User talk:Amortias/Archives/2017/March

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

Please comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 March 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)

Confirmation

Just some confirmation from anyone wondering that I requested the content model change at user:DatBot/footyconfig. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And its  Already done Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

At the Edge of Everything (2013) - Copyright Infringement of direct copy from official Steve Roach site

I realized my mistake and I will write in my own words later — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodRedeemer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Comebacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Comebacks. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox deleted

methinks copyight infridgement nonappilcable. i am the owner of contents kickstarter, account just deleted, blog is kept alive by kickstarters. same content is on wordpress, indiagogo, amazon.com. truly sorry to have broken wiki rules. newbie will behave. Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To avoid decentralized discussion I'll be responding on Poggio's page. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Belated RfA congratulations

I am sorry I missed your RfA as I was out of town and offline soon after it was posted and a bit rushed just before. Belated congratulations. I have seen your work and I am sure you will do a great job. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And from me. I need to pay more attention to RfA! I'm sure you'll do a great job! Doug Weller talk 13:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tambapanni page.

Hey, you removed my edit to this page for being uncited but I didn't add new information I just removed incorrect information, i.e. that the word "Tambapanni" is derived from Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.250.54 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The source listed against it specifies where it comes from, changing the content to say something else and not providing a source to back it up is adding unsourced information. If you can find a reliable source that backs this up then it can be added in but without one it cannot. Amortias (T)(C) 20:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft Balance Transaction Reporting Standard (BTRS)

I am trying to understand why my BTRS page keeps getting deleted. I set it up a draft this time thinking that would give us time to finish it. I stated at the top of page that I am the Executive Director of the ANSI standards body (ASC X9) that owns the standard and that several people would be filling in the details for the page over a few days. I try to get the experts to edit the page and they tell the page is not there. I thought drafts were not suppose to be reviewed until they were finished. It takes several subject matter experts to complete the information for this page but we never have a chance because it gets deleted within hours of being created. Also, how can I infringe my own copyright? I add a comment for reviewers at the top of the page that said the standard was developed by ASC X9 and I run ASC X9. I am licensed to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office. I know a fair amount about US copyright law and the answer to above question is, I cannot infringe a copyright that I own. I am about ready to give up on Wikipedia as a number of my associates in the financial industry have already. Wikipedia has a very bad reputation for being hard to work with and unfair in the application of rules and I am about to agree with them. Feel free to call our offices in Annapolis, MD and ask for me. I will be glad to confirm my identity, discuss how to create a page and US copyright law. Ask for Steve Stevens. Our phone number is on the web under Accredited Standards Committee X9. I look forward to talking with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevens803 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demagogue

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demagogue. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Redelete page

The last page you deleted, Northfield Hockey, has been repeatedly recreated. 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:F5B0:51FA:F299:8E56 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article Sangita Mukhopadhyay

Hi, can you email me the deleted article Sangita Mukhopadhyay. I would like to fix the issues and then republish. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 09:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: unfortunately not as the article was a copyright violation. Your best bet is to start from scratch as a draft. Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: I am not asking you to create a draft or to post it in my sandbox. I don't think emailing is a problem. It has happened previously as well. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 15:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Satdeep Gill: the original source of the information can be found here - [1]. If you wish to recreate the article you can get all of what was included in the article from that page. Amortias (T)(C) 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Onnanohito/GiorgiaLupi

Hello. I just copied the article in order to have the basic structure while I was working. Obviously I would not use material unrelated for this article. Can you revert this deleted page so that I can continue working. I've just started editing, this was my first article.

Warmly, --Onnanohito (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Onnanohito: I've left a blank(ish) template that contains the infobox and the headers in the same location so you can just fill in the gaps without being at risk of copyright violations. Amortias (T)(C) 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you also deleted the first paragraphs that I spent the last hours working on. Too bad you didn't look carefully at what I was doing-- it seemed quite obvious. Also, isn't this my sandbox, why would you touch someone's sandbox? I can imagine deleting things but only when it is related to an official publishing of false info. If you could restore my work that would be much appreciated. --Onnanohito (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Qustion about attack pages

Apologies if this seems unnessecary over analysis. I tagged an article for speedy delete under A7 web content, however I did briefly consider it qualifying for G10 instead. Then you went and delete it under G10. I'm probably just a little rusty on this, but G10 can apply even if it doesn't mention a name explicitly? It can also apply to blogs and so forth? —Frosty ☃ 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frosty: my reading of Wikipedia:Attack_page is that it says subject of the article. I cant find a mention that its only for BLP pages, theres the bit that specifies purely negative BLP's should be deleted as such which reinforces my opinion that if they had to put a line in solely for BLP's it probably applies to other things as well. Amortias (T)(C) 00:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok, will remember that for next time :) —Frosty ☃ 00:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Back4App recreation

