User talk:Alex Shih/Archive/2017

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

2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 (Page 2 3 4) | 2018 Page 2 3) |

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)

Happy Birthday

Wishing Alex Shih a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Film censorship in China

Hello! You've listed yourself as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force. There is currently a discussion that may be of interest to you at Film censorship in China about changes to the table on the article, what information should be listed in the table, and general criteria for a film's inclusion. Please see Talk:Film censorship in China#Changes. If it is also of interest, there is also a discussion at the same article about adding scholarly literature and further historical information to the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Core Socialist Values

  • Thank you, Mr/Ms.Alex Shih,for your effort. I didn't know that the formal tranlation is like that, but I can stay with it now. Although, I think I, alone with many Chinese, understand that by my translated interpretation. Anyway, I don't know why would the translation from formal source be like that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 邬山 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting second look, not urgent.

Hi,
Recently I performed a few moves. I wanted someone to take a look at it to make sure there was no mess-up. I did all the moves in exactly same way. So, checking any one of them would suffice. Here is one page that was moved: Sexual orientation discrimination. Sorry for bothering you, but once it is confirmed everything was fine with this move, I can confidently carry on the work; without causing inconvenience to you or anybody else. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Usernamekiran: Your round-robin move of Sexual orientation discrimination was done correctly. Just a piece of advice, following the move check the article history to make sure there are no redlinks that shouldn't be redlinks (old talk pages, archives, etc). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey Anarchyte. Thanks a lot for the tip, it is very much appreciated. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ContraVentum

Hey @Alex Shih I appreciate that you were the one, not afraid, to make the decision of indefinitely blocking User ContraVentum who thought it was alright to disrespect & try to embarrass people that have differing opinions from his. I just wanted also to bring to your attention that he does make contributions on his IP address [1] Which he admits is his IP address on his talk page and that if it wasn't temporarily blocked for disruptive editing he would be using it now.[2] Thanks for making Wikipedia a less hostile place. Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bennv3771 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Alex ShihTalk 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hi Alex, it's great to hear from you too! You were one of the people I looked up to when I got involved with WikiProject China back in the day. I'm not a super active editor these days, as real life has taken its toll. However, I still do some editing and translating from time to time. Let me know if you ever need help with anything. --Danaman5 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Caution

Oh sorry, I was not aware of this situation, thanks for the headsup! Supreme Dragon (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chinese Expeditionary Force

Hello! Your submission of Chinese Expeditionary Force at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

HELLO, QUESTION?

Can pages created by Blocked Users still be marked as reviewed or should be mark for deletion?

Thanks in advance Zazzysa (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. Zazzysa (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK queue

Thanks! You beat me there by 5 minutes. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Grace Hutchins

Hi,

Sorry I jumped in, the in use tag has been on for awhile... I didn't realize you were editing now. I hope I didn't cause you an edit conflict.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Evangeline Marrs Whipple

Great edits to the Whipple article, thank you!

I thought I'd get back in and do some editing there, too... if I am interrupting your thoughts about expansion, though, please let me know. You can respond here, I'll see it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! You too. Alex ShihTalk 03:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Peabody Loring at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DRV on Tony Chang

As an FYI, an editor has requested a deletion review of your close of the Tony Chang AfD. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 25. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Palomo

Hi, I noticed you promoted a different hook to Prep 5 than what was approved. The hook you promoted wasn't reviewed at all. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I remember you, I remember that I co-nominated you for adminship 10 years ago. Glad to see you're still around! Maxim(talk) 00:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Carles Torrens

Hi Alex, I'm still learning the basics of wikipedia, so apologies in advance for my rookie questions.

I just replied to an edit you made on the Pet (film) Talk page Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).]]

I am aware that this claim is no longer being actively sought out by the ROC government (aside from it being used for the One-China policy), but since it is still stated in the constitution of the ROC, I believe the facts should be respected and that it should be included in the 'political and legal status' section of the Taiwan article.

Your immediate response is most appreciated. 敬祝 平安喜樂 Vincenty846 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vincenty846: It's always important to think from the perspective of English-speaking readers, since this is the English Wikipedia. Be very careful not to accuse other people of bias, as such behaviour is not helpful in a contentious topic. In a sense, you've answered your own question already. This is a matter of national imagination vs. territorial reality ([3]). The interpretation of Article 4 has been in dispute in Taiwan for a very long time, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional definition is "purely political" and not "legal" (p. 35), which makes the claim highly irrelevant today. The reason is because English Wikipedia runs based on reliable sources (not truth) in the form of not primary sources, but established secondary sources. My understanding of the current consensus can be extended from the infobox discussion, which expresses that the map in question has become too obsolete to be used in the article. The issue about the constitution can certainly be expressed, but in the form of prose. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 16:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Gao Minglu

Thank you for your DYK review for this article. A lot of people will be quite pleased with it. Best Regards,

What's to be done …

… about things like this and this? The very last thing I would want to do is to discourage anyone from contributing, but what other possibilities are there? I've tried moving them to draft, that doesn't help. I'm asking here because someone's already archived the ANI thread. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for your efforts! I would hate to discourage contributions as well, but the lack of communication makes it difficult. I have moved these two articles back to draft space and temporailly protected the mainspace pages from being recreated again, and left a stronger note at the editor's talk page. This'll have to do for now, hopefully. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 01:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Golf-ben10

Last week you blocked User:Golf-ben10 for 48 hours for disruptive editing. He responded by blanking his talk page and today going on a string of edits that added back flagicons against WP:FLAGBIO on The Face season articles that numerous editors have tried to discuss on his talk page. Again there were no edit summaries or talk page discussions. The user did not edit warring about date formats and navigational templates, but the issue that most editors brought up with them, the flagicons, seems to be their favorite battle. If you could please into this issue, I would appreciate it. Aspects (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aspects: Thank you for notifying me and the editor in question. Since Golf-ben10 has been invited to discuss here, I'll wait for a day or so. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 00:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Online transaction processing

Hi Alex. You recently deleted the article online transaction processing with the rationale, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". However, I don't think it meets that definition (it is a method of financial transactions), not a company, corporation, or organization. It doesn't meet any other aspect of the A7 speedy deletion criteria either. An article with hundreds of edits that has been around for more than 12 years should probably go to AFD anyway. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Thanks for the message, Edgar! On a second look, I agree you are correct. I have restored the article and added some sources to address possible concerns, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 00:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Straddling the fence at Talk:Gary Renard

Please take the dead horse to the proper venue if you wish to beat it into suspended animation. Alex ShihTalk 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You had the opportunity to close the RfC on Talk:Gary Renard and you did not do so.  Another administrator got involved without using enough competence to read the discussion he was closing before he closed it (although it was good that the discussion was closed, which might be an WP:IAR reason to ignore the close).  You then posted on my talk page with a request to be notified if I were to request a review at DRV.  I requested an explanation but you haven't replied.  So let me be specific, I don't currently have a dispute with your close, so there is nothing currently to review. 
And if the editors on the talk page decide that they disagree with the close there is also nothing to review, as your close does not prevent subsequent improvements to the encyclopedia, as per WP:Consensus.  Now on this last point, I am assuming that the protection can be removed at the WP:RFPP upon request from the content contributors at Talk:Gary Renard.  If you now wish with the protection to create a bureaucratic barrier that forces a new centralized discussion, you need to clearly state this; and since doing so would shift power from non-admin content contributors to administrator centralized authority, such a decision could be subject to review somewhere.

Here is WP:DRVPURPOSE in its entirety:

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

There is nothing at DRVPURPOSE that overrides WP:Deletion policy, WP:Consensus, and/or WP:Edit warring; all of which specify that the talk page is the place for discussion. 
The problem now is that editors from the AfD have taken over the talk page at Gary Renard and are disrupting discussion there.  If there is consensus at that page for your close, why are they afraid of discussion?  Obviously they are trying to prevent consensus building.  Please clear the disruption from the talk page.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

ویژه حضوردرهیئت talk page

I think their previous edit needs to be temporarily readded to close the unblock request, THEN revdel'd. It's showing as an open unblock request in requests for unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Is it still showing in the page? I cannot seem to see it from here. Alex ShihTalk 23:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It's gone now looks like, thanks again! RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Infinitech Trading"

Hey Alex, I wanted to know if the page I created ([Trading]) could be restored so I can edit it and make it more encyclopedic, since it was deleted and I was unable to fix it to avoid its deletion. If so, could someone give me tips on how to improve that work? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Ive (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Ive: I am sorry but this subject simply does not meet the notability guideline. The original content was fully promotional, and I don't think even restoring to the sandbox would be helpful. There also appears to be undisclosed conflict of interest. Alex ShihTalk 03:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

why my page was deleted

Hello,

I was creating a page on Edo Zollo - London photographer - and it was deleted.

I'm confused on the real reasons for the deletion. Since this page is up running: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Thompson_(photographer) and it's a living person.

Your reply will be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack2017 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zack2017: Take a look at this essay. Alex ShihTalk 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page restoration

Alex, Can you please restore the Datari Turner Productions page in my sand box so I can make adjustments to it and have it republished? Your time is appreciated. Im sure the things needed to be changed can be handled easily being that the page ran for 4 years without issue I believe. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchWTW (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@DutchWTW: I am afraid I cannot do so, since there were plagiarism from the original entry that simply went unnoticed. You shouldn't be working on the article anyway (previous discussion). Alex ShihTalk 04:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A case request in which you had been involved has been declined

Dear Alex Shih/Archive/2017,

On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that the case request named "topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year" (in which you had been listed as involved party) has been declined. The committee concluded that has no jurisdiction on the issues involved in this case, and that therefore cannot be accepted.

Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

deleted page User:Joe TravisMathew/sandbox

Alex, I'm working on the framework of a Wiki entry for the apparel company TravisMathew. I feel the apparel company is of considerable significance as it was part of a recent acquisition by Callaway Golf, one of the top golf brands in the world, as part of a major $125M purchase. The article currently has three citations and I can provide more. Additionally, professional athletes such as Andy Roddick and Mardy Fish reference TravisMathew as their sponsors within their own Wiki pages. I'm hoping not only could the entry be restored in my Sandbox, but any recommendations to prevent future deletion would be appreciated! Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe TravisMathew (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joe TravisMathew: Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No inherited notability. Alex ShihTalk 04:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

deletion of Jason Lokilo

While this article was a stub, I think it had a claim of significance that met the standard suggested at WP:CCSI#ATHLETE. The person in question meets the criteria at WP:NFOOTY, so what can I do to reinstate the article and amend it so that it is not speedily deleted again? Spike 'em (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: Thank you for your message. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I will restore the article since you are correct that it doesn't qualify for CSD. Sorry about that. Alex ShihTalk 06:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Spike 'em (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion decision for NestAway

My page NestAway was recently deleted for G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, WP:XFD. While I agree that the page was a recreation but there are a lot of differences now. The brand now qualifies for Wikipedia with references in independent, reliable sources.

The brand has also received funding from a popular investor in New York.

I agree that it was earlier not notable but I believe it now is. Kindly suggest. RajkGuj (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@RajkGuj: Nope, the reasons listed in the previous deletion discussion is still entirely relevant. And it's always troubling when the same article is recreated under different spelling/letter case. Alex ShihTalk 10:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Thanks for your response. As per the last deletion discussion, editors seem to have the perception that the references are press releases or mere announcements of funding. If you search for the brand on Google, you will get over 2000 news results, and most of them are bylined news articles by staff writers in independent publications like The Economic Times, The Times of India, VCCircle, Hindu Business Line, TechCrunch. They are not press releases reposted by news wires, and neither are they blogs.

The Economic Times does not cover a brand so many times through press release not does a TechCrunch. Kindly guide on where the improvement needs to be made. RajkGuj (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I dig your RfA for Jimbo Wales

Seriously, you just blocked an IP for "abusing multiple accounts". There's mention of a registered editor Vote (X) for Change, and a glance at the block log shows this editor was originally blocked for the same reason. There's a lengthy SPI, but it's in that name. The block indicates that the editor previously edited under another name. What was it? 81.157.151.180 (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Laughing

... is better than crying, so I laugh. You deleted a project talk page per G4. Did you look how it came into being? Francis moved it from a different (archive) page, - I - who had created it - was careful to leave it deleted: it looks so much more interesting in red! Can you now please also delete the redirect which is nonsense for an archive? And please can you tell me how I can safely collect the deleted information? It's a rather harmless list of how many transclusions some templates have that the project made. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sorry Gerda! I have restored the page and will let someone else to look at it. I do think this page would probably be safer in the user space though. Alex ShihTalk 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
O dear, now we have the complete history again, - did you read the RfD? Allegedly, the list of keeping track of which infobox was reverted was an attack page on certain editors, - good piece of mind-reading, because no editor was mentioned, only reverters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Better, thank you. - Is there any way to tell Francis not to move project pages of a project where he isn't a member? We have talk pages for concerns, - well, not that specific one of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
@Gerda Arendt: I have yet to read anything about the infobox wars discussions. I'll find some time to do the catch up on the reading before I start speaking... Alex ShihTalk 12:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't invest any time. The wars were over in 2014, but some can't live without them, it seems. 2017 has been peaceful, just one IP made trouble. We can live with that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Early-expired prods?

Alex: I noticed you recently deleted Kimberly Readnour, Michelle Lynn, and Bethany Wicker, each deletion marked as "Expired PROD". Now, while I feel that these were fully deserving of deletion (and had PRODded one of them myself), each had been nominated for PROD for less than a day, much less the seven days that the PROD system is designed for. Was this, perhaps, a misreading of the date? Or were the pages deleted for some other reason and mislabeled? Forgive me, I'm just trying to understand what happened here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I am puzzled as well, since I deleted them while I was working on the backlog in Category:Expired proposed deletions. I'll find out the reason but in the meanwhile I'll double check the timestamp next time. Thanks! Alex ShihTalk 14:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, two of the three articles weren't even a week old, so if there's a timestamp in them that says otherwise, the problem was with whatever generated the timestamp. (I used Twinkle to PROD one, and one of the other PRODs was someone copy-and-pasting my PROD, apparently.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Tony Fabella

I genuinely don't understand what happened to the Tony Fabella article. I started cleaning it up and thought I got rid of most of the promotional tone, and I thought it had pretty much the standard biographical content by the time I last edited. And the notability seemed proven by the media and academic text coverage. What gives? - Alternativity (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alternativity: On a second look, I have restored the page to Draft:Tony Fabella. This will need a third opinion. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 08:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PERM

Hi Alex. I'm concerned about this New Page Reviewer user right being accorded to Sb2001 who has a history of combative posting and insensitive comments to AfS submitters which is currently being dealt with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am sorry, I missed that part. I will revert myself, thanks! Alex ShihTalk 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah! I see. Kudpung: I notice that you have still not provided me with reasons not to take you to ANI after you followed me around, making 'school' comments. There is still time to reply to my email. Good to see that you failed to answer another user asking innocent questions on your talk page. They have more faith in you than I do.
Maybe, AS, you should be looking into Kudpung's behaviour, and John from Idegon, for that matter. I would still like you to provide me with an explanation of why you removed the right, as requested on my talk page. PS: this is not meant to sound aggressive, even if it does. –Sb2001 talk page 16:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your unblock

Hi. Did you inadvertently forget to let Hillbillyholiday know that you unblocked him? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for the notice. I have left a unblock note now. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 03:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Paint Our World deletion

Hi just wondering how to improve my post RE: Paint Our World. I didn't think this still had a biased or promotional tone, except maybe the last sentence. Some advice and comments would be much appreciated if it is still possible to try and submit an article under this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyboultbee (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


Your block of User:Hillbillyholiday

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Alex Shih. I have some concerns about this block and I thought I would ask you in the first instance to justify it here. What was the block for? --John (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: Hello John, the block is a reflection of this comment, which was made three days ago in response to another edit warring report regarding the same editor. The reverts this time were also made in a similar manner, unprotected by BLP exemption, and the subsequent refusal to discuss in the article talk page about the revert despite of concerns raised by several editors in AN3. Alex ShihTalk 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the contention that the edits were unprotected by BLP. I request that you reexamine the edits and come back to this. John (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@John: I am always more than willing to be corrected, John. While I re-examine the edits, would you mind addressing the current discussion in AN/I? Regards, Alex ShihTalk 16:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@John: Strictly speaking, I count three reverts, which does not technically violate 3RR. But as you can see in the ongoing AN/I discussion for the past five days, the block in my opinion is justified by all three criteria of WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. I have re-examine the edits and provided my explanation below. If you still believe the block was unjustified, please go ahead and lift the block, as I won't be opposing. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Revert 1: This is indeed contentious on two parts: the description of the subject is arguably not written in WP:NPOV, and the Daily Mail is not appropriate as a source here despite of the RfC states that it may be reliable for some subjects. The problem is that, in my opinion, this should be discussed in the article talk page after two reverts instead of five, particularly when the removal has been challenged by another established editor. More importantly, this editing behaviour during an ongoing discussion about the behaviour of this editor in question is very concerning.
  • Revert 2: The other editor made a compromise with this edit, and the entire remaining section was again instantly removed. This particular removed content does not seem to be justified by libelous nor poorly sourced contentious material of the exemption.
  • Revert 3: Same as the previous revert. The edit summary appears to be suggesting a reference of MOS:HEADINGS (?)
  • Thanks for the response. I will need an hour or two to respond. I have commented at AN/I per your request. Actually I don't need an hour. Your reverts 2 and 3 remove contentious (though arguably well-sourced) material that do not relate to the subject of the article. Do you see the problem? --John (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@John: Thank you. I can certainly see the problem, and I guess my point is that the manner of removal itself was also contentious, as the exemption was not explained well. Martinevans123 has graciously explained to me the potential BLP implications in those content, in which I do not disagree. Alex ShihTalk 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem, we all make mistakes. I meant to comment at the AN3 discussion but real life got in the way. If I had had time I'm sure this wouldn't have happened. I feel bad now. Never mind. I think you should consider unblocking HBH if he wants it, and I think you should consider speaking up for him at AN/I. He is not perfect but most of what he does (this for example) is good and valuable work and I think the more clueful people who say that the better. Finally, I agree with GoldenRing that this comedy has been tolerated long enough and we need to hand out sanctions to those who knowingly revert BLP-busting material and make tendentious reports at noticeboards. I believe there is a relevant Arbcom judgement, am I right? Drmies will likely know. --John (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Here, I've found it: WP:ARBBLP, Principles 1 and 2. Alex Shih, GoldenRing, Drmies, do you agree sanctions are in order here? --John (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
John, Principle 2 is just the usual general stuff. I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for--yes, discretionary sanctions apply, but it starts with an alert/notification; the process is found in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I have not looked closely enough at the history (indeed, the entire history of the conflict) so I am not going to say that editor X or editor Y are deserving of sanctions yes or no. Personally I would be more interested in the community being more clear about what to do about the plethora of factoids in celebrity articles, but it is entirely possible that one or more editors have not handled themselves appropriately in that one article, maybe in others. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Alex--after seeing your note above, of 19:10, I expected to find Hillbillyholiday unblocked. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies. I have started the process of notifying all those who have undone HBH's BLP edits. It will take a while. And I agree with you; the existence of that embarrassing discussion at AN/I demonstrates there is a need to clarify this sort of thing in giant letters. An RfC? BLPN? --John (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: As I explained to John, I was hoping a third person would do the favour as I believe it would be more appropriate in this context. But I'll do it shortly if that is not happening. Alex ShihTalk 20:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
As I am being discussed, I believe John should have done the simple, forthright courtesy of notifying me. I explain here how John failed to provide context. And I would also point out WP:ANI#John's chilling effect tactics and WP:ANI#Request for review of administrative actions: User:John. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Need Help, Why my article about UTOMOCORP deleted?

Hello my Alex, Could you help me please, I want to create article about company in Indonesia (UTOMOCORP), but maybe I create a mistake and you deleted my article, can I edit or update that page? I want create the page and make it better than before, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudo729 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Paint Our World deletion

Hi, Thank you for your response. I now realise I did not include sources such as an interview with our foundress on BBC and BBC Radio as well as articles about Paint Our World in the Telegraph and Savvy Magazine. These are more credible sources but do not have online links to them. If I were to resubmit a draft which included references to these and removed the 'current fundraising' section would it then be deemed notable and non-promotional? If not please can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyboultbee (talk • contribs) 11:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kreees (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A question regarding your help with The "Human" Factor (1975 film)

I appreciate your revert here of The Human Factor (1975 film) back to The "Human" Factor (1975 film). However, shortly afterwards, your revert has been reverted to the undiscussed move. Before relisting it at "Requests to revert undiscussed moves", I had hoped to consult with you as to the next step. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: Although it may feel out of process, I think it would be better to submit a regular move request as to the next step at this point. I have dropped a note to the editor that made the latest move asking for clarification. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 01:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am grateful for your kindness in initiating steps to resolve this matter. The downside to a regular RM is that in the event of no consensus, the title defaults to the existing form which, in this post-move case, would be the form without the quotes. In any event, I will wait 24 hours to discover if any additional details may emerge as a result of your inquiry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: Hi, while I did not receive a response, the page has been moved back by the same editor. Hopefully this will solve everything for now. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The restoration of the page does, indeed, solve everything. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My article about Wancher Inc. was deleted

Dear Alex, I am trying to finish my article about Wancher Inc. but it was removed. It would be appreciated so much if you could let me know the reason and how I should change to make the article valid. Thank you in advance Alex. I look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baogao1616 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Baogao1616: Sorry, no. This is not the place for you to promote your non-notable company. Alex ShihTalk 10:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Coates Hire article deletion

Hi User:Alex Shih, I see you have deleted the article I recently created, Coates Hire, without consultation. Are you able to provide some evidence as to how it violates the policy, or how the page could have been improved? Thanks, Романов (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Романов: Poorly sourced: Two broken links and a link to a list of user reviews (really?) Unsourced with three broken links. Promotional content like sponsor numerous.... Since you have been here for a while, this kind of writing with poor understanding to the policy is highly questionable, unless if you are engaging in some kind of paid activity. Alex ShihTalk 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive additions to this global encyclopedia, its users like yourself that are what make Wikipedia what it is today. I will be sure to re-create the page tomorrow, removing any mention of sponsorship, at least 10 references (which I will check again, my apologies). I do struggle to understand what you refer to as "user reviews" however I will take extra care, knowing that your expedious approach to both consultation and improvement is here to monitor our community and it's content. As you've been here a while, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your intentions are in the right place and not jump to any accusations as that would be both petty and juvenile without any consultation. Finally, do you have objection to the article being recreated with the before mentioned amendments? If not, could you please provide detailed rebutted, specifically around the articles (re-created) intended content. Романов (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Романов - Since you haven't answered the rhetorical question, I will ask it as a real question. Are you being paid by Coates Hire? I will comment that, if I were an administrator, I would find the patronizing tone that you are taking to User:Alex Shih to be annoying and condescending. You have been here a while; he is an administrator. No, I do not provide advice to editors whose pages were deleted as promotional spam on how to improve them. You could try building the article via Articles for Creation and getting reviews before moving it into article space. However, my usual advice about promotional pages is not to try to re-create them. You evidently want the page created because Coates Hire wants it, and that has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia wants it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Романов: I will overlook your taunts and point purely at this source: [4] Please explain how this link has anything to do with your page. I have reasonable doubts that you may be engaged in paid editing, so please be kind and explicitly state that: No, I am not engaged in paid editing, so we can move on to the next step. Alex ShihTalk 16:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there any former prime ministers who aren't in that list? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I can still see the article that I tagged, and I still think that it needed tagging as spam, and I won't advise what needs to be taken out of it, other than that there wouldn't be much left. As to your comment that the admin deleted it without consultation, that is true, and there is no consultation on speedy deletion; that is what is speedy about it. Wikipedia needs speedy deletion to keep it free of various kinds of crud including social-media profiles, directory entries, vandalism, and advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Self-correction: It was 3 broken links, which makes the page completely unsourced from the beginning. Alex ShihTalk 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: @Robert McClenon: I think you are both missing the point for why the article was created in the first place.
I don't agree with the promotional aspect of both of your arguments from my years of editing but as noted above, I'm happy for any amendments (removal of the 'sponsorship' reference) to be made in order to move forward. Note that as I'm not able to see the article I have limited opportunity to cite your arguments.
Regarding sourcing the article, I've stated previously that I have committed to double checking the references and to having copious of them. I don't understand how it happened, nor do I think that the objectivity of the article was compromised.
No, I unequivocally have not been approached, nor have I approached and I definitely have not been remunerated by Coates Hire or Seven Group Holdings (SGH) or any other subsidiary of SGH for having created the Coates Hire article. I strongly refute any "evidently" or "reasonable doubts" to the contrary. In case you are still wondering why I created the article, the reason is purely as it is the missing article in the SGH parent organisation and the intent is to actually re-write the entire below mentioned articles as frankly, they are all sub-standard.
Does Wikipedia also not require the following subsidiary articles of Seven Group Holdings: Seven Network, Pacific Magazines, WesTrac and Yahoo7? Coates Hire is the only subsidiary company without an article as previously mentioned.
Note that similar rental organisations: Avis Budget Group, United Rentals, Europcar, Bin Quraya, BlueLine Rental, Boels Rental, and Finning have articles on Wikipedia. From my research, Coates Hire is as the largest rental company in the Southern Hemisphere with a revenue larger than that of many island nations. Using United Rentals as an example, perhaps the introduction of United's article best sums up Coates Hire's global position:

United Rentals, Inc. (NYSE: URI) is the largest equipment rental company in North America, with about 11 percent of the region's market share. It owns the largest rental fleet in the world, has a workforce of over 13,500 employees, and operates 968 locations across 49 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces. In 2016, United Rentals' revenue totaled more than $5.7 billion, with over $2.6 billion in profit. It is ranked #452 on the Fortune 500.

I struggle to see how the original Coates Hire article differs from the United article, but as I have stated on numerous occasions I am happy to work constructively to re-create it. Романов (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The bottom line is that without significant coverage from reliable sources and the ability to access the source, the notability cannot be verified. The comparison with other articles really needs to stop; it's highly irrelevant to this discussion, as many of these pages are also poorly sourced ("sub-standard", as you have pointed out) and will probably be tagged for deletion at some point.
If I may paraphrase, the point of creating Coates Hire, is because it is the only subsidiary of Seven Group Holdings "without an article"? And this came right after Coates Hire is put up for sale? This makes the unsourced expansion of the Seven Group also suspicious, but we'll move on. Half of the Coates Hire page was a list of products and sponsors, which you have agreed to not include again. Interestingly enough, most of the news result only covers Coates Hire Ipswich Super Sprint, but nothing much about the company (notability is not inherited). This one may be a valid source, but it is insufficient to establish notability. And no more self-published sources please. Alex ShihTalk 11:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your comparison remarks - saying that United Rentals and Europcar do belong on Wikipedia as opposed to Coates Hire is subjective. Coates Hire and United Rentals are two of the largest equipment rental companies in the world, whatever products they offer being listed in the article is as irrelevant as is any sale news items. Parallels in this argument could be the notability of OPPO compared to, say, Apple or Samsung. I think the consensus here is not just that there are other notable rental-related articles (no matter how badly sourced they are) but also that Coates Hire's article will create consistency, it's profile ownership (SGH and Carlyle), international presence (Australia and Indonesia) and size (total revenue) as stated above. Романов (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

David Taylor-Smith deletion

Hello, I had requested for the page of professional MMA fighter David Taylor-Smith not to be deleted and gave factual information of his statistics etc, however the page was still deleted. The page was finally completed in it's entirety. Can you kindly reactivate it? Thanks alanaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanaw (talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Alanaw - Requests for Undeletion is thataway (at Requests for Undeletion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alanaw: No, the page was poorly sourced. Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube... Most important of all, notability is not inherited. Robert has kindly provided you the proper link to contest speedy deletions. Alex ShihTalk 17:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wilder Harrier Article

Hello sir,

I created a page about wilder harrier friday 28th of august and i would like to have more informations about this decision. Can you explain to me your reasons?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdouardBrun (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@EdouardBrun: Very simple: WP:SOAPBOX - Here is not the place for you to promote your non-notable company. The entire content is written in promotional language. Alex ShihTalk 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Prashanth gangi/sandbox and Draft:Scrapiee

You've deleted these both at one time or another today -iiiit's back! -now at User:Gali thirupathi. Presumably SOCK or MEAT. They're persistent, I'll give them that. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 18:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Marvelous. Not sure why the second account was created, since it wasn't blocked. But this make things much easier moving forward. Thank you! Alex ShihTalk 02:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of of the page Arun Alagappan

Mr. Shih - I am contacting you regarding your recent deletion of the article for Arun Alagappan. I am unsure as to why this page was marked, having sourced every section thoroughly with over 20 citations throughout the article. There is no promotional language used in the article and the individual certainly meets the criteria for notable individuals. If you could provide me any details or advise me as to how to improve the article I would be appreciative. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KodjoSatchey (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC) KodjoSatchey (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@KodjoSatchey: A second look still reveals questionable notability, but I've declined the WP:CSD for now and tagged the article for {{Notability}} while having cleaned up some contents. This appears to be a case of WP:CITEKILL, as the subject does not have significant coverage in many of these sources. I've removed two self-published sources, did some MOS fix and removed some extraneous information. If the subject is known for his company, but his company is non-notable, there has to be more evidence to establish the notability through depth of coverage, not simply by passing mentions. Alex ShihTalk 03:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked??

For what? For upgrading the information. I didn't utter a abusive word after warning was placed. Please, mind your regulations first and then execute it properly. Who needs to update your wiki page. If one can't update or verify the information on the page than what's the use of creating it. I didn't said a word after warning was lodged to me. Please, look over the issue property before lodging a blockade to any user. Poor decision. As I updated the info on Vistara wiki page. The Jetstreamer changed the status to terminated of Lal Bahadur Shastri International Airport without verifying it. Poor decision 

Upanshu upanshu (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedied

In reviewing the Philately Projects quality log today, I saw your speedy deletion of Austrian post in Montenegro. This appears to be an entirely valid topic worth mention and could well have been merged into the main article Postage stamps and postal history of Montenegro where the topic is already mentioned. Would you like to wikify it for me so I can see if anything can be merged. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I have restored the page, thank you for the help! Alex ShihTalk 09:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

sir, why my wiki page shopaccino was deleted?

sir, why my wiki page shopaccino was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetnnya (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent blocks

I saw you just blocked Jila9r (talk · contribs) and Ramir1 (talk · contribs). I think Lanveen1 (talk · contribs) might also be related. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: Thanks! The first two sleeper accounts spammed to get autoconfirmed, this may be long-term abuse. Alex ShihTalk 13:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion?

Hello Alez, could you please confirm why you deleted the Phoenix (web framework) page that I created? It was not promotional or advertising content, and was comparable to other web framework pages I listed in this talk section, and had some more content than some of those which haven't been deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express.js

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(web_framework)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinatra_(software)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willykaram (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's pointless to compare to other pages. Your page is poorly sourced, consist of purely self-published sources. Alex ShihTalk 16:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Willykaram - If other web framework pages are poorly sourced, you may nominate them for nominate them for deletion also. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

RiceGum

Hi Alex Shih, would there be any way for you to copy the content that was on RiceGum before it was deleted and move/copy it to Draft:RiceGum so it can be worked on? RiceGum now has a song on the Billboard Hot 100. Thanks. Ss112 00:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Sure! I've restored the latest version to the draft page. Alex ShihTalk 02:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Budman

Dear Mr. Shih,

This article was biased against since day zero. It was marked for deletion even before I submitted the draft or even finished it. I modeled it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pia_Z._Ehrhardt. I wonder why would she be more notable than Mark? I gave a lot of references that are not causal mentioning but detailed interviews with Mark, and yet the opponents kept calling them "casual mentions" Thank you for answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article you tagged here should be considered for deletion. It has no in-line citations, lacks notability and is completely out-of-date. If you modelled it on that, it is not surprising that it had been deleted. Standards for BLPs have changed massively since then. –Sb2001 talk page 01:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)PS: they are not 'opponents', they are simply more committed to the rules than you; I am sure that they would have been willing to help you to get it up-to-scratch. –Sb2001 talk page 01:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Shih,

Thank you for your reply. It's enlightening. I still would like you address, if possible, my statement "It was marked for deletion even before I submitted the draft or even finished it." More importantly, could you restore the latest version to the draft page so I could continue to work on it? Unless you think it's a lost cause, and I should chose another flash fiction writer/inventor who writes in his second language, published books by prestigious publishers and stories in best magazines in America but is more notable than Mark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 13:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@RightOnTarget: That wasn't Mr. Shih you were responding to. To keep my response short: To challenge the result of a deletion discussion, please file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Alex ShihTalk 13:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

London Duck Tours Limited

Hello, I was wandering as to why this page was removed from Wikipedia? Wolf WIK (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolf WIK: Non-notable group with no reliable sources. Alex ShihTalk 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih I have recently added my sources and more would have followed. I have seen other pages on Wikipedia with only 1 link/reference.

How would I go about requesting the page to be reinstated? Or creating a future page about London Duck Tours?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf WIK (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolf WIK: Please use Articles for Creation. Alex ShihTalk 16:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_Shih/Archive/2017&oldid=1149837415"