User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 9

How can I vandalize my own userspace?

Why have you deleted my personal material from my user page? Robert Towers (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC) You have deleted my personal study material. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your pages were tagged as inappropriate because you kept sticking them in categories meant for encyclopedia articles only. Probably not intentionally, because it looks like you were putting templates and navboxes into them, but still. Not appropriate.

On top of that, Wikipedia is not a hosting space for personal notes. The userspace is meant for collecting things useful to collaboration on writing the encyclopedia. There's more leeway given for personal stuff if you happen to be an active contributor, but looking at your contribs history for the last few years indicates that you've barely ever made any edits to mainspace. Your notes don't appear to be drafts for an encyclopedia article, they're just (as you admit) personal notes. They don't have any place here on Wikipedia, and that's why they were deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

They were my notes for Wikipedia articLes I am working on! If it did not appear that way to you, that is because they are still in an early stage of development. And as far as my contribution history, I have made plenty of helpful corrections over the past few years. Robert Towers (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What article? Because your message at User_talk:RHaworth specifically identifies them as "personal study notes". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, study notes for articles I am working on relating to linguistics, biochemistry and neuroscience.I had copied contents of articles I have found to be excessively verbose or otherwise poorly written so that I could edit them. I did not realize that doing this would include my page in the category.Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Robert Towers (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What articles? Because again your replies here and your replies at RHaworth's talk page are inconsistent. There you say you are gathering notes to create a new article, here you say you were copying pages into you userspace to edit (which, by the way, don't do that, because it wonks up the edit history when you do copy and pastes in and out of articles). So which is it? And which articles? At this point, we have no reason to restore your pages, because you haven't indicated where they might be useful to building Wikipedia. If you clarify what you're doing and for which article, we might understand what you're doing better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, articles dealing with their respective subjects. I don't understand the confusion. I hadn't decided whether to incorporate my work into existing articles or if it would be enough to constitute an entry of its own because I was still in the middle of it and won't know until it is developed further. Robert Towers (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is and contribute to some mainspace articles on the topic, then. Create a draft article on your intended topic and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Anything to show that you are participating in building Wikipedia and not just using it as a webhost for enormous reserves of personal notes. I'm not trying to be combative, but it's hard to believe that you're here to contribute to WP on the topic you're collecting personal study notes about when you have less than 50 mainspace contributions over 6 years, and almost all of the ones you do have are minor typo fixes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How am I supposed to do that when all my drafts have been deleted? The only thing I've done wrong is mistakenly copy over category links. Now I know not to do that. I must be given the freedom to develop my contributions at my own pace without being harassed. The proper way to deal with this situation should have been to send me a message or to simply remove them from the categories... anything but delete them without any warning. Doesn't it make sense that I would get upset and confused by that? Robert Towers (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, you could indicate specifically which articles you were intending to edit or create, but you refuse to do that and I can't for the life of me understand why. I don't get it. If you would just communicate what you are doing (and I mean actually communicate, not just saying "they're notes for a future article on the topic" and refusing to elaborate further), we would understand what is going on. We could refer you to helpful WikiProjects, point you to useful existing articles to check, and otherwise assist you in the building of encyclopedic content.