Hi, I just noticed that you deleted the stub article Back4App that I just published. This is quite shocking to me because I do not understand the real motive behind it: "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Highstakes00) in violation of ban or block (TW)" What do I have to do with this editor? Although your motivation may be noble, I really do not deserve to be a collateral damage of this operation. Please take a second and closer look at this article and restore it. I would appreciate your cooperation given this WP advice: "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I am afraid that there appears to be a misunderstanding here. In my humble opinion, my recreating the Back4App article does not make me de facto guilty by association. In fairness, I deserve the benefit of doubt as long as Check User has cleared me entirely of any wrong doing. Please check the other page to see for yourself the Check User investigation results. Therefore, I would very much appreciate that you reconsider your position and restore this stub article as my modest contribution to Wikipedia. I am confident in a reasonable outcome of this situation. Thank you for your cooperation. Djukicivan1 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Djukicivan1: I have restored the revisions in question but I would strongly suggest making sure the article meets the criteria for notability as soon as possible as it may also be deleted if it doesn't meet these criteria. Amortias (T)(C) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments after an RD

Quick question, following an rev delete that you did (on an AfD page), am i then supposed to delete my comment requesting its deletion, as it now looks like a nonsequitor or do I just leave it? My comment makes it obvious that someone had been making an accusation. Thanks in advance Mramoeba (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mramoeba: your best bet would be to strike your reply with a note saying that it no longer applies or is related to a removed comment. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, will do Mramoeba (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amortias,

I need your help i want to delete a page and write again with good refrences. (AEUT (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)).

@Use:AEUT: you'll need to be more specific on which page your referring to. If you just want to improve it then you don't need to delete the old article you can just improve the current one. Amortias (T)(C) 20:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias please try to understand previous history of khowar language consist of vandalism i want to write this page in better way like this now delete khowar page(AEUT (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC))

Sock blocked. --NeilN talk to me 04:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew II of Hungary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew II of Hungary. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

list of famous love stories

There is incorrect information added to this article, so kindly please remove Malia Tate and Stiles Stilinski because they were never a love story Katherine still (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maksim Chmerkovskiy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maksim Chmerkovskiy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Reigns

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Reigns. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Miller Campbell

Hello, 

I am writing to get my page Miller Campbell undeleted. I am referencing the article Megs Mclean for a similar article that is active on Wikipedia. If it is a source issue, I am happy to revise, but I believe I am in good merit to make the article. Miller was just named the Next Woman of Country Music by a CMT affiliate and I would like to make her a page. Please let me know what needs to be done to undo the deletion.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor111 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock Mattwags323232

Could you please unblock Mattwags323232 I did nothing wrong and I am just trying to get my account back. If you look at my edit log I didn't do anything wrong or with mattwags32 I just want to have my account back. Mattzent23 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joe Scarborough

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joe Scarborough. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Soon Yu

Hello, you deleted my contribution on Soon Yu. I created this page for a living speaker / author. I work on and have access to his website that it is okay to use the text from his website. Please don't delete. I can also reword it - no need to delete though without allowing me to fix it. Please re-open so I can try again. I've created other contributions. --Fiz327 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fiz327: If they want to donate the content of their website they are free to do so but this means that anyone anywhere can use the same content for whatever they want. If they still wish to go ahead with this they can follow the guidance here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air (band)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Air (band). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Toybob page

Hello, why was my Toybob article deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderlandKitty (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I just read the reason why. I am actually the writer of what was written of the information that is on the site. My friend who owns the website actually used the content from a magazine I self published of the cat breed. http://www.magcloud.com/webviewer/1226204

How can I go about getting my page undeleted and correcting the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderlandKitty (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) WonderlandKitty (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@WonderlandKitty: The copyright owner would need to release the information as per the guidance here, this would mean anyone anywhere could use this information free of charge for whatever purpose they see fit. The other option would be to rewrite the page and start over, if the copyright isn't released we wont be able to restore the page though so t would mean starting from a blank page. Amortias (T)(C) 12:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Regina Spektor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regina Spektor. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

50.202.54.50

50.202.54.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

Looking at the block log for this IP address, did you purposely only block it for 31 hours? Regards. 2607:FB90:A43B:88C7:0:49:18E1:C101 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal Coaching

