User talk:Adam9007/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Reply restart (too many indentations)

Folks - let's keep calm about this. Your current talk is more what I would expect. Come to think of it I do sort of semi-remember making some splits. That would account for the missing history. I would reiterate, then, I was too naive to suspect that what I was working on was copied. Subsequently with more experience I learned how to spot probable copies and detected a few myself. I am sure that once you get into it you will find it was them that copied us and not vice versa. The people who do that are absolutely shameless. They can usually make some money off it, you know. I once saw a whole copyrighted book passed off as someone else's copyright. In indignation I thought I would express some indignation to the phony, but guess what? He was not allowing edits to his site. The site you suspected me of copying is not one of the better ones, in my opinion. I fear to say more. Much to my chagrin later I found that some phonies were getting into Wikipedia as administrators. I've been afraid that was the case now, but it looks like not. You aren't a suspect any more.

I don't need to copy anyone's anything. I'm an old man working in a field I've been studying for a long time just for the fun of it. There are few articles I could not improve if only I had the time! Tick tock. The activity you suspected me of is usually attributable to people in the young student category, although I had a friend once who did it through mistaken good intentions. He was discovered, his articles were removed., and he got off. Too bad, he was very skilled and he did regret it. Too late.

I don't know what you are going to do about the situation. You can't have blank articles. That's your problem. Sorry, but I am answering others calls for help. I got to finish something, I just can't keep jumping around. As far as the enemies are concerned, I am glad you understand that. Once you make an enemy of an administrator he is just as likely to spend the time he formerly spent of Wikipedia in trying to wreck it, which is not that hard to do. Then there are those with political or commercial axes to grind, not to mention ideological. The list is just endless. Well, in summary, I don't hate anyone here. You are just doing your job. Stand easy. I think you should go on doing it. If it is all right with you I think I will just get back to keeping the promises I have been making. If anything startling turns up let me know. This seems to be a tough call to make. Should you put it back or not? From my point of view, I would it just restore it. Your decision. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Botteville: Well, the stuff on that site appeared in December 2005, so it could well be a backwards copy (by the way, they are allowed to copy from Wikipedia, even for commercial purposes). If there was a split, there could still be licensing issues however. Adam9007 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Apparently they can copy us but we can't copy them. Who would want to anyway? If they are not resourceful enough to write on their own, they are not likely to have anything worth saying. They clutter up the Internet. In order to find something original you have to sift through these idiots. Well, that's the area you have chosen to work on. I'm trying to fix classics articles for the benefit of the poor, confused students. I taught school once. So, if I do not always reply, you can assume I read it, as the messaging system seems to work OK.Botteville (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sergio Esteban Vélez

Hi, can you please check the website of Sergio Esteban Velez to verify that most of the information stored there is false and that the links to external links are down or no longer exist. I do not do it of ill will but it is evident that this wikipedia page only makes propaganda in the name of a person that does not represent any person minimally prominent in Colombian art, literature or poetry and I speak with full knowledge of the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsebastian1501 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It survived AfD, so it can only be deleted by consensus at another AfD. It has also already been declined, so persisting in readding the tag is disruptive. I also don't speak Spanish, so can't read the sources to make a judgement, sorry :(. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Simply frustrating, I will also consider stopping using Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsebastian1501 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You should have taken your case to AfD. All of this could have been avoided. Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Might you consider...

...helping another user adjust to Wikipedia? He is not exactly new, but he only became active in the past couple of months and thinks of himself as a newbie. He falls on the spectrum and I think that is the cause of some of his recent problems interacting with other people and doing strange things that are interpreted as disruptive. You had different kinds of problems when you started here, but you got past them and have become a valuable and productive editor. So maybe you can offer some insights. He sounds like he would like to talk to somebody who has some of the same issues he does. If you want to check him out, take a look at my talk page. If you'd rather not get involved, that's fine; forget I asked and delete this note. I have not mentioned your name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I looked at your talk page and found no statement outright saying anyone's autistic, but if you're referring to who I think you are (not going to say who in case I'm wrong), I can see why you may think that. He has worded some things in such queer ways I'm not surprised there was confusion and misinterpretation even if I knew or suspected it wasn't what he meant. I did actually wonder for a few moments if English is his first language, but it seems otherwise just fine. Without knowing the full backstory of his editing tendencies, I cannot comment on his attitude and whatnot. I'm glad someone thinks I'm "a valuable and productive editor", because I'm not so sure of that myself. Advice on cheesing people off without even trying to (something I seem to be rather good at) is surely is the last thing he needs right now . Adam9007 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the person, and yes, he says he is autistic and OCD. And you are correct, English is not his first language. But if you'd rather not take on any advice role I can understand and that's fine. Go ahead and delete or archive this note. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Adam, I did want to thank you for how helpful you've been reverting that LTA who has a thing for my talk page. He's mostly just annoying, though can get threatening on occasion. Anyway, thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks. Speaking of LTA, what do you think of this? Could he be Caidin-Johnson? Adam9007 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

???

Was it necessary to tell ImmortalWizard the name of the template? The last thing I need is them using it at all. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: He asked what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate question, and he can see it on Twinkle anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Does he have Twinkle? (Also thanks for the ping.) ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he has Twinkle. Also, you said That template is on a need to know basis. As an autist, he might take that literally, and of course he really shouldn't. Adam9007 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Is he legitimately autistic? Also, they really shouldn't have twinkle at this stage in their editing career. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 02:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: He claims so on his user page, and here. Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
That may explain a bit. Thank you! :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: You might have noticed that MelanieN asked me above to speak to him about it (I'm an autist (More precisely, an aspie. I don't know what type of autism he has) too). I'm still not sure if I should... Adam9007 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
He at least claims in that diff to have the same condition as yourself. You do not have to speak to them about it if you do not want to. Many of my friends have high functioning autism, so that is the extent of my experiences there. However, you could post something in the morning about any frustrations you may have with dealing with other wikipedians, or you could just help me with the coaching process here. Whatever level works for you. They seem like they are well intentioned enough, but it is your call. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 02:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: But did he claim to have the same condition as me? He just said he's an editor with autism, which doesn't necessarily mean Asperger syndrome (although from what I know, high-functioning autism is very similar to Asperger syndrome). Anyway, I could post some of my frustrations, but I've probably had far too many to post them all. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yup, they linked to this: Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 04:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
And Matt, you don't need to refer to him as "they". He clearly identifies as male. (And I should apologize to you; I've been referring to you as "he" because of your first name, but I notice you don't explicitly identify a gender.) -- MelanieN (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks for tags at geoff law

reminded me I have a few recent BLPs I need to update - thanks again JarrahTree 10:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Hi Adam9007, Thank you so much for submit the protection! May I ask you some questions of using Wiki?:

