User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 8

Request on 04:06:25, 21 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tk8kpgt
The experienced editor GrammarFascist did 95% of the article. He/she did this after my first 3 sentence article. Initially I had a 3 sentence neutral report. Should I remove everything and leave only the 3 sentence neutral report? Tk8kpgt (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I reduced the article to what I first had. Just general information and removed the story line told by GrammarFascist. Tk8kpgt (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks for writing. My concern was with sentences like there, craving a latte, she bought a cup of chai, her first introduction to the beverage made from tea, milk and spice, which sounds like something that you would write on the inside flap of a dust jacket. I didn't see that wrote that, so I'm pinging them here to alert them of my concerns with the wording. That biographical information is important, but it should be conveyed in an encyclopedic tone. If you look at articles like Steve Jobs or Alice Walton, you'll notice a very different tone, and they are also businesspeople.In the section I quoted above you could say something like When she was in the Himalayas, she bought chai for the first time.  Do you see the difference in tone there? Anyway, I hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, and . Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; I've been busy off-wiki. Tony, I agree that I used the wrong tone in my additions but I think I'll take another stab at it since I also agree the biographical information is important. (I'm only recently back from a long wiki-hiatus during which I did a lot of editing fiction, so I guess I was still thinking in that mode.) The content is what gives us reason to cite the sources that establish Howitt's notability. While we're here, there was another source Tk8kpgt and I discussed that covered some of Howitt's life after the sale of Oregon Chai — another business venture — but Tk8kpgt thought it would be better not to include that information because apparently the venture ended in something of a mess, though I haven't seen a source for that outcome; I'm interested in Tony's opinion on the matter. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 18:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed that you got the broom while I was away, Tony! Congrats! — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 18:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * if there is sourced information that is relevant to her life, it should be included, even if it is negative. The question is if it is weighted correctly and if there are reliable sources for it. Also, GrammarFascist: I can see the fiction editing style now (thats a compliment)! Thanks for working on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * , hydration is key. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've learned the hard way that SPI-ing under the influence is not a great idea. GABgab 15:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, luckily the gatoraide has me good. Also, GAB, since you are in the rough vicinity of my user page would you mind reviewing the above User_talk:TonyBallioni and related Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. Thanks :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This SPI is a huge cluster, but I'll hope to deal with it soon-ish. GABgab 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cluster is one word for it. If you need help with reviewing the overlaping cases in light of BS, ping me. I've unfortunately been through I think all of their reincarnations. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually made me laugh, well done! :D One other thing Green, I like your username, now waiting to see "RedMeansGo" or "GreenMeansStop". , I imagine that that would be the case, editing under the influence of mind altering substances probably isn't a good idea, especially with the "block" button. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We forgot the most important part of being an admin
Here you go the best part of being an admin. Congrats bro.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  16:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...bro :) &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  16:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be cool if they got sent on in real life though.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  16:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bit of a choker if some LTA saw them walking down the High Rd though ;)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  16:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  17:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Patrol
Hello. I'm a RC patroller, and noticed that there's a huge backlog (12000) of new pages to be reviewed. I did apply two days ago, and was denied on the basis that I just came back from a few month long Wikipedia break. From my edits, if you look, it is evident I'm not new to this. Being away for a while doesn't decrease my trustworthiness, as I am extended-confirmed and have rollback privileges. Is it possible for me to reapply to help with this backlog?  Adotchar | reply here 18:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice you're a new admin. Congratulations!  Adotchar | reply here  18:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , you should talk to about your request as he was the admin who processed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , please see my comments at your request, and read WP:ADMINSHOP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I didn't mean to admin shop. It's not like I was going to multiple admin's pages asking for permissions, I just had no idea about the huge backlog and wanted to know if I could reapply. Sorry. I"ll wait 3 months.  Adotchar | reply here  22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , it's not actually three months, there are about 6 weeks to go to complete the requested 3 consecutive months of editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . Oh, thank's for the information. I was semi-retired until about 4 days ago. Also, I know about a year ago we had a few extensive disagreements. Sorry about that. I've changed since then.  Adotchar | reply here  22:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , in the meantime, you can get up to speed by reading the thoroughly revised instructions at WP:NPP and do some significant patrolling without access to the Curation tool. If you have any questions you're welcome to ask them at WP:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay! I just finished reading the instructions. I"ll do some patrolling. Also, sorry to TonyBallioni for using your talk page for this conversation. Thanks,  Adotchar | reply here  00:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Melon Music Awards wrong information
The page you edited called Melon Music Awards is currently wrong, sir. In the category “Album of the Year” someone has edited a wrong winner for the year 2016. It currently says the winner is EXO, but the actual winner was BTS with the album “The Most Beautiful Moment In Life: Young Forever”. You can search the proof if you wish. Could you please edit it back to the correct information? Dazegrace (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've restored to the stable version by as this seems to be the version that was not being vandalized with intentionally false information. Sorry I missed that. With so many reverts it was difficult to tell which version was stable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline
Sniffing out socks is often where new page patrolling leads too when done properly. I don't know if you are aware of this development, or if like me, you have been watching from the sidelines without feeling the need to comment for the sake of pitching in. It looks like an excellent tool - like the kind of something you always knew that was missing but you weren't quite sure what it it was. I do appreciate the way it is being collaboratively handled too. It's a shame we can't get Page Curation/New Pages Feed brought up to date in the same manner of discussion, and as one develoment process instead of a myriad of ittybity Phabs that get ignored because the devs don't  realise that they are part of a biggger picture. Although he has stated that it's not his or Horn's department, perhaps we need to engage with  for some advice. He has always listened, whether he could help or not, and maybe he can at least point us in the right direction in the hope of finally getting these issues moved forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * was this one of the things that was sent to admins a while back? I probably didn't comment because I didn't get the bit until a few days ago. I'll look at it now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where I got it from. I think there was a survey at some time I did. 'Community health initiative' is a bit of a misnomer so it's probably not attracting the attention it needs - of course there's always the problem of too much attention which ultimately slows development down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

