User talk:Valoem/Archive3

Culture Warriors
When all the culture warriors turn up, personally I'd rather avoid the whole brew-ha-ha. The comment by Tarc is probably the least cloaked inapplicable policies - he doesn't like the idea/the ideology it's associated with, so he doesn't want an article. As far as I can see, the other endorses are the same, but better cloaked to obliviate that. Disheartening, maybe, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and usually gets there eventually. Sorry if that's not much comfort. Wily D 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Snow (attorney)
Can you please userfy the talk page and article to my space. Valoem  talk  contrib  22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:Valoem/Michael Snow (attorney); for future reference requests at WP:REFUND are likely to be handled faster. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is it back at Michael Snow (attorney)? I am about to AfD it again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Damned (2013 film) vs. Gallows Hill (film)
I suggest that you move this topic to The Damned (2013 film) as that appears to be the primary topic used by pretty much all the references used to support info for this film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

✅ Valoem  talk  contrib  03:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643378799 your edit] to Sean Lennon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sean Taro Ono Lennon Japanese name Tarō Ono (小野 太郎) is an American [[

Articles_for_deletion/Sand_Castles_(film)
Hey Valoem, could you please weigh in on this film? You previously weighed in on a related article here: Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges (2nd nomination). Thank you. MoonglowMan (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Lindgren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project M. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I have deleted the message to User: Ultra Dark. I now see that more than one editor has been making changes to Apex (tournament) and it appears I was confused by the multiple edits. Thanks for noting this. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Nanney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project M. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I got Infiltration's page running
Hello Valoem. I was able to get Seon-Woo Lee running. This is a heads up. UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I also got Alex Valle running. This is another heads up. UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Sanford Kelly and Ricky Ortiz
I would appreciate them being worked on. Sanford is an EVO champ, and Ricky has been known for breaking Nakoruru in Capcom vs. SNK 1. One important thing. Ricky Ortiz needs to be referred to as a "she" because she made the transition to a female life. Thanks. UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  14:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

my role
One of the disadvantages of being on arb com is that if I comment more than minimally on anything likely to go there, I cannot sit on the case. I have already had to recuse on half the cases brought so far this year. My comments now & in the past on i.c. have already been sufficient that I'd probably be asked to recuse here also, so I'll continue, but please bear this in mind.  DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , This a proving to be tremendously difficult. I've been nothing but civil throughout this discussion and Tarc is asking for a topic ban. I feel like Wikipedia is being patrolled by the thought police. Being the only one right now is extremely difficult. Valoem  talk  contrib  01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

reem al marzouqi
Thanks for assisting! im a new wikipedian and i want to write articles about women in uae but still i need to know more about wikipedia's rules, little bit worried because my very first article was nominated to be deleted, i'll try my best any way! thanks again. Sheuae (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Interuniversal travel
As you requested on WP:REFUND the article and its talk page has been userfied to User:Valoem/Interuniversal travel. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gilbert Le Coze, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Equitable Life Assurance Company. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I created a Wikipedia page for Momochi
Hi Valoem, I wasn't requested to do this, but considering that Momochi has become Capcom Cup champion, I thought it would be a good idea to make the page. Look below.

Momochi

UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey it looks great also I think we should move all gamers to their birth common name. It seems to be mostly WP:COMMONNAME, but also more professional. Valoem  talk  contrib  01:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Replying to every comment isn't helping this discussion
While you and I don't agree 100%, we do seem to agree a lot on this subject. At the risk of indicting my own occasional TL;DR behaviors, I wish you'd disengage an bit and allow other editors to express their opinions without constant rebuttal. Your opinion has been clearly expressed. We can trust an objective closer to sort out wheat from chaff. I think we've made a very strong argument for restoring to pagespace. I also think we have the head count. Other users have the responsibility to disagree with our positions using policy and guideline, and are doing so, civilly, respectfully. Strength of argument will decide this discussion. Overplaying the situation by badgering commenters (as you've done; that's my opinion) may not convey the correct impression to the closer. When one is careful to speak economically, people tend to pay more attention, IMHO. (I will concede I don't always follow my own advice, even in this post.) BusterD (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Aquillion is making a claim about your comments which maybe distorting your words. I recommend replying in this situation. When an RfC is nearing closure I have no choice but to respond.Valoem  talk  contrib  17:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clear enough? I can see why you have seemed frustrated trying to get people to see this subject neutrally. There's some sort of subjectivity here and I can't pin down its cause. In any event, a solid case has been made that your draft warrants inclusion (and it's a fair draft, though I'd like to see more sources). IMHO, the incel material (if it eventually deserves inclusion) would be placed more correctly at the sexual frustration pagespace. In that minor quibble I do agree with some of the naysayers in the process. Other than that, I hope I've helped make your case. If in the future you were to contact me on this subject, I would not consider that contact canvassing. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Merger of Andreas Lubitz. Thank you. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Improper AfD non-admin closures
per WP:NACD, this Non-admin closure is improper: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.": Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language). ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  00:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I used my discretion here, this AfD has been opened since 26 March 2015 there has not been activity since 14 April and a clear lack of consensus arose I used my judgment it has passed the allowed time for a no consensus nac, you can revert the edit if you like it is in your right, though I cannot see any other outcome. Valoem  talk  contrib  00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nim (programming language)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nim (programming language). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  01:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reopening. I realize you're just trying to get experience, as am I, but this just happens to be a godawful AfD to swim into and the Afd is going to be a massive pain in the ass for whichever admin does close it. That's probably why it hasn't been closed yet. Really, it has more issues than the Lubitz merge we're both involved in. In the future, I'd keep to just closing the snow keep ones, really not worth the headache to get involved as a non-admin closer otherwise. People are generally going to be a lot more suspicious of non-admins like us closing AfDs they voted in, and especially in weird cases where there's single purpose accounts, sockpuppets, or canvassing allegations, it's a lot more complicated to judge the genuine consensus. No hard feelings on my end. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! I try to edit with as little drama as possible and I think you were perfectly correct to question the NAC. It still think it is a no consensus, the sockpuppetry is oddly enough hurting their own cause, but should not deny that some established editors are accepting its sourcing. I may open an AN incident for Lubitz it appears people feel DRV is not the right venue. It was Guy's close of that article that inspired me to close a few controversial AfDs because no consensus has been applied less and less correctly many closes are simply no consensus, administrative super votes are a growing issue I'm trying to do everything to prevent that. :) Valoem  talk  contrib  18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your close of Articles for deletion/Robotech Armed Forces
Could you please reconsider this close? I think it is very clear that consensus to delete was reached at the AfD, based on the number and strength of the arguments presented. Thanks, Reyk  YO!  07:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The rational for the AfD appears to be clean up and removal of excessive information with a lack of valid deletion criteria. There was little discussion and opened for three weeks. I've added three sources to the article and removed unsourced information this one in particular appears to a secondary source which covers the subject extensively. Let me know if you still have any issues. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the nomination and the delete !votes is completely inaccurate. Lacking proper sourcing or evidence of notability is a deletion criterion, and I think you know it. Please stop making non-admin closes until you can do better than picking a side and completely misrepresenting the other. In future if you wish to put in a keep !vote, put in a keep vote instead of a closing statement. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reopened the AfD, lets see how it goes. I've explained my rational on the discussion page. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  11:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color="#cc0000">w <font color="#00cc00">L &lt;speak·check&gt; 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salux cloth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SPA
Valoem, that SPA template you put under Libercht's contribution, I removed it: it is unjustified. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Valoem, you are so screwing yourself. Here we have a nice adversarial conversation about a subject, and you have to go down these sideroads about contributors. Take the high road. Talk about the subject, not the participants. Let the closer read all these comments and decide. Trust that the closer will take all this into account. BusterD (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Time slip
As you seem to have taken on the task of improving the article for re-release at some point, a couple of good references to Time Slips as a device in children's fiction: Linda Hall House and Garden and the Time-slip Story in the Aftermath of the Second World War in Presence of the Past in Children's Literature, (ed.) Anne Lawson Lucas