1. After protection period, if Lester1231 or if he uses another ID of his to come back to change and add those slanders words again despite of the result from the talk-page, is this behavior considered a violation of Wiki's policy? If he comes back and changes it again, should I change it back to what it is now? 2. Due to the history that Lester1231 did many personal attacks to the main composer Roc Chen, I believe he is intentional to vandalism Roc's reputation and the wandering earth page. If we talk in the talk page, such slanders or rumors of "Roc's music is not original but copy" actually got more spread, which is exactly what he wants. Can you give me any suggestion on how to deal with this or you believe the talk-page is only way? Thank you again. Wraper11 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11: Thanks! 1. I think so; if he uses another account, then it's sockpuppetry, which is against the rules, and reverting it after the original account is blocked is a listed exception to the three revert rule. If he uses the same account, I'd wait pending the talk page decision. 2. I'm not sure. I'd say that the talk page is the only way because less obvious vandalism and BLP violations aren't exceptions to the three revert rule; you could end up blocked for edit warring. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007 Hi, 1. I'm not quite understanding the English here: "after the original account is blocked is a listed exception to the three revert rule", do you mean after original account is blocked and then keep revert is an exception? I suppose if the original account is blocked, then keep revert with another account or after unlock keep reverting are both violating the rules, correct me if I'm wrong. Wraper11 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11: From WP:NOT3RR: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.. So, if the an editor gets blocked and then creates another account to circumvent that block, he can be reverted without fear of the consequences as it doesn't count towards 3RR or as edit warring. Until that happens however, I'd lay off reverting. Adam9007 (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gotya, but certainlly if he creates another account/sockpuppet to do the same thing, we can apply to check if two accounts are linked or one is sockpuppet, and that would get him banned as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11: Any sockpuppets of a blocked user will be blocked at the very least. Whether that will lead to a ban, I don't really know, though I suppose it might if it gets bad enough. Adam9007 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Deborah Bright edits

In RE: Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Deborah Bright, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC) 

   Hello Adam9007. Thank you for your concern. I was in the process of citing my sources when you deleted them. I understand the policies and I also want to make sure articles here are as accurate as possible. I am also new to this messaging on wikipedia so I apologize if I did not message you on your user talk. I am still learning the ropes of it. Thank you! (Wor0646106)

Greetings Adam9007. I'm drkdennis. Appreciate your concern regarding recent content additions and citation format. Since Wor0646106 was in the midst of adding content on 7 March 2019 at 00:01 when you deleted it at 7 March 2019 at 00:02, might you have let Wor0646106 complete what they were adding, including potential citations, before undoing it? drkd 19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drkdennis and Wor0646106: In future you may want to do the content and its sources in the same edit. If you put BLP content without sources in one edit, you risk getting reverted before you have a chance to put the sources in. This is because Wikipedia has a very strict policy on biographies of living people, especially regarding sourcing, which states: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. I'd say at least some of it is likely to be challenged. There was no way for me to know that Wor0646106 intended to put sources in. Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Adam9007,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

HG

How's Huggle? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I've just reinstalled it (was busy last night), and am testing it. Though I don't see how that's going to help . Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It would clear the 'data' in the app from your computer. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thegooduser and Oshwah: I don't think it happened this time. Weird. Adam9007 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thegooduser and Oshwah: And now I just got 'Sat Mar 16 00:29:11 2019 Not sending warning to 99.248.13.201 for their edit to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!: Wubb Idol on enwiki because it's older than 1 day' on this revert . Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
And 'Sat Mar 16 00:41:58 2019 Not sending warning to Chris139524 for their edit to Roundhouse kick on enwiki because it's older than 1 day' on this revert. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You recently reverted my reverting my accidental archiving.

I suspect some people would prefer you restore it. Qwirkle (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Why? You reverted your accidental archiving on the talk page, but not the archive. It makes no sense not to revert the archive too. Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
my error. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: You forgot to revert the archive? Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yepp. Qwirkle (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: Though so :). I was a bit confused as to what you were asking me to do. I thought you said I should restore your accidental archiving, which made no sense. Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Windows NT 3.1 Logo.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Dag nab it

Sorry for creating a red ping with this this A. I misclicked while chasing that troll. Thanks for your work in dealing with it. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I accidentally reported the wrong user to AIV once (I reported the victim, not the perpetrator ), so that's nothing in comparison! Adam9007 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yikes A! It gets crazy around here at times :-P Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

CSDing really old userpages

Hi there, thanks for digging through old user pages and nominating them for deletion. However, as long as they aren't obvious vandalism or attack pages, it's probably better to just leave them alone. Thanks, ansh666 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please stop CSD tagging old user pages simply because they have some variation of "Wikipedia sucks". The G10 criteria is intended for serious unsourced BLP violations and clear attack pages. By tagging old pages unnecessarily you are filling the list of G10 speedy deletions monitored by admins with irrelevant entries which impedes our ability to quickly act on those pages actually needing attention. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is so stupid wikipedia sucks so bad all you have to do is just edit the whole thing it dumb isn't an attack. Most of this is stuff that should have been deleted donkey's years ago. It seems they're being declined purely because they're old . That doesn't make it any less of an attack or vandalism, surely? Edit: I should probably add that most of my taggings have been deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's incredibly minor and, as I noted (as have two other admins above and below), the invalid taggings obfuscate the real G10 issues that require immediate action. The reason that most of them have been deleted is because there are a small handful of admins who delete pretty much anything that has been tagged without checking the validity of the tag. Also, there have been a few that you have tagged that mention specific private individuals by name that do meet the criteria. If you believe that simply stating "Wikipedia sucks" 10 years ago is overly offensive, then go ahead and blank the page, but please don't tag them as G10.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's my autism (isn't it always? lol), but saying something sucks (especially things like this) is strictly speaking an attack, as it disparages the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a sentiment, an opinion. "Ponyo smokes crack everyday before class at Wikipedia Academy in Nowheretown, Canada" or "Jane Doe is a liar and a cheat who deserves to be punished" are the type of BLP violations and attacks that fall under G10. Saying something in general "sucks" does not.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Atlantahawk

Hello Adam9007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Atlantahawk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a negative unsourced BLP blatantly intended to harass, attack, or libel its subject. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop tagging very old pages in userspace for deletion, whether it's for vandalism or anything else. If you want to waste your time, that's up to you, but don't waste the time of administrators. Please go back and remove all the tags. I've already spent enough time on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good finds but no need to bring that crap to MfD. Just use Twinkle to speedy delete the pages. If there are few or no edits outside userspace use U5 Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thanks, but as you can see in the above discussions, some would rather they were blanked instead (or even left alone!), which makes deletion controversial . Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird. Well if it is a user mainpage or a sandbox just blank it. We can't really remove those pages completely anyway. Same effect when the user only made a few posts and buggered off. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacy, why do you say we "can't really remove those pages"? We delete user pages all the time. Usually but not always at the user's request. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Adam, thank you for commenting on my talk page -- Sydney2019editor (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistant required

Hello sir, I need your assistance regarding an article which I created today Bhoot Police (film). It would be glad if you do look at the article which it qualify the WP: Notability. And if you could change the article title from previous the title Bhoot Police (film) to the new title Bhoot Police then I would be greatful toward you and that you all encourage editor to make Wikipedia grow. AR.Dmg (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking? If you're asking if I think it meets WP:GNG then yes. Adam9007 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: yes I'm asking WP: Notability and WP:GNG. And also to move the page relevant to the film title which has already done by other Wikipedia user. But I would like to request could you also review this article please Akhil (singer), and Flint J. It would be great full if you do so. So thanks for replying to the previous request. AR.Dmg (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping me with the vandal.★Trekker (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutual intelligibility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ticinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Adam9007,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