B for Bad
Just FYI, but the relevant SPI for this user is Sockpuppet investigations/DeepNikita in case you want to link to it somewhere. I'm no SPI expert, but it usually helps leave breadcrumbs for those who aren't familiar with the user. G M G talk   12:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes. I was aware. I DUCK blocked and didn't update the SPI or tag as a DENY thing. I'll defer to as to if I messed this one up and we should update the archive. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the blocklog entry, since I'd rather we not tag these guys (as per DENY). GABgab 15:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That works. Thanks for fixing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

12:52:04, 23 October 2017 review of submission by Dhruva21
The article is not directly in selling tone. Can you please let us know which sentences are in selling tone. Based on that we can make changes in the article. Thanks in advance.
 * Hi, sure, it was written in modern marketing speak which has learned that a selling tone makes people not want to buy your product. Sentences like It delivers machine alarms and other key data via any conceivable method and WIN-911 Software helps reduce costs and wastage by notifying the right person, at the right time about problem conditions in the system, and thus aids faster resolution, were obviously written by you to help your client sell the product. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..
Well, I don't know where AbirBabu is heading but edits such as this and this, delivered in the tones of a forum-moderator, intended to specifically ignore community consensus and coerce another user into wrong-doings are clearly unacceptable.Any thoughts?! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , see the section above where Oshwah and Huon commented. My involvement here was solely to try to get them to stop posting the exact same questions on 15 long-term users' pages. I haven't reviewed their contributions since, but they appear to have very strong views on circumciscion from what I've been told. If it becomes a behavioral issue beyond just a content dispute, ANI would likely be where to address it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether t/p comments like:-.....Now my suggestion for you is to reply in the Talk:Male genital mutilation and proceed to create the independent Male genital mutilation page immediately. If anyone reverts your page creation, we will report it to ANI and if required we will file dispute in ArbCom, Wikipedia's central authority. Or report it to Jimmy Wales sir's talk page, who reserves all the authority in Wikipedia. As TipPt (a banned sockpuppet) mentioned in the Mediation discussion page, the entire male genital cutting thing currently advertised in Wikipedia is a disgrace for entire Wikipedia platform....... could not be assumed to be coercive in nature?
 * @--Any idea about this, since you were the one who happened to revert] Abir's addition? Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the saga is over! All's well that ends well:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC
When the ACTRIAL has produced its stats, it will be time to take a more concentrated look at the possibility of merging NPP and AfC, a principle that is already shared by many. Both systems still have significant backlogs which are not being reduced quickly enough and the anticipated slight bulge at AfC is making itsef noticed, while the force of the firehose of crap at NPP has receded to a drip. I, for one, would like to see more possibilities for deleting totally unsuitable drafts rather than having to wait for G13, or a G5 decision at COIN, but I realise that might not be a solution everyone would support. You might like to start a new thread at WT:NPPAFC - more to keep the ideas simmering, but your thoughts there would be appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Recovery of my article
Dear Sir,

As i am new Wikipedia and I am not a content writer, so i make some mistake in writing article in Wiki. I don't understand why you delete the page Anmolmani. Sir its a request to please send me that article link. So that i got that article back. Sir i just need that content. Next time i will write again with all rules and regulation of wiki. I just need that content which i have write with my contribution panel. Please send me that content in contribution panel. So i can edit that.
 * , if you add your email to your user preferences and enable sending email from Wikipedia users, I will send you a copy of the text. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks You Very Much Sir, I linked my email id now. Now you can send me via email. Its my pleasure to talk to you.
 * , I've sent you a copy of the article via email. As I expressed in the email, if you have any other questions for me, please address them to me on this page rather than by email. Hope you have a great rest of the day. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot sir, I will be grateful. Sir, please help me to repost that article in the name of Anmol Mani. You can edit whatever you want, which is look like it is against wiki rules. Rest in your hand.
 * , I would suggest using the articles for creation process. Please note that the content should be different than the content I emailed you, because that content would still be eligible for speedy deletion as promotion. Focus on writing a neutral and well-sourced biography, not promoting the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Jillian Shea Spaeder
Hello,

I was wondering why this page was deleted. I would like to see if it can be reconsidered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmalagon (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the editors who took part in the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Jillian Shea Spaeder came to the conclusion that the subject did not meet our criteria for inclusion. I don't have an opinion on it one way or another, I was solely acting in an administrative capacity while closing the discussion and deleting it in accord with consensus. Because there were also privacy concerns with her being a minor expressed in the discussion, I do not plan on restoring it to user space. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks! Much appreciated, though like Floq told you, others did more work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Contest deletion of article
Good day TonyBallioni

I have seen that you have deleted my article on the PHINMA Corporation. I have already been informed by OcarinaOfTime and Zackmann08, and requested a few days to edit the article, as I had been busy at work. Once OcarinaOfTime pointed out the problems with my article, I admitted that they did seem dubious and promised to edit it. Unfortunately, the moment I opened my wikipedia account, you had already deleted the article.

Once again, I implore you the chance to fix my mistakes in the article, as I have stated many times that I am using this article as a jump off point to write about the three founders of the company, whom I believe are important people in Philippine history, specifically in politics, historical literature, and business.

Yours truly.

Lakandiwa
 * , the article contained copyrighted material taken from the company's website to the point where it would have required a complete rewrite to comply with copyright law, which was the primary reason for deletion. Unfortunately I cannot restore copyrighted material. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

yes, I know that too. I have several word documents, with all data on them. Apparently I uploaded the version that had just the copy paste information from several pages of the websites.

If you will allow me, please give me the link where to upload the properly edit article.

OcarinaOfTime did mention that I should talk to other users, and ask advice. Even ask for help in the articles that I have written. Unfortunately I do not know anyone yet, and that is why I am thankful for the outputs that other users have given me. If fact, I am asking whom shall I work with on the matter.

