User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, and an invitation

I wanted to say thanks for being clear in your RFC at WP:VPP that you mean "non-affiliated" when you mentioned WP:Independent sources. Some editors struggle with the concept ("non-independent" means "any source I don't respect", right?). I have a fantasy in which I will actually merge WP:3PARTY and WP:INDY. I've talked about it for years, and maybe this will be the year.  ;-)

I would be happy to have you watching those pages if you aren't already, and especially to get your comments at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources#What is an independent source?. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in

I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, which you might be interested in. Link is here: [1]. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent Titanic II reports

I made an update on the Titanic II page to incorporate a report this week made by the Liverpool Echo. Same old, same old but it looks like the reporter is confusing the Palmer project with the static replica at a Chinese theme park. The investors for the theme park project just announced that it is to be assembled later this year and that news also came out on August 17th. Replica Titanic has been updated with the recent announcement. (Let's see if Palmer next announces that he's now gunning for 2020.) Blue Riband► 22:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notabilty Guidelines

I noticed that you provided a comment recommending AfD for an article which is discussed in the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Huffington Post and university journals, most of which were yet to be included because the speedy deletion tag was inserted, interrupting the work. The reason I became aware of this new system is due to my reading about the decline of newspapers. Your edit summary comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding about notability. Notability is not a feeling. It is based on an analysis of independent reliable sources. In order to find actual non-notable articles, I recommend pressed the "Random article" page a few times as a large percentage (20-30%) of articles do fail to meet notability guidelines, such as:

These articles would probably not meet notability guidelines because they do not have any reliable sources and do not meet any other criteria for inclusion. You are welcome to start an AfD on any of the above articles.

It is important to assuming good faith when dealing with other editors. Obviously, I have constructed on the basis that it does meet notability guidelines, as indicated by the quotes on the talk page. The inclusion of commentary in the edit summary is also problematic. Not only does it fail to reference the material in the talk page, but the appropriate place to place comments about the article is the talk page. See WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:REVTALK for more information about this. Travelmite (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I apologize for the delayed response. I am traveling at present and don't have much time for online activities. My edit summary was primarily directed at the editor who attached the CSD tag, though I fear this was not made clear. It is fairly normal practice to include brief observations concerning an article in edit summaries provided they are related to the edit. I don't see anything in my edit summary that is inconsistent with either WP:SUMMARYNO or WP:REVTALK. I am not sure what the reference to AGF is about. I was certainly not impugning the motives of anyone involved with the article, and questioning WP:N is not a form of attack. I also do not understand the relevance of the list of unrelated articles you posted suggesting I nominate one or more for AfD. (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) The only article I was looking at was Beacon Reader. This was in response to a request posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking editors to remove the CSD tag, which I did. I have no interest in sending the article to AfD at this time. If I did, I would have done so. And I am quite happy to give some reasonable time to improve the article and bolster its claim to WP:N. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I was a bit frustrated when I wrote that. OK, all good! Travelmite (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks

AO and Hobit - thanks for trying to tackle the guerilla deletion of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. As I told Drmies and Notecardforfree, I'm moving away from that article and apologize I can not be of further help, but wanted to leave you a note to explain my sudden abandonment.

My talk page comments have been repeatedly deleted and edited which basically subverts the entire concept of WP; it's impossible to collaborate on an article when an editor with a different opinion is able to simply delete others comments from the Talk page.

As you noted, the article has now been essentially blanked to remove all substantive content as an AfD priming tactic with the same editor warning no one to restore it without discussing restorations (then deleting the discussions themselves) [2]. For background, I've been hounded for more than a year by socks and IP editors aligned with the Frank Gaffney article after I de-sanitized it; Doug Weller has taken care of most of them but they regenerate faster than anyone could reasonably manage on certain fringe topic areas (you may have noticed we were recently joined [3]) so, as a gentle recommendation, I'd advise you just give up for your own sanity and let them delete this article if they want it gone; it's just too debilitating dealing with this group and they will make your time here absolutely miserable. Best of luck - LavaBaron (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Wow, I just read the Gaffney article. That guy went to school? People believe that stuff? LavaBaron, keep us (me and Doug) posted about those IPs. Do we have accounts associated with this? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have sent the article back to AfD. Sadly I doubt it will survive since it has been effectively blanked and any attempts to restore the redacted material are being blocked. All I can say is that if this sort of thing is normative, i.e. an article survives AfD and then is blanked by a handful of editors, then we have a serious problem. For the first time I am experiencing some sympathy for the promoters of the WOO articles who have long claimed that the system is rigged. We may loose the fight but this entire business has been a bloody scandal and I am going to shout it from the rooftops. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies but I'm going to take a break from WP for at least a few months and then reassess. As it's not possible for me to participate in Talk (since my comments are being deleted) it's not possible for me to participate in Wikipedia since discussion is (or should be) 90% of the project. I appreciate you being available to listen and your general good work across the project.
As for your question about the accounts, there's 11 that have been blocked here (a combination of IPs, established accounts, and SPAs), which doesn't include more that were summarily blocked sans SPI, but I conservatively estimate there's probably three-times that number active I just don't have the time or bandwidth to collect diffs to file SPIs on by myself (including some that have become active on this article); there's a high-amount of off-Wiki coordination occurring (What it comes down to in a nutshell is a certain person does not want his Google KnowledgeGraph displaying "conspiracy theorist." This has been a year-long saga and I doubt you want to get tangled into it; it becomes exceptionally debilitating and the constant abuse and gaslighting will follow you across the project. I never learned how to get anyone's attention to present the full background of what's occurring so every other month the new batch of sleeper accounts and IPs are blocked as isolated incidents unrelated to those of the previous month by whatever admin-du-jour I can flag down, there's not exactly a Case Manager here; WP has just not been fun anymore since I became a target and it took me too long to realize that - my parting advice to you is to steer clear of all of this.) LavaBaron (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Where are your comments being deleted? All I see is a deletion of an inappropriately filed and worded RfC. Maybe I'm missing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you're looking at the right section, then, this is the RfC I filed which is exceptionally vanilla: [4]. Deleting others comments is usually a bright red line. I've only seen it done once and the editor in question was indeffed. RfC is the only way we have to solve disputes. If an editor can blank RfCs without repercussion then we're done - game over; the article is yours.
You and your associates have made it clear you object to the Healther conspiracy theory being described as such but, the fact is, that's the mainstream, rational view and blanking a RfC that uses mainstream terminology is not how it's done. I have acknowledged your group's unique perspective, something I said as much when I noted the person who blanked my RfC has also been advocating to insert Breitbart as RS across the encyclopedia and change the word "militants" to "protestors" at Occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. And I'm not oblivious; I've read the 4Chan and Reddit threads this is being discussed on but the fact is, NPOV doesn't allow us to use verbiage that would effectively legitimize a rather bizarre conspiracy theory in a RfC; there are certain baselines of rational assumption we simply have to accept as editors.
But it ultimately doesn't matter. I'm only here because I was pinged on my Talk page and forgot to turn-off email notifications on my way out the door; like I said, once Talk comments start getting freely edited and blanked it's Game Over. No rules-limited editor has a way to participate in that setting; it's not a big deal, just leave me out of this article moving forward, I want nothing to do with it. LavaBaron (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI 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 Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation

I really enjoy your user page. I didn't know of Emperor Norton until now and feel enlightened. Given the goings-on of today, I just thought I'd pass by and say thanks. Your presence here is appreciated. Airplaneman ✈ 03:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyken Pond

I have restored the notability tag to Dyken Pond that you removed. It may have a reference, but that certainly doesn't make it notable. It doesn't get close to WP:GEOLAND for example. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   21:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have replied on the talk page of the article. I suggest we migrate/keep the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I have responded there. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

hey

I did manually restore it. Can you please undo your deletion? BlueSalix (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

BlueSalix I think what you need to do is go into the edit history and copy the last version of the RfC and then paste it into the current Talk Page. Otherwise you will wipe out everything now on the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry - that's what I meant to do, it looks like I copied the entire old version in though! Thanks for fixing. BlueSalix (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Technology is my bete noir. God I hate the modern world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I is actually User:85.74.31.101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPerson81 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

DS alert

With regard to anti-vaccine content anywhere in Wikipedia...