But you continually refuse to say what you are trying to accomplish with these enormous swaths of content copied into your userspace. As a result, because you won't explain what encyclopedic purpose they have, we are forced to view them as violations of our policy on hosting of personal content, because we don't know what they are and you won't say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to agree with Robert. Delete the inappropriate category tags, sure, but why remove the whole page? DS (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore them if you want, but from what I saw, they're a massive violation of WP:WEBHOST, so I'm not going to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I never refused anything, I am just frustrated because this seems like the digital equivalent of me writing a paper and having people come up to me, rip it out of my hand and setting it on fire and then asking me what I was working on and demanding that I explain myself. From what I remember there were several things. Most recently was a summary of the evolution of programming language paradigms. There is my cross-linguistic phonology chart which is quite useful to speakers of Hebrew and Arabic, I just haven't figured out where to put it. Then I had an article on neurotransmitters I was working on and an article on the origin of the 118 chemical elements. If you look at the deleted material again, you'll see that it's all there but in a very rough state. Robert Towers (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you willing to make a show of good faith and submit some of the stuff you've been working on to mainspace? Something to show that you really are here to develop the encyclopedia as you say. Like, show your phonology chart to WikiProject Linguistics and see if they can find a place for it. Or make your programming article into a draft and submit it at articles for creation for critique. Anything else you can think of, at all, to show you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just to stash stuff in userspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be glad to. If my intention were to stash personal stuff, I am well aware of the multitude of other places I could do so. I even have my own MediaWiki on a server that I pay for, with plenty of space for non-encyclopedic content. How shall I move forward with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me know what topic or article you want to go forward with, I'll undelete the page that stuff was on, you put it wherever it's going to go (whether that's AfC or a WikiProject or directly into an article), then drop me a link to wherever it went, here. I'll have a look, and assuming it's actually some kind of show of participation (literally whatever as long as you don't stuff it on a page that's been inactive for four years or something), I'll undelete the rest of your stuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 13 March× 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I'd like to do the programming article then, I think it was the page most recently created. Thanks. Robert Towers (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The admittedly delightfully-named User:Robert_Towers/Eat_my_faaaaarrrrt/Ploppy is back up and running. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to go with the tech naming tradition of using fruits or candies (Apple, Raspberry Pi, Lollipop, etc.) but all the appetizing ones were taken. Great, I'll get to work on this and update here when it's been submitted. Robert Towers (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AutoShade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3D Studio. 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) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Good morning,

I was notify that you have deleted my biography based on not "being an important/ significant figure". I respect your opinion, however my credentials-- although not extensive-- are very much qualified to have a Wikipedia page. Being that your from Canada I don't expect you to know who I am. I would truly appreciate you bringing my page back. It's truly saddens me the world has people who judge others based off not having enough experience or not. Best, Anthony Lamar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.123.101 (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, don't write an article about yourself. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, and it should be self-evident that there's no way to be neutral about yourself. Second, no, your "credentials" fall very short of our general notability requirements. Wikipedia requires topics to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I can't even find you on Google in the most trivial mention, let alone in any reliable sources (and I tried under three different versions of your name, with and without "model" and "fraction" attached, just to be absolutely sure that I didn't miss anything). The mere fact of auditioning for a TV series that thousands of people audition for doesn't make you notable in an encyclopedic sense. Being lead singer of a band that is so non-notable I can't even find a trivial mention of them on a Google search is not a "credential" for notability in an encyclopedic sense.

I'm not harshing on your worth as a person. The vast majority of people don't deserve Wikipedia articles; it doesn't mean anyone is judging them personally. I sincerely hope your career takes off and you do become notable in the encyclopedic sense. But as you stand right you, you're not, so, like most people on Earth, you don't get a Wikipedia article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Vivid dream

Thanks for closing the vivid dream AfD discussion once consensus was reached. It would probably have been more appropriate to link directly to lucid dream instead of indirectly via lucid dreaming, which had not been discussed. --pmj (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah fuck that was just a brain fart sorry. I will fix it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi, I don't know if you have OTRS access, but in ticket #2017031410005468 there's a user who asks to have a page restored because s/he does'nt have a backup of the original text. S/he does not contest the deletion as such. Would you mind restoring the page Draft::Navigers (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Navigers) and sending a copy of the text to my wiki email address, asav.wiki@gmail.com ? I'll relay the text to the user through our OTRS system. Cheers! Asav | Talk 00:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikitext is sent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Band of Brothers

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the rule on subtitles. (Too many rules? <grin>) Seems to me that either the book or the TV series can have an unmodified title but I don't have a clue which one. Without looking, there are probably more pages linking to the TV page. Thanks again.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I actually had to do some googling before I found that page too :) Technically neither one has an unmodified title. Because Band of Brothers can refer to so many things, "Band of Brothers" unmodified is a disambiguation page that points the way to all the different uses with their bracketed titles. Which I've just fixed, come to think of it, to link to your article properly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

From one dude to another...