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3mBA_EHrxvEC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=e+nesbit+time+slip&source=bl&ots=JOmcJ1Wec0&sig=ZUhNwz0P_CKGNA0VXfVQe0zbTag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAWoVChMIwo7U8e3JxwIVS7UUCh1vdgf1#v=onepage&q=e%20nesbit%20time%20slip&f=false

Tess Cosslett "History from Below": Time-Slip Narratives and National Identity in The Lion and the Unicorn Volume 26, Number 2, April 2002 pp. 243-253

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/lion_and_the_unicorn/v026/26.2cosslett.pdf

what appears to be the full paper is given here: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/4471/1/HISTORY_2.pdf Liverpres (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question...
I didn't see this before, and I wish I did, but I'm bringing it up anyway, because it appears to still be an issue.

If the result of the DRV was to put 2015 Shvut Rachel shooting into userspace on August 20th, why was it either not done, or put back in mainspace by the 23rd, with only one edit since that time, which has in fact introduced massive informational duplication into the article? MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * MSJapan The consensus was to endorse close as no consensus which means to retain in mainspace per original result of AfD. Also what duplicate information do you see? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what happened - I was looking at the DRV response on the wrong discussion. Never mind.   Informationally speaking on the article, though, various "suspects" are listed in multiple sections, some in one and not the other, and some twice. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jack McClelland
I have reverted your cut and paste move of Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940). Please note that John William McClelland is also known as Jack, so simply (footballer) is not enough to differentiate the two articles. Tassedethe (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we sure this is proper? I've never seen any title page stylized as Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940) with the birth year, I think WP:TITLE would suggest a simpler format, not sure what though, but Jack McClelland (footballer) seems to be a more standard MoS. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a standard method of disambiguating, see e.g. Category:English footballers for multiple examples. Jack McClelland (Northern Irish footballer) would also be acceptable, as the other footballer is English. John William McClelland should probably be moved to Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1930) or Jack McClelland (English footballer), per WP:COMMONNAME. Tassedethe (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the location is more common, I believe that may be a better move, but I don't think year of birth is standard, maybe it is I've just never seen it before. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  01:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that DOB is standard and much preferred over nationality given that the latter can change in football. I have reverted your move and put the article back at Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940). GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Kerry Sulkowicz
There's nothing to restore, already done by another admin back in February. GiantSnowman 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I created a Rising Thunder wiki page.
Here is a Rising Thunder wiki page I have created. It might need some assistance. Rising Thunder (video game) UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I added a lead for you:) <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for patrolling the Rising Thunder wiki page. I'm happy that Seth Killian loves the FGC. By the way, were you ever a finalist for Apex? UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT   18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I finished 4th 2010. I have not really been playing too much for the last years though. Are you a part of the community? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Foodsaver
There is so little text that I'll just post it below rather than set up a user subpage. I've nowikied the heading and url <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  05:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FoodSaver is a brand of Food Sealers, made by Sunbeam Corporation, a subsidiary of Jarden. The FoodSaver was seen on Oprah's best-selling item on The Oprah Winfrey Show, hence their slogan "America's #1 Selling Brand".

==External Links== FoodSaver Website

Yard House
Taken care of, sorry it took me so long. Let me know if you need anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hey I was wondering if you speak Japanese, is this notable Steak Land Kobe in Japan? Are there any good Japanese sources? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later today and see what I find. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

time slip
some ideas for the article, see The_Philadelphia_Experiment_(film) and the "see also" section of that article for more fodder. Also, besides a time machine and time slip, another well-worn path in fiction of time travel is faster than light speed and/or black holes: see Tomorrow Is Yesterday for a view. Yet another is "unexplained technology" - see the Philadelphia Experiment above and The City on the Edge of Forever (a time machine maybe?) and some oddity like Star Trek Generations. Cheers... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Project invitation

 * Per your work creating new food and drink related articles. Check out the project! North America1000 13:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Something of interest?
I know we've had our differences in the past, but I know this case is close to heart for you and you spent a lot of time on this article in the past. So perhaps you would be interested in this new article that has been created recently? People are debating whether or not to delete it; I think it should. But in the light of transparancy, you might want to weigh in. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for letting me know. I would be in favor of deleting this article, incel is a non-notable neologism. The article I was interested in restoring documents a historic term involving involuntary sexual abstinence dating to over one hundred years of documentation including a source from Spooner's study of Sexology dating to 1916. See where I am coming from? I was never trying to promote this fringe concept. If you remember the content of the other article it is not even close to this garbage. Sorry to sound blunt, but the last article should have never been deleted. This however should. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fatal1ty listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fatal1ty. Since you had some involvement with the Fatal1ty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Dissident Aggressor 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sol Forman


Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Please mind that the citations do not mention time loops, only time travel, with few exceptions that can be easily noted in list of time travel works of fiction, such as 12:01 PM, Groundhog Day, and one or two Star Trek episodes and a couple other shows and films, but not every movie that features time travel. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. I will be removing the request for the third opinion because there are a large number of opinions already being expressed at Articles for deletion/List of films featuring time loops. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the third opinion request has been restored now that the deletion discussion was closed as Keep. I don't see a specific concise question, but I do see that multiple editors (not just two) have been discussing.  I am closing the third opinion request again.  If there is a content question, try the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Page request involving Nairoby "Nairo" Quezada
If you have the time, is it possible if you could make a page for this ZeRo defeater up and running. Nairoby Quezada UltraDark ''' :) 2 CHAT  19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure :) gimme a few days. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * UltraDark, as per requested I've made a page on him. I think the article may need more sources, but it is a start. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD
AfD does not prevent editing. Nor does is allow uncited claims to remain. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You absolutely correct, I disagree with your removal, you have removed sourced information. I believe there is a bit of over kill, I'll have another editor look at it. It is better to have a discussion before removing sourced information. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The information is not sourced properly. You're edit-warring. You're restoring uncited information. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One revert is not edit warring. Talk page discussion suggests consensus is against your version and the better method is to split the list better causal loop and recurring. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then instead of reverting, create the alternate list. Whichever way you look at it the current uncited and poorly-cited entries do not belong on the list. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nuru (massage)
Hi Valoem,