I admit to my mistakes, but assure you that I had no plans to just copy paste. I am currently in the middle of several deadlines, and I hastily uploaded my article, without checking which version I put up.

Once again, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakandiwa (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I cannot restore the content to Wikipedia because of the copyright concerns. If you have several word documents, you should be able to tweak them off of Wikipedia to comply with copyright law. You may create the article again by going to the title and creating it, but given the issues with the previous article, I would recommend the articles for creation process. Also, you mentioned deadlines, have you received any compensation for editing this or any other article? If you have, Wikipedia's terms of use require you to declare that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will follow you advice. And I have not taken any payment for this article. In fact I have written about many institutions and personalities in my blog without getting a single cent. I am just a history buff.

I will upload the proper version in my sandbox, so that I will get the proper advice.

Thanks

I would like the add that all the previous edits that I have done are based on my research on the institutions, whose pages I had edited. All the data are also in my blog, on Philippine art and history. However, it is my first time to write a wikipedia page, and the technicalities flustered me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakandiwa (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry you got flustered. Editing Wikitext can be difficult. Again, I'd suggest you put the article as a draft through WP:AFC this time so you can get feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again TonyBallioni, especially for you very quick response. I will do as you suggest.

Salamat at samuli (thanks and until then)

Lakandiwa

Please delete my edit
Hello, TonyBallioni, Accept my heartly congratulations for becoming an admin. I have been leaving an edit summary for every edit I make. Recently, I left a message at User talk:Divy(a)95 and forgot to leave an edit summary. Please delete the edit as I want to have 100 percent edits with summaries. I shall be very pleased if you do so. Thanks. Don&#39;twasteTime (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can't delete that edit: revision deletion doesn't work that way, it just hides text, and even if it did, this isn't a valid reason to do so. If you want to make sure you always use edit summaries, there is an option in your user preferences you can click to make the software remind you to use one if you forget to include it yourself. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, well. Could you add edit summary to that edit? I want some method to have 100 percent summaries and that one edit will always steal some percent from 100%. Don&#39;twasteTime (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is not technically possible. Don't worry, its not that big a deal to have forgotten once. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations !
Well done on your recent change of user groups! Wish I'd seen the proposal before as I would have added my Support !vote but doesn't look like you needed it! Cheers. Domdeparis (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ORCP
In regards to, WP:ORCP is for providing numbers and comments. If you don't want to do that, please avoid editing there. You can contact the editor in question on their talk page. You can contact me on my talk page. You can discuss your dislike on the talk page for this project. You can take it to ANI. This is poor behavior for a recently-promoted admin. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I gave my feedback, and invited them to contact me off-wiki should they want a more thorough analysis. I stand by my remarks, and have unhatted them. Please do not rehat them again. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are headed the wrong direction. Nobody asked for your grandstanding. Do not become another new admin that gets desysopped for cause. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made these comments before regarding ORCP at the ORCP page, on the talk page, and at the RfA talk page: my views on this are well known by everyone who frequents it, and there is no grandstanding. There is nothing wrong with making it clear to the poll participant that I will not contribute to the negative atmosphere at ORCP, but am willing to provide feedback should anyone want it, nor is there anything wrong with criticizing a broken process during the process itself. I've explained my comment, you obviously disagree with it, but I do ask that you let it stand without altering it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Recovery of the page
Hi, regarding the Inanna Sarkis page as we talked about in SoWhy's talk page, can you please restore it to my user space for me to work on? Thank you!Nexthh87 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ see User:Nexthh87/Inanna Sarkis. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned a comment of your over at ANI (nothing bad)
Hey there, I added this after my initial posting, so the ping probably didn't work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, I got the ping. Thanks for the post here as well, though :) For what its worth, I'm probably going to sit this one out: I can take the critique, and personally don't let bluntness/civility/whatever get to me, though I could understand why others do. Thanks again for the note. Now off to bed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

hat?
pretty shook up. close the discussion or leave be? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm content to leave it be for now since we haven't had much discussion for a few hours. If it starts up again, hatting might be appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor thing
Re your recent MRV close: how long to wait until a new RM can be started is absolutely within the purview of the MRV closer. Last I checked, the general principle was to wait at least 3 months after a close (assuming the closer hasn't set a time limit) before starting a new RM or they risk being procedurally closed. Similarly when closing a normal RM it is within the closer's right make this suggestion, e.g. no prejudice against a new RM for a new proposed title that didn't get enough discussion at the initial RM, or setting a hard limit of a 6 or 12 month moratorium for an issue that has been beaten to death. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. I know some people like to do that, and I sometimes will in an RM close give a rough time frame, but I typically prefer to leave it to editorial discretion, and think it works better that way. At the most, I consider anything such as that advice, and prefer to trust editors to use their judgement on when it would be appropriate, and didn't think it was necessary to make a recommendation in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also updated my close to make it clearer per your note here. Hope that wording is better :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Holiday Rules (vol 2)
Hi Tony, Would you take a look at Holidays Rule which has been around since 2012. I would appreciate you deleting what you think is copyrighted comments and leaving the rest in Holidays Rule (Vol 2). Entering tracks is a labor of love/pain. I respectfully submit Paul stole the words directly from Capitol Records. Their copy editors basically did a cut and paste from Vol 1 to Vol 2. I did try to find Capitol's description when I created the page but for some reason did not find it until today.