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I luv you

Just sayin'.... XOXO KDS4444 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Phyllis Schlafly

On 6 September 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Phyllis Schlafly, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Someone really needs to create a template for this, but unless it's been somehow fixed, if you edit your comment to include a ping, it doesn't work. The ping only goes through if there is only the addition of new content plus a new signature in the same edit. A subtraction of content plus the addition of new content even with a new signature does not work, and neither does the addition of new content only without a new signature. TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn technology. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone smarter than me would make a bot for this, but I'm not sure where one would even request it. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. --Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Rudraksh Cap-Tech

Was just about to close similar to you when the edit conflict notice appeared. Blast - too slow! I left a message for the user that hopefully will prevent further creations, but also watched some other capitalization's of the company name as I somehow suspect that this one will be recreated a few more times. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No major issues so far. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Yahoo! data breach

On 27 September 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Yahoo! data breach, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Us old farts need to stick together. I'm 52 :-) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

On that ITNR proposal

There is a separate page for discussing ITNR additions or removals, at WT:ITN/R, you may want to move that there instead of at WT:ITN. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you got the pointer and discussion turned around; you have the pointer at WT:ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer

On 23 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Too many see also links

You restored some of the see also links that I had removed on quackery. I added a link template to the introduction so I figured we could remove a few of them. Please take a look and consider if we really need all those. Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I will look. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Closing

"It's not entirely clear that that it is event that."? I have no clue what in the world that means. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It means that I am a very careless typist. Event should be even. I will fix it. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

disruptive editor

I reverted your erroneous closing of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive editor. If you had read the complaint you would see that these are unrelated complaints. I reported User:Silvio1973, who keeps trying to disrupt Italianization, which has nothing to do with the dispute at Marco Polo, safe for User:Silvio1973, who is being disruptive at both articles. You closed a complaint about cite tagging, disruptive editing, bad faith actions, source deletions, content blnaking and onerous demands by said Silvio1973 at Italianization, with the argument "Yet another thread about the same content dispute closed a few threads above this one". Absolutely wrong: Italianization vs. Marco Polo. I reopened the case as it is still not resolved and has nothing to do with the smearing of User:Hzh by Silvio1973 for having added 10k of sourced content at Marco Polo. best regards, noclador (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. That's not what ANI is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Protests against Donald Trump

You have an empty citation next to "under Title 18 of the US Code." which you did on 19:58, 12 November 2016, could you please fill it in or remove it. 47.148.79.80 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Ad Orientem,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the welcome. I'm a longtime Wikipedia editor who has switched into IP-anonymous editing (you'll find a couple of other IPs on ITN/C saying that they're longtime editors; those are likely also me). If you have any comments or suggestion about my edits, please feel free to drop me a line. Again, thanks to you! 23.233.82.54 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ad Orientem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI 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 Administrator Ad Orientem. Thank you.. While I don't think anything will come of it, the anonymous editor who posted this complaint failed to notify you. Regards Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like Henry Hill in Goodfellas after his first pinch. My first summons to ANI as a defendant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes congratz on receiving your first accusation of being an admin. What's further, congratz on managing to abuse admin privileges within seconds of being an accused admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep! And I managed to get acquitted thanks to our rigged system in less than five minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, true as well. Man our justice (for admins) system works fast. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Dyken Pond

Hey, thanks for the 'thanks' on several of my edits to Dyken Pond - I admit I was compelled to putz a bit on the article after seeing it unduly sneered at on WP:ANI, and it seems your initial edits probably saved it from the chopping block. Regardless of its initial messy state or the other actions of the article creator, I'm a bit bothered when geographic features are so routinely dismissed here (the project's role as a gazetteer is called out at Wikipedia:Five pillars fer chrissakes!). So thanks for your initial intervention! Take care - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note and I appreciate your work expanding the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sammy Lee (diver)

On 6 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sammy Lee (diver), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump protests

I'm wondering if this article should be split into 2, separated at Election Day. Thoughts?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A bit late but FTR addressed on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Ad Orientem. I saw your post at AN about WP:ERRORS and thought to myself "Why can't he fix it? He's an admin right?!" only to find - much to my surprise - that you aren't! 10 minutes of contribs stalking later and I think you'd made quite a fine administrator here. You've got a solid record of contributions covering most of your typical voter's requirements, and they certainly gave me confidence that you could use the tools well. In addition you're good at communicating with other users, and I was struck that you're happy to accept when you're wrong on a topic (withdrawing AfDs for example), which is a big plus for me. What are your thoughts on running at RfA? I think you'd stand a good chance and could get to work on WP:ERRORS/WP:ITN and any other areas that took your interest. I would be happy to nominate you, but there's no rush, and feel free to go to WP:ORCP first. Sam Walton (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam. First I'd like to thank you for one of the nicest compliments I've gotten on here. That said, I'm not really interested in RfA. I have enormous respect for most admins and what they do (and what they have to put up with). But I'm a little reluctant to go there myself for several reasons. First and probably most importantly I'm not sure I want to be an admin. Secondly I am not sure I am qualified. And lastly I doubt I could pass RfA if it was only open for ten minutes and voting were limited to my immediate family and closest personal friends. Again though, I thank you for your very kind words. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Your first reason for not doing so is and should be the most important, and I totally respect that. As for your 2nd and 3rd, I respectfully disagree, and invite you to think on it more and post at ORCP in the future if you'd like to prove me wrong :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I will think about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Voicing some support - if your interest in deleting the main page helping out with adminy things ever picks up please do consider WP:ORCP -- samtar talk or stalk 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Samtar and Sam Walton I have thought it over after looking at some of the pre-RfA essays which seem designed to scare the bleep out of anyone thinking of going there. Anyways my opinion of my chances hasn't changed much, but if both of you think the project would benefit if I had a few extra tools then I will pop over to ORCP tomorrow and see what the consensus is. It's a weekend and I doubt anyone is paying attention today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You know, I was reading over them the other day and came to the same conclusion - they seem much more focused at avoiding nominations for people not qualified rather than encouraging actual admin hopefuls. Glad to hear it though :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Awesome - look forward to seeing the poll! -- samtar talk or stalk 21:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Good afternoon Samtar and Sam Walton. Well we have a little over a half dozen reviews in and the results strike me as something short of a ringing endorsement but not exactly ice cold. Four have given me 6/10, one didn't give a number but I walked away with the feeling that he was saying 50/50. And there was an outlier whose review sounded like I was being promoted for sainthood. That kind of personal endorsement really makes you feel good but I have be honest in saying that I think the others were a bit more realistic. There were no real surprises and I don't disagree with any of the analysis of potential weaknesses in my record that could draw oppose votes at an RfA. Not sure there will be (m)any more reviews but if there are my guess is that they will give me a similar grade. I did note that neither of you posted a review but you have both suggested your support here. So the next logical question is do you still believe that the project would be better off if I had the tools and do you think my odds of passing are good enough to warrant my going to RfA. The one thing I don't want to do is waste the community's time. And it should go w/o saying that I am not going to go looking for a tall building if you decide that I'm not as strong a candidate as you originally thought. That is after all the whole point of RFAP. Anyways let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
6/10 as an average at ORCP? that sounds like a near ringing endoresement by ORCP standards to me (7 or 8 would be better, but, you've got a strong chance with a 6). ORCP is probably more stringent than RfA itself is due to the way it's structured to be intentionally nitpicky. In an RfA generally only oppose voters build strong arguments against the candidate, and ORCP I think is very much aligned with this way of thinking. Support voters are not as likely to show up at ORCP because they really don't have as much to say. I mean, how often do you see a support vote with a two word rationale vs. an oppose vote with that same level of scrutiny. I don't think you're in the same threatened position that Godsy (68%) was, you're more likely to have an RfA along the lines of Vanamonde (83%) or at worst Oshwah (75%). That's just my opinion though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks rnddude. I noted that ORCP has a track record of being a bit conservative when reflected against the actual RfA results. That could be encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mine is nothing to go by, I'm a year between score (very very low) and RfA, but you're correct in the statement ORCP is conservative. I personally still believe the project would benefit from you having the toolset, and the ORCP comments give me further confidence you would get by when it came to a !vote. You're going to get opposes, horrible questions and frankly ridiculous comments thrown your way, so the question is do you want to give it a go? -- samtar talk or stalk 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I will say that I quite expect one of the 6/10 voters to oppose you on either a) being hungry for the tools despite being clearly told you weren't a perfect candidate or b) being so keen to take on RfA after mere days of going through ORCP and therefore hat collecting. Like the logic of some people; AO; Do you think I'm ready for adminship? P1; Yeah just about, you've got the experience, good attitude, you'd make a pretty good candidate in my opinion. AO; Alright I'll go ahead with the RfA then. P1; hang on a minute there mate, you're a bit too keen on the bit aren't you? oppose! It's like, why do you think I asked? because I'm not considering becoming an admin? yeah that makes a ton of sense doesn't it. I could legit make a GradeAUnderA style rant about the RfA process. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'll take this, but I'd also advocate you running at RFA. While I have been named and shamed, I never abused the tools, and I'm 100% certain that you have a finer temperament than me, and wouldn't do anything stupid. Just go for it. If you make 1 positive admin action, then you've done your job. This place could use a few more trustworthy admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I take it very kindly. Your reputation for giving unvarnished opinions is well known and I particularly appreciate your endorsement since, although we generally agree, we have also crossed swords once or twice. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely still think that the project would be better off if you had the tools, and I'm still confident the community will agree. The ORCP reviews strike me as being apprehensive, but not negative, in an "I can't find any reason you'd be a net negative, but I'm not quite confident enough to give you an outstanding review" kind of way. As others have said above, ORCP does tend to be more conservative, and at RfA there's no rating out of 10 - people either support or oppose, and oppositions tend to be based on specific points of apprehension, which I'm not seeing for you. I have a few points I'd be happy to make in a nomination about the feedback you received (in an indirect way), and still encourage you to run. My opinions are unchanged, and I would still be happy to nominate you. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