...there ain't no such thing as a "gender pay gap", "bro". 68.232.71.82 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Avonaco

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Avonaco, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avonaco, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francisco de Avellaneda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juan Hidalgo. 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) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy etc.

Hello, I spotted your post at User talk:Enaya Afzal in respect of speedy declinatures. I had noticed several similar incidents and was beginning to wonder where to take my concerns. It's not only speedy but some 'over-enthusiastic' and inaccurate tagging also. The apparent lack of response is also a concern. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You could also bring it up at the incidents noticeboard so that other admins are aware of it going on. I'm going to keep an eye on their contribs and may drop a warning block on them if they keep this up. Doing a little digging, it also looks like they've made numerous requests for rollback and autopatrolled permissions and have been consistently denied, so it feels like we're not alone in our concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Message

I want to working in wikipedia.And want give very contribution.But i don't know every rule of wikipedia.Because my english is poor.I try learn to wikipedia rule.Thanks for giving me caution.Thank You— Enaya Afzal Siddiqui  ^talk 04:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you should slow down on tagging stuff for deletion, and learn the policies before you start up again. And I'm glad you want to work with Wikipedia but I'm not sure it's the best place to try to improve your English. Usually it would be better to work on your English first, and then contribute. In particular, it might make it hard to understand and learn the policies we use here, which is essential if you want to be a Wikipedia editor. Is it possible you might be better able to contribute to the Wikipedia of your native language? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Songs from the Heart Tour

Thanks for handling the speedy - the same author has recreated this page 3 times - instead of creating a redirect (which we've tried in the past) could you place page creation protection on the page instead? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I can just protect the redirect, unless there's something I'm missing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That works too, hadn't thoughts of that. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. This way it never shows up as an attractive "plz-articleize-me" redlink if it gets linked elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Marquinhos move

You have moved Marquinhos (footballer, born August 1982) to Marquinhos (footballer). There are at least 20 footballers on Wikipedia called Marquinhos including three born in 1982, hence the disambiguation by month and year. This footballer is less notable than some others of the same name, so his occupying the "(footballer)" disambiguator is unwarranted. Brazilian footballers are generally known by a single given name or nickname and full names are rarely used so the form of disambiguating by occupation then birth month/year is commonly used on the English Wikipedia. Could I ask that the page be moved back? Hack (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Aaah shit sorry. I checked at Marquinhos (footballer) and there was no one so I assumed there weren't any others and thus the disambig seemed unnecessary. My bad. I'll move it back, and I'm going to make (footballer) a redirect to the disambig page so no one else makes my mistake. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Struway2 took care of unfucking my mistake for me, down to making the (footballer) redirect. Now I feel extra dumb :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to come across an admin who's happy to admit they made a mistake. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

List of celebrities involved with TNA Wrestling

Please explain your close on this AfD (and all AfDs, for that matter). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My close reasoning is that the consensus tended towards deletion, therefore I closed the discussion as delete. A detailed rationale is not required for every AfD close. I typically opt to provide one when the discussion has been somewhat lengthy and requires a summary, but in this case I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, a more detailed rationale was needed here. There are reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject, and the Delete votes were a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:LISTCRUFT. In such a situation, it seems obvious that the article should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Moe Epsilon provided strong reasoning as to why celebrity involvement in TNA differed from celebrity involvement in WrestleMania; it was developmentally essential to making WrestleMania what it was, but the same argument could not be made for TNA. If you have concerns, by all means post at deletion review, but I think my close was not unreasonable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion: Pazo de Turbisquedo

Greetings from Spain. You've elected to delete my article. Within minutes of this initiative, I replied with the reasons I do not consider this action to be warrented -- namely, the deleted page contains factual historical information that is unavailable from any other source concerning a catalogued historical property and local landmark. Why wpould you regard same as inappropriate for Wiki readers? William Stokel William stokel (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It basically reads like an ad for the hotel, which is not permitted. If you want, I will undelete it and move it to the Draft space for you to submit at articles for creation. The people at AFC can review the article and provide constructive criticism as to how the article can be improved in a way that fits in with what we're looking for in an encyclopedia article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

why are you so mean?

why are you so mean? (unsigned comment by 72.204.185.39)