AAA suggestions

Hello, I am trying to write an article for "waste management in Australia" and I am looking for any possible advice that will help me improve it! It's also part of an assignment, so I really want it to be as better as it can before Friday. Thanks! 江波 ~ quellatizia (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Quellatizia, I'm assuming you're referring to the draft at User:Quellatizia/sandbox? I'm no expert on the subject, but the article needs a lead section (unless the 'Waste management in Australia' section is meant to be the lead, in which case remove the heading) and could probably do with an infobox or sidebar too. Not sure what the ///////////////////////////////////////////////s in the Database section are. Also, although not massively important, the article seems to be written in American English. As it's about a clearly and exclusively Australian subject, WP:TIES might apply. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the sandbox. I will try to make it an article later today, for then continue editing it. I am currently working on the leading section, the China paragraph and on links format. I have just made the Database section a proper one (I left it as a draft yesterday). About the American English style, I am not an English native speaker and I am not sure what the proper characteristics for American and Australian are. Would you give me some examples on which I can work on? I would really appreciate that

PS I am not sure whether I should add links in both the leading and paragraph sections, or if they are meant to be introduced only once in the article. In that case, how should I know which goes where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quellatizia (talk • contribs)

@Quellatizia: You've used spellings like 'organize' and 'behavior'. I believe Australian English uses 'ise/isation' (unless Oxford Spelling is used, but I don't know if that applies to Australian English) and 'our' (i.e. behaviour) spellings. Adam9007 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Two Point Hospital

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Two Point Hospital you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Megaman en m -- Megaman en m (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions. Anne drew (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Two Point Hospital

The article Two Point Hospital you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Two Point Hospital for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Megaman en m -- Megaman en m (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your efforts on this article! –xenotalk 01:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw

I could see a much younger and traditionally bureaucratic xeno taking up similar arguments (follow the demotion procedure! Rfc first!). I guess I’m less interested in untangling red tape and more prone to simply cutting through it. I appreciate your contribution to the consensus process. –xenotalk 03:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Adam, please take a look at the current revision of Wikipedia:Office actions and if it satisfies your concerns, perhaps remove the RFC tag. –xenotalk 13:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Xeno, So it's basically now simply a summary of the official policy on meta, with some enwiki-specific links? I see you've asked for feedback at the RfC, so I think we'd better wait for it. My main concern was (and still is) incurring the WMF's wrath and more editors being sanctioned. Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Alright. The page wasn't even being kept up to date anyway, it linked to "Support and Safety", for example. –xenotalk 15:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Xeno, I should perhaps point out that the 'Historical background' section appears to exist on meta and is mostly the same. Adam9007 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Hm, yes. The section could stay or go I suppose. –xenotalk 15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Adam9007,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

About the Sandbox

Was looking at history of the page, noticed that some of the edits were delete (guess b/c copyright). These new edits [1] and [2], seem to be copyright violations of the song "Get to the choppa"? Decicded to ask you because you were the one who left the warning over at the IP's talk page. Sorry for bothering you... OkayKenji (talk page) 05:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually should I ask Sasquatch? OkayKenji (talk page) 05:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@OkayKenji: Taken care of. You can report to WP:AIV if there are further issues. Sasquatch t|c 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

GA response

I removed the nominations from those particular articles as the user had been banned when I checked it. Now as it seems like that the user has left Wikipedia, I have done it again as he probably won't be able to do those edits. HawkAussie (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

HawkAussie, He wasn't banned; he was blocked (there's a difference). And his nominations are still listed at WP:GAN. Edit: It looks like he's returned. Adam9007 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Supriya Lohith

Sorry you're going to have to help me here, I can't see when the copyvio from her website started and finished to know what to apply revdel to. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: For some reason, the script doesn't seem to let me specify the revisions (the old one did) . The copyvio began with this revision and ended (I think) with the cleanup (not too sure about the lead sentence though). Adam9007 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Nthep (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Dear Adam,

Along with my business partners, Grady Hendrix and Goran Topalovic, I hold the copyright to all content at subwaycinema.com and permit re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License. As requested, I have submitted this information to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.

Thank you, Paul Kazee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkazee (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Pkazee, That's all well and good, but for it to be accepted here, the content still needs to be edited so it isn't promotional. Adam9007 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2019

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2019, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tanoto Foundation edits

Hi Adam9007. The page Tanoto Foundation has been substantially updated and I'd like to request removal of the flags you placed in 2016. Appreciate you taking a look please. Thanks in advance. Pt1979 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pt1979, Sorry, but I think the issues still stand :(. Adam9007 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Could you elaborate on what you think needs to be done to address the issues? For example all points are now backed up with at least one, in most cases multiple, credible sources. Pt1979 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pt1979, I have no experience in making articles about that type of company, but parts of it don't seem particularly encyclopaedic to me. especially the Mission section, which reads more like something on their website than an encyclopaedia article using summary style. Also, the lead still seems too short and parts of the article remain unsourced. Adam9007 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that uncivil comment from my talk page for me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Warn after Reverts

Hi, It would better if you warned an user after you reverted their edits. Thank you and happy editing! --BoothSiftTalks 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Boothsift, I did. He's already on 4 warnings Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
What I means by that is that I had already given him 4 (well, 3. Someone had already given him a level 1 warning) warnings and he was listed at AIV. Apparently, he's also a sock. Adam9007 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Banned sockpuppet

The reversal wasn't a mistake. A banned sockpuppet keeps introducing what appears to be non-encyclopedic material from dubious resources. You can see from the [contributions here]. Is it possible to revert it and request page protection? I did post in the talk page but it appears it's just a troll. Satellite93 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Satellite93, I know, I saw the talk page posts afterwards. But there was no indication in your edit summaries that there was an explanation. Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if there's enough disruption to warrant protection, but I don't think I'm qualified to make that judgement. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Hey! Adam ,You yesterday helped me for correction of name faizan khan ( indian actor ) for that I thankful to you . Could you please help ne out to publish this page . It's now in draft don't know why . I have not so knowledge about wikipedia. How to add infobox, categories etc. Do help me . Filmsnfilms (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Filmsnfilms, It was moved to draftspace by Discospinster for being 'Undersourced'. For it to be accepted at AfC, it needs reliable sources, but as I know nothing about most of the sources,I cannot judge their reliability. For the infobox, see {{Infobox person}}. Categories are not normally added until the article is published. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

List of ICC World Test Championship records

How is it an A3? There's no content whatsoever!!! Just a bunch of empty templates and empty references. The ICC Test Championship is in its first match, its not going to have an records (hence the emptiness). Easily fails any inclusion guidelines for lists. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: fails any inclusion guidelines for lists isn't the same thing as "no content whatsoever". I'd hardly describe a page with 26 tables (even if they aren't yet filled in) and 54 references as having no content . Adam9007 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed

Stop filing all those reports about IPs. In case you missed it, I asked you to do so in an edit summary. They are a waste of time. The IPs are invariably blocked by the time you finished filing the report, or at least very shortly after.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Tanoto Foundation edits

Thanks for your feedback on the page Tanoto Foundation. I've made significant changes to the lead section so that it should now adequately summarise the contents. All information now contains multiple third party references. Could you take another look please and see if it's appropriate to remove the flags? Pt1979 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Are any of my talk page watchers feeling déjà vu like me? (I didn't make the connexion at first ) Anyway, this is the only edit since then. I think the lead is still a tad short, and it parts of the article are still unsourced. Adam9007 (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Trivalist

Is that your page? Tropetroop29 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tropetroop29, Is what my page? Adam9007 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out who is the person who is the "Trivalist" account.

This person has been just deleted a section I made on the Universal Pictures Film Section page for no reason.