While I am annoyed at being nuked, when a more surgical edit would have worked, I do appreciate your volunteer efforts at improving Wikipedia. I have been editing and contributing for many years. Thanks.Rcollman (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. The copyright violation detector is not coming up with anything for the Vol 1. article. In regards to the deleted article, what matters for G12 deletion is that the words were not licensed under a compatible license, and that there was no text remaining for a viable article once the copyright violating content was removed. The record label could have given McCartney permission to use their text, but it does not mean that Wikipedia can use the content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. The content that you uploaded to Wikipedia was a direct copy/paste of the content, and there was nothing in the prose that could be surgically removed. All prose in Wikipedia at any time must be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or freer, and we cannot host it for even a short amount of time if it is not. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Richard B. Spencer
An editor has asked for a Move review of Richard B. Spencer. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation, and I hope that my submission for re-review was not in any way taken as a question regarding your integrity. I merely have a different perspective and wish the discussion to be subjected as fully as possible to the review process and respect your comments in the closing statement. Thanks again. Additionally, per the instructions for closing, I wasn't aware of a requirement to discuss the matter with the closer beyond leaving the notification here. I'm a relatively new user and this is the first time I've performed this action. I'm sorry if I did not correctly follow procedure and will be careful in future. Edaham (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , no need to apologize or worry: I don't ever mind my actions being reviewed. One of the reasons it is a good idea to contact the closer beforehand, however, is that there is a relatively small group of us who are regular closers, and we tend to be able to give decent advice on how to move forward.In this case there is an ongoing RM that was opened almost immediately after I closed the RM you took to a move review. It is seeking to move the article to be the primary topic, and it looks like it is going to achieve consensus. If this is the primary topic, the plain common name with no disambiguation is always preferred over a natural disambiguation or a parenthetical one. A move review overturning my close while another RM is ongoing and likely to achieve consensus is normally not a good idea, as the new RM would most likely take precedence over whatever the outcome of the review was.Anyway, thank you for the note. As I said, no need to apologize for not letting me know before hand, and no disrespect is taken from questioning my actions. I stand by them, and I hope the community will endorse them, but I won't be bothered if they don't. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see why it is not a good idea to have both the review and the second move request running at the same time. On hindsight I think I would still have informally asked for a review if I'd discussed this with you before making my submission to the move review page, although I may have withdrawn it and let the second move request run its course. I will leave the move review there for now if that is OK, and let the processes run their course. If anything, watching it will be a learning experience and I'm also confident that the community will arrive at the best consensus with regard to improving the article. This is the second time we've come into what I hope is purely amicable opposition since we've met and I hope that these events will not prevent friendly collaboration in the future should the opportunity arise. Edaham (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, letting the move review run is fine: I have no strong opinions on this subject at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, otherwise I wouldn't have closed the RM, so I definitely don't mind my close being reviewed. Also, should you have questions about what best practices are in regards to US politics and related living people, I would suggest reaching out to . She's one of our most respected editors who works in that area, and is always willing to help anyone who has questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely do that. Thanks so much. Edaham (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Percona Server RM
It's listed as malformed, and I can't see why or I'd just fix it... could you take a look at Talk:Percona Server? Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because malformed requests include cases where:--the page requested to be moved is a redirect. Only pages with non-redirecting content should be requested to be moved. Tony deemed the req. to be controversial, almost 25 minutes after Anthony had already moved the page:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So it was, thank you ! I missed that - I mean I knew that the bot (rightly) didn't like moving redirs but didn't see that this was the problem. But then,, shouldn't the talk page be moved too? The bot might still find this confusing, and so might I. Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks to all of you! I feel like a bit of an idiot for somehow missing this! Sorry for the confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise. We got there in the end. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Name change?
Could you have a look at this please ? I'm a little confused because I'm not an expert on name changes. It looks like a self-attempted usurpation. The editor might also be the owner of both accounts. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , would be better to ask than me. Both of them are also global renamers. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen this type of thing before. It's not an attempted usurpation, because the other account doesn't seem to be registered, But it does look like an attempted name change. Probably to attempt to separate themselves from a fair bit of talk page warnings.  G M G  talk   21:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , the other account is registered here. I didn't particularly want to message Danusker for the moment until we coud give them the best advice. That's why I asked Tony to look into it. However, I'm sure will be able to sort it out. Don't hesitate to let us know of any background I might have missed.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Folks, I've just opened a bottle of my July 2016 Apricot wine and it's turned out very nice, so I should definitely avoid any further comments until tomorrow morning at least ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw after I posted. I got turned around there. Looks a lot like English as a second language. Also there's this. If there's much there I'm really not seeing it.  G M G  talk   22:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this looks like an (incorrect) attempt at getting one's account renamed. I've seen it before; the page moves should be reverted since they're now located in someone else's userspace. I cannot find any entries in the global rename log that suggest this user was actually renamed, and besides, by default the userpages are automatically moved when we rename someone. We discourage people from moving their userpages beforehand since it just causes problems if the rename request would normally be declined. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I've reverted the move. You're probably the best person to drop them a note on how to change usernames if you don't mind. Actually, GMG seems to have already left them a note. Anyway, thanks for your help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You should add this editnotice to Indur