I mean, if you could tell me what I did that was so mean, I could fix it or apologize. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

EJIDA Studios deletion

can you please give me back the article.Superpilot123456 (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I will userfy it at User:Superpilot123456/EJIDA Studios. You should improve it with references that indicate encyclopedic notability per our policies, and submit it at articles for creation for review when you are finished. It has already been deleted in mainspace three times, so do not put it back into the mainspace until then, or I will delete the page and protect it against further recreation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding page deletion of Simpl

Hi PMC. My name's Roshan, and I work at Simpl. A few months back, a freelancer had offered to create a a page for our company. I had written the page myself and cited articles from respected Indian newspapers as well. However, I can now see that the freelancer has been banned for being involved in mass marketing campaigns, and I just saw that our page was taken down two months ago. I guess going via an unverified freelancer was a bad idea. The freelancer in question has gone AWOL on me in any case. So if it's possible, could you help me in two ways?

1. I understand that the primary concern is that my account is a reincarnation of the banned user. Is there any way for me to prove otherwise? Perhaps via a confirmation to my official company email id? 2. Like I mentioned earlier, I had written the page myself to be unbiased, and backed up by references as much as possible. If there's anything that still comes across as "marketing-ish", could you point it out to me? I can remove it.

If I can address both the above points, I'm hoping you can reinstate the page?

Thanks!

p.s. I'm not really well-versed in the protocols/conventions of Wikipedia. Sorry if I come across as a newbie.

Roshan Roshansam (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the open ticket resource system might be able to help with proving your identity, although I'm not 100% sure on that, or even if you need to at this point. Send them an email though, it can't hurt.

Aside from that, my main concern in most things is encyclopedic notability. I think, given my relative lack of expertise on the reliability of the sources cited in the article, if I restore the page, I will put it to a full community discussion at articles for deletion. That way, the community at large can weigh in and make arguments about whether or not the page should be kept or deleted. You will also be able to participate in this discussion, although you must identify yourself as an employee and I personally recommend you keep your involvement to a minimum (I've seen debates where involved editors return again and again to angrily debate every point that people raise, and it never goes well).

If you're comfortable with that, and you think you can be civil and abide by whatever the community decides, I'll go ahead and get restoring. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I can imagine how that can get unpleasant fast. But if there's no other alternative, let me give it a shot. Is it usually a mere keep it or delete it sort of debate? Or will changes also be suggested so that the page complies with the guidelines etc.? As long as it's constructive overall, I'm alright with it. And yes, I will identify myself as an employee and keep my involvement to a minimum. Roshansam (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it's meant to be constructive in the encyclopedic sense - the overall goal is to determine whether or not a particular topic is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. So the discussion will usually centre around notability and other policy-based arguments, and whether or not the sources that can be found on the topic demonstrate enough notability to meet our guidelines. Some articles do get improved during deletion debates (see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award for examples where people made incredibly high-quality articles out of deletion candidates), but not always. I think in your article's case there will be significant concerns because of the originator of the content, which is another reason I'm reluctant to just restore and be done with it.

If you want a sense of how an AFD works, click the link I posted and go look at some of the debates from this week. That will give you a much clearer picture of the process than any description I could give. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpl (company) - debate is here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Yea, while I completely understand the concerns surrounding the originator of the content - that isn't something I can do much to defend/prove otherwise. As in, I will just be claiming deniability, which isn't exactly much of a defence, so I don't see much hope there. Would it be better if I just recreate the article from my account and post it myself? That way, at least the major objection is addressed? And I'm better placed to edit as required as well. Roshansam (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, like I said, you could email the open ticket resource people and they can tell you what you'd need to do to confirm your identity to them. At this point I've already gone and revived the article and made the AfD debate, so no point going back now. Better to let the community weigh in and have a discussion. If they decide it's notable but needs to be rewritten, you can step up and help with that. If they decide it should have stayed deleted, then it'll get deleted again and it shouldn't be remade by anyone until it becomes more notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I've just emailed them. Will keep an eye on the AfD debate as well. Thanks a ton for your patience with all this. Much appreciated! 219.91.202.46 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battery Howe-Wagner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corps of Engineers and Henry Abbott. 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) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fellow deorphaner

Hi Premeditated Chaos.