I don't want to template a regular, but please see Nothanks-web in relation to Nuru (massage), which contains several sentences from here. (That page is undated, but is quoted in a 2011 blog post, here). Thank you, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, I see the copyrighted material was actually added by 93.94.244.1. I'll try to fix the article if time permits. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have actually restored a page with copied material from the original Wikipedia, but I have also added sources to establish notability. The page you cited is actually originally copied form this page I restored. So it is the other way around. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, before you started editing Nuru (massage), that article already contained copyrighted material. It was added in a series of edits by 93.94.244.1 in 2013, and the copyrighted material already existed in 2011 , which predates the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2012.
 * Anyway, I think the article is cleaned up now. I restored as many of the refs you added as I could.  But I couldn't restore or as both were supporting copyrighted content and I can't access either book myself (from Australia), nor could I restore the Vice article as I can't read German and couldn't tell what it was verifying. I guess those three are actually the most important refs to establish notability . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the material was not copyrighted as it was posted from a forum using sources which copy from Wikipedia. I believed that the content it was copied from the deleted history of Nuru massage which predates that forum post. However it is better safe than sorry. I am a bit confused with the removal of the sources though. It is two book sources and a Vice article which is used to establish notability. There is nothing wrong with citing copyrighted material as far as I know. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  08:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hans Posse
Please do not transfer an article from another language's wiki using only a mechanical translator, as you did on Hans Posse. If you check the log of that article, you'll see that it took me over two hours of work to turn it into an acceptable article -- which is work that  you should have done yourself. So, if you're not willing or able to do the work to end up with a viable English article, simply do not make the translation using only Google Translate. Thanks, BMK (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated in the creation that it was a direct transwiki (I did edit some of the article). Excellent job improving the article since it was not an attack BLP and the information is notable, Wikipedia as far as I know prefers creations of sourced articles so others can expand after all we are a collaborative effort are we not? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it really must be an article that uses coherent English sentences and paragraphs, and direct translation via mechanical translators are not quite up to doing that, so they must be manually fixed. That work really should be done by the person who transwikis, or else we'd just set up some bots to hunt down articles on other wikis, run them through Google Translate, and post them on en.wiki. It's just not sufficient.  I was hampered by not speaking German, so I had to jettison a couple of sentences I simply could not figure out, and hope that my reworking of other ones was correct.  Fortunately I have some knowledge of the subject matter, and that helped. Please try to do some of that work next time. BMK (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is obliged to complete an article to a high standard; the basic principle in editing is there is no deadline, and articles grow by gradual improvement by many people. I think it perfectly reasonable in many cases to make the translation using an automatic translator, and fix up the grammar a little in the obvious places to read like conventional English, which for some types of articles doesn't require much knowledge of the language. Rewriting completely into fully idiomatic English can be harder, and as notes, much more time consuming. It all depends on the nature of the article--trivial biographical and geographic articles need relatively little work. . People have different ideas about how much is necessary.
 * For this particular article, which I consider more than a trivial biography, I would have gone a considerably further before leaving it. Most specially, I would certainly have rewritten the lead sentence, so someone glancing at it would understand at least that far. BMK, I want to especially congratulate you that you didm uch more than just fix the translation, by adding the material from the Fuhrrermuseum also. The result is a bio article in WP much fuller and with much more balanced coverage than the one in the deWP.  DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did edit the lead paragraph that was about it though. Anyways I completely agree, I think I did leave some grammatically errors laziness gets me sometimes. :) <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space
User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fastwalkers
As the article was deleted after an unanimous agreement as to its lack of notability at AFD, I would rather direct you to request allowance for recreation at Deletion review after you have located the relevant independent sources demonstrating its notability. -- KTC (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It will go through DRV if desired, please review my edit history I am long time established editor who specializes in article restoration and DRV. I prefer to work with an article that has history to show the evolution of the article per WP:PRESERVE. The discussion was unanimous, but two votes with little discussion isn't necessarily definitive. Recently, I worked with the article time slip which focused on the fringe concept, when in reality it is a notable plot device in fiction. This article suffers from the same issues, here are three sources not included in the original article,, , , and . The term actually refers to UFOs which include meteors and man-made objects not of Soviet or US during the Cold War, the hypothesis regarding extraterrestrials is a new fringe theory, anyways I am seeing some legitimate content. I do agree with the delete, and do not intent to restore the same content. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think our current practice in these cases is to undelete and move the previous article into Draft space, where it can be worked on. A request to userify when made by an established contributor should not need to go to Del Rev.   DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the links provided, I have userfy the article to Draft:Fastwalkers., while I undoubtedly would have some unconscious bias in favour of established editors, I'm not totally comfortable with the idea that established editors' request for userfication should be judge more favourably purely from the fact that they are an established editor. Article should be judged on its own merit, and not who wrote (or will be writing) them. -- KTC (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read it then, as any editor acting in good faith, unless there's some special reason otherwise"  DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/ACT_Alberta
I'm afraid I don't agree with your close of this discussion. Your rationale sounds like a vote not an assessment of the arguments and with the split I would have preferred to relist it for a final time before seeing what falls out. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Spartaz You are free to DRV it if you would like which may result in no consensus at best. Just to note it has been opened for 3 weeks so some time was given only possible other close was no consensus. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  10:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to ask DRV to undo an incorrect NAC. I preferred to discuss it with you but since you aren't interested I have just undone it and relisted it myself. Spartaz Humbug! 11:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jake Bilardi2


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Callinus (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Opal Tometi
I see you ran with the Anybody can part of my close and ignored the best to form some sort of consensus before doing that part. Whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait what? You said anyone can restore, I wrote in the edit summary anyone can relist. Given the discussion there appeared to be some notability with restoring the preferred outcome and/or relisting per your DRV closing statement. Did I misinterpret? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant by anybody can restore the page was, the software won't prevent anybody from restoring the page if they're not an admin. But, I'm a janitor, not a cop.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Still confused, everyone knows the software doesn't prevent that so I wasn't considering that interpretation, did you prefer a relist? I can do that, I am not sure what your asking. The discussion is opened I restored with the comment of no bias against renomination. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)
Are you userfying it to your account?

NAC undone
Hi, this is to inform you of my reversal of your non-admin closure for the reasons explained there.  Sandstein  16:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wainwright
I moved this back to your userspace. you have not improved the sources and this has only just been through DRV. Please try to do some significant work on this before trying again otherwise it will just end at AFD again. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) was this really what you had in mind when you put this into Valoem's userspace? Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look again, I did add sources which is exactly, which why I asked him to reconsider his DRV closure which was 6-2 in favor of allowing the content to remain in the mainspace to prevent this from happening. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to stop vote counting to decide consensus. Lets leave it to Sandstein to rule on this. Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, this isn't an AfD, if no policy overrides, should it not be based on votes? Otherwise we could just have a double supervote. And also I believe Sandstein said to relist, I don't see any objections from him if I added sources (also RAN did expand the article, but I see you two are in a heated argument) its not the exact same content. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some adage about getting into arguments with random people on the internet that seems rather apposite here. I'm not really going to get into a back and forth. I suggest you wait for the admin who closed the drv to rule on whether the article was ready for mainspace. If he says yes then I'll move it back and apologise, If he says no then it will go straight to AFD if you chose to ignore that advice. Either way no harm will be done waiting for Sandstein to comment - and who knows, there could be a solution and an apology in your future rather than your spending the next seven days arguing with strangers under you are blue in the face. Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that's completely reasonable, though I would prefer an AfD regardless believe it or not. It a way for me to determine whether my judgement on the merits of the article were right. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Salumeria Biellese
I do not understand how the article Salumeria Biellese ended in the User:Valoem/Salumeria Biellese page.Valjean1969 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Gonstead technique
You're putting far too much energy into canvassing seeking help and discussing elsewhere than into actually editing the article. Lots of suggestions and sources have been provided, so start improving the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (Redacted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
 * What are you talking about? Where have I canvassed please enlighten me as canvassing is against policy. It also appears that you have been around since 2005 so your lack of experience surprises me. The basic principle of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. I've started the article with appropriate sources Cunard has provided additional sources I do not own this article you are more than welcome to expand it if you feel so. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  17:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been around since about 2003. Sorry about the poor choice of words, and I have redacted it. I'm well aware of the nature of how articles are created and maintained. I just tend to prefer, out of courtesy and recognition of subject experts, to give authors a chance to try to save their hard work. Nothing more than that. I figured you'd appreciate that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your comment is still quite bitey nonetheless. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Valoem/Salumeria Biellese
Hi, I have been editing User:Valoem/Salumeria Biellese and I think that I am ready to undelete the Article. Does the person who Deleted it have the power to undelete the article. The original  title was Salumeria Biellese and I like to live it the same. Thanks Valjean1969 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Valoem!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Valoem, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