Hi,

You deleted my legal coaching page for copyright infringement. I had spoken to the writer of the text that I had used and received permission to use it, so it was not an infringement of copyright, per se. At any rate, I would like to have the opportunity to re-write the legal coaching article. Am I still able to access the article I had submitted to make edits or am I required to start again?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Dietz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Dietz: If they want to donate the content of their website they are free to do so but this means that anyone anywhere can use the same content for whatever they want. If they still wish to go ahead with this they can follow the guidance here. That will generate a ticket number if they provide this to you I can find the e-mail in the permissions inbox and restore the article with the appropriate permissions in place. Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Israel Symphony Orchestra Rishon LeZion

Hi Amortias,

A few hours ago you deleted Israel Symphony Orchestra Rishon LeZion per a correct WP:G12 tag.

I was not involved in the creation/editing of this article, nor am I connected in any way to this orchestra. However, this is a prominent orchestra, and when I noticed it was put up for speedy deletion I contacted them (per WP:Copyright_problems#Obtaining.2Fverifying_permission) to see if they'd be willing to grant permission to use their text. Fortunately, they approved the use of the text in an email to me and to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

I would have simply added {{OTRS pending}} to the article talk page, but the page isn't there anymore. Can you please restore the article with the proper use permission indication. Thanks. -- IsaacSt (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@IsaacSt:, I have access to the OTRS system so if you can provide me the ticket number I will be able to review and restore the article if the release granted is sufficient. Amortias (T)(C) 12:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how to obtain the ticket number (was it supposed to be automatically sent to the sender of the permission email? I can bother them again, but only if necessary), and I understand that due to the current backlog it takes approx. 51 days for an OTRS agent to respond. Alternatively, I can re-create the article with {{OTRS pending}}, but we'd lose the original history. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@IsaacSt: Its possible to search for other criteria. If you have the subject of the e-mail I can search on that.Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The subject was "RE: Wikipedia article about ISORL". Thanks. -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@IsaacSt: Article restored and licence attached to talkpage. I would suggest getting some reliable sources to verify the statements in the article as quick as you can so that someone doest try to delete it as unsourced. Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Shakya (disambiguation)

Hello. This is regarding a recent revert made by you here on the Shakya (disambiguation). I request you to please refer various discussions in this regard on Talk:Shakya. Thanks and regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Indyk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Indyk. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Post-progressive

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Post-progressive. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay page

Matter closed

Hello Amortias,

You must not delete the "Jean-Philippe de Lespinay" article without looking at why it was deleted at the time and what additions are made in the new article of march 2017 for it to be accepted. The artificial intelligence technology presented in this article was considered as advertising and lacking notoriety. However, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay has just received an American award for his "AI achievement" in February 2017 :

Winner of the Special Award for AI Achievement is Jean-Philippe de Lespinay of Tree Logic ( http://www.tree-logic.com ). Tree Logic presents a computer technology, “La Maieutique”, which will drive world data processing into a new aera : the aera of computer becoming “human”, communicative, intelligent and knowledge-hungry. Plus these key abilities we have been waiting from him since its inception : helpful, never forgetting a new knowledge, and user friendly.

You must realize Mr. de Lespinay's notoriety was already evident in 2011 regarding the large number of intelligent concepts, links, newspaper articles and the list of his clients. I am one of his clients in a large French IT company (Sigma Informatique) and several services use his generator T.Rex exploiting AI reasoning.

This article, which presents a great inventor and a great invention, should never have been deleted. It was suppressed after a real war of edition, brutally and without real valid argument. You must now ask yourself why and by whom.

I explain what happened: the invention of JP de Lespinay aims to make programming languages, and thus IT specialists, useless, and to eliminate traditional computing (a new computer without keyboard, without mouse and without screen). The article was therefore deleted by WP computer scientists who used your encyclopedia to kill the competition and prevent the public from discovering a new technology.

I ask you not to be an accomplice of this deceit and to take account of 2017 awards.ai prize that certifies that JP de Lespinay deserves to be in Wikipedia.

Thank you

Jean-François

@JFPrincay:The only difference between the article deleted in 2011 and today was the following line In 2017 he is 70 years old and receives the [2] for the success of his career in AI ("AI achievement category"),in his new company Tree Logic..
This isn't significantly enough to the original article which was deleted. If you wish to have the article moved to a draft space to work on before republishing it then that's something we could do but at present it is not suitable in its current form for inclusion. Amortias (T)(C) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the 2017 award. I couldn't see any evidence of its notability or recognition within the academic AI community. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: The only difference ? Biography is three times longer. And I can't modify "Professional and scientific background", "publications" and "References" because they relate facts. But I can add new references if you want. Tell me please what is missing and what should be added. Understand me: I did not want to get too involved in this writing if you wanted to delete my page immediately. I find it strange that WP will refuse a well written article, indisputable, full of links, on a company leader, an inventor, a company that has marked an important research area, artificial intelligence. If you can explain this to me sincerely it would be good. JFPrincay, 11 March 2017
@JFPrincay: To clarify, the only change that would show signs of notability was the award mentioned earlier. If this award is not considered suitable enough to be noteable on its own then this would still fail to meet the notability criteria. My offer to move it to draft space for further improvement still stands. Otherwise if you feel the deletion was in error the appropriate place is here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: I will go in the DRV page but it is very complicated! There are plenty of codes to insert in the text. I do not understand anything but I will try. 16 March 2017
@Amortias: "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion"." Can you tell me where is the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" ? I didn't see it in the page. Thank you.--JFPrincay (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay
@Amortias: I repeat my question : "please where is the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" ? Thank you --JFPrincay (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay
@JFPrincay:. The button wont appear as its not currently listed for speedy deletion, they would need to comment on the DRV page, also please be aware that claiming all users who endorse the deletion are computer scientists, therefore opponents of his technology is getting fairly close to personal attack territory as well as being entirely unproven and impossible to prove, if you want to make that claim then you need to back it up with evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias:OK Amortias, Thank you for this clarification. As far as the computer scientist profession of the opponents of the page, it is very easy to verify. This is something that Patrice Grenier claims to have done in 2011: just go to the page of those who voted the deletion of the French page and then came to ask for the deletion of the US page, which was however older. Add to this the computer scientist profession of the US WP member who decided to delete the article (AndyTheGrump, see this page) without consulting anyone else among the Americans, relying on falsified arguments (suckpuppet).Then again I am not saying it lightly, it is enough 1) to note that the IP addresses of the people defending the article were all different, 2) to listen to their arguments which were also all different (and 3) in addition I know who they are and nobody were cheating). All this is what the co-author of the article Jean-Philippe de Lespinay of 2011 told me. I can not verify it but you, you can because you have all the history saved.
Don't you find it odd that such a real, undeniable technology, company, and man so real and indisputable that received an US prize is so contested in WP while this encyclopedia contains thousands of articles about companies, technologies and people whose reality and interest are less certain? In the French WP Jean-Philippe de Lespinay is not even allowed to speak about the French researcher who inspired his research, Jean-Louis Laurière. Any reference to this man, a very good guarantee for him because it is a known academic, is immediately deleted.--JFPrincay (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay
@JFPrincay: Could you advise how you were able to compare the IP addresses of editors who were logged in as I don't see that you have the checkuser flag.
As well as this the deletion discussion was held by several editors and was made after consensus had been drawn, are you implying that all these editors had a bias against the article but everyone supporing it being kept did not? Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias:No I have not checkuser, but you have it. Grenier was able to see the results of the checkuser analysis and so he found that Andythegrump knew perfectly that there was no suckpuppet. Here is what I could recover:Pat Grenier checkuser. Chris project, Hiltrude, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, OBreizMaBro1, 90.54.117.217, Pat Grenier are all individuals existing, different and still alive. There are other official references, for example in this document transmitted by JP de Lespinay for another American AI award, please see page 17 other individuals officially testifying in favor of the technology of JP de Lespinay including a computer scientist (Jean-Bernard Wilhelm).--JFPrincay (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay
@Amortias:You say "the deletion discussion was held by several editors and was made after consensus had been drawn" but Grenier assures that he discussed only with andythegrump. Jean-Philippe has written two articles in his blog to tell how WP FR and US have mistreated him (rightly or wrongly) : article 1 and article 2. They are in French but you surely have the same translator as me (Google translate)... Grenier was so exasperated by the bad faith of Andythegrump, his only interlocutor, that he wrote to him that (that commits only him, not me!):
AndyTheGrump, whenever you did not know what to say after my answers to your arguments you reacted sharply and outside the rules WP: The first time I disassembled your assertion that notability of Lespinay was not significant, into 8 points ! you did not answer complaining that I have « accused » you to be a computer scientist that you are not ! The second time, as you claimed you were not computer scientist, I put you under your nose your user page saying that you program in Basic, C and Java ! Furious, you wrote that you were going to request removal ! The third time I answered your objections (always the same) in 10 points. You have not responded and furious, you put a suppression banner ! The fourth time, I noted that Sylenius himself, an ennemy of Lespinay, admits the historical interest of the invention of Lespinay: “I will draw here the same conclusion as on the french wikipedia: it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s, but nothing more, and certainly not independent articles”. I wrote in bold that since historical interest of Lespinay is admitted our articles can’t be deleted. Furious, you react by blocking all those who defend Lespinay, claiming that I make multi account with them! the 5th time, as I said that you cheated with your « CheckUser investigation, » you reply that it is not you but another person (an unknown who has never discussed with us and don’t even answer me !). As I said you are stupid because it is normal I work with Lespinay to write an article about him, you don’t find answer and, furious, you make the removal! You accuse me of everything but, in fact, you respect me and you know I am right. The proof: you are losing time in discussion with me then nobody does this when he is right… I am not surprised that contributors insult you in Wikipedia ! You used your position in this encyclopedia to prevent an article that bothers you to be edited. And it is certainly not the first time ! You, pgr94, Sylenius, Rigoureux, Cameron, Lanredec, Hatonjan, you are all computer scientists and you are congratulating yourselves to have managed to prevent WP to speak about a useful invention needed in the world because it is contrary to the interests of computer scientists. AndyTheGrump, you mislead this encyclopedia, you make use of Wikipedia for personal use, you are a crook. Pat grenier (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
@Amortias:I wonder if it is a good idea to gain acceptance for my article to dig up all the dirt of the past discussions. Anyway, I see that nobody at WP answers my questions about the intrinsic interest of my article (with an US award). On the other hand one makes sure to ask me other questions, which obliges me to do an investigation that does not interest me. You have all the elements to understand what happened in 2011. Now, tell me if the "Jean-Philippe de Lespinay" page was presented under another name, "Jean-Pierre Chose" for example, so quite new, you would consider it acceptable (with modifications I would suspect that.)--JFPrincay (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay
@Amortias:I just discovered that my "Jean-Philippe de Lespinay" page has been definitively deleted without discussion with me, without the slightest explanation, without answering my questions ("I find it strange that WP will refuse a well written article, indisputable, full of links, on a company leader, an inventor, a company that has marked an important research area, artificial intelligence. If you can explain this to me sincerely it would be good") ! The lack of explanation demonstrates once again the bad faith of Wikipedia. If WP was honest it would have no difficulty finding arguments understandable from all. This deletion in secret only shows that Wikipedia is a sectarian pseudo-encyclopedia animated by people working to make invisible technologies that disturb some of his members, to the detriment of the public who strive for the progression, the culture and the History of humanity. I am outraged by discovering this enormous and deliberate deceit.--88.123.217.13 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay
@JFPrincay: Few points.
  1. There was significant discussion held around this both at the original AFD and here and at the deletion review.
  2. There was significant explanation that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. Both at the original AFD and again at the DRV.
  3. There was no secret deletion it is all publicly viewable, again at the AFD and DRV.