You should add Ds/30-500-editnotice to Indur, a page you recently ECP'd. I think it would be informative to editors.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the note. I hadn't seen it done by other admins on similar pages when I was on the other end of the toolkit, so didn't think to do it when I did it. Edit notice is up and I'll be sure to remember in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not me
I came to the Sanzaru page to edit in something that came to my attention, i'm just trying to inform people on what they're doing, but that lordtobi guy followed me to that page, and now he continuously reverts my edits on that page, i'm clearly right, it's coming out of the words of the Creative Director at that studio, i'm not trying to do anything, but that lordtobi guy keeps grinding my gears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , maybe I didn't make myself clear: I don't care who is right. All I care about is that you and Lordtobi both stop edit warring across multiple pages. I have zero interest in the topic of video games on Wikipedia. My only interest here is preventing the disruption that is caused by edit warring. I've already blocked you once for it, and I really didn't like doing that because you seem to be someone who is trying to do good work here. The page is protected now so only admins can edit it. If you want to make your case, take it to the talk page, and perhaps ask for a third opinion at the WP:VIDEOGAMES talk page. Also, on Wikipedia it is customary to sign your post with four tildes, like this . You are always free to reach out to me if you have any questions about anything on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , and as I just said, I didn't start this, he followed me to the Sanzaru page, the page was left alone after my edit until he came to disrupt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , on Wikipedia anyone is free to edit any page. As this is a video game page, it is likely he was already watching it if it was his area of expertise. Just talk with him on the talk page, or ask for help at the video games project. Also, as I mentioned above, it would be really helpful if you signed your posts with four tildes like this: . Have a great evening. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , No, he was not monitoring this page prior, he followed from a page titled "Hangar 13 (company)", after that, he's been continuously reverting all my edits from all the pages I have ever edited on, I tried talking to him, but he hasn't responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 2:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , the best advice I can give you at this point is to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and ask for a third opinion. I'm not familiar enough with the area to offer an opinion on the content myself. The important thing to remember on Wikipedia is that we operate off consensus, and that edit warring is never okay.If you want to learn more about how Wikipedia opperates, you should try something like the Wikipedia Adventure. Its like a videogame that teaches you the basics of Wikipedia. It might help you see where the other user is coming from and help you to come to some sort of agreement with him. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Your advice and introductions to other helpful users have provided me with insights, new connections and resources as well as good ideas for some directions to take in my involvement in Wikipedia projects. It seems that every editor is involved with different aspects of the Wikipedia project and getting to know a new colleague here makes the project seem wider and more interesting. Edaham (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , not a problem. There are many good people on Wikipedia, and I'm happy to have pointed you in their direction :) You're also always free to ask me for help. From what it looks like, though, you and I have different interests so I might not be the best resource for many of the things that you have questions about, but I also know a fair amount of the people here and can usually point you to someone who is much smarter than I am if I'm unable to give you an answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EchoUSA
Dollars-to-donuts, EchoUSA's previous account was, which was checkuser blocked by on October 30. Recall that EchoUSA claimed to have designed Vanguard America's logo (hence "drawing"). Their contribs overlap on Vanguard America and Traditionalist Worker Party, and the rest of DrawingLol's edits focus on the alt-right, neo-Nazism, etc. The account dates from October 2017, and has under 500 edits (I didn't count but they all fit on one 500-edit page). You might ask Drmies who the master is, and suggest a check to connect with EchoUSA, and a sleeper sweep if it turns out I'm correct - EchoUSA may have been a sleeper that DrawingLol went to after being blocked. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if you haven't already, you might take a look at the deleted user page and see what name was in the userbox when the page was first created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the banner on DrawingLol's user page, the master is . Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call on the deleted user page, . It was/is late so I didn't think to check the history. The original claimed account is which was blocked before Bbb23 placed the initial CU block on Perfectlyirrational. Now back to bed for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Since GrahamHughey's user page was virtually the same as EchoUSA, I've stripped it of everything excepts its cats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I can't confirm this via CU--the IPs are more or less all over the map. Perhaps you want to ask a more experienced CU, and tell them that I placed a few entries (on DrawingLol, and just now on that Echo Nazi) on the CU wiki. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * either of you want to check to see if there are any sleepers here given the admitted block evasion? See also, which might have additional data. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Hermes Standard
Hi. I deleted the previous version following process and requested that due to the uncertainty about notability that future versions be constructed in the draft ns. I have moved the article there so that it can be developed and assessed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's fine. My only interaction with that article was purely from a copyright standpoint. I don't have an opinion as to its notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo all of you, I hope that this is the right location to add some comments. The Hermes Standard is a important protocol for the future and we have the most important exibition next week the Productronica in Munich. All machine manufacurer and customers world wide will be on site and will discuss the new protocol. Could be that I' am not perfect and maybe my englsh is not perfect two but I promised the participants las time to add a Wiki page for the Hermes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMittermair (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ,I did not speedy delete the page, but I did remove the parts that you copied from another website. You can find the article at Draft:The Hermes Standard, where the admin above moved it. Consider also submitting it for review through the Articles for Creation process. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