I think one day you might come do regret this....
Do you have children Valoem? Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Teaching them to behave like you very ... unfortunate indeed. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  04:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rest, at last...
I am glad we can finally leave this old mess behind us. I am sure you must be relieved too, having finally received a strong consensus and a sense of closure. I know I am. We've had our differences in the debates, but I feel we conducted ourselves professionally. I am sorry to have heard you received off-wiki threats for your zealous involvement in the case... but with so many respected editors speaking in favor of deleting the article, perhaps you can let go of your notion that information is being "surpressed" on Wikipedia.

Happy editing, and have a wonderful 2016. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On Competitive Smash Bros.
Hey, first sorry about all the confusion on this page.

Second, I thought about it for a bit and I think we should experiment with the hiding thing for a while for about a month. If all works out, then we will leave it hidden. If not, then I think we should try to find a new way.

Again, sorry for the confusion and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwoo217 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Following up on your post on my talk page
Regarding this thread: One of the other arbs had said they'd spoken to you. Anyway, it means that ArbCom didn't see any reason to be involved. That is, the private evidence didn't suggest that there had been a breach of policy (etc), any public evidence should be considered onwiki. That there isn't an ongoing discussion about this on wiki (that I'm aware of) means that you're fine. (Posted in my personal capacity, not on behalf of the Committee). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc Thanks do you know which Arb had spoke to me? I was not involved in the alleged canvassing. The events that occurred after are what I need to clear up. Was the accuser any anon IP or established editor? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by accuser? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc I was curious to know who the accuser is. Was it an anonymous editor or established editor with a user name? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Committee keeps things sent to the mailing list confidential unless we need to reveal it, in this case I don't see a need to reveal that sorry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc, sorry I am a bit confused, you are say that the evidence presented confirms I did not canvass those editors? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  06:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy article
As you are likely aware, the reasons for the article being salted are extremely irrational and show an obvious bias. I have already proven that the user Mythical Writerlord is merely an Internet troll with an agenda, similarly to the now banned Tarc. That being said, since there are procedures for bringing back even such articles and you seem to be a trusted member you should try bringing the article back by referring to the wide usage of the term in online communities. Terms like manosphere or cuckservative have their articles. Of course, don't expect much due to obvious bias. And, yes, I am a user who is involved in such communities but I think you are aware I am speaking in good faith and that we both understand what this is about. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy article - also

If you believe the editor Mythical Writerlord is acting in good faith you are either misinformed or completely oblivious to reality presented to you. This person had been openly bragging about wanting to remove the article purely out of their pathological hatred for the term. I've even provided evidence for this in the 3rd discussion. If you believe he is anything but a malicious liar with an agenda you are sadly mistaken. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you are acting in good faith, in regards to Mythical Writerlord I do not find that relevant. I know the subject is notable and encyclopedic. I generally focus on restoring articles which were deleted for non-policy based reasons, this one appears to be tougher. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  06:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)::While I agree that the Mythical Writerlord thing isn't exactly crucial at this moment are some things that could, or, sadly would be important in a saner world. 1. He is the one who proposed the first deletion back in 2014 (and probably others, I am not sure). 2. It is easy to prove his open gloating about the article being deleted and agenda on other websites. 3. His disturbing behavior went as far as to directing the article to something virtually called "Not getting any". 4. Several editors, like SandyGeorgia, noted his aberrant acts at the time and called them so. What happened after the first deletion debate was that there was a merge with "Celibacy" article and then a concentrated attempt to remove that section from the Celibacy article as well. All of it is highly immoral, really ugly and against several policies of this site. In any case, I hope you will gather the support of several editors who were in favor of keeping it with solid arguments based on the term's usage and try to explain that it is not something that is considered a medical disease, which is what some of the editors actually believed was claimed. I am not exactly a SPA, at least not in my mind, as I try to edit whatever I see as incorrect on wikipedia, but I am also no regular editor or a scientist and can't really be of any help here except to expose the extremely ugly agenda behind why your previous attempts were unsuccessful. Sadly, there is clearly a malicious agenda at work and it really is no coincidence that you, as an inclusionist, managed to add or bring back every article you wanted to except for this one, though a good majority them were much less notable and encyclopedic. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Arb Com please follow up

 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't use the ping function like the Bat-Signal to attempt to summon the Committee. You can bring matters before the committee once other avenues have been exhausted.  Please seek assistance at an appropriate noticeboard like WP:ANI.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've already voted and made my opinion clear. Therefore, I have recused myself and have not commented on any threads on this subject. Please do not ping me about this in the future. --<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Valoem, you already have an answer in multiple venues that this matter of possible canvassing was raised with the committee but was not needed for admins to handle closing the discussion. See Drmies' post here and my removal of the note on the AfD here. You would be well advised to drop the stick. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, <font color="#0b0080">Guerillero , Opabinia regalis I was not certain this had to go to ANI. I am not taking about the subject, I am talking about the canvassing accusation which Drmies did not response to. Such attacks are against Wikipedia policy, whenever an accusation is made, it must be resolved either with the defendant found not guilty or guilty. If the defendant is found not guilty then the accuser is responsible for false accusations which I would of course pursue. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Valoem, did you just ping two people who asked not to be pinged about this? Don't do that.
 * We're not a court. We don't do "not guilty" verdicts. As posted in multiple places on-wiki, the result, such as it were, was "doesn't matter one way or the other". This matter is closed. Go write an article about something else. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1980 Uiju earthquake