Re someone else slogging around in the crusty depths of the orphanage: Yep, it is surprising what is lying around. Sometimes substantial articles and well referenced but still an orphan. Sometimes unreferenced crud untouched for years, even by bots sometimes.

Do you have any tricks for finding references for some of the older ones? I must admit to being on the inclusionist end of the spectrum, but only if the article has encyclopedic value. I am not into personality based articles. Some stub orphans look as though they should have significant notability but finding material on-line seems to be next to impossible.

Also do you have any tricks for bulk deorphaning related/very similar articles quickly?

Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I like to slog around in Google books and see what I can find. You don't always get much, but anything helps. If there's an article in another language I also like to check that (not that I'm bilingual, but a verrrrrry careful reading of a machine translation can squeak you by sometimes, especially if it's just a reference you need). Once in awhile I post to related WikiProjects, but those vary on activeness. Once or twice I've gone so far as to get a book from the library when it's not available online, but that's pretty rare.

I'm a bit of a mergist/deletionist so if I can't find much I'll often merge & redirect to a parent article, and if that won't work, I tag for deletion. Sometimes that can result in improvement too, ironically. I've seen people get really annoyed with a delete tag and go and find all kinds of references I didn't know about, which is fun. Like you though, I also usually ignore articles whose topic is people - I just don't know enough about historical figures and minor artists to determine who is encyclopedically notable. My feeling is we don't really need a lot of the articles we have on super-minor historical figures, but I'm not dedicated enough to actually go argue for deletion.

Lists are the best for bulk de-orphaning! I made a list of Genoese towers in Corsica and de-orphaned like, thirty articles all at once. Plus I attracted the attention of a guy who knows more about the towers than I do and who's going to go through and improve the articles and weed out duplicates. It might also be helpful to collect lists of related articles on a sub-page and then post them to a related WikiProject? I did that for genes and biochemistry stuff, and while it hasn't made much progress yet, at least they're all together for other people to look at. I've been thinking about doing the same for some other recurring orphan topics, like Romanian Major-Generals of WW2 (seriously) and Ancient Christian Heresies.

What about you? Any strategies to share? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC.

I have too sometimes used list type approaches, either as standalone lists, or as an embedded list in a parent article. I sometimes find that this also usefully collates non orphans of the same type together at the same time. I do like to if I can, find a primary contextual inline way of linking though. What does surprise me is that sometimes there are perfectly good inline incontext referals to an orphan article available but no on has ever simply put in the wikilink.

Sometimes too I up merge and redirect. This quite often gets a response, and can result in some one else doing a much better job than I had done.

I must admit I was more asking if there was a quick way of detagging the deorphaned articles, ie one sets up a list with a dozen or so new links in it, then one has to go and mindlessly edit the dozen articles to remove the orphan template in them. Is there a way of doing this very quickly instead of going to each one in turn and editing it?

Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I think AutoWikiBrowser or the Javascript Wiki Browser would probably work. Insert a list of articles to de-tag, then run the thing? I've never used AWB and I've only barely touched the JavaScript one so I'm not sure exactly how user-friendly they are for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. I will give it a go. You seem more efficient at this than I am . . without the tool ! Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My secret is that I work nights and frequently have nothing better to do at work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting of the Wikipedia Article

Respected Sir/madam, you recently deleted the wikipedia article on "Siddhant Vats" on March 28th on grounds of lack of references. As to best of my knowledge Mr. Vats had articles references from leading publications such as Times of India, London Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Tech Crunch, Daily Mail and other leading international publications. I think there is a mistake and I would like you to review it for republishing.