AFCHS
Hello. I am wondering what "HS" stands for in "AFCHS" per this discussion. I understand AFC means Articles for Creation. Congratulations on your new Adminship. Although I have only interacted with you for, at the most, 6 months, I think you are a highly competent Wikipedia editor, and I often like reading your rationales in discussions. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * helper script presumably. Alex Shih (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to Alex. I made a mistake: it is simply abreviated as AFCH, but the full name is helper script so I added an S. Also, thank you for your kind words. They are appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi protect request
Hi there. Any chance you could semi protect Greg Monroe like you did with Eric Bledsoe. Monroe is part of the reported trade with Bledsoe – there's going to be a lot of activity at the Monroe page. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

My mental OS needs an update
Hey, Tony - please remind me again if editors can just boldly merge and redirect an article that's in the NPR queue. My question arises from Vase of Flowers and Conch Shell which I just tagged with merge to Anne Vallayer-Coster. Does having rights to swap & move allow me to merge & redirect? If so, are there steps I should take beforehand? Atsme 📞📧 16:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're free to boldly merge and redirect any article if you think it should be and that it won't be controversial. Anyone is also free to revert you. Since you've already started the merger discussion, I'd let it sit for a week or so, and if no one objects, you should be good to go ahead with the merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

INC comment
Hi: In a comment you posted on the INC RfC on Meta, you wrote "only 600" referring to the BLP violations INC created. I was pretty sure you meant "over 600" so I changed it, but I got my hand slapped and my edit was reverted. If I misinterpreted what you meant, my apology - and in any case I should have just pointed it out to you instead of trying to fix it on my own. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I commented there. As I said, we get along well and I openly invite people to correct my typos here, so I don't mind it. I did mean only 600 in this case to emphasize how much worse it could have been, but your interpretation was certainly reasonable. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you were getting at, sorry to have misunderstood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Thanks for the revdel at Cumberland Falls, but try to remember to remove the request template. I mean, I'm fine, probably because I live on here, but it might confuse others who don't catch the logged action. G M G talk   23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: thanks for doing that. I think I finished the revdel and was about to remove the template but got pinged on meta and lost my train of thought. Thanks for dealing with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bah. Meta's a bunch of schmucks. No encyclopedia there. Who needs em.  G M G  talk   02:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh you get pinged there too? Very exciting--media inquiry? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, somewhat defending INC by pointing out that there are much better reasons to issue a Global Ban than an unclear legal question regarding OTRS access. Such as the fact that he could go all automated-BLP-violation-bot on any of our projects at any time he wants and the Stewards still won't globally lock his main account without a global ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for the "over my head emoji". All this global stuff... I still don't know what got into them, BTW. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Eric Bledsoe
Could Eric Bledsoe's page please be put back to unrestricted editing – the trade that was in dispute is now official. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I would be open to it if you would personally agree to a voluntary 1RR on the article for the next week. My reason for protecting the page at full protection was that you were in a content dispute with several other editors as to whether or not the content should be included, and having an edit war on a BLP is always disruptive. I'm also inclined to leave either pending changes protection or semi-protection on the article for a bit because it had also been experiencing vandalism and unsourced content issues before today, and I suspect it will start again to some degree once the full protection is removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There wont be any more reverts in such a manor because there is no longer a content dispute – the trade is official. I was reverting because new users and IPs are quick to jump on the media reports of trades and signings i.e. being premature. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI – I'm a veteran when it comes to sports transactions. If you look at the page history, I reverts two times, that's it. Plus I added the pending sports transaction tag to the top of the page. I was by no means disruptive, nor was this the first unofficial trade that I have dealt with. If you look at Bledsoe's talk page, there are similar page-edit requests. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you've tweaked the level of page protection, however I still only see "view source". It's still fully protected. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , That's odd that the full protection remained: I did the exact same thing the first time as I did the second time, and it should have changed to semi-protection.I'm still concerned about possible vandalism and unsourced content on a BLP. If it turns out not to be an issue, let me know in 2 weeks and I'll remove the pending changes completely.Also, sorry if my wording implied that you were being disruptive: I was trying to say that the dispute on the page as a whole had become disruptive because there were multiple editors reverting over the course of a very short time, and it wasn't clear vandalism. Since you've explained the situation above, I'm fine with removing the full protection. Happy editing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it! Full protection for that short period following the trade reports was probably the best course of action. However, it was fully protected for a few hours too many as the trade was made official not long after. It's all good now though. I appreciate your efforts. All the best. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicated content on article Political Career of Nepali Politicians
Hello TonyBallioni: I saw that you declined speedy deletion of the article Political Career of Nepali Politicians, as it merely duplicated on-wiki content. Unfortunately the problem goes a bit deeper: The editor who created the article,, also copied largely the same content to Nepali Congress (diff et seq).

I have been trying to engage with this editor without success, because of their edits to Bal Chandra Poudel, which have included unsourced content in a BLP, edit-testing with various templates and markup, and silent removal of protection or maintenance templates. Despite two messages on the user's talk page User talk:Kritan Bhujel Sharma and via edit summaries (example), the user has not responded. The user has been warned by others about copyvio, so there may be other undetected instances.

Could you suggest what I should do? I am refraining from further reverts to articles edited by this user, to avoid edit-warring. Thank you, Kbseah (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I'm about to go offline for a while and I'll get back to this later. The content that I declined previously was copied from within Wikipedia and the G12 was based on a match that was found on a mirror website. The content Diannaa removed was copied from an external website. In terms of copying within Wikipedia, the easy way to fix this is by adding edit summary attribution such as Content copied from Foo, see that page for attribution . I'll look at it closer sometime later today. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, and I understand the reasons for your declining G12 deletion. The underlying issue is the editor's addition of unsourced content, and repeated edit-testing while refusing to communicate. I'll wait for you to look into this more closely. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Conclaves
Thanks for the invitation, but I've never been attracted by the FA work you propose. I tend to work on building blocks, like Cardinals appointed by XXX or Papal conclave, XXXX. And biographies, of course. Sometimes a specific motu proprio like Ingravescentem aetatem. Cum Proxime is next on my list. Getting articles up from stub or crap (not matter how they are rated) is more my interest. I've bookmarked papal conclave, so I'll be paying attention to your work there and may have something to contribute. I do occasionally contribute to general topics like College of Cardinals, etc., so it's not impossible I'll join in on papal conclave. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Messiah Cho
Aidayoung (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)I notice the photograph has been deleted from Wikicommons. I have uploaded it again as a Wikipedia image rather than Wikicommons. I took the picture at the headquarters of the Victory Altar with an iPhone. I believe the picture illustrates the beliefs of the movement and the role of the founder as discussed in the article and therefore is covered by fair use provisionsAidayoung (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've tagged it as a copyright violation here as well, and another admin will review it. The 2D image you uploaded is copyrighted, and it is likely we could find a free version of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's see whether we can solve the problem with the file I just uploaded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victory_Altar_service.jpg. As you have read the article, you would understand it is a picture taken with my iPhone of the daily ritual at the Victory Altar. An altar is prepared and decorated and videos with images of Cho are projected on it. Again, I will not use it before you tell me it is OK. I understand one can claim that the videos and pictures they project during the ceremony are copyrightable, but in this case I took the whole altar. Thank you for your commentsAidayoung (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * two questions, is that a picture of the organizations deceased founder, and if so, was it taken on 20 October 2017 as the date stamp on Commons says? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a picture of the daily ritual of October 20, 2017. The ritual consists in adobing an altar with flowers etc. and projecting there images of the deceased founder and other sacred images. Rather than statues, as other groups do, Victory Altar uses continuously changing pictures projected on a screen to focus the attention of the believers on the center of the altarAidayoung (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC) PS Victory Altar would dispute that the founder is "deceased," but this does not change the copyright issue (if any)Aidayoung (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if I offended you. I was asking to make sure it was a projection of a still photo that had been taken previously. Unfortunately, that photograph is still under copyright and therefore uploading your cell phone photographs of it are copyright violations. If you know someone at the organization and they want to donate an image of him for anyone in the world to use for free (thus allowing its use on WMF projects), they can do so by filling out this form. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not offended but, on the contrary, helped. The problem with Victory Altar is that their English is very primitive. Is there a form they can fill out offline rather than online? Btw this applies to other Korean groups of which I took pictures that are now contested for copyright reasons. I am sure they are really happy that somebody puts nice pictures on Wikipedia but the problem for them is going through processes they do not fully understand.Aidayoung (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , Wikimedia Commons is multi-lingual, so I'm assuming their OTRS agents would be able to process a free license release in Korean. is an admin and OTRS agent there, and he can probably give you better information than I can. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Will contact the Victory Altar and see whether they can upload themselves on Common. ThanksAidayoung (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC) In the meantime, I have moved up the picture of the headquarters - I believe the article looks nicer this wayAidayoung (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello there, the best way to confirm permission is through following the instructions on this page. Let us know if you have any further questions and we'll be happy to help. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Aidayoung (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