The article 1980 Uiju earthquake has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Insignificant event. No damage, injuries, or deaths.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dawnseeker2000 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 1980 Uiju earthquake for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1980 Uiju earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1980 Uiju earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fatal Fear
Hi, you closed this AFD as "no consensus" and cited User:Cunard's comment that establish the band's notability. Could you please expand a little on that? He presented four links: a now-deleted images on Commons, an article by Powerplay Rock and Metal magazine of the band, a link to Newsstand that verifies that said magazine is published physically, and a link to the band's Facebook page where they make an unverified claim ("We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world"). Since one isn't about the band at all (Newsstand) and the other isn't a suitable source for a WP:BLP (Facebook), that shrinks the usable amount of sources down to two. For a band that's been active for 12 years, it's a little alarming that there isn't anything else. Searching the Korean portal Naver (both 'Fatal Fear' and '페이탈 피어') doesn't bring anything up on them; I actually end up getting articles about Fear (1996 film) instead. Basically, I would like a little articulation as to why you felt the discussion established the band's notability, especially in light of WP:GNG itself: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chiming in as an uninterested third-party. I'm unsure what to think about this close.  From the purely policy-based point of view, this doesn't fall under the guidelines of WP:NAC for NC closures, since it didn't have, little or no discussion.  But, as I've stated before, I'm all for expanding the scope of NAC's, so this technical detail doesn't bother me personally.  While I happen to agree with  that the sources presented are marginal at best, it's not really the closer's job to judge the sources.  It's the closer's job to summarize the arguments.  In this case,  agreed that the sources were sufficient, and nobody attempted to refute that.  So, we're left with three people making ostensibly reasonable arguments for deletion, and two people making ostensibly reasonable arguments to keep.  Had I participated in this  AfD, I'm sure I would have argued to delete, but given what's there, the NC closure seems reasonable.  My prediction is that if this were to go to WP:DRV, it would get re-closed by an admin with the same result, bypassing any WP:NAC questions.  Of course, WP:NAC says, in a case like this, that there is no prejudice against speedy renomination, so maybe that's the best solution here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * <font color="6A5ACD">ξ, RoySmith Thanks for point that error. My general experience with Cunard is that he is highly respected and accurate when favoring inclusion. I feel that if the discussion were to drag on for another week the result would be the same. However, I have added no prejudice against speedy renomination per RoySmith whose judgment I also trust. Just to add, dead links still do establish notability as notability cannot be lost per GNG. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just happened to stumble upon this and have to say I find this to be an inappropriate NAC which should really be undone. Non-admins shouldn't be closing discussions for which there is not an obvious consensus (or, arguably, a very clear lack thereof), but even more importantly if you want to opine about the sources, that means you should !vote, not close. While expanding the scope of NAC is a worthwhile discussion, it's not the case now. I don't think it needs to go to DRV -- it just needs to be re-opened. I'm also not sure what "(no prejudice against speedy renomination per talk page)" should be taken to mean. Perhaps I'm commenting while you're in the progress of leaving a talk page message, but at the time you added this comment there was none. That makes it sound like a no quorum close, which wasn't the case... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we can no consensus exist for this reason,, every close that I've been questioned before resulted in the same conclusion so it is safe to say my judgement is sound. This band also clearly passes: 4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. as Cunard pointed out, but are you saying that there was clear consensus to delete? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like I need to respond with much of what I just wrote above. So I'll just point to that and explicitly request you revert your NAC. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused you want me to revert so you can post NACs are inappropriate to close the discussion? What are you bring to the table in favor of deletion? I will revert under one condition, if this article closes the same way or in favor of keep, you are to never question my closes again. In the future you can have someone else question me, but not you. All my closes in the past have been perfect even after I reverted when questioned in the past. Keep in mind an administrator has supported this close given the discussion so reopening this would mean you feel further discussion would lead to a delete correct? Or is this request due to our previous encounter? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What does "you want me to revert so you can post NACs are inappropriate to close the discussion" mean? Are you saying I want to post to that AfD saying "NACs are inappropriate"? Because I don't think that NACs are inappropriate. This one was. Regardless, no deal. If you make an inappropriate NAC again, I will most definitely challenge you if I see it. The fact that you're pushing me for arguments to delete just makes my second point -- not only was there no obvious consensus (and no obvious lack of consensus), but you also !voted in the close (i.e. you see "no consensus" as equivalent to keep and took the opportunity to enact your keep !vote as such). I don't know if further discussion would lead to delete, keep, or no consensus, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it was an inappropriate NAC.
 * If you're going to try to dismiss challenges to your NAC with appeals to your own "sound judgment", I'll just drop this link here, which shows literally the lowest percentage I've ever seen of AfD !votes lining up with consensus (at least among people with more than a handful of AfDs). Now, that tool/stat has plenty of problems, of course (this is the first time I've ever linked to it to make a point), but I didn't come here to say your judgment is poor, or even that you're wrong. I would've challenged a NAC done that way (and worded that way) regardless of who did it because it was an inappropriate close. The difference is almost everyone else, upon their NAC being challenged, just undoes it. Sometimes it's closed the same way by an admin, sometimes it's not. But you're not only standing by it, you're arguing on the basis of your own judgment, setting up preposterous conditions, and arguing in a way that continues to make clear that it was an inappropriate close.
 * Regarding "previous encounter", the only "encounter" I can think of is that I participated in a few of the string of "involuntary celibacy" AfDs/DRVs you were also involved with and that we fell on different sides of those discussions. Maybe there's something else I don't remember, but as I said, I would've challenged anyone making this NAC. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at my closing record. Also many of those pages have been restored. The only closed I was incorrect was Robotech Armed Forces which I reverted myself. And yes, Incel is a serious subject gave me a number of other issues on this encyclopedia, I was harassed offwiki with a threat that if I pursued the subject further I would have "trouble" editing Wikipedia. Since then a number of editors have questioned me all editors who participated in that discussion (I'm not saying your one of them). Anyways I left a message on Explicit (the nominator) to see if he wants me to revert. If he does I will revert. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  22:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I assure you this is not connected. Regardless, without repeating myself, I'll just say that you really should just undo an NAC, even if you're right, upon any good faith request to do so. There's no hard policy saying it's required to do so, of course (I don't think), but that's what I typically see happen. If you're right, and it's re-closed the same way, you get an "I told you so". But what's the downside of just undoing it? Presuming you're just evaluating consensus rather than using the close to supervote, the only hassle is a couple minutes of lost time. (You're spending quite a bit more time than that engaging in this thread). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites I have reverted per your request, I am assuming good faith, and hope you are not among the editors who have accused me of "misogyny", please input your vote (btw they attacked me on Facebook). <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem   talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to abstain. I had opened the AfD yesterday (in a deep chrome tab), but didn't look at it until today (should've refreshed first). I had settled on delete or weak delete, but it would be, I think, unseemly for someone who didn't participate in a 3-week-long discussion to press to re-open it and then take a position in opposition to the close (i.e. the point of my initial message was the close, and I don't want it to seem like the point was deletion). I left a comment to that effect at the AfD (without specifying delete). But thanks for re-opening. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a glaringly omission to WP:NAC in regards to "no consensus" closures where there is some discussion. It doesn't list it as a possible outcome non-admins can use to close a discussion, but it also doesn't discourage it.
 * For what it's worth, after seeing the discussion relisted a second time, I planned to offer a rebuttal to Cunard's comment under the belief that it would run another full seven days. The day I planned to do that was the fourth day thereafter, but Valoem closed it before I got to make my argument. I didn't attend to it immediately and almost didn't bother bringing the issue up until I searched for Korean sources and found that even publications that focus on underground bands such as Fatal Fear don't cover them in any manner. I honestly can't find a thing about them.
 * All that aside, thank you for reopening the discussion. I'll make my case at AFD shortly. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dalessandro's Steaks
I made some changes to the article. In WP:BRD, that is "bold". You disagreed with the changes and reverted them. In WP:BRD, that is "revert". I attempted to discuss the individual issues one-by-one on the article's talk page. In WP:BRD, that is "discuss". As there was no discussion whatsoever to the contrary, you have no basis to revert every change I have made over the course of a month, backed up with detailed discussion and explanatory edit summaries with an insistence that I "please stop whatever (I am) doing". Discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You will also want to see my edits at Jim's Steaks and my pissed-off discussion at Talk:Jim's_Steaks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing sources and tagging seems pretty ducky, I would just drop this, unless you have some reason for your edits you would like to explain. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely every edit I have made was explained with an edit summary, discussion on the article's talk page or both. If you do not read them, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to figure out "whatever (I am) doing". If you disagree with any of my edits or plans, the place to discuss the issues is on the article's talk page. If you do not discuss the issues, I'm afraid I'm left to deciding how to handle issues with the articles without your input.
 * As for my edits being "ducky", if you are referring to WP:DUCK, you will want to take the issue directly to the appropriate noticeboard. If you mean something else by "ducky", I'm afraid you will need to explain. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As for my edits being "ducky", if you are referring to WP:DUCK, you will want to take the issue directly to the appropriate noticeboard. If you mean something else by "ducky", I'm afraid you will need to explain. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have previously asked you to restrain from unsupported accusations that I am editing in bad faith. You have renewed your claim at Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks. If you feel there is good reason to believe my editing on that article is based on clear bias, an undisclosed conflict of interest or is otherwise inappropriate, please discuss the issue at an appropriate forum of your choice. The article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article (I strongly encourage you to join these discussions.). I will consider further accusations of bad faith on article talk pages to be personal attacks. Please consider this your first warning. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is nothing to discuss unless you nominate the article for deletion. I have found many reliable sources better than even those found in the article. Removing sources knowing other sources exist and then tagging for notability is purposefully lowering the quality which is vandalism, I would recommend you drop this now, go ahead and revert and an ANI will be inline. Your second removal of reliable sources confirms you are not here in regards to this cheesesteak joint. I am very logical and if you too then you understand this is no other interpretation. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  04:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. At the moment, I am awaiting comments on the blatantly promotional source, discussed at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks.
 * WP:VANDALISM is the "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page....Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." We disagree about what should be included in the article. That is not vandalism, it is a disagreement. Please assume good faith.
 * If you believe after 10 years of editing I am not here to build an encyclopedia, take this issue to AN/I or another appropriate forum of your choice. Otherwise, do not make this claim again as it is an assumption of bad faith. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your history edits you are here to build an encyclopedia, just not on this specific subject. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  04:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice on Tenex Software Solutions Page
Hi Valoem,

Last week you posted in the deletion page for Tenex Software Solutions and I appreciate you voting to keep the page up. I understand there is problem with the content and sources so I was wondering if you had any advice you could share with me that would strengthen the chances of the page not being deleted. I'm sure you are very busy but any advice or comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

Stevenjohnson14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How old is your company you need sources such as nytimes or multiple coverage in the news which is not a press release. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please respond
You have repeatedly restored the sourced contested at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks without explaining why. Please discuss the issue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please consider this your second warning. This: "vandalistic edits and abrasive attitude toward other editors for no apparent reason", as repeatedly explained, is not acceptable. Note, also, another editor's comment on you personal attacks here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I truely believe that is what you are doing, and thats not personal attacks. I am criticizing your editing not person. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  19:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to discuss content, not editors. You are approaching the point where you will not have options.
 * Your refusal to discuss changes is stonewalling. That is not sustainable. Eventually, you will either discuss the changes and a consensus will emerge or you will be blocked and the changes will be made without your input.
 * No matter what you may believe about me, my motives, etc., repeatedly assuming bad faith, calling our apparent content disagreements "vandalism" and impugning my character will eventually lead to a slap or two on your wrists and, if needed, blocks. If you do believe I am intentionally damaging the project, the only place to discuss that at this point is AN/I. You have repeated your claims long enough, back with idle threats to take it to AN/I. I am telling you point blank to stop or take it to AN/I. If you are unsure how to start a discussion there, any admin would be more than happy to help.
 * Further personal attacks, let me assume you, will not change my behavior. They will result in further warnings and, as needed, other remedies.
 * The current topics awaiting discussion are:
 * The promotional site used as a source, outlined at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks. You have not explained whether you believe its promotion nature does not matter or if you believe it is not promotional. Please explain.
 * At Talk:Jim's_Steaks is the copyright violation scan that two other editors agree does not support the claim. You have insisted it does, but the wording of the source does not seem to say anything about celebrities handing out there, and does not say that the walls at Jim's have autographed photos of celebrities who have eaten at the restaurant. Please explain. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing
I'm not sure you are aware, but WP:CANVASSing is strictly prohibited. I think it could be construed that this and this are canvassing as they are obvious attempts to get an outcome you want as well as making the argument overly personalized. I would recommend not doing more of this in the future.

jps (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * jps This is falls under appropiate canvassing (which I do all the time) I left a neutral message on Cunard's page as you can see and BullRangifer is involved in the discussion and removed the same sources which he thought was primary the people I requested may favor your side not mine so in fact is may be the opposite of canvassing also per WP:CANVASS what I did is allowed per:


 * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages. The Please see template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

and Cunard is generally regarded as an expert in source finding so I consider him and expert in many fields. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Neutral tone" generally does not include calling other editors "biased". jps (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * jps Apologies I misworded, I meant to say the encyclopedia tends to be bias against fringe topics. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you did explicitly mention me, which is part of the reason I decided to come to your talkpage. Please be careful in the future. There are right ways and wrong ways to ask for outside input and impugning the character of another Wikipedia editor may not be the right way. jps (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Personalizing disputes

 * Don't do something like this again. This is in direct violation of WP:FOC and WP:NPA and I already warned you about personalizing disputes above. If you continue to try to skew discussions just to needle me, I will report you to WP:ANI and ask for an interaction ban. jps (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Resaonable WP:CIR concerns are not "personal attacks." A better tack might be to give WP:GNG a once over. The complaint's particularly rich coming from the author of this recent PA: "Are you the famous GamerGater?" 166.171.187.71 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please come on your established name and no I never heard of him. jps if you feel I've done something please ANI. I fully believe you are not acting on WP:NPOV and while you may a good editor in certain areas I believe you misinterpret GNG to the point of disruption in subjects you dislike. In the case of your nomination of Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m, I agree with you, however you were again accused of removing sources to favor the outcome for deletion which is not here editing. Do not remove sources mid-AfD, editors have the right to judge the source for themselves. I never had any bans or even visits to ANI, so feel free to be the first, strange request for an interaction ban when you are the one engaging almost every time. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have personal problems with me, the correct place to discuss them is on a usertalk page. Not in a deletion discussion. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

April 5, 2016 Alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh these are your sanctions, thanks for letting me know. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  03:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are the sanctions against me? I can edit the page if I'd like. I see only your name listed there. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And you're letting me know why? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice is to inform you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An article I edited is under the sanctions. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lars Mittbank
Yeah, I've thought about that case too as something that is definitely notable (not well known in the US, though, but certainly in Europe). Sort of the male European version of Elisa Lam except there's no body.

I think the anniversary is in July ... the second, I think. We could perhaps start working on a draft and move it to mainspace in June sometime.

Take note that I've had to be a little less prolific over the last couple of weeks since my main computer is finally bowing to the fact that it's seven years old and will have to be replaced. This takes time. In the meantime I've been working from a laptop (and I've been busy with a class I've been teaching offline, too, and some other things). Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not repeatedly revert other contributors, regardless of whether you think their edits are wrong. It is disruptive and articles related to ISIL are subject to one revert per 24 hour rule.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No its not when you are closing against consensus. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evelyn McHale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baldwin, New York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop
<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI ‎. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. jps (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You have messages at my talk page
These comments from jps are directed to you please use the ping template to notify each other when you respond. <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;"> Talk 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem/KOI
Hello. In future, please don't make cut-and-paste copies of articles that were deleted (or are about to be deleted) and put them in your userspace, like you did with User:Valoem/KOI. It is a copyright violation because you are not giving the proper attribution to the editors who actually wrote the page. I have fixed this particular instance by recovering the deleted history from KOI-433.02 m and performing a histmerge. In future if you want to userfy an article please follow the instructions at Userfication or feel free to contact any administrator (including myself). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the full history, this was done because discussion was open at the time, there is technically no guideline against doing this, but if you are willing to userfy the full history for me I would prefer that. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "there is technically no guideline against doing this". I'm sorry, but no – it as absolutely not acceptable to copy/paste Wikipedia content and not provide correct attribution. See Copying within Wikipedia. And even if in this case you had made a note in the history like "copied content from KOI-433.02 m; see that page's history for attribution", that attribution would have failed as soon as the article was deleted. In short, please don't copy/paste articles to your userspace while they are at AfD – if they are deleted then you can recover the full history via userfication, and if they are kept then it's unnecessary. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP stuff
Valoem: I'm not trying to be a hard ass here, but we're dealing with BLP material on a topic with discretionary sanctions. Just creating this article in the first place was problematic. Insisting on citing blogs, editorials, opinion pieces is not going to fly on something like this. The onus is on you to fix it or gain consensus before adding this sort of material back in, and the citation to an opinion piece in the NYPOST, in particular, is just indefensible. Self-reverting would go a long way toward de-escalating things and making this a more cooperative endeavor. Nblund (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any BLP violations? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  05:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did: you've cited obviously not-reliable sources, including blog posts and an opinion piece, for claims of fact. I've reverted this stuff twice now, and pointed to in on the page and in edit summaries. I'm going to go ahead and revert again -- and I would encourage you to read the guidelines and find quality sources before adding stuff to the entry. Nblund (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What? Those are not blog sources! <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  15:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
I dont comment at Articles for deletion any more...as I believe "Deletionists are the plague of Wikipedia" and they frustrate me to no end. Why anyone thinks is a good idea to leave our readers in the dark over educating them on its merits or lack there of is simply misguided. I think they think theyare doing good by deleting this stuff...what they dont understand is people will get the info somewhere else....a good article here is better then random internet info. Some simply dont understand our purpose here.Moxy (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Moxy Don't give up. We have GNG policies, they are attempting to override in the end policy always wins. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  02:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * its to bad we have to waste time dealing with people who think no info is better then and explanation of the problems. Hard to deal with those that dont understand our basic goals here. Does deletion help? --Moxy (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I generally win see my DRV track record. And yes it is a waste of time. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  03:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources for article
I saw this article listed at AfD, Columbia University rape controversy, and noticed you were a major contributor to the article. Here is a source I found on HighBeam Research, The Other Side of the College Sexual Assault Crisis; Allegations of Sexual Assault on Campus Are at Record Levels, as Are Lawsuits from the Accused, Including Paul Nungesser, Claiming Schools Discriminated against Them Based on Gender by Max Kutner at Newsweek published December 18, 2015, it has a lot of quotes from his parent's and Nungesser as well. If you don't have access to HighBeam or can't find it on the web, email me from my user page, and I will email you the article. FYI, there are tons of articles on HighBeam about this case, let me know if you need more "specific" info.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, your input would on the AfD would be appreciated. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Created a page for NuckleDu
Here's a page for NuckleDu: Du Dang. What do you think of it. He is a Team Liquid player after all. :) ULTRA-DARKNESS ''' :) 2 CHAT  18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

DRV
Apologies for the accidental removal of yours and another editors comment. You might consider the tone of your message, although not outright hostile it doesn't come across as giving any consideration to the idea that mistakes happen. In terms of undoing another editors comments/edits, you've done exactly the same to me and removed the edit I was trying to make in restoring the accidentally dropped comments. i.e. where you restore the comment I was moving as being left in the middle of the other DRV between one editors comment and my response to it, whilst simultaneously removing the additional comment I had left on the matter. I'll fix it again. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing (Again)
Please stop pinging individual people to AfD discussions you are participating in, as you have done here. This is the second time I've warned you for this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know anything about this encyclopedia, you would know that DGG is someone who many turn to for advice, that he always acts neutrally with discretion. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  06:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this editor have any connection to this case at all? I think it's fine for you to seek out advise from an experienced editor on their talk page, but pinging a specific editor to participate in an AfD is very questionable, and it warrants an explanation. Nblund (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Best for all involved to just ignore the Gamergate SPA. WP:NOTHERE in spades. 107.107.60.205 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

GlobeNewswire News Room is a press release
See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique. Also see here. There was also original research in the article. See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique. Also see here. There was also duplicate information about insurance companies. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary needs to be left. Doing it twice against consensus won't work. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger of time slip and time loop into time travel in fiction
Hi! Following the discussion you initiated about the merge of time slip and time loop into time travel in fiction, there appears to be weak consensus towards merge. Two support, one oppose, and one neutral. As you can see, both sides support and oppose rather weakly, and since you reverted the previous mergers, I would like you to agree to the re-mergers as the consensus. If you disagree I see no point in merging and the articles will remain split until a better consensus is reached. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, just giving you a heads up PeterTheFourth is here because of personal reasons he or she may be an SPA, see this Articles for deletion/NUCCA this person has been stalking me due to this discussion Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  23:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can safely ignore their opinion (no offense, PeterTheFourth, if your opinions are genuine; just for the purpose of this discussion they're not). There is still consensus that the sections can be merged, and even though they're notable, they can be part of a longer article and spun-off once they're long enough themselves. It would be very helpful to know that even if you oppose, you're willing to tolerate this new consensus. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BrightRoundCircle do you mind if we wait for erik's opinion he has done a lot of work on WP:FILM? If he thinks a merge is better go for it. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexander DiPersia
Done, as you requested. User:Valoem/Alexander DiPersia. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doris Bither case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Kudos for the work you've done on FREAKAZOiD and over at DRV. Somehow I didn't even know the DRV was taking place when it did.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I wouldn't submit gaming related articles through AfC, most people don't understand WP:GNG and what a permissible start article looks like. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Valoem/Sol Forman


Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. GABgab 19:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

LOGIC (electronic cigarette)
Propylene glycol is considered to be safe by the FDA for use in food, health and cosmetic products.[3][4][unreliable medical source?] There ae two issues. It is a MEDRS violation and off-topic. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The e-cigarette currently holds a 20% market share in U.S. convenience stores.[citation needed] Do you know which citation verifies the claim? QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal, that source. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  03:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, I added a short citation for the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This source has links to other full articles on specific brands such as Cigirex. The PC magazine news articles could be used to expand current articles and created new articles. Or if some brands are not notable then a new page could be created called a "List of electronic cigarette brands". I cannot find an article on Halo. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, it would be nice to see more brands, I believe many more are notable, I started stubs on the brand I see in most US convenience stores. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time. I suggest you can start a draft in userspace and I can expand it a bit. I would focus on article content and don't spend time formatting the refs. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The list of e-cig brands is now in mainspace. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks great, I think it should be in chart form, but great start! <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  15:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Restore of redirect
Take any recreation of diversified technique to the discussion page at chiropractic techniques. It was deemed not to be worthy of an article, and the sources that have since expanded it are not WP:MEDRS-compatible. If you have any new information to bring to the discussion the issue may be considered, however just smacking in some new low quality sources is not enough. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 15:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to stop there is consensus through editing and prior discussion favored split when article is expanded. You can start a new discussion if you like.<font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CFCF is incorrect about when policy for sourcing is applied. There is no requirement for MEDRS sourcing unless one is making a medical claim in the article. To state that a technique is effective would require MEDRS; to state that it is common, taught, used, and popular only requires sources consistent with WP:RS.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to override consensus. There was a previous discussion for the Diversified technique page. See Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 50. It is way too short for a split. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Ahmad Khan Rahami shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Diffs:


 * 1 (Revision as of 14:00, 19 September 2016)
 * 2 (Revision as of 14:10, 19 September 2016)
 * 3 (Revision as of 14:22, 19 September 2016)
 * 4 (Revision as of 16:04, 19 September 2016)

Please keep WP:CALM here, even if you think you are right this should be discussed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87, buddy its 3 reverts not 4, number 3 is not a revert. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  19:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter as that isn't the main issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant now that he is captured, but I hope do you understand the importance of having an article on him while he is at large and receiving continual coverage. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  19:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not make a draft article? The more information that is complied about the person, the better it will be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that other editors will add information about the suspect as it comes forward, and add it to the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
Just a (friendly) heads up that you're approaching the 3RR limit for Ahmad Khan Rahami. Neutralitytalk 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Caesar Entertainment Corporation
The 2015 Financial Data is correct. The 2015 net income is higher than revenue. It is OK. Sources: Google Finance and Yahoo Finance. Cgx8253.
 * This can't be right, net income cannot be higher than total revenue. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  01:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Gains from the sale of Alibaba show in net income, but are not revenue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack in Final Draft edit summary
Please do not attack other editors, like you did in this edit summary:. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * FuriouslySerene, as I said on the talk page, that was an error as I thought an IP added the tag as vandalism, then I saw it was an established editor, my apologies. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  14:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I don't think it matters if the edit was done by an IP editor or an experienced admin, that kind of hostility isn't helpful. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Valoem/List of auteurs
User:Valoem/List of auteurs, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/List of auteurs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/List of auteurs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.


 * Hi, I'm the editor who nominated that page for deletion and I want to apologize for not leaving a note on your talk page. I should have done that when creating the nomination, and I didn't. I incorrectly assumed that since it hadn't been touched for several years that you were probably inactive, and I should have checked. My apologies and I hope no hard feelings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Valoem/Sol Forman


Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &mdash; O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  18:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Questionable AFD Close
I don't think this was a very good close. I don't think your close matches the sentiments of what the participants were saying. Your statement sounds much more like a participant yourself, rather than an unbiased closer, especially considering how much you edit in the competitive gaming subject area. I figured I'd give you the chance to reconsider before I open up a deletion review. Let me know. Sergecross73  msg me  01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73 I would be more than happy to reopen it as I maybe involved, but before I do I would like to note that the original article was titled AmazHS which is not his common name as a result Coffee's nomination would be due to sourcing issues, however when searching Amaz hearthstone these results, for example this source says he is one of the most popular steamers on Twitch. He has second most views for Hearthstone behind Kripparrian, he passes GNG with flying colors, the sources provided are independent. It will not be deleted, if you feel there is a strong chance it will be deleted it would be more than happy to reopen it. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem   talk  <font color="Green">contrib  01:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if you reopen it. Thank you for reconsidering. Sergecross73   msg me  01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  02:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

, I understand you have the right to question this close due to my involvement in related articles, but this was subject where I believed had no chance of deletion after my input. Amaz is among the most watched figures in eSports with multiple consulting positions. I was hoping to directly improve the article, but I hope you understand my original close was an attempt to save time and directly improve the article. Right now I believe editors are not spending the proper time and dedication in source finding thus are too quick to cast vote without proper research. As a result articles which should not be deleted are. One way to combat this is to provide an overwhelming amount of sources to disprove GNG arguments, this of course places a tremendously unbalanced pressure on those fighting for inclusion. I hope in the future it will be you who provides theses sources, initial glimpses of articles under deletion can often be misleading. So in the end the discussion was closed the same way, while you have the right to question the close, I believe, in the end it was not questionable, but correct. I do appreciate you changing your vote. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  17:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping it now, but as far as your actual close was at that point and time, no, it was not an appropriate close. It did not well represent the discussion at that time. The worst part was that specifically cited Hahnchen as your reason, who provided probably the weakest collection of sources - an interview and a tabloid. Closing it as keep right now is fine when you look at the sources present now, from you and Cunard, but a week ago, your decision was far more appropriate as a participant than a closer. Rather than lecture me on source hunting, I think you need some time to reflect on when it's right to participate or close AFD discussions. Also, in the future, please don't forget to mark it as a (non-admin closure) . Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  17:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point, I believed at the time that source provided by hahnchen and even more so Prisencolin passed GNG, after you questioned my close I reopened it and provided undisputed sources which led to this keep. In the future you should be equally capable to find these sources yourself. Your initial delete vote was due to lack of research. This is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Yes I often forget to put NAC but is isn't really too relevant as my judgment is no worse than that of an administrator. I certainly don't appreciate your undertones that your judgment is any better than mine. Any response other than an apology is simply unbecoming. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi
There are several synonyms for the condition of involuntary celibacy. For example, blue-baller, AFC (average fustrated chump), chode, incel, thirsties, omega, undateable (or undatable), permavirgin, love-shy; see here. A topic that can produce a dozen keywords should usually elicit a wikipedia entry; but alas not the case here. Alternatively, the topic of involuntary celibacy could be incorporated into a brand new article title such as "sexlessness", "sexual inactivity" or as Catherine Hakim calls it "sexual deficit". What do you think? 92.19.183.101 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. I believe that involuntary celibacy is the notable correct term. However if your interested in writing a sourced article on sexlessness or sexual inactivity both of which are separate from involuntary celibacy. I would 100% support it. Right now sexlessness is improperly redirected to asexuality which not even close to the same thing. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  13:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sexlessness used to be an article. Either it can be revived, or the old content moved to "sexual inactivity" with attribution. And then maybe an "incel" or "love-shyness" subsection? Not sure... 92.19.183.101 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a good idea for an article. The article that I just re-redirected was a combination of material on sexual abstinence, celibacy, chastity and sexless marriage, with a small mention of asexuality. It is clearly an unnecessary WP:Content fork and was only created to get around the fact that editors have repeatedly objected to the involuntary celibacy material that Valoem has repeatedly tried to add to Wikipedia. And since this is happening yet again, I will be pinging editors at Talk:Sexlessness about this matter. Furthermore, the IP redirected the Sexless marriage article to the Sexlessness page, when "sexless marriage" is a WP:Notable topic. I reverted that redirect too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why IP redirected sexless marriage, I still disagree that sexlessness means asexuality. A quick search on google scholar here shows sources such as:


 * No sex please, we are finite state machines: On the melancholy sexlessness of the video game
 * Sexlessness among married Chinese adults in Hong Kong: Prevalence and associated factors
 * Geriatric sexual conformity: Assessment and intervention
 * Sexual expression of the elderly in nursing homes


 * None these source suggest asexuality as the proper target. I saw the original version, and I do indeed see a cohesive topic. What is more shocking is a standard Google search yields not one result for asexuality, I see this as a clear indication that is not the term they are looking for. If anything sexless marriage is a better redirect. Regardless, the original version should go through AfD. Just pointing that out to you. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  14:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)