I dont know if it's a bot account or what but I've read its contributions and on its history it's just been deleting parts of pages for the most part. Tropetroop29 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tropetroop29: While I don't know who Trivialist is or why (s)he's been removing content, I can tell you (s)he is not a bot. Adam9007 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Yesterday I left him or her a conversation and so far they didnt respond.

This person has taken away that edit I did 3 weeks ago and didnt bother to talk to me about it and that is poor communication.

I've seen some of the discussions that person has had and it's been about blocking edits or removing content from pages. I dont know if they were having issues with another wikipedian or vice versa but thats been the main topic in their conversations. 

Tropetroop29 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't gotten around to replying. Anyway, a better place to add a list of film series is one of the lists of Universal Pictures films, not in the main article. Trivialist (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Adam9007,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Autochorrisexuality concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Autochorrisexuality, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Adam9007,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adam9007, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for the laugh

Thank you for reviewing my user page, Adam. Since you didn't make any complaints, I guess it passed muster? Anyhow, thanks for the good laugh. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Yep. I went there and just clicked the button . I find it funny how pages have to be re-reviewed after being moved. Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Adam9007!

Happy New Year!
Hello Adam9007:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

WP:UNDUE

Thank you for your involvement in the asexuality discussions. I just saw you link to WP:UNDUE there. While the title for that sounds right, in my experience it may not be the best link to give in such situations, as it goes to a discussion about how to treat minority viewpoints. In a case like this, it's not a viewpoint whether she's asexual, that's a fact, and there may be extra sensitivity to a piece describing treatments of minority viewpoints when you're dealing with a minority group like asexuals. WP:PROPORTION, while a subheader of what UNDUE links to, gets more directly to the point that if it's not something that sources are talking about in regard to her, it may not be of sufficient interest for the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

NatGertler, So you think I should link to WP:PROPORTION instead? As for it being a fact, as evidenced in the discussions, some disagree, and think her use of 'ace' may actually have meant something else. I agree that asexual is the most logical and likely meaning, but that's just my interpretation. Adam9007 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
For what you were saying, such a minor detail as to be not be worth reporting here at this time, WP:PROPORTION gets right to the point you were trying to make, whereas WP:UNDUE only gets to there after meandering through "viewpoint" material. So yes, in cases like that, you should link to WP:PROPORTION instead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
NatGertler, I've just noticed that she's removed the 'Ace' statement from her bio. Adam9007 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Adam9007,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-retirement

I just noticed this and am a bit sorry to see it, but there indeed are many things in life other than Wikipedia and I wish you the best. Even if you're not officially gone yet, I also want to thank you for your contributions. And if this can encourage future contributions, all for the better. —PaleoNeonate – 17:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks. Maybe it should be taken with a pinch of salt, because, as everyone knows, none of my past retirements and semi-retirements turned out to be permanent. But yeah, Wikipedia seems to be (for me) an endless series of dramas and kerfuffles, which usually go nowhere fast and end in tears. Nearly everything I do these days just gives me aggro. The saying 'give a dog a bad name and hang him' is jolly true on Wikipedia. Not so long ago I was inexplicably accused of racism when I tried to boost the gaiety of nations. It makes me wonder what other porky-pies about me the community blindly take for granted. But that's stuff everyone already knows. More recently, I had an encounter with an IP who seemed to have decided that (s)he knows better, and hounded me and accused em of things. You can see why I think that's a big deal. The whole hoo-ha snowballed, and I think one editor stated that an entire section of WP:VERIFY (or was it WP:BLP?) is pointless and should be deleted, and I can't say I disagree (I could go into a rant about that sort of thing being a big pet peeve of mine, but I think everyone already knows that story). It's (not) nice to know that on Wikipedia, there's always someone/something nearby to queer my pitch. I would have carried on this discussion, but he seemed to have already made his mind up, and I was in a jolly gay mood (which is a rarity) that night (which probably makes me a racist.... ) and I really didn't want anything to spoil it. Since then, I seem to have rather lost what little will I had to edit Wikipedia left . I'm actually surprised you left this message; I'd have thought the community would be so fed up with me (if everyone keeps saying I'm a wiki-bovver boy then it must be true, right?) that they'd be glad to see the back of me. Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This comment is not about the content disputes, but it's an unfortunate reality of Wikipedia that when patrolling, even if we try to be careful and kind, some will either say anything out of frustration and because they're anonymous; others will even willfully try to make our work as difficult (and hope to make our life as miserable) as possible to discourage. I even see apparent trolls who only try to divide the project. They can't win if we understand that and manage to just routinely toss the trash away, but it's not always easy and everyone has more vulnerable days... Bon courage (and bravery is of course not innate or automatic, more an attitude of adaptation under hardship), —PaleoNeonate – 08:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: others will even willfully try to make our work as difficult (and hope to make our life as miserable) as possible to discourage Well, they've succeeded magnificently in that . And not just the vandals and trolls either. Actually, it's more Wikipedia editors than vandals and trolls; vandals and trolls have never given me any reason to take their nonsense seriously. Over on Fandom, I hear admins have free reign over blocks (and can even block for no reason at all! Whether that's true or not, I don't know; I've never blocked anyone, let alone for no reason). I'm glad Wikipedia admins don't have that kind of power, because if they did, I'd have been a goner long ago. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt . Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

MFDs of obviously unsuitable content

Hey there, as a heads up, it would be better to use speedy deletion for some of the pages you recently listed at MFD; that way it doesn't clog up the page with stuff that's obviously unsuitable. Something like WP:G2 for "test edits" or WP:G3 for blatant vandalism would suit nicely. Check out the links for the templates you can use for that. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15, It's no secret that I take the CSD literally, so if it doesn't seem to fit 100 per cent exactly, I tend to err on the side of caution, even if it's something that's obviously inappropriate. Adam9007 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Better to err on the side of caution, I suppose. Also, for some reason when you used Twinkle to list your MFDs, it kept on adding the date header along with the MFD, so there were three extraneous "May 23, 2020" headers lying around. I don't use TW myself so I don't know why it does that though. bibliomaniac15 04:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bibliomaniac15: Also, for some reason when you used Twinkle to list your MFDs, it kept on adding the date header along with the MFD, so there were three extraneous "May 23, 2020" headers That seems to be a bug; that shouldn't happen and I don't think it's happened to me before. Adam9007 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Help me & guide me sir

I am being threatened to block. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am being bullied Please help me sir Kumarjatji (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kumarjatji: I'm afraid I must repeat what Praxidicae told you at ANI. We take copyright violations very seriously. Adam9007 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry sir Give me once change. 

Kumarjatji (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Next time this no mistake Kumarjatji (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. fix the tataloo birthday Please tnx.

Hi. fix the tataloo birthday Please tnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastin2 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Adam9007,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarinetists

I suppose 'principal clarinetist in the national orchestra' is a plausible assertion of notability, but it's wholly unsourced.

If you want, I could put it into your userspace so you can fix that. DS (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want, I could put it into your userspace so you can fix that. No need. I'm hesitant to boldly move a 12-year-old article out of mainspace anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Gary Wheaton

Hi! Thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag on the article, I missed that it had been suggested as an AfD before. I was wondering if it would be wise to suggest it for deletion, or, in your view is Wheaton being a politician for five months likely to still meet WP:POLITICIAN eight years on? Still new-ish here:) Thanks! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE: I can't access the cited source for legal reasons, but he would seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN#1. is Wheaton being a politician for five months likely to still meet WP:POLITICIAN eight years on? Notability is not temporary. If he was notable eight yeas ago, he's still notable now. Adam9007 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't access it either haha! Okay, I just wanted some clarification I guess. Thank you!:) -OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Cheers! They came back a few times, but seem to have gone now. Adam9007 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

I think its time for you to become an administrator. You have done so much for the community and anti-vandalism as a whole. I think you are ready for the burden of being an admin. Thank you. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 03:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@SuperGoose007: Well, I'm flattered (and, to be honest, surprised), but I highly doubt the community would agree :( (long story short: I seem to have a knack for vexing other editors, however unintentionally). I'd like to ask you however: according to the logs, your account was created on 18 June 2020. You have done so much for the community and anti-vandalism as a whole. I think you are ready for the burden of being an admin. is quite a statement for an account that's only 9 days' old. Have you been editing as an IP before? Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adam9007: No I have not edited as an IP. I just decided to join Wikipedia out of pure boredom and look what I gotten into. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 04:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@SuperGoose007: Unfortunately the opinion of a new, inexperienced editor on matters such as this will probably carry very little, if any, weight. The community will judge me as extremely naïve if I accept the recommendation of such a new user with little experience of editing Wikipedia in general, let alone of what's expected of admins (which is more than just pressing the 'delete', 'protect', or 'block' button when needed). Thank you for your opinion, though. Adam9007 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit

So what was wrong with my edit on Jelle's Marble Runs?The 2nd Red Guy (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

1 You messed up (unintentionally I'm sure) they also do stand-alone competitions around holidays with the marble names. Adam9007 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
no i said {tquote|They also do stand-alone competitions around holidays with the marble names in the style of the holiday}} 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You also somehow moved the t in 'they' to the beginning of the prose. The vast majority of those sorts of edits (at least from the ones I see) are test edits or disruptive edits from IPs or new accounts, so I just revert it all without looking at who did it. Sorry about that. Adam9007 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q2 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

John Kinsella (criminal)

What's the credible claim of significance on John Kinsella (criminal) ? Nick (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick, The cited sources do cover him (and his crime), and he seems to have many Google News hits, but I couldn't find evidence that he meets the strict criteria described by WP:CRIME. Adam9007 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You declined the A7 presumably because you believe there's a credible claim of significance, so I'm asking, what specifically on the article, when you reviewed it, was that credible claim of significance ? Nick (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand? It made the BBC News, and it's not just a one-off. Add: the IP also tagged Paul Massey (gangster), which was declined by someone else, and this article was reviewed by other experienced editors. Adam9007 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not disputing what the sources say. I am asking what you believe the credible claim of significance is that makes the article ineligible for speedy deletion under criteria A7 (i.e, why did you contest/remove the speedy deletion template). I think, from what you've said, you're claiming if anybody is covered by BBC News, that's a credible claim of significance, even if such BBC News coverage is only demonstrated by a citation and there's no claim within the article itself. Nick (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Unless there's something I'm missing, the sources seem to count towards WP:GNG. Are they reliable? Yes. Are they secondary? Yes. Are they third-party/independent? Yes. It is more than just a trivial mention? Yes. Adam9007 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
And Autarch has added a source that describes the subject as an influential figure whose reputation went national. Not sure how to fit that in the article though. Adam9007 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

where can i vandelize

can you tell me where can i vandelize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew07111712 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't. Adam9007 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

how about in the sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew07111712 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox is for editing tests. Vandalism there will be reverted like anywhere else. Adam9007 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

what does this meam

what does You currently can not change pages on Wikipedia.

The ability to change pages has been removed from this account, IP address or IP address range by ‪DannyS712‬. This block affects ‪Andrew07111712‬. The following reason(s) were given for this block:

Vandalism

Your IP address is 2607:fea8:3da0:4ef:1923:c9d0:c472:3dee. This block has been set to finish on: infinite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew07111712 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an IP address block. Adam9007 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Apologies for the edit on black supremacy - was just trying to standardize the leads and didn't realize there was a -very- recent discussion on the issue. Should have done a more thorough search, just didn't realize it was so contentious. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@El cid, el campeador: Thanks. For what it's worth, I think both black supremacy and white supremacy should say racial supremacist, but there's a fat chance of that happening :(. Adam9007 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treasure (South Korean band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Asexuality July 2020

Dear Adam9007 thank you for your message at my talk, but I would like to point you out that my edits falls under at least two exceptions of the three-revert rule:

  • Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law. AVEN actions constitute conspiracy to defraud.
  • Removing contentious material that is [...] unsourced

In fact your, clearly affiliated with AVEN, account maybe removed from Wikipedia as any other account which violates Wikipedia content rules and policies. AceRebel (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

AceRebel, I am not in any way, shape, or form affiliated with AVEN. AVEN actions constitute conspiracy to defraud That's a very serious accusation, especially without any evidence to back it up! As for it being contentious, the policy is: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy This is none of that. account maybe removed from Wikipedia Accounts cannot be removed. They are needed for attribution purposes. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Adam9007, your actions constitute disruptive editor behavior in particular:
  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

Either you personally revert your own edit on Asexuality or I'm going to report you.AceRebel (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How about you cease your disruptive editing, or I'll report you. Your edit was challenged; take your case to the talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007, it might be fruitful to report AceRebel to WP:ANI. Crossroads -talk- 00:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe I'm biased, but I can't help but think (s)he has an anti-ace agenda here. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Either that or anti-AVEN. Definitely some major WP:CIR and WP:SOAPBOX issues. Crossroads -talk- 01:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, Perhaps I should wait and see if (s)he makes good on his/her threat to "report" me (That'll certainly be a WP:BOOMERANG case) or does anything else? Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, up to you of course. Someone else may do so as well. Crossroads -talk- 01:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, Now, (s)he seems to be engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Asexuality/1. Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Makes no sense whatsoever. Crossroads -talk- 01:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert war

You should slow down; an admin will block him shortly. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, Are you saying that I shouldn't be reverting vandalism? Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. You should stop after 2 or 3 reverts, and pursue a different strategy. Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Such as? Are we supposed to just let it stand? You are aware that reverting vandalism and obvious BLP violations are exempt from edit warring rules, aren't you? Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Not really – I've been WP:3RR blocked for too many reverts of obvious vandalism. Anyway, if it's obviously not working, why keep at it so rapidly? There are alternatives. I used a vandalism report (via Twinkles "arv" button) and that may have helped get an admin in to block him pretty quickly. Did you try reporting? Yes, I see you did, and that looks like it's what worked, actually. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I've been WP:3RR blocked for too many reverts of obvious vandalism. If you were blocked for it, perhaps it wasn't actually vandalism? The mere fact that an edit breaks some rule doesn't exempt its reversion from 3RR; only the worst of the worst is exempt from it (well, any obvious vandalism falls under that, not just the horrible and disgusting type I saw yesterday on September 11 attacks). why keep at it so rapidly? Because then, basically they win (even if only temporarily). We can't have that now, can we? You seem to be suggesting that I (we?) pretty much leave vandalism-fighting to admins. That makes no sense. Adam9007 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No, you should definitely fight vandalism, but when a revert or two doesn't do it, request admin help instead of keeping up the reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: request admin help That's what most vandal fighters do (at least after the vandal has received a level 4 warning), but most do not seem to see any reason to stop reverting. I know it's a pain, but what else are we supposed to do? There have been many times I've been on a vandal's contribution page, refreshing every few seconds and immediately reverting when I see a new edit, all whilst waiting for an admin to come along. I half wish I had the ability to block users in such instances. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care if you want to keep it up. To each his own. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the Troll on my talk yesterday. Mot bothered to read their edits but I'm sure I can imagine. Appreciated! Glen (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello? Did you see my post? I am not sure if you find it cause its under old Test Topic and you didnt answer after beeing that fast last time. So I try to push this once if you missed it. --BIanca617 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Test

Test — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIanca617 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

BIanca617, Why have you made a test edit on my talk page? Adam9007 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh nooooo!!!!! I could cry!!!! Now i have to write this long text again couse it gone when publishing cause you wrote so fast :( I did a "test" first to see if I am able to write you finaly, because it shows 2 red boxes "this side is protected".

( So now I write it 2.5 times:(

Ok. From Beginning. Hello. I saw you on dispute Page and I dont know what to do.

Seams there are 1-2 guys who hate me. They attack me all the time, stalking me, try to change my articles and beeing rude to me. An article I wrote is in one diskussion after next. Since nearly 2 Months now!!! I have no Idea what I done to them. I tryed everything. 1 of them starts with vandalism. Doing very rude edits against WP:Bio and against the sources. Just write ppov in the article and this also in a very rude way. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_von_Tell&diff=980267392&oldid=979733489

I dindt say something and tryed to be nice. Just add more sources. But it dosent stop. They come again and again. All the time with other stuff and often in a rude way. I try to be nice, find solutions, try to explain, bring more sources, offer friendship, everything I can. Again and again but it dont stop. :( See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BIanca617#Marking_changes_as_'minor'

I not eaven know whats the real problem of this 1-2 guys. Do they hate me, the person from the article, do they hate girls here, or is it normal here are that many rude people? I have no Idea:( In wiki rules they say other stuff? I dont know what to do or who I can talk to. The article is good and well sourced. Every single sentence has 1-2 sources. What else can I do? Can you help me? regards --BIanca617 (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@BIanca617: I saw you on dispute Page Which dispute page? I've never been involved with Michel von Tell, which seems tobe the article in question. Adam9007 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah Hello. I know you are not. I saw you there while searching a way to get neutral person to help me or someone to talk to or anything like that. --BIanca617 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@BIanca617: Saw me where? I'm wondering if my reputation has preceded me: it just so happens that I once felt the same way (and still do to an extent); I had to endure endless carping from certain editors (won't say who), which was sometimes almost to the point of blackguarding, that wouldn't stop no matter what I tried. To this day, I'm convinced that certain editors hate me personally (not just as a Wikipedian). Adam9007 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
:( --BIanca617 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Netaji Jayanti

This Netaji Jayanti article is crucial. It is observed all over India. But some possible political issues, it is not declared a national holiday. Netaji was the most lovable freedom fighter and so Indians celebrate this day with great pomp. Please review it. Wikifulness (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It is an official holiday in the Indian states like West Bengal, Jharkhand, Tripura etc. Wikifulness (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with most of the sources, so I have no frame of reference with which to assess their reliability :(. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Stade Marcel-Tribut

Sorry about this draft. I thought that redirects to the mainspace from draftspace should be removed, but I was wrong. I went to look on Wikipedia:Drafts and now I understood my error. Thanks and best regards, Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Erica Brown (actress)

Hi There, I believe you recommended this article for deletion? It was created for a Program page and unfortunatly, I didn't have time to get to doing some references, please can this be removed?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediDude4345 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

MediDude4345, Unfortunately, it needs references (to reliable sources that is) for it to be accepted (it's in draftspace now). You're going to need to add some I'm afraid. Adam9007 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mon Wikipedia

Hi. You rejected the A7 speedy at Mon Wikipedia, because "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance". However, I have no idea what that assertion would be. Having 700 articles after one year? Being the third? Having a total lack of independent sourcing? Nothing in that article seems to indicate any claim of importance. Fram (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: "importance" means possible suitability for inclusion (whether or not as a standalone article), which being a Wikipedia is. WP:CSD also says: consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion) (my bolding). GreenC suggested AfD, but AfD isn't the place to propose an WP:ATD. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would "being a Wikipedia" indicate a "possible suitability for inclusion"? Most small Wikipedia versions aren't notable at all, some are redirects to the list, many others aren't. A possible suitability for inclusion is decided based upon reliable, independent sourcing, and to avoid an A7 one would need an indication that such sourcing is likely if the claims in the article are true. Being a 700-article website is not really such a claim. Fram (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
We have a List of Wikipedias, don't we?? Also, I see that there are many Wikipedias on that list that have even fewer articles that the one we're discussing. Are you saying that list should only include those that have at least a certain number of articles? Adam9007 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Uh, no. Being included on a list is not an indication of importance or notability though, not all entries on the list need to be important, notable, ... Fram (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
So you're saying that WP:ATD only applies to CSD if the article otherwise fails to meet the criteria? That makes no sense; if it's not a reason to remove content from an article or list, it's not a reason to not merge/redirect, surely? You just said yourself that entries on a list don't have to be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ATD-R says talk page or AfD for disputed redirects. So I guess we are both right. Not sure how to resolve that when there is a dispute over how to handle the dispute :) But in this case, the article would never survive AfD without better sourcing so I no longer dispute. -- GreenC 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: I think "disputed redirects" is supposed to mean articles that have been redirected, but that redirect has been challenged, e.g. if it was reverted to an article. I don't think it's meant for proposed redirects; AfD is for suggesting deletion. This gives me an idea: I don't know whether this has been proposed before, but maybe it's time we had AfD stand for Articles for Discussion (RfD, FfD, and CfD already stand for Discussion) and allow merge and redirect proposals. Currently, there's no proper process for proposing a redirect, and a {{Merge to}} discussion has no formal expiry, which means discussions can easily become stale and go on forever without proper closure. Adam9007 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ATD-R refers to what you did: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to" -- GreenC 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Adam9007,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hello, Adam9007,

I'm just curious, how do you find these old user pages and sandboxes that have bad content on them? I can see stumbling across one occasionally but you have been tagging quite a few and I can't figure out how you would even locate them in all of the millions of user pages on the project. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I sometimes go looking for them if I have nothing better to do :). Adam9007 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you use search and search for "naughty words"? I never thought Wikipedia search was very helpful but maybe in this case, maybe it could uncover these attack articles. They all seem to be similar in that they target some person the editor knows on-line or at school with childish insults. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Liz, Yes, I search for whatever insult or slur or whatever occurs to me. For some reason, they seem to be more prevalent in user sandboxes. I haven't noticed any pattern on whom they attack though. Adam9007 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A bit confused

Adam, I'm a bit confused by your removal of the speedy notice for Village Free School. You claim that schools are ineligible for A7, but I couldn't find any supporting evidence for this in our policies, or even our guidelines. Per our notability guideline:

"All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities

This private school doesn't appear to satisfy GNG, ORG, or even WP:CCS. All it does it attest to its existence, with its sole source. The prose itself just says it's a 501(c)3 incorporated entity. Also, none of this addresses the A3 criterion which I also tagged. Could you point me to the relevant policy? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, From WP:A7: This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. As for A3, that requires no content whatsoever; even a single sentence is enough to avoid A3. Adam9007 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gokul Guragain

The page's creator, Gokul Sites (talk · contribs), has been blocked for self-promotion, and their userpage was deleted for the same reason. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I understand many users are hasty with speedy deletion, but I think the WP:G11 is appropriate in this case. It seems unlikely that the user will come back to improve the draft and get it accepted, so it will probably just get deleted under WP:G13 in six months anyway. I suggest you restore the G11 tag. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing nothing promotional about Joe Bloggs is an entrepreneur and digital marketer. He is a founder of XYZ. There are those who believe such drafts should be left for G13. Also, believe it or not, there's actually talk of making drafts exempt from G11. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, it looks like he was blocked because of the username, not the edits. Adam9007 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nick (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date Why do I get the feeling that this does involve some issue with my contributions? Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you think there are issues with your contributions to date ? Nick (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to think not, but you seem to think so, given the timing of this notice.... Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wexham Park Hospital

Hi Adam9007,

Many thanks for your edit on Wexham Park Hospital and changing it to Slough. It is in the ward of Wexham Lea, to be exact but that is part of Slough Borough Council anyway. The attached link confirms that it is in Wexham Lea, a ward of Slough, most of the surrounding boundary is Buckinghamshire. [1]

Regards,

Mabbs001 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.slough.gov.uk/downloads/file/979/wexham-lea-map
Mabbs001, It is in the ward of Wexham Lea I know :). I checked on Google Earth; it's literally right on the boundary, but definitely on Slough's side. I thought that might constitute original research, but thankfully sources back it up. Is the fact it's in Wexham Lea worth mentioning in the article? Despite the sources, I can see that being challenged. What's also confuses matters is that (I think) 'Wexham' sometimes includes Wexham Lea as well as the part in Buckinghamshire, but the article on Wexham is definitely about the latter. Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How is this not a test page?

Hello Adam9007, kindly let an admin decide if its a test page or not. I'd appreciate you not removing the tag until an admin reviews and declines my request. I'm restoring the tags back. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Since when has G2 included empty drafts? G2 is not a catch-all for stuff that would be speeidable if it were in mainspace. A3 does not apply to draftspace. Adam9007 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I am willing to show you several similar examples in my deletion log that have been speedied under G2. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, If they were empty drafts, they absolutely shouldn't have been speedied under G2. They should have waited for G13. Adam9007 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
They were empty drafts and have been speedied under G2, not too long ago. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, They shouldn't have been. That's a blatant misuse of G2. This seems to be very widespread, and I now have half a mind to start a RfC about it, or maybe expanding A3 to draftspace. Adam9007 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Adam9007, all these are the drafts have been deleted by different admins under G2 and typically similar to the two drafts that you removed the tags from: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and many more. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You can ask any of these admins to review the content of these pages, if that helps. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, review the content of these pages You just said they're empty..... Adam9007 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Not all of them were, since I cannot see the contents now its not possible to tell which were, but these are very akin to the two drafts, that's what I'm saying. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, Then I think a RfC is justified; I can think of no policy-based reason to delete such drafts pre-G13, unless there were serious BLP concerns (which I doubt there were). Adam9007 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That's completely your call. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, I've started a discussion. By the way, a similar draft, Draft:Gokul Guragain, is at MfD, and some are saying wait for G13. Adam9007 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources

I won't revert again at Wikipedia:Citing sources, so you have free rein at the guideline afaic if you want to declare a dispute that doesn't exist. If you want to discuss at Talk, discuss. You don't need an Rfc to show that there is no dispute about this point, but suit yourself. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, Well, it contradicts WP:BLPPROD (which is policy). They can't both be right, surely? Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