INC
Re "User:INeverCry was considered banned by the English Wikipedia community in accordance with its banning policy, when User:Maria Matveyevna launched an automated attack on the English Wikipedia, and its community responded with an additional block and declined to consider unblocking any of the accounts owned by INeverCry" - is there anywhere where the community was asked to consider an unblock and declined? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not an explicit unblock request, so it is a stretch, I'll admit, but I thought it worth giving people the opportunity to decide if INC was already considered banned by the community before your RfC on meta is launched: TDA will likely wikilawyer to death that this recent conversation violates the global ban criteria because it was started after the RfC. Giving a date when the en.wiki community officially considered INC persona non grata avoids that: there was a community discussion, the account was indef blocked and it was agreed that the attack was really horrendous and possibly required oversight (it eventually didn't), and no one called for any reconsideration then or in the future of ever unblocking INC, probably because it was simply assumed it would never happen. It's a stretch, but I think it's worth considering whether the response constituted a de facto site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I understand. I had feared the same further wikilawyering, but I think we can probably manage it as what he's using is Criteria for global bans, not "Criteria for starting an RFC for a global ban" - as long as the broad community support can be demonstrated during the RFC and before any ban is actually imposed, I think the criteria are satisfied. And I'd hope whoever judges the consensus and closes it would be sensible enough to not just punt it further down the road by insisting we start the RFC again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your block of user:2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:70
Has now jumped to User:2602:306:37EB:3950:F0FC:86F9:4B9:FEE1. See on the same school article. Meters (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. User:Acroterian got it. Meters (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I just protected the page for 2 days and someone else has blocked that IP. I've also revdel'd the material under RD3. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * yup. I would help if I got Acroterion's name right. Meters (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Davekgoodnight: A special thanks & was CheckUser used
This is to say "thank you" for approaching the investigation with, but I was wondering if you used this CheckUser tool as the previous socks were identified by that. I said I was 50/50 on this, and the Dublin IP claimed he was a definate sockpuppet so I will thank them too. Iggy (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a checkuser. I reviewed the behavioral evidence once the clerk made the recommendation to block and agreed it was likely the same user. In particular I found the edit warring on the same subjects and edit summary usage to be pretty convincing. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence good enough. On User talk:Oshwah, I have posted to query about the inappropriate use of the talk page (Davekgoodnight's) about the latter communicating with two bad words and possible attack on someone involved with the investigation (either a random Dublin IP used by the same person or me). Oshwah is not active at this moment but his page notice at the top says he is happy to discuss new threads by experienced users. Iggy (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll let Oshwah or someone else review that: I prefer not to revoke talk page access on users I've blocked myself unless there is an immediate reason to do so quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