Thank you. (unsigned comment by Ronks123)

Having looked at the article, I respectfully disagree. Notability guidelines on Wikipedia require sustained, in-depth coverage of a topic. Mr. Vats seems to have become briefly of media interest in early 2013 for starting a company intending to release a smartwatch, but there is no further coverage of him or his company that I can see. Even his company's website is defunct. I don't think there is a basis for maintaining his article on Wikipedia. You are free to ask for a neutral second opinion at requests for undeletion, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting of the article on co-composting

I have the article on co-composting which was started by User:GraFel on my watchlist. A speedy deletion tag was placed on it due to alleged copyright violations and before I had a chance to react it was already deleted. The content was taken from a website that has an open access licence, see here: http://ecompendium.sswm.info/copyright . Therefore, there was no reason to have it deleted, even though I agree with you that writing in our own words is normally better than copying and pasting from elsewhere.I didn't have a chance to work on it together with User:GraFel. EMsmile (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

it's fine with me. we will just need more time to finalise some additions on articles. The co-compost article was just started for a personal reminder, but was postponed due to more important tasks. I will follow up as soon as there is more time User:GraFel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Felix (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to work on the article in draftspace or in a personal sandbox if it's not quite "finished"? Then once it's more or less in a "complete" state you can move it to the mainspace. This way it won't start getting tagged for deletion while you're polishing it up and adding references and stuff. Next time though you need to make a clear attribution for the copied content (right in the edit summary is good, something like "incorporating content from Website Name as per their CC license Linked Here") so it's license compliant on both ends. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

EJIDA Studios draft

Hi Premeditated Chaos,

I have added some new sources from reliable websites like cnn, standaard and more. Draft:EJIDA studios

Obvious sock is now obviously blocked. Stop trying to recreate the article! You have been shown time and time again that the studio is not notable by Wikipedia standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Great_/r/osugame_Defense

Hello,

It was newsworthy, and I contend that it should be allowed to exist:

http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-place-april-fools-experiment-creates-pixel-art-final-version-2017-4

"Drama erupted as the players of popular online game "osu!" took over a chunk of key real estate, near the bottom of the screen, briefly turning the canvas into an "osu!"-versus-everybody-else war. That battle was visualized by a Reddit user as a 3D map of where tiles were placed"

http://www.m2now.co.nz/r-place-subreddit-pixel-art/

"OSU! is another faction which has caused major grievances. Centered around an anime rhythm game community It’s a large pink logo, that a fair proportion of community members would like to remove. A time lapse has shown various attacks and waves of support. It’s amazing to see when you consider each one of those dots represents five minutes of human time."

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/redditors-collaborate-to-create-the-iconic-picture.html

"One subreddit, OSU Game, fought like hell to keep their logo from being written over in the corner. Here is the three-dimensional map of stacking changes, posted by Redditor /u/lucas7yoshi:"

More is likely to be written about it now that it has finished. I believe that it will prove to be documented as an important event.

Thank you for your time, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.211.232 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

One tiny faction war in one mildly-amusing April Fool's game is not an important event in the encyclopedic sense. Maybe there's a case to be made about Reddit Place in general, but certainly not for a standalone article about one content dispute within it. Feel free to create a draft about Reddit Place in general and submit to articles for creation for assessment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"It was newsworthy" - well, maybe. WP is written for the general reader; was there significant coverage in general news media? More important, will there be discussion of it after it's no longer yesterday's news? From Wikipedia is not a newspaper: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." "Enduring notability" is not something that is established by a few breathless blog reports the day after the event. Let's see if people are still writing about this visual equivalent of a Usenet flame war in a month. Jeh (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tsuru PaaS

Hi Premeditated Chaos. I really want to know why tsuru paas keep being removed when some competitors have less references, less stars in github (do you realize how hard is to have more than 2k stars in github without investing lots of resources in marketing? - this "only" should give enough notability for our product) and we keeping putting external references but nothing seems to be enough for you. We have a great product, we are working on how to spread it, and even with that concern, lots of companies are already using and loving it. We really believe the information should be free and open, that's why we work in an opensource product and why we would love to stay here, please help us to do right here. 15:23, 21 January 2017 Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs) deleted page Tsuru (PaaS) (Expired PROD, concern was: Notability questioned for over a year with no improvement. A single passing mention in Wired is as close as sourcing comes to WP:GNG notability standard.) Magnotorres (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My decision to delete the article was procedural; it was tagged for proposed deletion and no one contested it, so I deleted it once the one-week waiting period was up. Because there was no deletion discussion, I can restore it, but I will take it to Articles for Deletion for a full community discussion with regards to its notability. You are free to participate in the deletion debate (which I will link here), but remember to disclose your affiliation with the company and stay chill. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuru (PaaS). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lurgrotte

Hi mate, noticed your DYK nomination on Lurgrotte cave and your comments about lack of explicit citation. I just now found out this link Showcaves.com which has a mention about the flash flood. There are some differences in the number of explorers (6 instead of 7) and in date. Please see if you could use the link. Cheers. --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that link, it looks like it suggests there are two flash flood + trapped caver incidents. The page lists one with seven cavers in 1894, then lists one for 1896 with six cavers. Their entry for 1896 shows the same date that the other sources indicate for 1894.

• 1894 seven cavers trapped underground for a week by a flash flood.
• 1895 first guided tours.
• 29-APR-1896 six cave explorers were trapped inside the cave by a flood.

Based on that it seems like there's an error on that page, especially since all the sources I found say 1894, and none mention a second nearly-identical incident. Like I said in my nom, I do have a citation for my info, it just doesn't have a GBooks preview. I appreciate the second pair of eyes though :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of Gray Routes page

Hi PMC,

This is Vamshi and I am a student. I am new to wiki and this is the first article that I tried to publish. My user name is vamshidhar.18 . Link for the wiki article that you deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_Routes&action=edit&redlink=1

I follow news about upcoming startups in the media as a hobby and I recently came across this company called "Gray Routes" which I found noteworthy. However, when I searched on Wikipedia, I realized that the company didnt have a page so I thought of creating one myself. I was not aware that there was already a page created earlier which got deleted due to not having sufficient references.

I wish to highlight the fact that in the last one year, the company gained very good coverage in the media with respect to its growth and expansion. I have mentioned notable references such as Bloomberg, The Silicon Review & TechCircle as well which posit this fact.

I request you to reconsider your decision of speedy deletion. However, if you feel that the information published is some kind of advertisement, do let me know so that I can re-edit the page.

I have gone through all the guidelines of Wikipedia and I am certain that the references which I have mentioned satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia's policies.

Below are references I found on Gray Routes

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=243554798 http://thesiliconreview.com/magazines/gray-routes-technology-enabling-location-analytics-to-resolve-the-age-old-problem-of-locations-for-enterprises/ http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2016/02/08/exclusive-gray-routes-raises-second-round-of-angel-funding/ http://thesiliconreview.com/magazines/10-fastest-growing-data-analytics-companies-2016-2/

Thanking you,

Awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamshidhar.18 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at requests for undeletion or deletion review. Because it was initially deleted at a deletion discussion, I am not comfortable with undeleting it without someone else reviewing the decision. Requests for undeletion may take it as a speedy delete, but if they refuse due to the previous deletion discussion, deletion review is your next stop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gray Routes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gray Routes. 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. Vamshidhar.18 (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Aysun Aliyeva

You have just deleted the page Aysun Aliyeva, which I had recreated. In the talk page, I had given the rationale why it should not have been deleted. Did you check it? Because, as I learned that when a player completed a full season in a top-level league, then the article should not be deleted necessarily. Appreciate your reply. CeeGee 10:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That league isn't on WikiProject:Football's list of fully-professional leagues, so she doesn't pass football player notability guidelines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove dead links to valid citations; use the Dead URL template instead

Please do not remove dead links & mark them as {{Citation needed}}; instead, one should mark them with {{Dead URL}} or make an effort to find them with one of the methods listed here. With little effort, I found an archived link, "A glance at the past" at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-03-11). Peaceray (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

About the original message that you removed

I am sorry that you found the {{uw-deadlink}}, a single-issue notice template used by Twinkle, to be an incredibly patronizing boilerplate "welcome to wikipedia" message. I have found that the template's link to Preventing and repairing dead links, part of the Citing sources content guideline, to be useful. I also tried to include helpful information in the optional message portion. I recently posted the same template with a similar message to another editor with more edits that either of us, & that editor basically responded, "oh, okay, fair enough". Is there something in my optional message that you found offensive or that I could have communicated better? Peaceray (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A template that starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia" is a pretty condescending thing to post at someone who's been here for any longer than a couple of months, never mind over a decade. Also, was there really a need to re-post the message, given that I clearly read and removed it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, because I suspected that you had reacted to the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit & I had no idea that you had read the rest of the message or simply removed it right away. I also added the addendum inquiring about the optional part of the message & wished to have some context around it. Peaceray (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I find templates to be an incredibly rude way of mentioning something to someone, especially if that person is a reasonably established editor (in other words, don't template the regulars). And especially if whatever it is you're highlighting is not some kind of ongoing behavior pattern. Three or four times, sure. But to do something not even all that wrong, one time, and receive a templated talk page message for my trouble that welcomes me to Wikipedia and shakes a finger at me like I've been a very naughty editor just raises my hackles right up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to the Don't template the regulars essay. While I am familiar with the pillars, principles, & many of the guidelines, I am unfamiliar with many of the essays. Peaceray (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti -Romeo squad deletion

Sir, Could you please move the Anti -Romeo squad in Uttar Pradeshfrom the deleted area to draft.My arguments in favour of it are:-

1. The article was incomplete as I had specified in a hidden message in the article.Also the Subject had many secondary source coverage.
2. The article can later become a sub article of a much bigger hypothetical article Executive policies of Up government under Yogi Adithyanath.It may not nessaryly be a part of Uttar pradesh police.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm not male :) Anyway. It seems like information on these squads might be better suited to a section in the Uttar Pradesh police article. There's a reasonable amount of coverage about these squads from the past month or so, but I'm not sure there's enough of a lasting impact from these guys yet for their own stand-alone article. Remember, Wikipedia isn't news, and we don't have to move as fast as a newspaper. I would recommend adding the information to Uttar Pradesh police (with sources), and then if it gets too long / the controversy has some significant or lasting effects, it can later be split off into its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok.Thanks!FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your remarks- article: Yehia Abugabal

Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philm7 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your input and remarks on the article entitled Yehia Abugabal. it has been modified and re uploaded.

Thanks. Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philm7 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Lurgrotte

On 18 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lurgrotte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1894, a flash flood trapped seven cave explorers in the Lurgrotte karst cave of Austria for ten days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lurgrotte. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lurgrotte), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bhangarh: The Last Episode deletion

Hi ma'am, humbly wants to pull your attention on why this article could be given a chance to live?

• as a new editor and a junior among you all senior guys I was told to follow the WP:5P in the welcome message. I have tried my best to adhere on it and to add more notable sources to meet the WP:GNG.
• Even in the discussion the people who are in support of deletion says that "IT POSSIBLE FAILS NOTABILITY". That means they were also not fully sure about the lack of notability.
• Voters were divided on the accuracy of the notability. Some finds the sources reliable and nominator and one more editor not. There were six sources and 3 of them were notable.
• The film is released only 20 days before and more notability could be available in future.
• At last I just want to say this is my first article and the first article is like your own baby. I request you to please give the article a chance with the "warning of notability" so that it can live and get a chance in future to survive. Amavaskiraat (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I agree with the arguments presented in the deletion discussion that the film does not fulfill the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NFILM at this time. At no point does anyone in that discussion say it "possibly" fails notability requirements. The participating editors are very clearly stating that it does fail the criteria. The participants were also very clear in explaining why the presented sources did not fulfill our requirements - those arguing that the sources are reliable are single-purpose accounts, whose opinions are usually not taken as seriously in discussions because they are not as familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It is possible that in the future, more critical discussion (reviews, film critiques, etc) will be written about it and it will become a notable film, but at this time it is not notable. If it does become notable later, an article can always be written at a later time.

I am sorry that your first article has been deleted, I know how it feels to have something you worked on get reverted or deleted. But please understand that it's not personal. No one is slighting you, or the film, or the people who worked on the film. Our intent here is to create an encyclopedia, and in order to make sure we aren't flooded with articles about everything under the sun, we need some criteria that tells us what we will write about. The film just doesn't meet those criteria at this time. I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)