OK then, with all the encouraging comments I have gotten, I think I am going to do it. Assuming I don't have an overnight change of heart I'd like to get it over with as quickly as reasonably possible. I'm already getting nervous and I'm rather fond of the few non gray hairs I still have. Maybe we can launch it on Sunday or Monday. That would give me a few days to cram for the test and we can work on introductory statements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Great! I've started a drafting page at User:Samwalton9/Ad Orientem so you have time to draft your first answers, and I have somewhere to put my nomination together. Samtar, I would welcome your co-nomination, if you're interested, feel free to add a section there; no worries if not. Sam Walton (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: I'll be adding my co-nom later this evening -- samtar talk or stalk 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Samtar thank you. Your support means a lot. On a side note I am going to suggest we start this on Sunday early afternoon, maybe noonish. That way I can just plan on spending most of the rest of the day by my computer to answer the inevitable early questions. Also I am on the East Coast in the US for time purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that works for me. It's up to you how you want to monitor your RfA, but I'll say that waiting to give an answer until you've thought about it is never a bad thing - people don't tend to get cranky over missing answers until it's been a couple of days. That said, I had an RSS feed set up for changes to my RfA to stop me incessantly checking my watchlist all week, so I can't judge. Sam Walton (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with your suggestion about being slow and careful in responses. I assume that at least a few questions may be designed to trip me up. One thing that may (or may not) annoy some will be that if I honestly am not sure of how to proceed in a given situation, my almost invariable response is to seek advice from other experienced editors. And while we are talking about handling the RfA, I am not a fan of challenging oppose votes, even if I think they are ill-considered or frivolous. The only exception would be if someone makes statements that are factually, and demonstrably, wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's completely reasonable, and I would be surprised if it annoyed anyone. At my RfA I said much the same thing, which actually saved me from what was otherwise regarded as a sub-par answer ("I'm not really happy with Q7/7A, but "so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above" completely saves it for me."). Not a bad thing at all :) And for the most part I agree with not responding to oppose votes. I'm happy to do it on other user's RfAs if I see something particularly ridiculous, but I prefer not to see the nominators or candidate getting into arguments there. Sam Walton (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend upping "statements" to "allegations". There will definitely be factually incorrect statements, the question really is whether there will be allegations of misconduct that misrepresent the facts to paint a false picture of events. Although I agree with Sam above. I challenge oppose votes on others RfAs, but, think it would reflect poorly to see the candidate and nominators engaged in disputes over the votes themselves. Let the supporters and neutrals handle it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Good points. Thank you both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

ITN recognition for Bill English

On 15 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill English, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BencherliteTalk 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lee Israel

I noticed at your RFA that you said you wished you had sent Lee Israel to DYK. You may have missed that a year or two back a new route to DYK was established. You can now nominate for DYK articles that are newly promoted good articles. So, nominate it for GA and once you get through that you can nominate it for DYK. The main thing you would need to work on that I can see after a quick look is to expand the lead a little. Also, the reviewer might ask if a free picture is available, but I don't see anything on Commons. Since the subject is deceased it is a fair answer that no new images will be possible. You might be able to persuade someone to release one though, or you can use one under a fair use rationale. Pity it is her and not her. SpinningSpark 19:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of that and will look into it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceaușescu

Thanks for closing the FRINGE discussion at this point. I'm aware you're probably not involved but this is a courtesy message to let you know I'll be continuing the discussion on Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu where I am sure it will look appropriate. Regards. --OJ (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

citation needed

here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... yeah. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, please do not donate to the WMF. Fuck those guys. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

New Editor advice

Hi, I am a new editor to Wikipedia, having created my account just this past week. I also happen to be a new Orthodox Christian, having recently converted. Needless to say, I was quite surprised when I saw that a fellow Orthodox Christian was being nominated for adminship. Is there any advice you give for a new editor? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt.Delta (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Mt.Delta and welcome to Wikipedia!. I dropped a template message with a bunch of links that you may find useful. I do recommend taking at least a quick look at them as I think they are very helpful with the basics. Beyond that I'd just suggest starting out by concentrating on working on articles. Begin with improving existing articles on subjects that interest you and once you think you have the basics down you can try your hand at creating new articles. Things to remember when editing in what we call the mainspace (articles) is to be sure you don't add any claims that are not backed by independent relaible sources. By extension this means we don't insert our opinions or stuff that we just know to be true from personal experience or we remember reading about it somewhere or we saw it on TV. Any claim of fact that is not obviously non-controversial needs an inline citation to a reliable source. Unfortunately poor referencing is a pervasive problem on the project. There is a reference wizard called PROVEIT located in the lower right of all the mainspace editing pages. I have found it incredibly helpful.
Also I would suggest focusing on working on article content and creation for maybe your first six months before expanding your work, if you fee so inclined, to some of the behind the scenes stuff. Beyond that, my best advice is to just pick an article that interests you and that you think you can help improve, even if its just copy editing to spruce up the grammar, and have fun! If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Congratulations on your recepetion into the Church! Many years! -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
P.P.S. We have a lot of wiki-projects that cover almost every imaginable subject where editors collaborate on improving articles related to its subject. This can be a great place start. Sadly some of the projects are less active than others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hang in there

Going through the wikioscopy of an AfD can be tough. Here's a little encouragement from one who has been there, done that. Hope you aren't taking the opposes personally. - Brianhe (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been a bit stressful but I knew going into this that I was going get some opposition. What happens happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I remember the last few days of my own RfA being fraught with peril that somebody was going to come along with a pile-on civility oppose and tank it, but it didn't come to pass. I've done a bit of a back-of-the-fag-packet calculation and reckon the odds of you not passing this are very unlikely at this stage (I don't want to give exact figures per WP:BEANS but you need a lot more opposes than what you currently have), so just hang in there and hopefully Santa will be delivering you a gift-wrapped mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I may need a fingernail transplant before this is over, but I am holding on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Stupid thing is that some of the oppose votes are based on one aspect and don't consider your contributions and abilities as a whole. There's a real problem with some RFA contributors who are looking for a needle in a haystack as a reason to oppose, rather than observing that the other 99% of candidate's actions are net positives. I think most of it boils down to jealousy and an innate knowledge that they themselves would never make admin in a thousand years so they're determined to (attempt to) ruin everyone else's chances. As Ritchie333 says, don't stress it. And in any case, if the community are stupid enough to reject your nomination, more fool them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Now that the ...oscopy is over, I'd like to thank you for putting yourself forward (so to speak). No candidate is perfect, and I personally appreciate that you are standing on what kind of editor you are, not what kind of candidate others may be looking for. Before the pending close, I'm glad you can see demonstrated by !vote there are many in the community who support you and trust you with wider responsibility. Go and do good by doing well. BusterD (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the Administrators' guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

79% - I did say between Oshwah (75%) and Vanamonde (83%) did I not. Squarely in the middle. Congratz on the successful RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
WJBscribe, thank you and merry Christmas! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude it was 80% when the RfA expired but a couple !votes snuck in before it was closed. All of which said, who gives a bleep!? Merry Christmas! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! Don't forget to change your talk page banner! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 03:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's T-shirt

There's your T-shirt. Congratulations! —MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) 03:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! It might not yet be Christmas Day where you are (it is here), but enjoy the warm feeling at this special time of the year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations or condolences may be in order... I'm not sure which! Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, good luck and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations Ad Orientem :) It occurs to me we haven't got a section in the Admin's guide for contributing to the main page; perhaps we can put something together once you're happy with the admin side of things! Sam Walton (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. Don't let anyone slap you around with that political bullshit. You'll be a fine sysop. Just remember, you're the janitor - not the principal.--v/r - TP 08:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for hanging in there! You'll soon realise how outstandingly little of a deal it all is :-D -- samtar talk or stalk 09:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well done. Good luck, and glad tidings. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Must be a memorable Christmas for you, eh? Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for running, and congratulations on your successful run for adminship. North America1000 23:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks much for running, it's an act of courage these days. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! --joe deckertalk 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

RFA/Merry Christmas (not necessarily in that order)

Merry Christmas, Ad Orientem!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! Just wanted to say congratulations on the outcome of the RFA, not only that, but I feel you acquitted yourself admirably during the process. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Congratulations on becoming an administrator, and have a great Christmas! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed –
almost ten long, sordid, I-really-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 13:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Thank You

There are far too many people I should be thanking personally but since that number is in the hundreds, I am going to be lame and post a generic thanks here. I particularly appreciate the support of so many when things got a little rough during the RfA (R F A the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia). I wish you and yours a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Ad Orientem! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Congrats on your successful RfA!

Merry Xmas and congratulation - do view Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarify reason for deletion

I am unclear why you have deleted my first entry on Wikipedia about the company Southern Tutors. There are many other pages on Wikipedia for similar companies and of similar content, such as Maths Doctor and Explore Learning.

There is nothing significant promoting the company. I have refrained from listing details of how the company goes about it's business or provided direct contact details so as not to be an 'advert'. The article was written with a focus on the history and charitable works of the company with citations from many external websites.

If you didn't think there were enough citations, why don't you add to it, or provide some constructive criticism for improvement, instead of deleting the whole page. By what authority do you do that?

Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCairns78 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesCairns78 and welcome to Wikipedia. The article in question was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional in its wording. Additionally I have serious doubts that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NPOV and WP:NOPROMO. I appreciate your contributions but we need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and all articles need to be worded in a completely neutral manner. Additionally we are not an indiscriminate collection of facts or information and there are guidelines for what we accept including evidence to support encyclopedic notability. Please don't be discouraged by the deletion of your article. Even highly experienced editors have had articles deleted. Again thank you for your contributions to the project and I hope you stick around. If you need help just drop me a line here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello JamesCairns78. Ad Orientem is one of our newest administrators, and so I did a courtesy check just to be sure the deletion was accurate. As an administrator myself, I have the the ability to see deleted pages. I reviewed yours and I can verify that Ad Orientem's actions were correct. Your article relied heavily on primary sources, social media, and articles that were about people related to the company but not the company itself. Because you do not have reliably published secondary sources about Southern Tutors itself, the article fails our basic guidelines for inclusion. The deletion was appropriate and recreating it would not be appropriate. Ad Orientem earned the authority to implement community established policies through a community vetting process endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. We certainly don't mind explaining more.--v/r - TP 05:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A minor thing

Hey Ad Orientem. Deleting and blocking User:Luc trottier was quite reasonable, but there wasn't any need to protect their user page against creation as far as I'm aware. Ultimately it's unlikely to be re-created so it's not a big deal, but pages are typically only protected against creation if they're recreated many times. Sam Walton (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Good pooint. I will remove the PP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done on becoming an admin. You did break the mainpage on your first edit there though (only 4 RDs at a time), but don't worry Sam fixed it! Please reach out if you need any help. Stephen 23:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not an entirely obvious rule, only being documented on the admin instructions page as far as I can tell! Sam Walton (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. I've added some extra help to the hidden text on T:ITN. Stephen

Jan Stephen Pethick

Shall I put a link on the High Sheriffs of Greater London talk page - as the London Wiki page is 'start class, original research'? (The information is correct but needs others to develop to reach Wikipedia standards.) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What link are you proposing to add and to what page(s)? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
London Wiki [5] is as far as I was able to check: and Talk:High Sheriff of Greater London here. There is a case for saying that most of the persons mentioned are borderline WP entries but relevant on the London Wiki (which is 'a wiki with low participation which has original research' rather than a personal one'). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete under mentioned article

Hey, I noticed that you deleted the article BookMyShow without any warning or request for additional information. Kindly get over such such non democratic methods of yours. Kindly revert the article back to life and add the tags for what ever information you feel is missing. I would be happy to add that. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it did not make any credible claim to importance much less encyclopedic notability. I subsequently discovered that the article was deleted previously, and quite recently, following a discussion at AfD. If you believe the AfD discussion, or the closing admin erred, you can request a deletion review. Unfortunately, in the absence of a reversal of the AfD I cannot agree to restore the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Dear, I would have appreciated your actions if before (or after) deletion you had raised a talk with me. Any way I have followed your instructions and raised a discussion here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#BookMyShow --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious

customer service

Thank you for quality articles beginning with Dimitri Isayev, for categories such as Religious rituals, for being ready to serve and clean, for "Welcome to Wikipedia!", "You don't need to live on Wikipedia" and "Blessed feast", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating pages vs. set-index articles

Hi! Thanks for the invite to discuss this edit. I just wanted to update you on the differences between dab pages and set-index articles. The Anthroponymy Project has been taking over the pages that list surnames, given names, or both. Those pages are being changed into set-index articles and, though they can often look very similar to disambiguation pages, they are not the same. The way to tell at a glance is to check the bottom of the page; there will usually be a template there that identifies which kind of page it is.

Redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title are supposed to target disambiguation pages only. As more and more dab pages get transferred to set-index articles, there will be more and more of this type of redirect left over. They need to be deleted (as soon as any links to them are resolved, of course). I've been working on these for the Disambiguation Project, and gradually weeding them out. You'll most likely come across more of my CSD G6s for these. I hope you'll help with the housekeeping. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I zapped the page per your G-6 nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

...in my infinite wisdom, I somehow forgot to congratulate you on your successful RFA (Quite a Christmas present too!)! If you're still a bit woozy from the post-RFA party, this coffee should help you sober up; otherwise, just treat it as a caffeinated pick-me-up so you'll stay alert with the mop, so you will be without excuse if you delete the Main Page and make it rain monkeys and bananas. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current APEC foreign ministers

You have removed the template on the APEC foreign ministers despite of the information justifying that it is not a cruft and therefore legitimate. It might be possible if the mentioned template were to be recreated to eliminate any redundancy and just considering that even though it is mentioned in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Template:Current APEC Foreign Ministers, still it should be treated as a separate template from that discussion. Saiph121 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this deletion was the result of a WP:TFD discussion you will need to go to WP:DRV to request undeletion. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for BookMyShow

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BookMyShow. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Congrats On Your RFA

Just wanted to drop by and say congrats on the successful RFA and becoming a administrator.

Necrosis Buddha 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pablo Lopez (writer)

It's the same person - or, at the plausible least, one of the two people that the AfD'd article was about, neither of which had enough notability to save the article. The Pablo Avion article deleted at AfD in May listed his birth name as "Lopez" and had a section about how he coined the term "pataphor", which is duplicated word-for-word in the new Pablo Lopez (writer) article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. I missed that and have zapped the page. Thanks for the heads up! -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Victorino Noval

I'd like to create a referenced stub/start whenever I find the time. I believe he passes GNG, but obviously the foundation doesn't.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest creating a subpage from your user page where you can work up a draft. Then send it over to WP:AFC for review. If there are problems they can let you know and give suggestions for fixing them, if they are in fact correctable. I have not done any research on the notability of your proposed subject, but I will observe that while many problems can be fixed, notability is not one of them. It's either there, or it's not. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Complaint. Need Answer Immediately please.

I am a new user of Wikipedia. I am trying to create an article on a living person Dr. Sinchan Das, who is a internationally knowned young researcher, homeopathic doctor and Indian Classical Music Vocalist. he is really an admirable person, He has received several awards and honors only between this 26 years of age. with proper evidence, reference and sources i am providing the information on that article, but you are deleting that again and again. would you please tell me what is the problem? where as i can see in wikipedia, many articles are there which have no such references but those articles are not deleted, but my article has deleted with minimum 15 references and links,

watch out the following links and tell me why these articles are here? and why mine is deleted?

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by David700118 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi David700118 and welcome to Wikipedia! The article was deleted (repeatedly and by more than one admin) because it is about a person that did not present a credible claim of importance and it was blatantly promotional in its tone. No independent reliable secondary sources were cited anywhere. The cited sources were either affiliated with the subject or connected to/promotional of pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices. As for the other articles you linked, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you believe this article was deleted in error you may request a review at WP:DRV. However I would be doing you a disservice if I failed to tell you that based on my experience there is practically no chance of having the deletion overturned unless you can demonstrate some degree of encyclopedic notability. The standards for biographies of living persons can be found at WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Please let me know if you have anymore questions. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to adminship, Ad Orientem, expect a few more of these "why did u delete my article" threads on your talk page from now on.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hehe. I'm already thinking about writing up a few generic pre-made responses for this kind of stuff where I can just fill in the appropriate blanks and post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talent HUnt Programs, IBA Karachi

I need to know why you deleted my article on Talent HUnt Programs, IBA Karachi. what was the concern of you over its content. it was published with intention to provide information and progress over the period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umesh kumar Gianchandani (talk • contribs) 03:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted as naked promotion and or advertising per WP:CSD G11. If you wish to contest the deletion you may do so at WP:DRV. However, after reviewing the article (admins can still see deleted articles) I feel obliged to tell you that I believe there is virtually no chance that the deletion will be reversed. Please read WP:YFA, WP:NPOV, WP:NOPROMO WP:N, and WP:COI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you enabled two-factor authentication?

Hi Ad - now that you're an admin you have the ability to enable two-factor authentication. A guide exists at Simple 2FA, and although it does involve a fair amount of setup, your account will be a lot more secure. Let me know if you'd like any help or have any questions :-) -- samtar talk or stalk 14:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds like a good idea and will look at it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Samtar OK. I think I have it set up. But I won't know for sure if this is right I am guessing until I log out and then back in.