SportsEngine
Successfully although I'm sure unintentionally, avoided ACTRIAL :) I was going to move it to draft an stick an AfC tag on it. Hope you're well, &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , see Articles for deletion/SportsEngine. Hope you are well too :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Question
Would you consider WP:NOTGENEALOGY an appropriate reason to AfD articles like Milyang No clan? Is there some historic significance about small clans in that part of the world numbering less than 2,000? I couldn't determine after checking the sources if such a clan even exists. I am aware there is historic significance regarding some ethnic tribes such as what is seen in Faisalabad, and the various languages spoken, but that info is usually included in articles about the country, city or region rather than as standalone articles such as the aforementioned. Atsme 📞📧 17:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what we do with these. I tend to skip over them in the new pages feed, but perhaps I should mark them as reviewed, as I suspect most people also skip over them and we get to the place where they are de facto accepted since no one can find a reason not to. I might compare them to random hamlets in the middle of nowhere upstate New York, and any other GEOLAND type thing. There does exist the option of PRODing based on WP:DEL7 if you don't think reliable sourcing could exist for it, but its something I would personally be unlikely to take to AfD if the PROD was contested. actually probably has good thoughts on situations like this (I seem to recall him closing an AfD on some obscure religious figure a while back with pretty good logic, and I was reminded of it by this question for some reason). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for Iridescent to comment. The article's creator has been rather prolific in creating these types of articles as evidenced in Category:Clans by nation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Even though this is thousands of miles away, you want to ask the India/Pakistan editors about this. (Paging Sitush, SpacemanSpiff and Titodutta.) This seems exactly analogous to the regular discussions about whether particular Indian castes are notable in Wikipedia terms, and over the years they've worked out some reasonably effective ways to assess this. I'd be reluctant to offer an opinion myself; I'm aware that in much of eastern Asia the historic weakness of central governments has led to extended families, large employers, trade associations and other quasi-tribal units having far more significance than they do in European or North American culture (outside of southern Italy, where the same thing happens for the same reason), and without speaking the language or a detailed knowledge of the background I wouldn't consider myself competent to judge. &#8209; Iridescent 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Also, be aware that while it won't affect this particular case, anything pertaining to India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka (and probably also Afghanistan, although that's not explicitly stated) will come under General sanctions/South Asian social groups, and anything that could be construed as edit-warring will bring the Wrath of Arbcom down on you. &#8209; Iridescent 18:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the heads-up. I'll wait to hear from the pinged. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The India caste/clan discussions have a wide range of outcomes, see Articles for deletion/Gautam Rajput, Articles for deletion/Pakal (Meena Clan), Articles for deletion/Hayer clan, Articles for deletion/Gadri (clan), Articles for deletion/Dagur clan. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Moore
As an uninvolved admin who has applied discretionary sanctions to the article I was wondering if you might drop a word of caution to user:Artw. I think they are pushing the envelope in terms of AGF and his pattern of editing in an admittedly contentious talk page discussion. He even managed to tick off Power~enwiki to the point where they had to walk away from the discussion. I'd rather not drag this to ANI, but really there needs to be limits. In the meantime I need some sleep and every time I think I am going something shows up over there that drags me back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, while I understand your frustration, I'd prefer my involvement with both that page and that user be limited to applying the discretionary sanctions to the page, and alerting the user to them. My goal in applying the sanctions was to try to protect the article from disruption that given recent news was very likely and try to prevent the fourth full protection in a little over a month. Artw seems to be complying with them as far as the page itself goes, and I don't know what specifically to say in regards to the talk page conduct. Sorry I'm not much more helpful :( TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Revdel
I'm undone your RD1 revdel at Agnosticism because the text removed is actually from Carl Sagan via PediaPress - the Google book source quoted. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Nthep (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note, I was about to comment there. I wasn't familiar with PediaPress, and Google Books claimed it was copyrighted with no link to a free license, so I went with that. No problem with the restoration. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to do revdel them to but the PediaPress rang bells about it being something that was linked with WP, not a typical Alphascript publishing rip-off. Nthep (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The AFCH - NPR question
I'm still not quite grasping the crux of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC, but rather than try to explain it to me, can you please consider the following and let me know if what I've been asking for is anywhere close to what is being proposed? The way I understand it, my user rights allow me to approve and move an article into mainspace from AfC, but then I must go to NPP, find the article I just moved into mainspace, and mark it patrolled using the curation tool. In other words, the tool would be accessible only to NPR-autopatrolled rights holders so it doesn't interfere with the current AfC process; rather, it eliminates that second step for NPR editors and also helps reduce the number of AfC approved articles from going into the NPP queue. Does that make sense? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Q: Is it possible to develop a tool (or add-on to the curation tool) so an NPR-Autopatrolled rights editor can mark newly created articles they approve and move into mainspace as being accepted & patrolled at the same time?

Not sure about this one: Hanabira (NSFW)
Can you have a look at Hanabira, I'm not sure how to deal with this one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  03:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not censored... The first image on that page I am not surprised at all they let on Commons even if it isn't that great quality in terms of providing educational content: if you were asking about that, I think there is justification for removing one of the two pictures, and the first one is the one that I think adds the least to the article. Plus, it has a living persons face in it while showing them without pants on: commonsense says that if we can demonstrate the topic without doing that, we should show them that courtesy.In terms of notability, I have no idea if this one actually is notable or not. I did a male genital mutilation AfD a while back that reminded me of this, and it ended up being deleted. (I think) helped to assess that one. Maybe they have thoughts (also, standard NSFW disclaimer if it wasn't clear by the refactored header). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Some stroopwafels for you!
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Latin Username
Are you literate in Latin? I enjoy only modest familiarity with the language, but this limited experience led to the creation of my username. The intended meaning was "of roses and the Truth", which to my knowledge results as rosarum et Veritas. Your thoughts? - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Its been years, but you'd want the genitive in both words if you are trying to say "Of roses and [of] truth", which would be rosarum et veritatis. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Truth would refer to the truth, the undeniable and pervasive truth, in this case indirectly referring to the Word of God. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * RR, I am going to gently suggest that you be careful to what degree you advertise personal beliefs or opinions on here. If you get into a content dispute it has been known for some editors to throw advertised beliefs, political, religious and otherwise out as evidence of bias. I am speaking from personal experience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page, are we not permitted to discuss personal matters? You needn't worry about me, facts and factually supported compromise reign supreme on Wikipedia. Understood. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you always want to be careful about what you put out there for people to know about you on the internet. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon my insensitivity, Mr. Ballioni, if this exchange is considered distasteful. Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here finds the conversation, distasteful. All I'm suggesting is that you be careful about publicizing opinions and beliefs, especially on subjects some may find controversial. If you get into a content dispute somewhere it has been known for editors to throw that sort of thing out in an effort to paint the other as biased. I learned that lesson the hard way. It also popped up in my RfA. On the other hand I have reached a point where it is common knowledge (and I just don't care), so it's still on my about page. But anyways, this is just friendly advice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I meant not to sound the battlehorn of faith. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries... Ante omnia fidei ac virtuti. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Would either of you be able to correct my username grammar given the information above? It would be tragic if my calling card were a huge "dunce" sign. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and fill out that form a global renamer or steward will handle the request. You can also go to Changing username/Simple if you don't want to enable email. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * But what of the grammar? - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While I know no Latin, I do know that "Lux et veritas" is good enough for Yale University. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked with one of my friends who is in grad school for this type of stuff: rosarum et veritatis is what you are looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Does this apply to both the generalization and possessive nature of "Truth"? - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To the fest of my knowledge, veritatis is the possessive form of "the truth". That's the best I can give you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance! I will await further learned contributions before acting. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

The following are twin articles ..pl delete one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl-Bertil_Laurel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl-Bertil_Laurell

Please add speedy tag to any one of them

(Pisikyyy (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC))
 * , someone else has dealt with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

some one means...please detail

(Pisikyyy (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC))
 * redirected one of them so that there is only one article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

A barnstar for you!
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow