User talk:Anarchyte/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
		Xbox 360 (talk)						Add sources
		Red vs. Blue (season 12) (talk)						Add sources
		Creatures (company) (talk)						Add sources
		Habib Ahmad (talk)						Add sources
		Red vs. Blue: Revelation (talk)						Add sources
		Virtual reality (talk)						Add sources
		Counter Logic Gaming (talk)						Cleanup
		DisplayPort (talk)						Cleanup
		DreamHack (talk)						Cleanup
		Electronic Arts (talk)						Expand
		Pokémon (video game series) (talk)						Expand
		E-Amusement (talk)						Expand
		Mango (video gamer) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Baldev Singh Mann (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		ESports (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Valkyria (talk)						Merge
		Apple Music (talk)						Merge
		Crunkcore (talk)						Merge
		Slavery in ancient Rome (talk)						Wikify
		Knights in the Nightmare (talk)						Wikify
		Pirated movie release types (talk)						Wikify
		Quaver's Marvelous World of Music (talk)						Orphan
		The Three Ages of Woman (Klimt) (talk)						Orphan
		Social justice art (talk)						Orphan
		Department of Records (record label) (talk)						Stub
		William Ehrman (talk)						Stub
		Armada (video gamer) (talk)						Stub
		Immortals (esports) (talk)						Stub
		Adrian (video gamer) (talk)						Stub
		Capcom Pro Tour (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Goodstart

Hi, Thanks for the advice on the Goodstart article. I have added some inline citations. My reason for creating the article is to correct misinformation currently on Wikipedia, which I imagine is against your editorial charter. Currently a search for Goodstart Early Learning redirects to ABC Learning, a company which no longer exists. However because of the redirect, a Google search for Goodstart brings up the ABC wikipage, which is not ideal. I couldn't find an avenue to stop the redirect, hence the article creation (And because of the redirect I couldn't create a Goodstart Early Learning page. If there is way of stopping the Goodstart redirect to the ABC page I would welcome that advice as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zep6767 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zep6767: Go here: Goodstart Early Learning. You can also click the article name to get there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Reason for another decline

Hi Anarchyte,

I have recently submitted an article about Sydney Michael Hudson. This was denied due to lacking inline citations. I recognzied that I had not included these and did so yesterday. I understand that every line does not have a citation, but after reading information regarding Wikipedia's inline citation requirements I understand it is not necessary for every line to be cited. The information included in the page is credible as it is directly referring to his life and accomplishments. Not all of these are documented on sources that can be cited. Do you have any suggestions on what else I can do to get this page approved? Or is there another reason it was declined other than the inline citations? Please let me know. I thought I had cleared up the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdwilson (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tdwilson: You're gonna want to talk to Onel5969 now, as he declined it for unreliable sources. You're gonna want to learn how to use the same reference again, which is done by naming the reference, like so: <ref name="example">{{cite web|etcetcetc}}</ref>. Then to use it again, put <ref name="example" />. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Article rejection - reliability of sources and notoriety

Hi, you recently rejected an article on the grounds of notoriety/sources - can I ask are newspapers and radio stations not considered notable/reliable, as I've used many of them. I'd appreciate a little more detailed feedback. Many thanks.

Flowersandgardens2016 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flowersandgardens2016: Newspapers are generally reliable, but I don't know about radio stations, sorry. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

White Sun article review

Hi Anarchyte, Thank you for taking the time to review my submission for an article on the band "White Sun." Can you tell me why this article was not considered notable? I was told that once a band charts on Billboard, they are considered notable. White Sun was #10 on Billboard's World Music chart, and all their information is verifiable on allmusic.com and on billboard.com. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:610C:7200:6953:A311:121A:338E (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@2605:E000:610C:7200:6953:A311:121A:338E, Music3333, and 108.185.110.218: You're going to need more sources than just billboard and allmusic, even if those two are reliable. The rule of thumb is normally 3-5 really good, reliable, third-party sources. You're also going to need to fix all those template errors. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect edit summary

Whatever this is, it's not a test edit or vandalism. Our own article on Lermontov says "Lermontov allegedly made it known that he was going to shoot into the air." There's no ref and it may not be true, but that's a different kettle of fish than test/vandalism. I don't know if it's true but I think that it's been reported as true so on that basis it's probably worth discussing in the article in some manner; I'll see if I can dig up a ref presently. Herostratus (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Sorry about that, since STiki just gave me a small amount of text I was unable to read the full context of the article. By itself, that sentence , especially without a reference, doesn't seem like a normal thing to say. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh totally no problem, perfectly fine and understandable. And deleting the material, since its unref'd, is reasonable (I'd like to have a couple days to take a shot at finding a ref tho). A wrong edit summary is really just a technical glitch, no problem, just want to give you a heads uo. Herostratus (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

11:16:35, 9 May 2016 review of submission by Mahmoodyaqub

• Mahmoodyaqub (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Centaur Asset Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why the article is not been identified as noticeable. Its one fo the fastest asset management company. Strategically partnered with many big companies for their working structure. Many independent sourcing covering it in the news and press. Can you please assist?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoodyaqub (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 May 2016

@Mahmoodyaqub: You need to tell us why the company is as remarkable as you claim it is. Please read all the links I gave you (WP:PROSE, WP:RS, WP:REFB, WP:V, WP:CORP and WP:GNG). Also, read what the notice says and my comment. THat will answer all your problems. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Hi Anarchyte can you review this again. I've put in the changes you've requested. The awards have been mentioned since they are very renowned awards in the industry add a lot to our notability and credibility. Let me know what else can i do to get this. I also have the Group of companies that are affiliated to Centaur that i will need mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoodyaqub (talk • contribs) 06:53, 16 May 2016

I'll leave it up to someone else, I don't have the time right now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

my changes

Just to let you know it is the same but little bit different i put a slash before the based word in the articleBlink 98 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my draft

If you get this i wanted to let you know that with my draft want was wrong? with it i strongly felt that rise against should be could rise against is a Chicago based punk rock bandBlink 98 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Blink 98: There is already an article about the band Rise Against. If you would like to contribute content to the existing article, go for it! However, there's no need to submit your own draft version of the article. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As info, Blink 98 is a LTA editor who has been blocked for disruptive editing on this topic and sockpuppetry multiple times. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:19:30, 17 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Arthurtheauthor

• Arthurtheauthor (talk · contribs)
  • User:Arthurtheauthor/SecretEATS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arthurtheauthor (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good day! You recently didn't approve my submission at Arthurtheauthor/SecretEATS. You said it was written as an advertorial but it is from an objective, third-party and is a piece on the changing trend of underground dining, which, we believe is happening in SA with a food revolution. I included several credible links and sources to back up the story including ELLE and other popular South African magazines. What is missing? What would you suggest? I also can't seem to find the content I wrote...can you assist? Sorry and thanks so much for the help. A bit new to this...

