User talk:Waggie/Archives/2019/October

Undid revision 919650618 by 101.15.146.169
Thank you for your comment, and we should learn to improve the post.

The post accumulated years of work from different persons, would you please kindly undo your(or letting us undo) large deletion and allow us more time to improve the post's citation?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.52.126.181 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there 27.52.126.181, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia policy requires that BLP information be sourced, if challenged. The information that I removed was highly promotional, and completely unsourced, so I am challenging it. Policy requires that it now be properly sourced to reliable, independent sources before it can be added again to the article. Please feel free to review the relevant policies at WP:BLP and WP:RS Waggie (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
I noticed that you tagged Ned Ambler with prod blp for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:DTTR, it's considered rude. Your concerns are noted, thank you. Waggie (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I apologize for not giving better context in my report, that would certainly have helped matters. I am aware of the information you point out, but I also am aware of this edit over on metawiki, which does signal a strong intention to edit here on en-wiki under that shared username. Thus, I thought it worthy of a report. Act as you see fit. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When reviewing these reports admins usually will check edits, deleted edits, and the filter log. That's all we really act on for WP:ORGNAME issues, edits to other sites aren't generally considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on UAA, it's your choice. I'm not telling you how to use your tools. :) I do stand by my report, but definitely understand your processes and perspective. Thank you for your time. Waggie (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)