Userpage Topicon

Being WP:BOLD, I've made this edit to your user page, which you are welcome to undo here anytime. Congrats on the RfA! --JustBerry (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and happy new year! -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article Pirosmani (journal)

Hello. I'm the creator of the now deleted article Pirosmani (journal). It was deleted after being marked for deletion by randykitty. I have discussed the matter with Randykitty (talk). I would like to re-submit this article but adjusting its title to Pirosmani (magazine) and adding further references to support its notability. I would like to ask you for the text of the deleted article so that I can work on it. Thank you.--Mahrujan (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Do not repost this to the mainspace w/o first submitting it to WP:AfC. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ping Mahrujan
That didn't take long.... Pirosmani (magazine)... --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Randykitty That is extremely annoying. I've deleted the new recreation and salted both titles. I feel that my AGF was taken advantage of and have left a strongly worded warning on their talk page. If you see this pop up again let me know. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it is. They said they had sources that were not considered in the AfD, so I thought that a second chance was justified, but what we got was a dead link and some trivial mention on some university website. Thanks for taking care of it. I could have done this myself, but thought it was more appropriate if the deleting admin did it, as I considered myself involved. Happy New Year! --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I felt the same way. Oh well, live and learn. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hiya Ad, quick question - is there a reason you salted Pirosmani (journal) with ECP instead of sysop? It's been done before and I don't think it's an issue, but I'm just as green as you so.. -- samtar talk or stalk 17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ITN closure

Sorry, I overlapped your closing of the ITN discussion in posting my own comment. (I finished an extended posting at 15:58, you made your closing comment at 15:50.) What is the etiquette here? Should I remove it? (Incidentally, I agree with your assessment that it was not going to be resolved. Exactly as in other non-Wikipedia comment sections, this is one of several particular divisions of opinion as to noteworthiness which divides along political lines, and therefore was not going to be resolved by traditional consensus mode ... which has already been a minor ITN problem in the past, and is shaping up to be a serious problem in upcoming years.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I already reverted it. You can continue the discussion if you want on the talk page. But there is no way we are going to get consensus on this nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry again. I also have no interest in re-opening this iteration of an ongoing discussion on a personal basis. The question to me is simply one of objectivity in assessment (identification of double standards/moving bars, a person dishing out repeatedly what they are not willing themselves to receive, stated choices not matching stated arguments, etc), not in trying to convince another person to convert to my (obviously the correct) side. Over time, I have at least learned never to challenge another person's core values. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ad Orientem!

Happy New Year!

Ad Orientem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

And a repeat of my congratulations and good luck wish for your new role as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ITN edit summaries

Hi Ad Orientem -- when you add ITN items it's helpful to wikilink the target article in the edit summary. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

204.128.237.10

204.128.237.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello Ad Orientem, I just came upon this IP address that you blocked for 48 hours, but when looking at the block log for this IP address, the previous one was for 6 months (and it appears as though the block duration for each block was increased in face of its previous blocks). I'very seen most admins' course of action to block for 1 year after 6 months. I just wanted to let you know in case if you accidentally set the wrong block duration, but if this was on purpose, then don't worry about it... ;-) Regards. 172.58.40.248 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have extended the block to 1 year given their track record. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

More IP vandalism on my talk page

Would you mind protecting it for a little while longer? Not sure why this ip vandal has me in his sites but the giberish is annoying. --Tarage (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Tarage Just noticed the ANI. It looks like you have ticked off someone and I want them to have a long wait before being able to attack your page again. I've extended the PP for a month. Drop me a line if you want it downgraded sooner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Nah that's fine. Thanks for looking out for me. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
NP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help today! Patient Zerotalk 13:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy

The RFP nomination pointed towards a redirect rather than the actual title (with an ampersand rather than "&"), so I've corrected it. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

YOUR ADVICE TO MYSELF, IQPERSON

Firstly i got a notification saying if i wanted my page information back I had to talk with the person who orchestrated its removal. This was Mac Dreamstate. I asked him nicely and he removed my post. That was rude and that is e harassment. So i require my page information back and an apology. Thank you for understanding Iqperson (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the person you need to talk to is the administrator who actually deleted the article, not the editor who nominated it. That would be DMacks. The editor who nominated the article can neither restore nor view it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I believe confirmation has been provided per the comments here and echo'd at WP:BN -- Samtar talk · contribs 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed the page protection. Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Obviously very sad news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Revation Systems Pages

Good Morning Ad Orientem.

My name is Melissa Simmons and I am the Lead Marketing Specialist at Revation Systems.

I was just recently notified last week about the deletion of the following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_LinkLive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_Communicator

I saw the due date as today, January 9th, 2017 and thought I had today to make the corrections and proposal that these pages not be deleted.

I was out of the office on Thursday and Friday last week and was not able to make the changes when this issue arrived to me last week.

Is there any way that these can be restored so I can make the proper changes/updates to keep these pages relevant?

Or if any of the content remains is there anyway I can access this. Please email me below.

Thank you so much,

2601:449:C301:84C0:DD6C:FA3:3E17:81E (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)(Redacted)

Ms. Simmons, per your request I am going to undelete the three articles you have linked. As you have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI carefully before making any edits on the articles. In particular I draw your attention to WP:FCOI and WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Further, you should read WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NCORP to get an idea of what will be required to prevent the articles from being deleted again. Once restored any editor can nominate the articles for deletion via WP:AfD. As a courtesy, I will refrain from doing so myself for a few days in order to give you time to improve the articles or to request edits given your openly declared conflict of interest. Lastly I strongly encourage you to register for a WP:ACCOUNT in order to avoid confusion about who is working on the articles. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


Drawing your attention to the following talk pages in regards to the changes needed to be made to keep these pages up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revation_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revation_LinkLive#Addition.2FChanges_for_Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revation_Communicator#Changes.2FAdditions_for_Verification Would you please advise me if this is the information that you are looking for? I have only added things on the talk pages and have not done and will not do anything on the edits pages as I am hoping that is what you will be doing? Not familiar with the process. Please me ket me know if there is more that needs to be "proposed" in order to keep these pages. Thanks. Melissa8051 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Melissa8051, I have copied your talk page comment onto the AfD discussion. Feel free to join the discussion directly. I will look at the other material and let you know what I think. That said I need to be frank here and let you know that encyclopedic notability needs to be established with in depth coverage, not passing references or press releases, from multiple reliable independent sources. I will take a look but my preliminary impressions of the articles left me less than impressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane vandalism

Your comment on my page is out of place, and ignores the situation in the article you're referring to. Rescind it immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Battle of Brisbane. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

what to do with this thread? Masturbation -> MEDRS

Hi Ad Orientem: I'm writing about the discussion at Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS. I'm happy to give it some more time but it looks to me as if Tgeorgescu may not be interested in continuing to debate me. We have yet to arrive at an explicit consensus. If the discussion goes quiet, I'm not sure what to do. I continue to think that my proposed contribution to the page is legitimate and valuable (I'm open to carrying out some revisions). However as it stands now, Tgeorgescu seems to entirely disagree. The argument has been relatively polarised rather than aiming towards a middle ground.

In the thread at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#WP:ONEWAY_problem_at_Masturbation, another discussant weighed in and said, about NoFap that "It's a fringe group of no evident significance." Again, I think I've countered that assertion. My basic feeling is that these folks have taken a personal stake in the matter and that they are pointing to rules which don't necessarily apply as a way to try and give their arguments authority. In particular, the assertion that "There is an WP:ONEWAY problem" in the article is simply not correct.

"Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."

As I've explained in my comments, NoFap may be a fringe group, but it is universally acknowledged to be connected to masturbation. I can understand if the general theme is to err on the side of caution about including fringe or minority topics. Nevertheless, I can also see how omitting certain themes (e.g. reasonable, contextual treatment of the NoFap movement) would amount to promoting a personal agenda just as much as giving it undue weight would!

All in all, I'm not sure how to proceed. If the conversation goes dead and my interlocutors don't seem to be interested in finding a consensus, do I just accept that no consensus has been achieved and move on with my life, or should I do something more active? On the Fringe theories notice board I have proposed an explicit adapted proposal:

Perhaps it would be better to frame it with a section "Abstaining from masturbation". This is a suggestion towards a possible consensus, namely that NoFap on its own is "fringe" but still worth mentioning in the article if it is suitably contextualised.

If the various interlocutors don't reply to constructive suggestions like that, it seems to me to be a sort of gaslighting; i.e. they've deleted my edits and then refuse to work with me to improve the article, even though I've expressed willingness to change my approach to incorporate constructive suggestions. If they have a hard line "No NoFap, nohow" and won't respond to argumentation, consensus isn't realistically possible. Thanks for any advice! Arided (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arided. First, thank you for not doing anything to exacerbate the situation or trying to reintroduce the material sans consensus. As to the particular problem of inability to gain said consensus, I suggest that we may need to expand the number of participants in the conversation. Perhaps it's time for a careful and neutrally worded WP:RfC? I would also suggest alerting some of the appropriate wiki-projects with an, again neutral, FYI post advising them of the ongoing discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, and for helping keep both me and the discussion on track. I've added a brief summary of the issue and links to the talk page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Community -- in addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality a few days ago. I hope that will bring in some more perspectives. I'll probably give it a week or so before I do much more (I may follow up with an RfC at that time, per your other suggestion, if it's not resolved by then). Cheers! Arided (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've already posted an RfC and dropped some FYI notes of my own. Let's see what happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I voted! Arided (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

To accompany your message, I have reached out to the editor here per this. --JustBerry (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Spencer Cherry

Just to make sure the CSD tag doesn't get deleted. Been hanging around. --JustBerry (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email on behalf of the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I will respond shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Crowley

Do you mind if I change this from PC to semiprotection? In my opinion, semiprotection is better for problems with POV-pushing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, no problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Jacobs

I fear protecting Jessica Jacobs for only one year is too short, given our IP hopping friend has been amazingly persistent for years. You might want to extend it. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Shutter Island (film)

I'm not sure why you locked this article. Locking an article is done only in the most extreme cases. What we have here is an IP edit-warring; what should have been done (if anything) is semi-protection, which would prevent the IP and his sock account from edit-warring. Would you mind changing the protection to semi-protection? If not, I'll request that on RFPP, but it would be easier if you made the change yourself. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. The original request was made by NinjaRobotPirate who didn't want to do it himself since he was INVOLVED. I will take another look at it and pinging NRB in case he wants to chime in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
OK after taking a 2nd look, I agree that the edit war wasn't serious enough to warrant a lock. But I'm not going to semi protect the article either. IP's are not presumptively wrong in content disputes. I do agree however that they need to stick with what appears to be their newly registered account and not continue to edit under both. If you have anymore issues with that, or anything else, let me know. @ NinjaRobotPirate if you disagree we can talk about it, but I'm not seeing a sufficiently entrenched edit war to justify the lock-down. My bad for not looking more closely to begin with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Nah, it's alright. But I think there's been too much reverting and not enough discussing. But that's one of the reasons why I didn't protect it myself – I thought the IP was making a legitimate point, and I wanted someone else's opinion on whether protection was warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think your protection was as sound as a pound - you are absolutely right that IPs carry as much weight as regular editors in a straight content dispute - which this was. The alternatives would be to do nothing and let everyone tear each other's heads off or block both the IP and Softlavender for edit-warring (as you have to be seen to be fair and impartial), but that carries a risk of being yanked off to ANI and yelled at. But you probably knew that already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There were only a handful of reverts so I probably did pull the trigger a bit quickly on that one. But I do agree that we need to be careful with the presumption of guilty until proven innocent that IPs too frequently have to put up with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I made exactly three reverts over exactly 40 hours, of edits the first two of which were completely unexplained, by an SPA IP. I then took the matter to a talk page [9]. If you think any of that was blockable, then I strongly disagree. It was in fact the IP who continued to edit war despite a talkpage notification [10], and then even created an account to continue edit-warring. In addition to their first unexplained removal of text, the IP made a total of 6 reverts, two of them through a newly created account. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it was blockable at all, that was kind of my point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Could you please nuke this IP's 'tribs, or I can go through and do it manually. Thanks, - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but that does not appear to be an available option with this IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's weird, maybe it's Mass Rollback ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I manually reverted all of his current edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanx :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello. I've removed your semi-protection of the sandbox. I'm not sure if this is psychology or a mistake or something, but 2 weeks semi-protection is not an option for this page. I will be around for the next few hours to help with any edit filters or blocking any sandbox trolls/vandals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The request came in at RFPP. I will take another look when I get a minute. It's entirely possible I misread something. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If you're referring to the Neostrada IP (95.49.*) who was requesting full protection,[11] it's a known troll who is now rightly blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's the one. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

My name is Sarah and I am a member of the Bastyr University community. I noticed that the Bastyr University Wikipedia page is persistently being vandalized and slandered by an outspoken critic of the University. This leads to the page portraying a negatively polarized image of the University and the profession it teaches.

Of course, as scientists, we welcome criticism and opposing viewpoints, but her contributions take this too far. Please allow me to edit the page, restoring it to a neutral and unbiased source of information about the University, so viewers may formulate their own opinions about the subject.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

smparsons13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smparsons13 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There has been too much WP:POV edit warring and you need to read WP:COI. You are free to post requested edits on the talk page for discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Declined vandal entry

Regarding this, perhaps because the associated page was deleted you didn't see the many vandal edits the user has made. The user has been sufficiently warned, and their contributions consist solely of vandal edits and bad new page creation. You may need to explore the deleted log as these don't appear under their edits as the page was deleted. Should I put in another report or would you be able to place the block? Garchy (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they have no constructive edits, but their edting history looks pretty small, mostly around that hoaxish article. Also the warnings topped out at a level 2. I have posted a final warning with a note to them. If they do anything disruptive after that, then I will indef them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Momina Duraid

Thanks. I wasn't sure, since I can't see the deleted article. Onel5969 TT me 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading it over it looked a bit too promotional for me and some of the refs look dodgy. I zapped it per G11. But I have a bad feeling it will be back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I asked SamWalton to have a look at it last night since I was rather conflicted. He did not think it was G11 material so it's been restored for now. If someone wants to take it to AfD again, then any questions can be resolved more definitively. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album)

Would you semi-protect the page to persistent unsourced genre. 123.136.106.198 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

123.136.106.198, I'm not seeing enough recent disruptive editing to justify page protection right now. It looks like two or three attempts spread out over several days. I suggest trying to communicate with the other IP(s) and discuss this. If the problem persists drop me another line and I will look again. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Momina Duraid

You don't need to feel bad that it will be back. I want to reinstate the article, it's sufficiently notable and credible. I don't know about the previous article edits or history, but that individual is linked to almost over fifty articles. If the material was promotional, at least you should have mentioned in the contest that I created on article's talk page. Momina Duraid is a leading producer and known personality in Pakistan. Let me made some changes where you think the material was promotional. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 14:44 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I discussed it with another admin and while I think it needs some work we have agreed that it doesn't meet G11 requirements and so I have restored the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Declined PROD

I'm not sure why I bother, but on this, you said "no valid deletion criteria cited". The criteria is obviously WP:GNG, which was added as a tag as well. In fact, not only is there no coverage, there is no evidence the organization exists at all, which is what I wrote as the reason, thinking it is even stronger than no coverage (not existing implies no coverage). Note that the original author, which is still active, didn't bother responding. I thought that was what WP:PROD was for, so not every single case goes through WP:AFD. --Muhandes (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want you can nominate it for CSD as a G3 HOAX or A7 for no indicated importance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Already have, but it was declined due to being an educational organization. Anyway, someone else did it again and this time it was removed. Have fun. --Muhandes (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ack! This is turning into a pain in the @$$. It looks like this is going to have to be done the slow way. I will see what I can find and if nothing turns up I will send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects

Hey! I saw that you semi-protected the AFC/Redirects page. I'm a bit confused by that, because I get the persistent vandalism, but since the main purpose of the page is to allow IP editors to create redirects with the help of registered users, I thought it might be a bit counterproductive. Just curious if you'd be willing to either unprotect or shorten the protection length! Also, thanks for all the admin work you do now/congrats on getting the bit! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the protection to pending changes. This should allow IP's to make requested edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate it! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

You recently blocked Hassan Guy (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for persistently removing legitimate maintenance templates. He's back doing it again ([12], [13] ). I have already reverted several of his edits and left him warnings but he persists, so could you block him for a longer period this time? —MBlaze Lightning T 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor continues to persist with disruptive edits even after 2 bans. He has removed cited content from numerous pages([14], [15]) and added uncited content on other pages([16]). I have reverted some of these edits. Can you please give him a warning or ban him for a longer period of time. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... some people are not good with taking hints. I have posted a formal warning. If they continue with their disruptive editing let me know and I will impose a longer block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the warning did not have any intended effect. Here([17]) are more edits by the user without any references after the last warning. Also, removal of maintenance tags on the page without any explanation or discussion on the Talk page. In addition, the user keeps moving pages without previous discussion ([18]). None of the references, actually use the word Hangor-class and thus this page was redirected to Pakistan Navy SSP programmes. One of the references itself are not from a acceptable source(blog) and thus verification tags were added to that page. I have reverted the first edit but not the second one. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 Blocked for 1 month One way or another this is coming to an end. I am running out of patience with this user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely action. I have a lingering suspicion that the same editor is now making edits via an unregistered account. Here are his previous edits([19],[20]) to Hangor-class submarine and Pakistan Navy SSP programmes. IP address 5.36.76.146 is also try to consistently make similar edits and reverting other users here ([21],[22]). Can we please semi-protect these pages for a short duration so only registered users can make edits. Thanks.
I have blocked the IP per WP:DUCK and awaiting an SPI check to confirm beyond doubt before I act on the puppet master. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection

If you need a commons image protected for the main page, just add it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and wait for the bot to pick it up, which is usually within 10 minutes. Stephen 01:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know that existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Much easier than locally uploading, templating and protecting. Just make sure it's been transcluded to c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en before you put it on the main page. And be aware the bot sometimes dies and the author isn't that active. Stephen 02:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page

The page Faeza Dawood was deleted. Necessary edits , links were recently provided in re-editing . And notification was received for the same . It is a credible page . This is a request for undeletion. Thank you Faexa Dawood (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The article made no credible claim of importance with respect to the subject and was obviously promotional. If it had not been deleted via WP:Prod it would have been a solid candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A7 and WP:G11. While I have not salted the article, and therefore it can be recreated, I must caution against doing so unless very substantial improvements are made. You are free to file a formal request for undeletion at WP:REFUND, but again, barring dramatic improvement I believe it is likely the article either will not be restored or alternatively it will be quickly renominated for deletion by some other process. Before proceeding please read WP:YFA, WP:COI, WP:NOPROMO and WP:BASIC. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Anton of Karelia

Could you take a look at this page. I can't for the life of me tell if it is a G3/A11 material from Google (there's a Twitter, but not sure if its a gag). I highly suspect it, but have BLP PRODed for now. Thought you might be able to provide some insight. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni It sounds like someone who claims hereditary aristocratic titles of nobility, but I see a number of problems. The first and obvious one is no sources for which you quite properly have tagged and BLP-Proded the article. The second is that the subject is using a title of an Archduke which is an imperial title normally associated with either the Holy Roman Empire or the Imperial Throne of Austria both of which are connected to the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg-Lothringen. No problem there except the article claims the title is current and ... well the Holy Roman Empire went away around 200 years ago and the Hapsburgs were deposed from the thrones of Austria and Hungary in 1918. As far as I know there are none still around with the possible exception of the King of Spain who I vaguely recall has an Archducal title somewhere in his background. Another problem is the subject is asserted to be an archduke in a part of the world (Scandinavia) where the Hapsburgs never reigned. Finland which is specifically mentioned was long a part of the Russian Empire and the title Grand Duke of Finland was quite real but it is not a legally recognized title in Finland or Russia today, as both are republics. In the absence of references or a family name I can't be sure this is not a hoax. For now I have tagged the article for doubtful accuracy and I think the BLP-Prod should be left in place. I am adding the article to my watchlist. Good catch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have enough familiarity with European houses that I was highly suspicious that there was an 17 year old pretender to this title. I'm the farthest thing from an expert though, and I'd seen you help with new pages of this sort before so I thought I'd leave a note. My suspicion is that it is a kid who gave himself a fancy Twitter account, but I'm not comfortable that it fits well enough into any of the CSD for now that I think BLP PROD is the way to go. Thanks for the second pair of eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem and your instincts may well be right. I did drop a line on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Perhaps someone else can shed some light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AIV decline

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could view these series of edits as "not vandalism" when you declined the report at AIV. They have some dodgy edits in the beginning and then move on to blatant vandalism (which they admit to) starting yesterday. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. I am not sure I was looking at the correct diff. I have blocked the user. Thanks for catching the gaff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Hi Ad Orientem. Would you mind putting an edit notice on Milo Yiannopoulos, so that people editing the article are forewarned that it is now restricted to 1RR? Many thanks.- MrX 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Good idea, thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
For the future, the edit notice is only that, it doesn't go on the talk page of the article. I switched that one out with the correct template that is used. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MereTechnicality (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Close on Yiannopoulos

I didn't realize you had closed the thread in your capacity as an administrator (or even that you were an administrator.) Although I disagree, it's clear the consensus at present is not to list him as Jewish so unless another discussion opens up I won't pursue it. I'm sorry my mistake caused unnecessary back and forth. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. You were obviously acting in good faith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Exit Calm

I notice you declined the request for protection of this article and then warned me for edit warring. Sorry, but when an editor with a conflict of interest keeps engaging in vandalism in the way of removing referenced info over a very long time in bad faith because they don't like it and makes personal attacks in edit summaries, they should be blocked from editing full stop. I thought reporting the issue would sort this out, but clearly not. There's no possible justification for the removal of content and they will continue to remove it.

Jimmygotyback (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimmygotyback This is a content dispute where I saw no attempt by either party to engage in talk page discussion. Yes, Nico's behavior was more egregious given his personal attacks and I issued a strong warning to him, but you were both edit warring. If he does in fact continue, he will be blocked. Please take this to the talk page if you have not already done so (it's early morning and I have only just begun to sort through my watchlist and notifications). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sad Saga of Rudi and Milo continues...

See this section where Rudi has started his crusade again. I think it's time for an admin to stop him, since he seems unwilling to accept that the consensus is clearly against him. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Already on it. I posted a final warning on his talk page last night and he was blocked this morning by EdJohnston for violating 1RR a couple days ago. If he pushes this any further I am going to topic ban him. -14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the discussion and it seems you are the one who is misreading. He was not asking to add "British Jews" as a cat, he was discussing "British of Jewish descent" which should not be a problem, since his mother is Jewish and therefore is of Jewish descent. Why is that category not allowed? You may answer on Milo's talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I've replied there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

I noticed you configured pending changes when the article was already under 30/500 protection, per arbitration enforcement. Could you undo your configuration, please? Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It was done more or less simultaneously. I tried to undo it but it doesn't seem to have worked. I will try again. In any event it's not causing any harm. The EC is still showing up as in effect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that PP cannot be "undone." I will have to reset the PP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I'm not going to monkey with it. The article is indefinitely ECP. The lower protection level I accidentally added is not interfering with anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind that I've removed the PC for you. It's done by just changing the level in the PC box at the bottom of this page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. I didn't see that option. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen

Hello Ad Orientem,

Can you please take a look at the recent activity? Are you aware that Kathryn Fauble was an investigative reporter who conducted interviews for the recently published Kilgallen conspiracy theory book? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the questionable edit and no I did not realize KF was involved with Shaw's book. On which note I am not 100% convinced this is KF though I could be wrong. The IP is quite different from the one's she used to use. If they re-add I will ask for a check user and warn about edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make no further reference to a possible KF connection then. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jackie Monahan Page

I was wondering why the page was deleted. I provided details and also linked wikipedia pages in which she was already in.


Thank You,

Joey Cassaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcassaro44 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The article cited no independent reliable sources. It consisted of a few sentences that basically said she exists, what her occupation is and where she has done some of her work. The wiki-links add nothing to any claim of importance, much less encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And finally the overall tone of the few sentences was rather promotional. See WP:NOPROMO. If you want an idea of what we look for in a biographical article please read WP:BASIC. You may also want to take a look at WP:ENT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Need some guidance!

Hello!!

I wanted to get some advice from you - I was working on a page for Anisha Singh, who is the Founder & CEO of mydala. I'm not sure why the page got deleted. Can you please help me a bit and tell me where I went wrong and what I should include. Anisha Singh is one of the prominent women entrepreneurs in the country and is counted among the top 10 women in e-commerce in India. Any help or guidance from you will be highly appreciated. Thanks and regards Sunanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunandaK (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. The article was deleted initially as a result of this discussion. Since then it has been recreated twice and deleted both times. As a consequence the article has been locked to prevent disruptive recreation. I am currently traveling so my time is rather limited. However when I get a chance I will take a look and see if I can find enough reliable sources to justify another attempt at writing an article on this person. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is RudiLefkowitz. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Verdict/action in Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/ Category:British people of Jewish descent

This needs to be continued either at the AE discussion or on the Milo Yiannopoulis talk page. Rudi- I will be leaving a note on your talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salutations. I will soon start to remove/add categories in the articles below (incl.Milo Yiannopoulos). The same principle and sources in the Yiannopoulos case concerning Category:British people of Jewish descent, are the same in other biographical articles and should thus be equally treated.
-John Kerry, Category:American people of Austrian-Jewish descent, American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent
-Madeleine Albright, Category:American people of Czech-Jewish descent, Austrian Jews, British people of Austrian-Jewish descent, British people of German-Jewish descent
-Lenny Kravitz, Category:African-American Jews and African-American Christians, Jewish rock musicians, Converts to Christianity and American people of Russian-Jewish descent, American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent
-Gwyneth Paltrow, Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent, American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent, American people of Polish-Jewish descent
-Ludwig Wittgenstein, born Catholic but also Category:Austrian people of Jewish descent and British Jews
-John O'Connor (cardinal), Category: American cardinalsAmerican people of Jewish descent
-Joaquin Phoenix, Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent and American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent
-Wesley Clark, Catholic convert but Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent
-Jean-Marie Lustiger, Category:French cardinals, French Jews and French people of Polish-Jewish, descent
-Douglas Fairbanks, Category:American people of German-Jewish descent
-Helena Bonham Carter, Category:Jewish English actresses and English people of Austrian-Jewish descentEnglish people of Czech-Jewish descentEnglish people of German-Jewish descent
-Jamie Lee Curtis, Category:American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent and American people of Danish descent
and then of course Ivanka Trump Category: American people of Czech descent and American people of German descent ? There is no source that Ivanka identifies as Czech or/and German! So let’s go a head and remove the category indicating descent?
PS
How about self-identification in the category List of Jewish atheists and agnostics, but still most of the named people have Category: Jews? Where’s the self-identification?...you Are What You Say You Are!? What to do? Should we remove the Category:Jewish atheists completely? Good luck! Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@RudiLefkowitz: This is a really bad idea. Telling an administrator that you are about to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point means they can now block you as a preventative measure. Instead of doing this, why don't you respond to the discussion about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RudiLefkowitz? Bradv 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Could be very well it's pointy, but he does have a point. That some people don't want Milo to be Jewish/of Jewish descent is accepted but it doesn't make it any less true. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bradv: Please don't put words in my mouth. I meant that theres is some urgency in this. I hope that this could be resolved and not svept under the carpet. I want to continue editing and not have Déjà vu on another talk page! I believe that there are good ideas and bad ideas and that they are discernible and communicable, so let's just reach a conclusion! Jean-Luc Picard: Go boldly where man has been before...Ratio decidendi. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC) PS I think User:Sir Joseph is right in pointing out that there are some not willing to reveal there true motives, but use other "casus belli" as a pretexts. We cannot afford anymore a coram non judice situation and urgently need reasoned and authoritative guidance. Maybe Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom or?
Rudi, is there a reason you are not posting a comment on the AE request brought against you? I suggest you try to wage a defense because right now it's one word against your not responding. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the information! I have just left a comment RudiLefkowitz (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tone maybe wrong, but logic not

Ad Orientem. I did not threat to engage in patently disruptive and pointy editing. I apologise if my tone was wrong and misleading. My urgent call to action, the one you called a threat, was in every way connected to the final verdict and reasoning i was waiting for explaining the course of action to be taken when adding a category indicating descent.

Threat: a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen, especially if a particular action or order is not followed http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/threat
I demanded persistently, I did not threat as there was no unpleasant or violating component involved, as it was subject to the recommendation to the correct interoperation and editing of adding categories. PS The blocking by EdJohnston for violating 1RR? I understand the wp:point you pointed out, but does not the 1RR require that it would be repeated revert? My edit was not a revert. It was a wp:point, something you underline. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You were blocked for your 1RR violation on 28 January. 1RR means that once an edit is challenged by reversion it cannot be re-added w/o talk page consensus. Your edit here violated 1RR. I accept your apology, but I still believe you should not be editing on this topic. Your apparent decision to take a WP:WIKIBREAK sounds like a very good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane

As soon as the edit lock on the Battle of Brisbane page expired, Senor Freebie re-added all the material that several on the talk page (including me) had pointed out was not in the sources given. I think some action by you is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.158.36 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've posted another warning on their talk page. If this continues other measures may be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem ... IP user seems to misunderstand Wikipedia and how semi-protection works. Myself and the other registered users were naturally still able to edit the article, and were in the process of discussing how to improve it, to match the sources. The IP user has completely ignored and chosen not to participate in that discussion ... has waited until semi-protection has expired, before lying to you, lying in their edit comments, and deleting material that IS agreed on, as well as new material that was produced to better reflect the sources. Please actually read the comments and sources before handing out ridiculous warnings.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Senor Freebie I am getting tired of your snarky edit summaries, personal attacks and assumption of bad faith directed at your fellow editors. Stop it. With a very few exceptions IPs have equal standing on Wikipedia as registered users. I have reread the relevant discussions and when done I did not have any sense that consensus has been arrived at. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I honestly am surprised to hear that you had read the discussion in the first place. You specifically warned me for edit warring, and seemed to deny the existence of segregation as a policy of the US government, both of which were manifestly incorrect. And now you're accusing me of making personal attacks, when I simply criticised you. I would much rather we continued to act constructively, as I have been trying to do for months with this article, since it was originally vandalised. Can we move forward now?--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with difficult editor

Hey, there is an editor who has been very difficult to work with on Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III. He uses multiple unregistered IP's (103.27.220.21, 27.100.20.252, 43.249.129.233, 103.17.198.244, 43.249.131.132) but I think this is the same user since he uses the same references and keeps arguing the same point. His edits were reverted my multiple editors([23],[24]) for lack of credible references and multiple attempts to get the user to discuss on the Talk page initially failed. A neutral user stepped in with a RfC to prevent what was turning into an edit war but the user has not been civil in the RfC. Last, the user has also indulged in personal attacks on me ([25]). Any help or advice on how to deal with the user will be much appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. It looks like another admin has stepped in and locked the articles for a few days. That seems like a good move to me. If you have anymore problems with this issue I suggest addressing them to Vanamonde93 who appears to be on top of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

2005 Ho Chi Minh City Open

2005 Ho Chi Minh City Open should not have been deleted. It clearly satisfies WP:NTENNIS as an event on the ATP Tour. The nominator tried to PROD it and hope nobody noticed, and it worked. It was part of a series of questionable nominations of sports articles. Please restore it - I would have strongly objected if I noticed in time. Smartyllama (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you have a look

…at the last addition of a category to DisruptJ20 by @FallingGravity: to see if, absent the appearance of that term or specific sources relating, in the article, it is appropriate to add such a category? I have no horse in the race, and no strong opinion. I simply want good encyclopedic practice, and could easily imagine this one being argued either way. Hence, the editor is pinged, so we both hear /see what you decide. Act, or advise, whatever you think best. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article and I'm not seeing any reference to anti-fascism in there. They are described as anarchists which is not necessarily the same thing. We are currently having a similar discussion on Milo Yiannopoulis. If there are reliable secondary sources that so describes this group then I am OK with it. But we need to be careful about assigning categories that are not backed by those. All of which said, I have not gone through the sources to see if any of them use the term. It's getting late here and I've had enough wikifun for one day. FallingGravity can just let us know here if there are sources, I think we would need more than one, and we can go from there. I'm not going to revert or remove the category at this point. I expect this will be quickly sorted out tomorrow. Thanks for the query. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

DELETION OF INTEGRATED MOVEMENT THERAPY PAGE

Dear Sir - I believe the IMT page was removed erroneously since the content was not understood it was assumed to be wrong, this page was not copied, plagiarized, or self-glorification; it was a relatively new topic/concept that should be introduced to people in a Wiki page and allow the concept and term to become common knowledge. I will be recreating the page and wish that not be removed for the reasons previously listed as the reasons for deletion since they do not apply to this page. I thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computertutor (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Computertutor please read WP:YFA, WP:GNG, and WP:OR before recreating the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Prof.junirullah/sandbox

Thanks for catching my erroneous U2 nomination on the page.

I was chasing through a User:Junirullah's misplaced user pages like Manager:Junirullah and pounced on this one as another example. Junirullah seems to have hijacked Prof.junirullah's abandoned sandbox a few years back. I've reverted to the Prof's version of the sandbox which just points to a deleted YouTube video. U5? I guess it would be a blatant U5 if the link were still live, but now? I'll leave it to your discretion. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Kamahl Santamaria"

I believe it was incorrect to delete this page. He is a broadcast journalist on Aljazeera English and many other news anchors have Wikipedia profiles. I understand his page had issues but deleting it for "not notable" would not be valid.

It would be a good idea to restore the article.

 Not done Although deleted via WP:Prod, in my opinion the article would be unlikely to have survived a CSD WP:A7 nomination. You may appeal the deletion at WP:REFUND which I believe unlikely to succeed, or alternatively you may recreate the article. However you should be aware that unless the article is drastically different, the problem with a lack of asserted importance much less biographical notability will remain. As of this point I do not believe the article's subject meets our notability guidelines. While there are many things that are fixable in a problematic article, notability is not one of them. It's either there, or it's not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


Jared Kushner

Hi, can you please copy the edit notice (that appears when you edit, not the talk page notice) from an American politics page to the Kushner page? Thanks

Also, new editors are still adding the BLP violating source to the article. Can you please revert and then protect? Or at least issue a warning? They are violating DS and BLP. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thanks, and just ftr, he edited again without discussion.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph Has any of the newly added material been challenged by reversion? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, Ryk72 reverted with explanation. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
sorry to bother you, but I don't think you put in the correct edit notice. The notice has 1rr, but it doesn't have the "seek consensus" as you can find at Trump. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk)'

can you restore protection to Samantha Smith ?

the protection on Samantha Smith recently expired. It's been the target of a sock puppeteer and block evader. Could you restore protection on the article for at least three to six months? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any disruptive editing since the last protection expired. Drop me a line if it starts up again and I will reprotect the page for at least 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Exit Calm part II

It is incorrect to simply state that "Facebook is not a reliable source". An official press release, distributed via a Facebook post on an artist's official account, is of course reliable. When another website uses that press release to report on their split, that is also reliable.

You may notice that he has given no legitimate reason to remove the text, and hasn't put an arguement forward on the talk page. It isn't a "content dispute", when one party can't give a valid reason for the removal of text. SO basically, he repeatedly removes the referenced text - when that doesn't work, he has forces various parties to remove the original references so that they're no longer there to be used. It's a disruptive single use account that doesn't contribute anything and should be banned.

Jimmygotyback (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy I have addressed his disruptive editing on his talk page. That said Facebook posts are not generally accepted as a reliable source for potentially negative BLP content. And whatever they may have called it, I doubt it was a post representative of the band since the band had ceased to exist and I'm fairly sure that at least one member of the band had no say in that post. In short it is an internet shot at another person via social media and that does not pass BLP. I am not going to edit war with you, but I STRONGLY encourage you to remove that line which should not have been reinserted w/o talk page consensus. If you don't, I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It was an official press release - period. How that official press release was disseminated is neither here nor there. You haven't addressed his disruptive editing - because a user who removes text for no legitimate reason and repeatedly makes personal attacks in editor summaries ("breathtakingly retarded", ". write what the fuck you want about who the fuck you want you pathetic sad cunt.", "You fucking weird bitter cunt", "who ever you are you are a fucking idiot.") should be banned. Jimmygotyback (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly we do not agree on this and I will take the matter to BLPN. We don't know who even authored this so called official post. It could have been one former band member with an axe to grind. Just because someone posts "official" at the top of a post does not make it a reliable source. I suggest you take another look at WP:RS to see what is required to pass muster. On the issue of the personal attacks, I have already blocked Nico once. Do these attacks post date that block? Diff? If so I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem/Archive_3&oldid=1079562084"