an edit on Wikipedia, you are certifying that the content is irrevocably released under our licenses, which means that people can reuse and remix the content for any reason (even commercial) so long as they give you credit and release any derivative works under the same license. If you own the copyright and evidence that you own it, follow the instructions at this page to donate the text to Wikipedia. Note that just because the content is donated does not mean Wikipedia has to include it. We have policies on advertising and maintaining neutrality. As to your broader question regarding drafts: all drafts are publicly viewable, and can be edited by anyone, but do not appear in our search function. I was led to it because our copyright violation detection software flagged it. I hope this was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

That makes perfect sense. I'll keep that in mind as I make future edits. Thank you for the clarification, and for your time.

theatrerat81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ubiquitous Telecommunication Technology
Hello TonyBallioni. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ubiquitous Telecommunication Technology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to be a subsidiary of Etisalat, a notable telecommunications company, on the talk page. Thank you.  So Why  13:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the notification. The claim wasn't in the article when tagged or I would have taken to AfD, and it didn't appear in Google search. I can't seem to find any sourcing to back up the claim, so I'm taking it to AfD rather than redirecting. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw as much, which is why I decided to notify you. Regards  So  Why  14:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Ed Napleton
Hey Tony, I am contacting you in regards to the Ed Napleton Page you tagged for speedy deletion. I am the original creator of the content on that page and the source page. I have updated the tag for you to see and verify that. If there is something you feel I am trying to advertise on the page I would be happy to change that. I assure you that the page is not to advertise but to give credit to the huge accomplishment of Ed Napleton the youngest car dealer in the US. Please let me know what to change and remove the tag if all of this is acceptable. If not please let me know what needs to change. Thank you in advance. JohnsonWiki (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can't see the deleted page, but it has been deleted for three reasons at this point: not explaining why it should be in an encyclopedia, reading like an advertisement, and being a copyright violation. In terms of copyrighted text, while you may own the copyright, we need proof of that and proof that you are donating the text to be used under our licensing. That is because anytime you submit text to Wikipedia, you are claiming anyone can reuse and remix it, even for commercial use, so long as they release it under the same license and give you credit. If you have the copyright and evidence that you own it, follow the instructions at this page, note that just because the content is donated does not mean Wikipedia has to include it. We have policies on advertising and maintaining neutrality, and notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of Margaret Spellings
Hi, Tony- You might remember me as the user who kept trying to update the image of Margaret Spellings on her bio page. I still need to update her photo but I'd like to do it correctly. What do I need to do (or what resources do I need to read) to release her image to public domain and replace the portrait while following Wikipedia's rules? Thanks for your time.

Page I'm talking about: Margaret_Spellings

Aghawkins (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)A. Hawkins
 * Sure, a few things, I'm assuming that you work for the UNC System if you want to donate the material, so you will need to declare yourself as a paid editor (see this page for more details.) We also strongly discourage connected editors from editing pages they are connected to. The image is something that I think everyone here would want uploaded if it was freely licensed so donating it would be fine. Now for the copyright concerns: follow the instructions here to donate copyrighted material. You will need to prove you own the copyright and have the authority to release the image for use on Wikipedia. There were two issues with the previous photo: first, it was taken by a professional photographer, so it will need to be shown that the university owns the copyright and not just has a license for its use. Next, the claim was that it was published under CC0/ was public domain. Works of the US state governments are generally copyright to the state entity, so even if the contract with the photographer specified that UNC owned the rights, it would not be in the public domain ordinarily. So again, you will need to prove that the copyright to the photo is owned by you, that you have the authority to donate it, or show evidence it is freely licensed. I hope this was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

removal of incorrect DS
What? You need the bit to have common sense? I think you were right. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * certainly not, but DS is an area that one needs to be an admin to impose them on an article even if they are in the general subject area, and removal of them if they are logged isn't okay. Looking at it again, it was a community impossed active sanctions banner, which I am less familiar with (I don't edit in the ISIL area, and haven't stumbled across many articles at NPP.) My talk page post was more of a way of explaining why I removed a sanctions banner, which could be controversial. Probably could have been better worded, but that's what I get for editing so late. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. By that logic, they would be barred from reverting you for 24 hours? The DS tag is a great idea, but I think it was misapplied. There were some weird edits on that page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't ISIL/Syrian Civil War. I have no idea on 1RR on claiming an article is 1RR when it doesn't fall within the scope (too much meta there.) Yeah, it's a weird article in several respects: not least of which the name, which is innacurate and POV (didn't happen at the White Houss and wasn't a military conflict.) I haven't figured out a better name for it, and half expected it to be renamed or at AfD when I woke up. I'll think more and do a BOLD move later today if someone hasn't by them. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks,, much appreciated! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image Copyright for Spellings Article
Hi, Tony- I've had our atty review the licenses and choose the one she thinks is appropriate. I have added the statement to the NorthCarolina.edu Spellings webpage to release it. I've also added my affiliation to UNC on my user page. Can you let me know if her headshot is now ok to post in Creative Commons and link on her page? Thanks- Aghawkins (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Aghawkins
 * that looks like it should do. I am not an administrator on here or on Wikimedia Commons, but based on my understanding of policy and the page I linked to above, you should be fine to upload it to Wikimedia Commons with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Just make sure to link to the permission statement when uploading the file to Commons so if anyone has any questions they can view it. I would also add the paid editing disclosure to your user page on Wikimedia Commons before uploading. Someone there might ask you to verify that the university owns the rights to the photo, and then you would simply follow the instructions that they give you on Commons if this happens. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP/AfC
There is a mass messaging list here for the AfC/NPP work group, and you now have mass messaging rights if you need it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm busy the next few weeks professionally and with the upcoming holiday weekends in North America, but I'm hoping to try to restart the conversation about moving forward with this effort at least by the first week in June. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI: I doubt very much that this one with nearly 900 patrols until they suddenly stopped was a hat collector and I've asked for some feedback, but I'm having some serious doubts about some of the other 400. If they had all done only 55 patrols each (as many as I do on a good day) there would be no backlog. Oh well, someone has do do these unpleasant tasks :( Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He has now provided some valuable feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, valuable feedback indeed. I've expressed some disagreement with you in the past about whether or not the user right increased the backlog, and I still think it probably had some impact. That being said, if we are creating in the 800-900 pages a day range, that means that the 400 rights holders need to do 3 patrols a day a piece to reduce the backlog. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I don't do this daily because of getting pulled in different directions, but I at least try to do something with new pages, even if that is moving pages where the creator messed up the title, but I'm not familiar enough to make a judgement on its suitability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, some administrators and long-term users appear to be under the impression that AC is already required to create a page . I'm not sure what this says about the community's current stance on ACTRIAL, but I think it is relevant. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting
Hello TonyBallioni,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the stub template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) (Fixed template at 07:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
 * thanks for the message, but I'm aware of this. I choose to use the default tag placed in page curation when I'm not familiar with the content area, because otherwise someone else is going to have to come along and find the 3rd subcategory of stub and I'd rather just have one person do it once and do it right. It also has the advantage of getting an additional pair of eyes on a new article. Also, for what it's worth, 'd recommend not using this template on more experienced editors: it's hard to put a finger on it, but when I read it at first the language was very jarring (and know that wasn't your intent). TonyBallioni (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the language jarring because it's assuming that you don't know about other stub templates or, much more likely, the list of stub types? I can certainly imagine that happening if you're experienced on Wikipedia but less experienced at new page patrolling. I know you said it's "hard to put a finger on it", so it's fine if you don't know. I'm just trying to understand. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  01:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I think the "Did you know..." sets a bit of a newbie-esque tone (basically what WP:DTR says about most templates). I'm very familiar with NPP and am decent at categorization, but the subcategories of stubs tend to trip me up, so on areas where I'm not familiar with the content and the article is otherwise good, using page curation's default stub seems like the best option to get someone who regularly stub sorts to check it out (and also like I said, get a second eye in case I missed anything.) The list is something new for me, so that is nice, but I'll likely continue to use stub from page curation if its something I'm unsure of and can't find something beyond the generic on my own. Anyway, thank you for responding to the ping :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

George Baldanzi
Hi Tony... Just a quick note to thank you for all of your help. I would have been trying to list him for another 10 years. Again, Thank you so so much!! also, wondered if you could check my web site JoeyJet.com. I have been flying a corporate Learjet for almost 30 years now and have also written a book. "The Book on Flying a Learjet" Please feel free to help me out on this subject if at all possible... Again, thanks for ending my wikiheadache not to mention that it is a fine job also. I am beside myself... Thank You Thank You Thank You!!! JoeyJet (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Not a problem: I saw that he had a NYT obit which typically means that they have done something worth noting in an encyclopedia. Its far from the best article, but it is enough to give a picture of what he did and hopefully others can expand on it. As for your personal website: I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't appear to have been noticed by enough people to be a part of Wikipedia. We discourage people from writing about things they are connected to as well, and Wikipedia isn't here to advertise. Thank you for your note and for creating the draft: it was a real pleasure to work on. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony... sorry to be a pain but I wondered if I could impose on you to assist me in putting a couple pictures of George on his page... JJ JoeyJet (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , not a problem. I looked for pictures when I was expanding the article. I couldn't find any that were under a free license or that would qualify for fair use, so I can't be of much help here. A good place for you to look might be to see if you know of any US government works that depict him? These are in the public domain so we can use them under our license. If you need to post here again you can also just edit this section, no need to make a new thread :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony... not too sure how to add to the talk... I have a couple of pics... George was my Mom's brother and my Uncle. Not sure what or how they need to approved... Also, I know that there is a University somewhere that has sound bytes of George.  Maybe some day I can dig those out again... Again I cant thak you enough...  JoeyJet (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, . To edit this section just click "Edit" by George's name. We typically also discourage editing a topic of someone that is related to you. As I mentioned to another user above, in this case, uploading free images of an encyclopedic subject for use in his article would likely be acceptable. The important thing is that the images must be free to use, meaning that they were taken before 1923 in the United States, that the owner of the copyright (the person that took the photo or their employer normally) has been dead for 70 years, or that the owner of the copyright has released it under a compatible license. If you or your mother or a member of your family has a photo that you own the copyright to that would be usable in an encyclopedia article (i.e. not a picture of him in a clown suite at a birthday party or something like that), you would be free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. This would grant the license to be used by anyone in the world for any reason at any time. You can get more of your questions answered by people who know more about this than me at: Help desk. Hope this was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that Tony... at least I learned how to add a pic... Would it be okay if I got permission from those people?? JJ JoeyJet (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hate to tell this to you, but Getty Images isn't going to release that file under a compatible licenses. The best thing to do is search for a free image that would be encyclopedic. I can't find one, but if you have access to one that you or someone you know owns, they can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license. If there is not a free image available, then it is unlikely there will be able to be a photo in that article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony... Just a quick note to let you know that I found another picture belonging to Georgia State University. He is sitting behind his desk. They said that it is okay to use the pic and will be sending me a letter saying so. Is this okay? If need be, I can give you the guys name at college to verify with him. Please advise and I hope you have a nice Memorial Day weekend... JJ JoeyJet (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The people at Georgia State will need to follow the instructions at this page, and either place a notice on their website saying the content is usable under a compatible license or email the Wikipedia volunteer customer service team with the permission. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony... sorry that I am such a pain. I uploaded 4 of our family photos of George to the commons area. If you can please look at them and feel free to utilize or discard if need be... JJ JoeyJet (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Tony... Wondered if you missed my last note reguarding pics that I have uploaded to the common area?? JJ JoeyJet (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Joey. I'll look at them this weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony... The photo looks great... If you can, here is a link to my website where I posted another article that I have in my home. Please let me know if it can be incorporated into the article somehow.  Again, I can't thank you enough for your much need help...  JJ JoeyJet (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, not a problem on the picture. Unfortunately an article from your personal website would be inappropriate to publish or link to on Wikipedia. We have policies on reliable sources and self-published sources generally aren't acceptable. I've removed the link from my talk page to avoid cluttering it up, not because it wasn't interesting. Hope you have a great weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re: Ibn Rumahis
Thanks for the input on Ibn Rumahis-- I added a source from the Spanish Wikipedia Article, rather than just referencing the article itself. Is the article okay now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimhelfgot (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * yup, you look all good to go. I've removed the more references tag. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, 1724
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Papal conclave, 1724 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP
Tony, don't get over enthusiastic bout what appears to be the WMF's renewed interest. One of them who has never edited the encyclopedia was asking for NPR rights the other day in order to test it and do research. If you follow the issues as closely as I do, you'll soon see that all they talk about is doing more research and gather more stats. In 2010 (or 2011, I can't remember) they spent a fortune on NPP stats already, and when they published their conclusion it was all completely wrong. We could tell them already what stats are needed, and so could anyone else who knows how to use Quarry, but no one is prepared to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight/reality check. I always like being optimistic, but the other side of the coin is worth seeing. Anyway, your insight is always valued here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

pics
It is not very nice to inform me about your edits on my pics. I had better images of bot these men, but shame, not for wiki anymmore. You should learn to be patient. --Carolus (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I didn't remove your picture. I cropped it and uploaded it as a derivative work for potential use in an infobox, as is allowed by the license you uploaded it under. It's not a very good cropped image. So if you have a better one obviously it would be preferable.TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, 1724
The article Papal conclave, 1724 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Papal conclave, 1724 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Tel Aviv University Journal of Law & Social Change" and reliable contents
Hi TonyBallioni,

In the last rejection of the article "Tel Aviv University Journal of Law & Social Change", you asked for third-party sources in order to demonstrate notability. The problem is that the majority of the content about the journal (about 98%) is in Hebrew, which is due to the fact the journal is printed only in Hebrew (and even then, most of the content only refers to the Journal's website, because all the articles are available freely through its website). Will adding Hebrew sources help? I thought it might be useless as this is mainly focused to English and non-Hebrew readers.

Regards, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.84.124 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hebrew-language sources work. I'm not familiar with the language, but I believe is, so they might be able to give you some pointers on using Hebrew sources on the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding the rejected article anywhere. Can you point me to it? You can use Hebrew sources, just remember to translate the title into English and add in parenthesis that's it is in Hebrew. It would help if there was a Hebrew Wikipedia article first, though. You can also ask at WP:JOURNAL about the criteria for notability regarding academic journals for some pointers (an area I, myself, am not too familiar with). But from a cursory glance, this journal has enough mentions in English that it probably passes that threshold. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. El_C 17:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft:Tel Aviv University Journal of Law & Social Change is the AFC submission in question. Thanks for your response to the IP! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I'll add aome more valuable content in the following days.

My review request
Hi, TonyBallioni. Why do you feel that my review request was disruptive? As far as I can tell, I am following all appropriate standards for review and deletion of Userspace pages. But I am certainly willing to learn. Newimpartial (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you've recently returned to Wikipedia and have been told by multiple users your views are not how we tend to implement the policies you are citing around here, already been shot down at one DRV over a CSD, followed it up immediately with another, and seem intent to question the good faith of anyone who disagrees with you, including some very longstanding and respected editors. You're on your way to a WP:CIR block at ANI. To avoid that I would recommend volunteraliy agreeing not to do anything involving the deletion process until you have more experience editing (id recommend 500 more non-automated mainspave efits, which you would need to get the new page reviewer right.) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I not have 500 non-automated mainspace edits? I thought I had.
 * Anyway, I haven't questioned anyone's good faith, even though I have had mine questioned. What I have questioned, is some people's willingess to abide by the WP:CONSENSUS re: WP:STALE, mostly Legacypac who has been banned for this kind of thing before and who recently submitted someone else's draft at AfC, in order to get it rejected and then deleted, which has been a banning offense for others in the past. But I haven't questioned their good faith in any of their discussions with me, in spite of vitriol coming from their end.
 * I would be fine to stay out of deletions (or maybe just out of speedy deletions?) if that would make people feel better, but at the moment it seems that a number of speedy deletions are simply not being done according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have 469 total article space edits, with around 100 of them being before this year, and many of them are category gnoming (which helps, but doesn't give you much of a feel for how WP works on content and other policies). Wikipedia operates by consensus, not a rigid application of rules. The rules codify what general consensus is, but in discussions editors reach consensus on how to apply the general principles to specific cases. You've accused me of not following BEFORE, which I always do religiously. You've accused DGG and Legacypac of ignoring consensus, and you accused Primefac of having excercised poor judgment in XfDs. Once off this is valid questioning of decisions. Doing it to every single person who disagrees with you sounds like a pattern of assuming bad faith to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, look. I'm sorry about my tone with my WP:BEFORE comment to you; I guess I was frustrated that I was seeing things that you were not.
 * I have, however, been reading a lot more of the policy discussions and previous incident reports, etc., than you are giving me credit for. Legacypac has repeatedly ignored consensus on the handling of drafts and userspace articles, and has been reprimanded for it before. Look at the tone he has taken with me in the ANI and elsewhere, and you can see the same pattern he has shown with other editors at ANI in the past.
 * I am currently having a quite civil discussion with DGG about speedy deletions on his talk page. Yes, I did suggest that Primefac made a mistake in the procedure he took with a couple of deletions. But I am not assuming bad faith, and I completely accept WP:CONSENSUS as best I can understand it at a point in time. Newimpartial (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , when everyone who talks to you tells you that you are reading policy and consensus wrong, odds are that you aren't the only one who is right. That's true most places in life and on Wikipedia. I don't intend on getting involved in the ANI thread, but again, I highly suggest you voluntarily agree to a pause on deletion related activities for something like 30 days and 500 additional article edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done what you suggest. However, I'm surprised you are sanguine about Legacypac getting articles deleted by WP:GAMEing the AfC system, again. Newimpartial (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Legacypac, so I can't comment on their work. In terms of MfD: if someone is making disruptive nominations, the community will deal with it and the articles will be kept. In terms of CSD, admins have been through a vetting process and have the trust of the community to apply judgement in these cases. DGG and Primefac are heavily involved with the AfC project which is something like a sister project to New Page Patrol, which I am very involved with, so I'm pretty familiar with both of them and have a very high opinion of both of their work, and trust both of their judgement. Dealing with new pages and drafts are both often thankless tasks and require a sound knowledge of our policy and how it is applied in practice. Get some experience with articles. Its pretty easy to get started expanding a stub, especially if you have access to a good library. If you don't you can use Google Books to help. Go to a stub category you are interested in, and find a stub that looks something like this, expand it to 5x and to over 1500 words and nominate it for WP:DYK. Do that for a few articles, and you'll start getting a feel for how Wikipedia works on a day-to-day basis, and get an better understanding of our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: Legacypac, I am referring for example to this 
 * . Otherwise, I am following your advice and leaving XfD discussions alone for a long time. :) Newimpartial (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)