Your options now are to accept the outcome or recreate the article in a manner that shows how they are notable. Amortias (T)(C) 18:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: are you are putting up a joke on me ? Few points :
  1. You say " There was significant discussion held around this both at the original AFD and here and at the deletion review. " In fact there was not significant discussion because there was not discussion at all in this page like in the page Wikipedia:Deletion review (I don't know the AFD page). You ask questions and I answer : difference between 2011 and 2017 pages, suckpuppet, proof that deletion was the fact of computer scientists (ennemies of the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay technology), I ask questions and you not answer. This question was asked four times: "The strangest thing in your remarks is the refusal to reply to my essential questions, which I present here for the third time: "can you please justify the speedy deletion of an encyclopedic article by arguments that I can understand ? Why my own arguments "a company that exists, about a real man who invented a new technology (Reasoning AI) used in companies, which has clients (including myself), which is mentioned in hundreds of press articles in France, whose notoriety is indisputable, with links that show the importance of his inventor and his company in the history of technology" still justify the speedy deletion ?" Where is the answer, please ?
  2. When I ask how to rewrite the page to get it accepted: no answer.
  3. Never in the page Wikipedia:Deletion review someone answered my questions or reacted to my comments, as if I did not exist!
  4. You say : " There was significant explanation that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability." Ok, please tell me what was this "significant" explaination I did not seen
  5. You say "There was no secret deletion it is all publicly viewable, again at the AFD and DRV." In this page there is no explaination or reference to the deletion of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay article. In the page Wikipedia:Deletion review there is only this comment " Speedy deletion endorsed" ! It is at least a secret deletion!
  6. You say "Your options now are to accept the outcome or recreate the article in a manner that shows how they are notable." Not notable article ? There are links to 14 articles written by jean-Philippe de Lespinay, A dozen testimonials of personalities - including customers - attesting to the interest of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay technology and to the existence of his companies, 34 references about Jean-Philippe de Lespinay's R&D with links, the US awards.ai won by the Frenchman Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, you have evidence of 75 press articles showing the achievement of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay's business, on the web you have thousands of references about him, his inventions and his technology. Where do you see a problem of notability? How many articles in WP can boast of so much evidence of the notability of their subject?--88.123.217.13 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)jfprincay
@Amortias: All indications are that these four deletions in US and French WP are not justified and serves the interests of computer WP members. This is to the detriment of the interest of knowledge that WP is supposed to provide to the general public. These repeated deletions without valid reason undermine the image of WP and demonstrate an unbearable lack of ethics in an encyclopedia read so much. I want you to put me in touch with a WP referee endowed with a real authority (not a student or a computer scientist, please!). Thank you.--88.123.217.13 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay
@JFPrincay: there are no referees with real authority, all authority on this site is real and given by the community after their consensus is given. Administrators have the authority to delete that which does not meet the criteria for inclusion which the page you are referring too does not, on three occasions it has been decided that it cannot remain in its current format, if you are unwilling or unable to accept that there is nothing more that can be done for you. You have been advised of the routes for appeal which you have exhausted. Your only options are too accept the outcome of the decisions or to recreate the page so that it is consistent with our guidelines first and foremost the guideline on notability. - Also please either edit from your signed in account when referring to matters that were originally discussed on that account, failing to log in but still referring to yourself by your account name appears to be as though you are trying to evade scrutiny and avoid the debate being linked to your contributions.
If you are unhappy with my response you can raise this on one of the community pages but I not going to continue to repeat myself here and I am considering the matter closed. Amortias (T)(C) 13:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias:1) You have not answered any of my questions, 2) you tell me "it has been decided that it can not remain in its current format" which is written nowhere, 3) as regards notability, do not forget the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay page was written and accepted in 2011 in the US WP. It was with the help of a WP US member, accepted after analysis of several members. He stayed like that for a month. It took the intervention of French computer scientists to delete it by vote ! Today Jean-Philippe de Lespinay received an US award but his biography has no more notability ! Bizarre is not it ? There is a lot of bad faith in your remarks and no intention of helping me. You prefer "considering the matter closed". Congratulations Wikipedia for this fierce obstruction to culture!--88.123.217.13 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay

SPI templates

Template:Sockpuppet comes in handy when tagging socks. Thanks, GABgab 17:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Congrats! Bearian (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Move question

@Amortias:If i move an article under AFD, but move the AfD entry too, will everything work properly ? --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I'd be wary about moving an AFD as its possible one of the outcomes could be to "move" the article. Is there a specific reason why the article couldn't wait for the week to be up to be moved? Amortias (T)(C) 17:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: title is Dr. Academician Zan Mitrev, AfD registered 23 march. I dont think this is a proper article but i suppose i could wait
@Kostas20142: I'm inclined to agree about this article not being a proper article. It needs a lot of trimming to be BLP compliant so its going to end up at about 2 lines by the time its within policy. I wouldn't worry about moving it at present. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: Ok, thanks for your time! (still not VERY experienced, thats why i make a few mistakes. my intentions are good)--Kostas20142 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have received deletion templates that give me no right of reply

Hi, User:Fram has issued deletion proceedings against three of my articles: Edward Hoare (priest), Michael John Keatinge and Usher Lee I cannot see anywhere how I respond to these. As a Wikipedean who has beavered away with a few other stalwarts I find this perplexing. This issue has been raised several times and each time the consensus seems to be that Anglican Archdeacons and Deans are notable by office. Many thanks in anticipation Bashereyre (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bashereyre:, the procedure those templates have been added by is the proposed deletion procedure, if you disagree with the proposal that they are deleted you need only to remove the template from the page (and preferably advise on the talk page why you feel they are notable). Amortias (T)(C) 19:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Levin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias/Archives/2017/March&oldid=1145097903"