Arthurtheauthor (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ArthurTheAuthor Monday, 17 May 2016

@Arthurtheauthor: If you want the draft back, as it has been deleted, see WP:REFUND. I honestly do not remember what was on your draft, so your best bet is to contact an admin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Anarchyte. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Lyari Notes

Hello, I am a film publicist who has been asked by her clients to create a page for their documentary Lyari Notes. Not sure what the issues are here. Happy to resolve them. I have full permission from the filmmakers and this page serves as a factual reference point for an independent documentary on social issues in a third world country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyarinotes (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. You need to prove why the company you're representing is notable. You can do this through verfiable sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

11:32:34, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Tozenergy

• Tozenergy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cloakcoin (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This is my first article and Im not really sure what neologism you were refering, but i found 'cloakshield' and removed it, i refrained from using bitcontalk sources used in most wikipedia cryptocurrencies articles, has it is blacklisted.I have added some more sources.
This virtual currency is traded in exchanges and widely known. Following Paris attacks US homeland security and the European comission expressed concern over anonymous cryptocurrencies because of fear they might be used has terrorism financing tools. This crypto currency being anonymous makes it a noticeable encyclopedic article i think. I was about to had that info on the article.
Thank you.
Tozenergy (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

XgenPlus Draft Resubmit

Sir, I have corrected citations of my draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XgenPlus. Please review my draft Jaisskaur (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

XgenPlus Draft

• Jaisskaur (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:XgenPlus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jaisskaur (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Sir, I am thankful for your suggestion. Please guide to correct my references for further improvement of my page and make it more informative

@Jaisskaur: Each statement in the article needs to be backed up by a reliable, third-party source which is independent of the subject. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

hello.. see xgenplus .. i have tried to imporove notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.102.72 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection....

...allow me to answer here; I don't know if you have read the protection policy, but one of the goals of wikipedia is to let people add content as freely as possible (this includes of course IPs), so every protection will cut into this mantra of "the encyclopedia that every one can edit". A few vandalism edits per week or even 2 per day per article do not warrant semi-protection. And yes: blocking would be fine, but then WP:RFP is not the correct venue. See WP:AIV for reporting vandalism etc. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Alright, thanks for the quick response. I have read the protection policy, but I assumed almost-daily disruptive editing each day for a week (by 3+ different IPs), not mentioning the few month old edits by a user, would be a reasonable reason for Semi. Thanks for clearing it up. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick example on what warrants(ed) semi-protection...SECR K and SR K1 classes. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Comedy Geeks

As sources get more reliable, I would love to add more, but I am one of The Comedy Geeks, and would just like my wiki added, so we can get more views and popular. If you want a reliable source, I am, cuz I am part of The Comedy Geeks. Plz consider this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Ng (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Matthew Ng: Read WP:SOAPBOX. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

01:25:45, 20 May 2016 review of submission by SubhiB

• SubhiB (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Muslim Aid Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please highlight where it appears to read like an advertisement? The current article is somewhat similar to what I've seen on other wikipedia entries for non-profit organisations.

Cheers

The whole draft (except 1 sentence in response) is written in such a way that only shows the good side of this company. You've got awards, recognition and sentences like "it focuses on long-term development projects modelled on permaculture-thinking to end poverty"; but you've got nothing about what it actually does. Can you please reference the terrorist allegations, also? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton

I made the change because I read the significant number of comments on Dalton's nationality. It seemed to me to be a legitimate clarification to say that he was born in Wales, but was not, by his own viw of his nationality, Welsh. This was instigated by an online article in the Guardian newspaper of 20 May 2016 discussing the possibility of Idris Elba taking the role of James Bond. In the below-the-line comments someone referred to Dalton as being Welsh, which didn't sound right. I don't feel strongly about this edit or its deletion, but I felt that it did add something. 95.147.164.72 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox --> draft.

Hi, today you or someone moved one of the things I was working on from my main sandbox to a draft. I have no problem with this really I'm just wondering if this is going to happen to all the other projects that I'm working on righ now in my other sandboxes.

Some of them arn't very good right now and I don't really know how drafts work, do other users regularly check on those? *Treker (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi *Treker. The reason I moved it from your sandbox to Draft namespace is because you entered it into WP:AFC. AFC drafts are preferred to be in the draft namespace. You can still use your sandbox to make articles, but if you enter it into the AFC queue there's a high chance it'll get moved. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte I have no memory of entering it to AFC. Strange. It's nowhere near done yet. Maybe I did it on accident without knowing what I was doing.*Treker (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: Actually, checking the history, it seems 86.163.60.109 submitted it in this edit. Would you like me to request it to be moved back? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes actually that would be nice. It's not going to be approved like it is now, I have to work on it more. Thank you.*Treker (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I've nominated User:*Treker/sandbox for deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome from STiki!

Hello, Anarchyte, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Omni Flames let's talk about it 01:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Slipknot

I declined the speedy of Slipknot (disambiguation). Your close was incomplete - I can tell you think there is consensus to move the disambig page, but what happens to the Slipknot title? Does it become a redirect, and if so to which article? Fences&Windows 09:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Oops! Forgot to mention that in the close message. Consensus shows that Slipknot should redirect to Slip knot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. I semi-protected the redirect at Slipknot to avoid edit warring and move warring. Your reading of the consensus was in my view reasonable but it might be subject to disagreement or a Wikipedia:Move review, so be prepared to justify it further. Fences&Windows 11:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Need Assistance.

Hi Anarchyte,

I am trying to edit the page and as you suggested, I am trying to add citations but I need some help. I figured how to cite, however, I get a different number for the citation for extracts that belong to the same link that I add. How do I cite multiple sentences using a common reference link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForsakenRadical (talk • contribs) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ForsakenRadical: See WP:REFB for a basic rundown of referencing. To add a basic website reference, do the following:
<ref name="example1">{{cite web|url=http://www.example.com|website=[[Example]]|access-date=30 April 2024|date=date of publish|title=title of post/website|first=first name of author|last=last name of author}}</ref>

I used {{date}} in the |date= parameter. You should never do this and instead insert todays date. I'm only using this as an example.

That will produce: (please note that I used 22 May 2016 as the date becaues there's no actual date for this website's publication -- if there's no publication date, don't include the date parameter)

References

If you wish to use that same reference again, all you do is <ref name="example1"/>

That'll produce:

References

As you can see, there are two parts using the same reference (a and b). Clicking on either of the letters will take you to where the reference is. You may also see that they are both defined as ^[1]; not ^[1] and ^[2].

For a full list of parameters when citing a website, see Template:cite web. I hope this helps you! Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Anarchyte. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Terrence Howard

What do you mean it does not appear constructive? I just quoted him from the same magazine that the source was from since the information was out of text. And you basically just edited the part out where he defended himself. Is there some conspiracy against him? You cant conveniently show the bad stuff about him and not the good stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord NnNn (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lord NnNn: In the edit I reverted, you added defamatory content without referencing it. That's a violation of WP:BLP. Contact Denisarona about the other revert. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Mary, mother of Jesus

As an uninvolved editor, would you please consider closing the move request here and moving the page? My take is that supporters have outvoted the opposition, with superior policy-based arguments. Thanks either way. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: Done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a similar situation at Solus Christus and at Veritatis Splendor—in the first, the title is grammatically incorrect as is; belongs in Latin ablative, but is in nominative instead for no apparent reason. In the second, the capitalization is improper, since the title is really an incipit. Do you have permissions to fix these? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent:. I've moved Veritatis Splendor but I'm gonna leave Solus Christus for discussion because I know no latin and I'd rather not make a mistake with it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Careful with the page moves

Hey, Anarchyte, just a heads up: I see that you moved TBOF to The Battle of Fashion a few days ago. It was actually a hoax article that had been repeatedly deleted and recreated, and which had been protected against further recreation; your pagemove had the effect of bypassing the salting of the page (since it was only set to extended-confirmed protection). Not a big deal at all, the mistake was easy to make--it was an unusually legitimate-looking hoax--but it just might be worthwhile checking the target destination for protection settings before making a page move. Out of curiosity, if you happen to remmeber: was the move the result of a move request, or did you just stumble upon it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Interesting, I could have sworn you used to get a warning message when moving to a salted title. I've asked at VPT to see if that was the case (and if not, if we can make it so). See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Warning message when moving to a salted title?. Jenks24 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that'd definitely be a much better thing. I suppose I could write a script for it (similar to my script that warns about links from mainspace, redirects, and transclusions before deleting works), but that's nowhere near as good as having a real system message. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I found it while patrolling new pages, IIRC. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the hard word

Wow you're whacking through them I thought I was on me own. Keep going old bean, thank you for it. We are not always going to agree but we can disagree civilly at WP:RFD I appreciate that someone else is helping me out. Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Aha, I got bored and decided to take a look at the task you set yourself; 5 pages of over 5 thousand redirects each. Decided I'd help you out a bit . Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the typos my hands are very stiff of course I meant hard work I missed. It's fine I am trogging through them. I am kinda off work with poorly hands and the least I can do is to trog through these and clean up a few. It helps excercise my hands too. The bloody gum they put in them got in the trackball yesterday but fortunately I have a second one (I am a careful planning idiot) it was really hard to put it into the back of the computer this morning in the USB cable thing and so it is really frustrating something that would usually take seconds takes ages. Me missus yesterday made me put on a shirt and cufflinks. (All my shirts are double cuffed or french cuffed I think the Americans call it and need cufflinks) Now putting on cufflinks that was sodding hard. I just got a bit of a cut off the street some it of scrap metal or glass but it is taking a long time to heal. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You know you can take under WP:G6 "Neelix concession" you can take these straight to CSD you don't have to bring them to RfD. That is really the entire extent of that concession in that if they are obvious nonsense you can take them straight to CSD. It's a hard call because none of us wants to clutter RfD obviously neither do we want to delete things that are genuinely useful (I keep) quite a few and rcat them this morning as it happens most haven't been that way but yesterday I reckon about 40% from the infamous User:Anomie/Neelix list went that way by me). I'll keep trogging through em, set me a job I will do it and this is kinda my job right now. I can do it with a cigarette and a glass of pálinka so it is not really too bad a job! Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Hi, about the glacier redirects, I'm slowly adding them to a massive list and putting them all onto the page at once. I don't think WP:G6 applies to them in this case. WP:RFD is gonna need to look bad for a few minutes just while I do some maintenance. See User:Anarchyte/sandbox/neelix glaciers Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to RfD them. Read WP:G6 with the "Neelix concession". If they are created by User:Neelix you can take them straight to WP:CSD you don't need to list them at RfD. Some of them "bounce" as one or two of mine did this morning because the admins will disagree and that's fine, then you take them to RfD that is WP:BRD I have no problem with that. But if you take every single one to RfD apart from causing yourself work you are in danger of flooding RfD and they get quite bored of that and won't notice. Believe me, I do about a hundred a day. It also means that other people other than the Neelix list it kinda "floods" so that they can't see the ones brought that are not by Neelix. (I also tend to just write Neelix on the top or somewhere, and I believe truly that Neelix was in good faith in creating these, it is just shorthand as WP:G6 advises). That is why I try very much to limit the number I bring to RfD. You can take most as essentially WP:BOLD to CSD. Good luck! And if we're in edit conflict I will just choose another list so we're not always treading on each other's toes. Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually went through all the glacier ones yesterday and I am making this up but we had absurd things like glacializing or something which I took straight to CSD. I killed about thirty so what you're doing is the ones I thought were just about plausible. Keep going, you won't get any thanks for it, except from me. You'll probably be called a "Neelix basher" taken to WP:ANI and lots of other things just to try to make a decent index in an encylopaeidia. As I have stated in many places i believe Neelix in good faith created these to make the encylopaeidia better when the search engine was not as good as it is now. Now the search engine is kinda well half as crappy thanks to the folks over at MetaWiki a lot of these things get in the way of readers trying to find information. I am just the librarian kinda at the back saying why is the index seven times the size of the book? Keep going. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Aha, yeah, I also believe Neelix was entirely in good faith but if people wish to see the bad sides of something like this, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

About the move of "Snowy Dunes" to mainspace.

Hi Anarchyte,

I appreciate the swift move. Could you please help me out with how I may improve the article, in order for it to not get nominated for deletion under WP:A7?

Thanks in advance!Yasir.alsaffar (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, read WP:NMUSIC. Also, if it is deleted, use WP:REFUND to get it back. You can use Articles for Creation to make sure the page is okay for mainspace next time.

In case you didn't know, you can move pages yourself. On the top bar (next to view history, edit, watchlist, etc) click/hover over the "More" button and click move. Then find whichever namespace you want to move it to and write in the new name. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing RMs

Hey mate, thanks for your work making RM closures. Following up on your closure at Talk:Home economics, there are a few things I feel I should point out. If you're going to tag the move for CSD that's fine, but you need to keep an eye on the page until after everything has been completed. Some of the regular CSD admins are unfamiliar with regularly moving pages and in this case DGG left the talk page behind and also deleted rather than preserved the history of the target (this was arguably your responsibility to make clearer when tagging the page – I did note in my nomination that the history had to be preserved for attribution). I've cleaned it up now but it's something to keep in mind for the future. Additionally, you might want to consider adding rationales to your closes, especially in cases like this where it wasn't really unanimous (even if no one explicitly opposed). It doesn't have to long, it can just be a sentence or so for most cases. And just glancing at the "Mary, mother of Jesus" close, I wouldn't bother suppressing redirects for talk page archives – they can be useful to have and do no harm. Hope this doesn't sound overly critical, I appreciate the work you're doing. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24, thanks for the kind words. As for the "Mary, mother of Jesus" close, I suppressed the edits because I moved a page back to the original location. As far as I know, when I don't leave a redirect, it'll delete all subpages and move them too. I can make redirects if you so desire. The process of moves was like this:

1. moved page Mary, mother of Jesus to Mary (mother of jesus) without leaving a redirect (make way for a move)
2. moved page Mary (mother of Jesus) to Mary, mother of Jesus without leaving a redirect (Talk page discussion)
3. moved page Mary (mother of jesus) to Mary (mother of Jesus) without leaving a redirect (temp page not needed anymore)

As seen in my logs. Please inform me if there's a cleaner way of completely this process.

As for not leaving rationale for the close, I normally only leave it out if the consensus is obvious, such as cases where there's no opposition and only supportive comments posted, and vice versa (although I normally say something like "not moved as this isn't the primary topic", etc). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just glanced at a few of your other closes and saw that you usually leave an explanation so feel free to ignore my point about that. With the redirects, I see that now – it makes sense what you've done. I thought we might have a few little hiccups like this with the new page mover rights, but I suppose the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. In this case, where there are subpages that you'd like to keep redirects for, I think the best solution would be:

1. Move Mary, mother of Jesus to Mary (mother of jesus) (or some other variant that is a plausible redirect) without leaving a redirect (you then keep this redirect rather than moving it elsewhere later)
2. Move Mary (mother of Jesus) to Mary, mother of Jesus with redirect
3. Done

So basically you avoid doing a full "round-robin" move, you just get the target title clear by moving it some plausible redirect. I think you'd only need to do this in situations where there are subpages, but it might also be handy in other situations. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Ah alright, I'll try to do that from now on. Although I don't think it'd be possible to give out such a right, it'd be benificial if PMs had the ability to overwrite a redirect page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that completely. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

article "raceroom" notification

hello anarchyte,

i found a notification about my first try to crate an article. it´s my first article here @ wiki and i try hard to follow all rulez, wiki has. the article is far away from ready, i know. i edited it several hours, maybe you would read the article again and help me laeving some suggestion to give readers a better experience reading the article?

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.66.25 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@77.8.66.25 and Inspektor-marek: Your best bet is to leave a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raceroom. If you wish to work on it, either do
'''Draftify'''. I wish to continue working on it. ~~~~
or find some more references and do '''Keep'''. I've found more sources at link the references here. ~~~~. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@77.8.66.25 and Inspektor-marek: Actually, scratch that. With the new references uncovered by Hahnchen I'm gonna withdrawl the nomination. If you're still working on the article I'd recommend adding {{under construction|date=May 2016}} to the top. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GITM

Then why this page is there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Northcap_University which says it is top college. and one another page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Institute_of_Technology_%26_Management,_Gurgaon.

standard should be same for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthakur12 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have provided two sources in my article which are managed by Indian Govt. Why this comment of not using reliable sources then. Third one is the Website with gives all the information regarding the Institute. ~~kamalthakurKamalthakur12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kamalthakur12. It has not been nominated for deletion, only declined. Please read WP:RS to find out why I declined the draft as relying on unreliable sources. I hope this answers your questions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, this editor appears to have ignored your advice and created Gurgaon Institute of Technology and Management, (GITM). 220 of ^Borg 15:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

About your non-admin closure

I have the impression that, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikicology/Adopt/Copyright, you missed the fact that User:Wikicology/Adopt/Copyright is a blattant copyvio. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Lay off Anarchyte, please. The closure was a procedural measure only, as the MFD had been withdrawn by the nominator and speedy-keep votes all around, and was already due to be closed for this reason 87 minutes before you !voted. (This is the actual definition of WP:SNOW, by the way; you really should read that page some time, because you keep quoting it inaccurately.) If you think the page is a copyright violation of User:Worm That Turned's work (and I suspect you are right), then please feel free to open another MFD or template it to be speedy deleted. The initial MFD rationale made no reference whatsoever to copyright, and was a form of grave-dancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Air Command (India)

Hi Anarchyte, could you revisit your close at Talk:Southern Air Command (India)? I have a couple of concerns. For one, there was only one oppose !vote and I don't think it spoke to the support arguments and evidence very clearly - at least, I don't see it "outweighing" the support arguements. I also don't see the relevance of MOS:MILMOS#UNITNAME which you cited in your summary to the primary topic question. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Hi, I closed it with the WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME reasoning because of the 4th paragraph there. For units, the optional disambiguator should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (as in 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)), or, if such usage is still ambiguous (or where the unit does not serve a country), the name of the service branch to which the unit belongs (as in 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)). The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit (as in The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada), or where the name is clearly unique (as in Preobrazhensky regiment). I agreed with DaltonCastle, when they said I think its important to keep the nation in the title for military units. For example, simply looking up "Marine Corps" or "Marines" brings up an article about marines as a type of unit - NOT the United States Marine Corps, which is viewed far more than both the "Marines" article and the articles of other nations' Marine units. Per UNITNAME, I left the page unmoved because there are (or were) multiple armed forces using the same name (mentioned by Buckshot06). Per WP:TPTM, I think it'd be a smarter idea in the long term to leave the pages as-is and keep Southern Air Command as a disambiguation page. If you have any more questions, feel free to respond . Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable points to raise in a !vote of your own, but I don't think it's really a fair reading of the consensus in the discussion. Most of us were talking about whether or not the subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is a question of whether or not disambiguation is even needed. No one had mentioned WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, which offers guidelines on what to do in the event disambiguation is needed (my argument, and that of other participants, is that it's not). Perhaps you could reopen the discussion and add your points as a vote?--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you wish for me to undo my edit and add a vote, I shall. (Also, it was Buckshot06 that linked WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME). Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullian, the title 'Southern Air Command' has been used by at least two air forces, possibly more (like Ukraine, depending on the way you translate it). That means that MILMOS#UNITNAME clearly applies. There is no justification for changing the name of the article unless you and those who support your view have first managed to amend MILMOS#UNITNAME. Neither this talkpage or the SAC (India) talkpage are the right place to do that - a better place would be WT:MILHIST itself. Also, WP:TPTM clearly applies - this is no particular reason to consider India 'first among equals' for use of the Southern Air Command title. I would kindly request you, if you are interested in continuing to argue this, to raise a proposed amendment to MILMOS#UNITNAME on the Milhist talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reopening the discussion, Anarchyte. I'll continue the conversation in the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Marc Clark (Sculptor)

Hi Anarchyte,

Thank you for your encouraging words after the rejection of my Draft "Marc Clark (Sculptor)".

I am writing to request that you have a look at the latest changes I have made and your thoughts before I re-submit,

Thanks,

JohnFlashpepi (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Flashpepi (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Flashpepi (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flashpepi: Hi, after a quick read, you're might want to use WP:PROSE to list out his acomplishments, exhibitions, etc. The majority are also unreferenced, which is never good. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

thanks, will give it a go!

John

Flashpepi (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I have made significant changes to my draft article introducing more prose. Marc Clark (Sculpture). Could you please have another look at it prior to me re-submitting it.

Thanks,

JohnFlashpepi (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Flashpepi (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Flashpepi (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flashpepi: It's looking better but you still have a few external links that aren't in ref form scattered around. Pinging Onel5969 because they're the most recent reviewer. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I intitially went to 5969 and left a message but there was no response. Where do I go from here? JohnFlashpepi (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flashpepi: According to his userpage, he's semi-retired from editing. You may need to be a bit more patient when waiting for a response from him. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for your help. I did not realise you have to go back to the original reviewer.

all the best,

JohnFlashpepi (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Flashpepi (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just left an update on One|5969 but I notice he advises he 'may or, may not get back'. That sort of leaves me adrift. Is it OK to try and identify, and fix, the 'external links that aren't in ref form' and simply resubmit the article. If so can you advise are these references that have not been done right or external links that should be converted to references?

Thanks,

agin,

JohnFlashpepi (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flashpepi: Yes, it would be fine to do that. I've already reviewed it once so I'll leave it up to an uninvolved editor to review after you resubmit. As for the link which needs fixing, it's under Draft:Marc_Clark_(Sculptor)#Life in the first line. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so mush. For someone writing his first article I consider myself lucky to have run into you for advice, Flashpepi (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC) JohnFlashpepi (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:37:09, 28 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Singha.sanat

• Singha.sanat (talk · contribs)
  • User:Singha.sanat/sandbox/About Sanat Singha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Anarchyte, First of all, many thanks that you visited my article page - "About Sanat Singha" and left your comments. Since, I am a newbie in creating Wiki page, I need to understand what kind reliable sources will help authenticate my profile. So far, I have added a few references of my profile from different blogs and social media sites where I have accounts. If I need to provide additional references, please suggest me the names or their types. Once the suggestions received, I will work on them and then re-submit the page for your re-review. Your guidance will assist me and I shall be thankful to you for your help.

Singha.sanat (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Singha.sanat: You draft was declined because it wasn't backed up by reliable sources. A reliable source is written a published article written by a third-party which displays why the topic is notable. Blogs, LinkedIn profiles, etc aren't considered reliable because they are self-published. You also need to add inline citations to your article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte Thanks for replying to me with the feedback. Right now I only have one source - http://nancybadillo.com/interview-sanat-singha-websigmas-com/ where I was interviewed by Nancy Badillo. Will that be counted here? As far as inline citations are concerned, I have articles on web technology, software development published by renowned blogs and tech communities like CMCross Roads by Techwell, DZone, Techgig by Times of India Group, Search Engine Journal, Skyje as well as the tech companies for which I wrote articles. Will they be accepted for creating inline citations? Please let me know your feedback. Thanks once again. Singha.sanat (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Singha.sanat: Inline citations just show where the reference is used. I'm unsure what you mean by "Will they be accepted for creating inline citations". Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte I wanted to mean - Can I use the web page links (from 3rd party tech blogs, community sites) listing my published articles and member profiles as inline citations? If they are supposed to be approved, I will link those online works from my Wiki Profile. Hope that increases the chance of my profile getting published. Thanks. Singha.sanat (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Singha.sanat: Could you please link me the references so I can take a look at the reliability? The better idea would be to just add them directly to the draft, that way more people will be able to view it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte As suggested, I have made the changes in inline citations and updated the draft for your and others' review. Singha.sanat (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War#Requested move 24 May 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War#Requested move 24 May 2016. Baking Soda (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

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

Early close?

Hi there - can I ask why you closed the RM at Talk:Alexander_Armstrong#Requested_move_30_May_2016 after less than a day and a half? Yes, there were only !support votes so far, but there was still plenty of time in the usual 7 day period for more folks to add input, whether in favor or against the move. Especially since there had been a recent RM, it seems better for this one to go the full time. Would you consider reopening the RM? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: Done, although I think it's unnecessary as the primary topic has already been established. The last RM was moving it to another disambiguated title, so that doesn't matter. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: Seems as though another user has closed it, it was open for 3 extra days with no imput, I'm 99% sure the consensus is clear now. Sorry about the early close, nonetheless. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I've just seen too many discussions where people threatened or actually used a quick close to challenge the validity of the decision. Thanks again for your actions. Dohn joe (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Close this Baseless AFD

Come Online and look at this Autistic editor (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Autistic editor: It was already closed by the time I got back online. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to Remove "Primary Sources" Tag From Article With 65% Secondary Sources

For Metropolitan News-Enterprise, I disagree with the "primary sources" tag, i.e., that the article "relies too much on references to primary sources." Of the 20 refs, 65% (#s 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19) are secondary sources. This is a higher percentage than found in many articles about newspapers. For example, in The New York Times, a GA, of the first 37 refs only 16 (43%) are secondary sources (defined as non-NYT articles). The Washington Post is even worse with only 6 (30%) secondary sources (non-WP articles) among the first 20 refs. I request that the tag be removed. Thanks. CalSGWorker (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from removing it yourself if you disagree, but I've done it for you. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC).

Substituting templates

Your actions to force these templates to be substituted may well be a good idea, but would you mind discussing it first and making sure there is consensus for this to happen? It is a pain to revert this number of edits if the change turns out to be undesirable. Feel free to reapply the change when there is some consensus. Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Where do you propose I take the idea to? Village Pump Technical? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You could start with the template talk page. Or the talk page of the process where they are used (Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, ... where else are they used?) I'm probably being over cautious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ:.  Done at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Automatic_substitution_of_Template:RMpmc._Template:RMnac_and_Template:Nac.3F. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Kayyali Space Foundation

Hi Anarchyte! Thank you for your visite to "Kayyali Space Foundation" page! I am a newbie in creating Wiki page, I need to understand what kind reliable sources will help authenticate that page. Ang.din (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ang.din: Hi. Thanks for taking interest in creating articles, unfortunately, you haven't proved why the Kayyali Space Foundation is notable. I'd suggest reading up on the following pages: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NCORP. You may also want to partake in the AfD discussion. If you want the page to be moved to the draft namespace, you can just leave a message there with something along the lines of
* '''Draftify''' or move to my userspace. I want to continue to work on this article. ~~~~.
If you want to do that, I'm happy to change my vote to Draftify as well. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RMpmc

Template:RMpmc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Music1201 ^talk 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled section

Hi ...

I just wanna to know that i have to write it again the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dinabandhu sahoo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr Dinabandhu sahoo: Your draft wasn't deleted, it was moved to a new location. See Draft:Dinabandhu sahoo. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Send me an email

Send me an email if you can. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Sorry, I can't. I'd rather not disclose my email address. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No issues at all. There were a few small points before your RfA which I would've mentioned over email that may assist you. But I'll do it here itself then. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sometimes – rarely so and wrongly so, but sometimes – some editors may point out the bright coloured nature of your signature in your Rfa (the bright colour is problematic to some screens and some kind of editors). If you are okay with it, then you might consider changing the signature. If you feel strong about it, don't. Also, if you are considering the RfA, it's preferred to allow some experienced admin to nominate you. Further, if you have skeletons in your contributions, lay it out in your nom acceptance statement for the community to see themselves, rather than wait for someone to point it out. Will write more further. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I normally change my sig colours up every few weeks, I've changed it to blue. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest (only suggest) that you should drop all the frills on your signature. A non-frilled plain signature may represent maturity to some editors who simply want a reason to oppose. It's also preferable that before going live, you bounce off the three answers to your nom questions with a couple or more of editors who are experienced and whom you trust. It's always better to get the views of others about how your nom answers sound. I am sure you would have already considered doing this. Also, when you go live, understand that it's an RfA. The community takes the final decision. So anything can happen – succeed, not succeed, take any result as a learning experience, and move on. By the way, you don't actually need to listen to any of my advice – I am an editor who has had two rollback requests rejected, so am not the expert on these things – but I read a lot, and I think I've read up on all Rfas this side of 2010, and have realised various points that make a difference. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: (edit conflict) Yeah, I'd rather get nominated and talk about my downfalls in the statement than nominate myself. I don't feel right nominating myself because I feel as though the COI would be overwhelming and I'd come across as slightly egotistical. Who would you recommend I speak to? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The admin who has really strived hard to increase the number of admins on Wikipedia is Mr._Stradivarius. He'll give you a patient hearing and would back you till the end if you seem good to him. Other admins who are really helpful and supportive are WereSpielChequers, Nick-D, Worm That Turned and MusikAnimal. It'll be good if they say yes. Don't worry if they say no, take their advice well. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for them to get online. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at your contributions, and everything is looking good. I'll try and go through them in more detail tomorrow when I will have a little more time, but all signs are pointing for you being ready for RfA. And I don't think your signature should be a problem. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you about this. Since my last look at your edits I notice that others have brought up issues with A1 tagging, and I see you had a rejected non-admin close mentioned in the talk section below. I also agree with the commenters at your optional RfA candidate poll that having a little more polished content work would give you an advantage at RfA. I don't think any of this would make you fail an RfA if you started one right now, but it depends how certain you want to be about passing. If you are the kind of person who wants to be extra sure of passing the first time, then I would spend another month improving your A1 tagging, non-admin closes and doing content work. However, if you would like to get it over with and don't mind being slightly less sure of the outcome, I would be happy to nominate you right now. Let me know what you would like to do. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: All good, I understand that real life comes before Wikipedia and I very much appreciate your efforts in reviewing my edits. I've stopped using A1 as frequently as before after it was mentioned to me. I believe the AfD closure was just a mistake I made when I was tired, and I can't remember another time where I've made that mistake. I've reread the NAC rules and I must've gotten AfD confused with another XfD motion because I remember seeing delete NAC closures somewhere. Could I run my answers past you right now, and then get quick feedback on those? I have a few hours before I'll probably head off and I think that would be enough time to respond to the first few user questions, if not, tomorrow would be a good time. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the slight matter of writing you a nomination statement, which always takes me a while. :) I might finish it tonight, but I should warn you I'm generally lazy when it comes to nomination statements... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I've created the page for the draft of the questions at User:Anarchyte/sandbox/questions. Feel free to fix any grammatical mistakes, etc you may find. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've surprised myself - I finished writing your nomination already, and you can see it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte. I've read your answers to the standard questions, and they look fine. It might also help if you address some of the points raised at your optional RfA candidate poll in your acceptance statement. If you want to ask any other editors to give you a co-nomination, then now is the time. Otherwise, just copy your answers to the standard questions over, add your acceptance (with optional acceptance statement), and we can start the ball rolling. If you feel comfortable transcluding the RfA yourself, then go ahead, but if not, I'll be happy to do it for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Mr. Stradivarius:. I have an hour or so left so I'll get right on it. As for the transclusions, I don't really wanna screw anything up with something like this, so if possible, I'd rather you do it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was easier than expected to transclude the RfA. I've done it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Anarchyte, if Mr. Stradivarius believes that it would be better to wait a month or so, I would blindly follow his advice if I were you. A month is just a few days away, and it's not much to give to the community when it's a matter of the RfA. You have my support, whether you go now or after a month. But I would strongly encourage you to heed his advice. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tacking off of this, I can only say that Xender Lourdes's points are spot on - getting an editor like WereSpielChequers or Worm That Turned to nominate you will not only help your RfA, but will give you a chance to prepare for the questioning and improve on any of those areas you're a little weaker on You've got a support from me already lined up -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Schwartz title page changed to Jeffrey E Schwartz

Hello, Thank you for pointing out the conflict in title name. I thought I had created a Jeffrey E Schwartz page where my sandbox work would go. I have made an edit to the current Jeff Schwartz draft (changing the title to Jeffrey E Schwartz) as well as created a new Jeffrey E Schwartz page. Please let me know if there is another way to make the correction. Much appreciated. Cdevlin67 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by this? You seem to have created both a mainspace article and a draft page. I've cleaned up your mainspace page but I'm not sure what you want done with your draft. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

aaworks100

Hi I want push my article i talked with another admin he asked me to send it for review, I have not get any response from him, I am new to this my article was deleted before, If you could help me it would be really appreciated. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawork100 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aawork100: Hi, instead of moving your draft yourself, let it be reviewed by an experienced editor by putting {{afc submission}} at the bottom of your draft. I can move your page to draft namespace if you wish to continue to work on it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, any help would be appreciated. But How will know that my work will show up?Aawork100 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aawork100: Please see Draft:U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed. Continue to work on your article there and when you think you're done, click the "Resubmit" button. Please do not put it onto my page; that's the wrong place to ask for a review. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for posting the article on your page. I don't understand how it works I just wanted to show that I have provided with sufficient amount of material to support my article but still it is being deleted. Could you please help me and tell what am i doing wrong. Aawork100 (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aawork100: I'd recommend reading the notice on the draft page. It will tell and link you to everything you need. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave the article for re submission, but it was not accepted, Now what can I do? Could please help.Aawork100 (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aawork100: You didn't change a single thing since I declined it. Please read all the links inside the red box and update the page accordingly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I taught I have given enough reference that my article is about a notable person. Therefore I did not make any changes to it. Could you please what I need to change?Aawork100 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aawork100: Primarily, you haven't supplied us with content telling us why the person is notable. None of your references are reliable so you're going to need to replace those. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have please look into the links, He owns educational institutions and tied up with several origination's which do charity work. Ideal UK is an international organisation it is clear mentioned on their page of his affiliation.Aawork100 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Close as delete

Hey, re: closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Arcade as "delete" (accurately, I might add)—the last I checked, the NAC rules (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions) bar non-admins from making these types of closures.  czar 15:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Thanks for restoring both by user page and talk page after they were blanked, much appreciated. :) Melcous (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Impressed by your demeanour within the Rfa and diligent answers. Like I mentioned, pass or not, it's an experience that is a learning one as the community finally does give very relevant pointers. I'm with you on this! Keep the faith! Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghufran Raghib

Hello Anarchyte. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghufran Raghib, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. -- GB fan 14:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisting?

Why did you relist this nominated move? There are 2 opposes and 2 comment, and nobody in favor (apart from the nominator, who is well known for his POV, and is topic-banned from similar issues). Debresser (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your RfA has been really harsh, and you shouldn't have to go through that. So, you need a kitten.

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisting?

Why did you relist this nominated move? There are 2 opposes and 2 comment, and nobody in favor (apart from the nominator, who is well known for his POV, and is topic-banned from similar issues). Debresser (talk) 9:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC+3)

@Debresser: Sorry about not answering your question yesterday, it seems I archived 1 too many discussions. I relisted it to allow both of the move discussions to continue being discussed at the same time. I'd rather both of them be closed at the same time instead of 1 after another (that's just personal preference and any uninvolved user can close a relisted discussion without waiting the extra 7 days. Pinging @Music1201, SSTflyer, and Paine Ellsworth: in case they want to look at it.
Looking more into detail, I'm unsure if the users topic ban covers this (keep in mind this is a foreign topic for me) as it doesn't mention Zionism and it's not the Western Wall article. He hasn't added references to Palestine in articles that don't contain them, either. I'll ping some people who are involved, to make sure I'm reading this right. @Sir Joseph and Nableezy: Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In the mean time both were closed by Paine Ellsworth, even though I am not happy with the result. I agree with you that the topic ban of Chesdovi is only related, which is why I wrote "is topic-banned from similar issues". Debresser (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

An octopus for you!

	The RFA-survival octopus
	An RFA is a really tough gauntlet to run, no matter how qualified you are or how thick your skin is. I think an octopus might just ameliorate things a bit. Best of luck! GABgab 02:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Just to keep you going chin up and hang in there -- samtar talk or stalk 08:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Gonna take a gander at some random backlogs while I wait . Got any suggestions? @Samtar: Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Here's a couple I reccomend: easy (Unref BLPs), easy (No 'living' param) and medium (promotionally toned articles). Knock yourself out! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Suggestion: don't "wait", take feedback as it comes, but just do what you like to do. I have seen awful RfAs, where a person was hurt by words, - didn't see that in yours. No reason to have your chin anywhere but up ;) - I go by Opabinia regalis a lot, less by coffee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	RFA is certainly not an easy process, and yours has been absolutely brutal. However, you've kept at it and not let the harsh opposers get to you. Best of luck and I hope you make it through. Omni Flames (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your RfA

Although I think you will be a great admin, you probably won't succeed in this RfA. I think that some of the WP:NOTQUITEYET votes are bogus and terrible, as you have enough experience. You could withdraw the RfA, but I would just let this play out, and re-apply in 6 months - 12 months. This RFA has been far too brutal, and I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia! Don't give up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please stay around. Many (me included) seriously considered leaving after a failed RFA, but don't let it get to you. GAB^gab 13:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A yummy cupcake for you!

Don't let my neutral vote make you feel bad. I have nothing against you. Peter Sam Fan 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Review of submission by Dmamsl

• Dmamsl (talk · contribs)
  • User:Dmamsl/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Anarchyte, I'd like your help. I'm a first time Wiki page creator. Would you mind explaining why you rejected my submission? Thanks! Dmamsl (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I rejected your submission because it wasn't appropriately sourced. Wikipedia articles are required to be sourced by reliable, in-depth, third-party sources that are independant of the subject and prove notability. You've added more references and I think you're on the right track. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. It's up now, thanks for your comments! Dmamsl (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I have seen the harshness of the environment at RfAs and I must say good job for enduring through this tough and harsh process. May you pass on your next try! Jianhui67 T★C 04:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jianhui67: You make it sound like it's over. He's still not all that far away from discretionary range. Omni Flames (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Hmm yeah. There is still 2 days and 5 hours to the end. But the percentage does not seem to fluctuate a lot. Jianhui67 ^T★C 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I think you probably need something stronger. You're a brave bloke! Better luck next time bro. Muffled Pocketed 09:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, gonna need it! Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the votes don't necessarily convey the strength of opinion. In my case, it was "well, I don't think he's quite there yet, but if there's consensus to support I'm not going to mind". There is a lot of work to do around here that doesn't require the tools (heck, you don't even need them to close TfDs anymore, and there is far more tolerance over non-admin AfD closures than they're used to be). When I started serious work on Wikipedia around 2012, I didn't imagine I'd be going off to purchase books out of my own pocket for people like John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, just to be able to improve that article. Have a go at the content stuff, you seem to get far more respect from people by showing an ability to write, and will hopefully make RfA #2 an easier ride. Oh, and whatever people write at RfA, the consistent view of the regulars that participate all the time is nothing said there is at all personal. Enjoy the beer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I voted support and was writing a detailed explanation, but when I clicked on the Save page button I got an editconflict... Well, anyway, keep up the good work, and don't feel discouraged. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side: I think you'll learn from this experience, and now you know exactly what to do to pass your next RfA. Some of the oppose voters have given you good advice (imho). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ace Of Aces

Working on it as we speak. Kaobear (talk)

Everything looks perfect from what I could see. Kaobear (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Snack

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I relisted the discussion half an hour earlier... Omni Flames (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Anarchyte. I just took another look at the discussion, and, after considering it for a bit, I agree with you close of not moved. So I've removed my relist and closed it as such. Best, Omni Flames (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like since those 2 oppose votes today held so much ground that the next few votes would follow suit. List of snack foods on the other hand... Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Commiserations and cookies for you

Have a cookie

Hi Anarchyte

Bad luck on the recent RfA, but don't lose the faith - you are definitely destined to be an admin in the future, and you'll be a sound addition to the corps when you are. It looks like there are a lot of good pointers in the opposes for you to work on in the coming months. A few ideas you could consider:

• Write some articles - maybe see if you can get one to GA status - it's great fun once you get into it, and will provide by far the best evidence that you understand the core purpose of WP and how referencing works.
• Participate in talk page discussions on content issues. Show the community that you have a level head and are committed to consensus building.
• Keep on voting in deletion discussions and RMs, and do non-admin closures, making sure to consider existing arguments carefully and research online thoroughly to understand the situation in the world at large and how it can be applied to our policies. I think you're already well on the way with this one.

My door is always open if you want a second opinion on anything, or a bit more mentoring. All the best and keep your head up, you're a very awesome Wikipedian!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

RfA

I suggest that you consider withdrawing your RfA now. You have gotten quite a bit of feedback now. As someone who observed RfAs for quite a while, in my opinion it is highly unlikely at this point that your current RfA will succeed. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to have it run for the full seven day period. But there is an opportunity cost in doing so, if you run again (as you certainly should, in my opinion). Most substantive arguments on both sides have already been made, several times over, and the rough division of opinions has become clear. There is no compelling need to prolong the pain now, especially since it can lead to more drama and acrimony, which will affect the extent to which your first RfA will be viewed as a negative factor, and how long you may have to wait before you try again. One of the things that is already starting to happen in your RfA is a certain kind of an ideological battle that has rather little to do with your individual strength and weaknesses as an admin candidate. I mean the debate about whether 1 year of editing is enough. Some people are opposing just based on that, some are supporting to cancel those kind of opposes, etc. This has all the makings of a possible highly acrimonious mess, and believe me, you don't want to be the focus of something like that (If you withdraw, this debate will likely continue at WT:RFA, but at least it won't be about you). In my opinion, it is much better for you to withdraw now, take on board the criticisms expressed in the RfA, and run again in about 9 months or so. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I withdrew my own RFA after no more than a couple of days, and resolved to take the concerns to heart and work on improving wherever I needed to. There was a certain degree of fallout, but I was able to move beyond it eventually. Please do not become discouraged - RFA is a brutal, unforgiving process, where one can "lose" even with a clear majority of support. You are a good editor with plenty more potential, and I hope you consider running again in the future. Good luck, GAB^gab 00:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. The RfA currently stands at 40 supports and 26 opposes, giving a support ratio of 61%. It may be unusual for an RfA with five days left to pass at this percentage, but it is not unheard of for there to be a run of supports later on in the proceedings. And 61% is only 9 percentage points lower than the lower end of the discretionary zone. I would wait a little longer before throwing in the towel. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, after Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC, the discretionary range was changed from 70-75%, to 65-75%, which means that you're actually fairly close to the range. In addition, since Mr. Stradivarius's comment, your percentage of support has risen to 63%. I would advise you to not withdraw the RFA just yet, there's certainly still a decent chance of you passing. The opposing !votes haven't really been all that convincing. Omni Flames (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Much as I understand Nsk's points, I agree with Omni Flames that you still have a chance of passing at this stage. If the discretionary range hadn't been lowered, then I could see the argument for withdrawal as having more veracity; since you have over 60% in support, and relatively few of the opposes are related to instances of poor judgement on your part, I say keep it live until it has run its course. The bottom line is, we need more administrators, and I think you will do a good job. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Don't withdraw. There's still a chance, and I argue that the bureaucrats need to discount much of the opposition anyway. In any normal election, 60% would be an overwhelming landslide, but here people balk at the idea of passing admins at that percentage. How strange and unrealistic. Biblio (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Hang in there -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Though I voted "neutral", I have to agree with the others: Don't withdraw just yet. There's a good chance that your RfA could lead to a "crat chat", and it doesn't look like there is enough sustenance yet in the "oppose" section votes to have the "crat chat" result in "no consensus". At this point, might as well see if "the ship survives after hiting the iceberg" since the chances are about equal to the support percentage, and those are some favorable odds. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Biblioworm, Steel1943, GeneralizationsAreBad, and Omni Flames: The majority of the oppose votes seem to focus on the lack of content creation, which I've acknowledged many times. I'm trying to up my article creation and involvement with article-related issues since the poll and so far I've created a C-Class DYK passing article. The other problem that keeps getting brought up is the Ketchapp and GamerGate edits, and with the latter, I haven't edited there since the warning as to not cause controversy surrounding the topic. I've explained the missunderstanding with the Ketchapp edits once at AN/I and twice in this RfA. I appreciate the criticism and I'll try to work on myself no matter the outcome of the RfA. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't get your above ping... luckily I'm stalking your talk page . I agree with you, the oppose !votes lack any real substance and are quite frankly, ridiculous. Let's hope that you get enough supports in the next few days to get you a crat chat, at least. Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I voted "oppose", but not based on WP:NOTENOUGH (which I explicitly rejected). Since you invited feedback in your withdrawal comment, I feel free to come here, though I suspect my view on your RfA is a minority one, even among the opposes. That same comment includes "It's been fun", so I am not sure I should take it very seriously though...

I watched RfAs from a year or so and started !voting there about 6 months ago. There are a few editors who will always oppose, either with "less than 100k edits is not enough" or with "made some mistake 5 years ago" (and unless you are a godly machine, I do not see how to avoid both). There is a substantial minority that will insist on arbitrary numbers, usually some combination of edit counts, account age, articles created, GA/FA. There are also a few who will support pretty much everyone who did not make serious blunders and used a WP: link once, either per sincere adhesion to the WP:NOBIGDEAL philosophy or to "balance out" the automatic opposes. But in the end, the outcome is decided by the people on the fence.

What really concerned me is the CSD thing, because I have been a rash CSD-tagger back when I had no clue, and it would have been really damaging if I found a lazy admin to check my noms. An SD-performing admin should (1) know that he is supposed to check that the CSD is applicable and (2) know what the CSD are. Your answers to Q8 and Q12 make me confident on (1) but the oppose #19 gave 3-month old links that make one worry about (2).

Ironically, I would have probably discounted them if you had been younger to CSD, because everyone makes mistakes at the beginning and one could venture that you learnt since then. Actually, there is a good chance that you did become more CSD-prudent since then; but the impression I had is that generally speaking you would rather try things and see the feedback than read the manual first. Personally, I would not trust someone like this to be an admin - at least not before I have reasonable certainty that they have made enough blunders without the tools that few blunders remain to be done with the tools. You made recent nominations at AfD that make one suspect a lazy WP:BEFORE, so at least in that area I had no guarantee that the situation has stabilized.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Q17 at your RfA

"Yeah, I could probably answer that question better, but I'm unsure if I'm allowed to redo answers. "

Yes, you are. You don't alter or remove your existing words, though, because they have been commented on. What you do is make a note that you are rephrasing. You can strike through (though not remove) your old answer and put a new one underneat5h. Or you can leave the old one as it is, and put the new answer underneath. As a side note, it is because you are unfamiliar with such procedure that a number of folks, such as myself, feel you are not ready. It would be better for you to gain more experience and confidence before taking on the tools. You'd enjoy the experience more, and everyone would benefit from a confident admin that the whole community has faith in. There really is no rush. You can do much to help the project without being an admin. Become an admin too soon, make a mistake, and some people will be breathing down your neck so you end up losing confidence and the ability to perform at all. I note some folks are suggesting you withdraw, while others are suggesting you hang it out. My personal recommendation is to withdraw. It would end your discomfort. It would also show folks that you are able to assess consensus, and do the right thing, which will assist you at your next RfA. Hanging it out benefits nobody other than those who take delight in watching contentious debates drag on. We don't want stubborn admins, we want reflective and responsive ones. Plenty of folks who are admins now withdrew from their first RfA. I am one of those. I think there are few examples of admins who were encouraged to withdraw from a failing RfA but stubbornly clung on while more negative comments were thrown at them. It can get nastier as the RfA nears the end. Keep strong and keep well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like the opinion of Mr. Stradivarius, as he was my nominator, before I withdraw. Looking at the opposition, besides sometimes not thinking before doing (CSD/AfD/the likes) and lack of content creation, I don't really see anything I can improve on. The GamerGate and Ketchapp edits are behind me and I've learned from them, as said previously. I'll need to answer the answers a little better next time too. Since the RFAP and the RfA I've started improving on my article-space major edits. (+1, 2, 3, 4). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that the RfA is unlikely to succeed at this point. I was still holding out some hope in my post above, but unfortunately the outcome is looking a lot clearer now. Withdrawing may be a wise move for the reasons SilkTork gives, but the final decision is up to you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try again in a few months time. I may have rushed into it a little fast . Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it was probably time to withdraw. I hope you don't let it get to you and keep being an active member of the community, I look forward to supporting you when you have more experience . Omni Flames (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry it came to this. One of the most important qualities of an admin, in my opinion, is the ability to listen. I think that in this case adding to your question was not only allowed but necessary, to demonstrate more clearly you understood consensus, or even what you had learned by this (unforgiving, painful) process. I remain wildly enthusiastic about your editing here, and truly hope you are willing to run again, as a more confident candidate, in perhaps 4-8 months. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to IAR and add a clarification now, even though the discussion has technically closed. (Anarchyte: If you want to, of course.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep doing what you're doing. You did nothing wrong, and have no need to change anything to qualify for being an administrator. RFA is a crappy process, sometimes used by editors to randomly tear down a qualified candidate in unfair ways. Keep up the good work! Illegitimi non carborundum. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: Illegitimi non carborundum. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I love it! Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Shrubbery

	Shrubbery
	Bring one next time around ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)