CSD

You going to stop fucking about removing valid CSD tags, or do I need to block you ? Nick (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nick, If you're referring to Draft:NPJD, NPJD is an eSports team that plays multiple types of video games (in the history) is meaningful content. Adam9007 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
That's an edit summary. You're clearly disruping Wikipedia to prove a point, but I'm fucked if I know what point it is, maybe proving you can't be trusted to edit and should be blocked ? Nick (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick, Have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Misuse_of_G2_in_draftspace? By the way, if I were to send them to MfD, they'd most likely be kept. Adam9007 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you sending shit to MfD was another thing I needed to talk to you about. You're making people give up contribuing with your disruptive behaviour. Why ? What are you trying to achieve ? Nick (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick, As evidedence in the discussion I linked to (and others), there are those who believe CSDing them is not only against policy, but also a waste of time. I'm actually afraid that if I don't send them to MfD, they'll be improperly speedied. If Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CAMline Solutions India Pvt Ltd is any indication, there's nothing wrong with blank drafts. Adam9007 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You'll need to explain to many of us why deleting material now that would otherwise be deleted a short time later is a waste of time. And why your interpretation of what constitutes as "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" is correct and not that of those tagging pages with G1. And why you think your interpretation of what constitutes a test page is correct and others are wrong. It could be that you're a complete fucking genius and we're all morons. Or something that's not that at all. Nick (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick, You'll need to explain to many of us why deleting material now that would otherwise be deleted a short time later is a waste of time 6 months via G13 isn't "a short time". If anything, it's too long: see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_deletionism (where I suggested lowering it to 1 month). And why you think your interpretation of what constitutes a test page is correct and others are wrong Well, I thought that test edits are edits clearly meant for testing purposes. Not attempts to put something on Wikipedia, however misguided. I stand by what I said in the WT:CSD discussion: if it wouldn't be G2'd (or G1'd or whatever) in article space, there's no reason it should be in draft space, regardless of what other criteria may apply in article space. Adam9007 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And how old is the oldest draft you've pulled a CSD tag from recently, how old is the oldest draft you've pushed to MfD recently ? The MfD stuff is completely beyond the pale, that's behaviour that genuinely dissuades editors from contribuing, when they see a wall of completely pointless nominations - stuff that's days or a small number of weeks away from a G13 deletion, taking attention away from more important MfD discussions. Nick (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick, So MfD nominations are pointless but CSD nominations aren't? If a draft really is so close to G13, why not wait? To do otherwise kind of defeats the purpose of G13, doesn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If a page has been tagged for speedy deletion for a reason that does not apply then every editor who sees it should remove the tag. Regardless of how close to G13 it is. That does not mean that it should be nominated at MfD instead - unless it is actively harmful (basically G10, G11 or G12) just leave it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nick: Not only is the tone of your first comment here completely out of line (and some of your later ones are borderline), you are also wrong. Removing invalid speedy deletion criteria is not a waste of time or anything close to a blockable offence. The last sentence of the WP:CSD#G1 criteria is In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. and so Draft:NPJD is blatantly not in scope (user:1234qwer1234qwer4 needs to be cautioned about that (yes it was an edit summary, but that's irrelevant - putting the two together means that there is understandable content and so G1 does not apply). Sending it to MFD would be a waste of time, as if everybody had just left it alone it would have been deleted under G13 in a couple of months. Unless a draft is actively harmful (i.e. oversightable, subject to WP:CSD#G10 or a copyright violation) then doing anything other than ignoring it is a waste of everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: You going to sort out Adam's complete clusterfuck of MfDs, if you think their behaviour today is remotely appropriate and anything other than grossly disruptive ? Nick (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick, You going to sort out Adam's complete clusterfuck of MfDs My point is that if such pages are going to be deleted pre-G13, I for one would much rather it's via some sort of vetting process. It just seems much fairer. Adam9007 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nick: Whether Adam's behaviour is or is not appropriate is irrelevant to the fact that your behaviour here is completely inappropriate. I've not had a chance to look at their MfDs yet, so I'm not expressing any opinion on it. Their removing incorrect speedy deletion templates though is absolutely correct. Incorrect speedy deletions are possibly the most harmful thing an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for coming in quite so strong with the "fucking about" remark and block threat, plus the other rudeness elsewhere.
I'll leave others to decide whether your mass MfDing of Drafts is appropriate and/or worthwhile. I'd suggest, as per Thryduulf, that if you spot an errant speedy deletion tag on a Draft, just remove it and leave it, don't go with MfD, but as I've say, it's something I'm going to leave for others to decide whether you should be pushing stuff like that through MfD at all. Nick (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nick, I'd suggest, as per Thryduulf, that if you spot an errant speedy deletion tag on a Draft, just remove it and leave it, don't go with MfD Hang on, you started this thread after I removed a couple of improper CSD tags . I did not send either of those pages to MfD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the mess I created yesterday. Some of the drafts I nominated for deletion as test pages were deleted by Liz. Not sure whether restoring them is worth it or not. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: There were valid speedy deletion tags on SOME of the pages you nominated and Adam shouldn't have removed all of the tags he did, but there were some pages you had incorrectly tagged and where he was right to intervene. In any case, it's not worth trying to delete likely abandoned Draft content by G1/G2 or by MfD when G13 will sweep them all up with minimal fuss later on. What I have found this morning is a number of pages which should have been deleted and the content oversighted/suppressed being either CSD'd or MfD'd, rather than being progressed through the correct channels for appropriate suppression. I've had four such pages that you and/or Adam either tagged for CSD or nominated for MfD suppressed this morning. I'd suggest you and Adam might want to take a few months away from anything deletion related, as a result. Nick (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As per the requests above, would you please back off your deletion declines? They're getting disruptive and WP:POINTY and neither of us want to go back down the road you did a few years ago. CUPIDICAE💕 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Praxidicae, You think that subject request should be a criterion? That's currently outright listed as a non-criterion. Adam9007 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you lack the ability to determine how a speedy deletion tag can be interpreted, as evidenced by the dozens of previous warnings here and think you should leave it to other editors who can a.) carry out the task and b.) are able to see that deletion isn't as black and white as you believe it to be. And if you'd take a look, it was solved easier and quicker than a ridiculous and unnecessary MFD. CUPIDICAE💕 21:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Praxidicae, I thought CSD criteria were supposed to be interpreted literally? If you're saying what I think you're saying, one and only one thing determines whether a page should or shouldn't be CSD'd: common sense. That makes the entire policy on when a page can and cannot be CSD'd pretty much meaningless if you ask me. Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Need I remind you of this and this? I only came here to let you know that your recent edits with regard to deletion are quickly approaching the disruption (and frankly, annoying many editors) that it did years ago that resulted in your near sanctions. CUPIDICAE💕 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem we keep having with you, Adam, is that in your urgency to remove CSD tags (and articles certainly shouldn't be tagged) you're leaving greater issues behind - as I've said before, I seem to find a number of pages which you've removed the CSD tag from but which will need to be suppressed because of the content, or where we find the author is a sockpuppet. If you are going to insist on removing CSD tags, given there's an unfortunate but extremely high risk you'll be the last editor to review the page for weeks, months or possibly ever again, you really need to make sure you're not leaving content which needs to be suppressed, and ideally you need to make sure you're not allowing sockpuppets a back door into block/ban evasion. Nick (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Behaving reasonably and not in a strict reading of the rules is also a policy. It shouldn’t be used liberally, but yes, taking into account the entire context of a deletion request is something that administrators do. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. Remember when I said it would be best for you to leave off removing CSD's? Are there new problems or old problems? I guess the gist is you are removing CSD tags that you should not-- same as before? (clears throat). Please do not remove CSD tags, you still lack the judgment to remove them in a non disruptive manner. I've been an admin a long time, and don't always agree with CSD tags, but I leave them for another admin to decide 'cause we all read WP:CSD a little differently. Plus all the points made above. Once again, please leave the CSD tags for an admin to evaluate. There are better things you could do with your time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion on this subject in which I partook. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gayming Magazine Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gayming Magazine Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WTF?

Adam! Why did you retire? What's going on? :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, I just don't think I can cut it in a place where there are so many discrepancies between what the policies and guidelines say and what actually happens (it seems I'm the only one who actually sees that as a problem!). After all that's happened as a result, it seems Wikipedia will be better off without me, and to be honest my mental health will be better off without Wikipedia (); it really was (and still is) driving me mad. I could go into a tirade but probably won't (because what good will it do?). Adam9007 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to see you go. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you well and I wish you good health and happiness. I'll miss seeing you on here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Oshwah, Unless this retirement, like my previous ones, turns out to be temporary. But I really can't see that happening this time (but still, you never know....); gone are the days when I could "easily" do GAs, and those sorts of things. If I stay, it's only a matter of time before I fall foul of some unwritten rule and all hell breaks loose, as has happened umpteen times before. Being here, especially as of late, has had a net negative effect on my state of mind, from which I see no other escape than quitting the project . Adam9007 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Adam, your personal health and well-being is the number one priority that you should be focusing on. If that means retiring from Wikipedia, then you should do it. You deserve to be happy in life, and I support you in whatever decision you make. I want you to be well and I want you to be mentally fit. Like I said, I wish you well! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Adam, Oshwah states it better than I ever could. Please take care of yourself and be well. Many thanks for all your editing here over the years. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with the above; if you're not happy here, there's little point to continue. While I totally respect your reason for retiring (this time), I just want to say that challenging that juxtaposition between "should be done" and "is done" is an important part of any consensus-building body; if we're not doing what's written down, then we either need to change the instructions or change our implementation. No easy task by any means, but someone's gotta do it, and while I haven't always agreed with the concerns you've raised in the past I can still respect the fact that you've raised them. Enjoy your time away. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Primefac, I can only think of one incident involving me that actually led to a change: the incident regarding MOS:COMMONALITY. Nine times out of ten, when rules don't add up or are being broken, I start a discussion somewhere and they almost inevitably say the rules are right and of course, nothing ever changes, either with the rules or editors' behaviour. It makes me wonder why I bother(ed). Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2021

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 13, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2021
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2021, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC))

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Adam9007. You have new messages at Promethean's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 2 — 3nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2019, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q4 2019

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2019, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q1 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

Index Case (album) tagged for speedy deletion

Thank you for your efforts in patrolling new pages. I wanted to let you know that I have applied a speedy deletion tag to the article Index Case (album), which you proposed for deletion, because I believe it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In cases where it applies, speedy deletion is preferable to proposed deletion; in the future, please tag blatantly inappropriate pages for speedy deletion first if they meet the criteria. I have left the {{prod}} tag in place, so that if speedy deletion is rejected, your proposed deletion will remain in place. Thanks!

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Adam9007,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Musha.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Musha.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Musha.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Musha.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Musha.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Musha.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:BLP no footnotes

Template:BLP no footnotes has been nominated for merging with Template:No footnotes. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam9007/Archive_5&oldid=1177141520"