Jump to content

User talk:Eventhorizon51/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome

Hello, Eventhorizon51, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Teahouse logo

Hi Eventhorizon51! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Maywood Community School was accepted

Maywood Community School, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Itemirus (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vengeance (2013 film)

Hello Eventhorizon51, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vengeance (2013 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anna David (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:57, Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew Patrick (YouTube) (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
Reventtalk 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube). Thanks! (t) Josve05a (c) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
JSFarman (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to Rosanna Pansino

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:Eventhorizon51/sandbox a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rosanna Pansino. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Len Ford

May I ask why you reverted my edits on Len Ford? Esszet (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. From what I saw in the comparison between revisions of your edit, I thought you removed a quote from the article. I just took a closer look and it looks like your edits were in fact constructive. I'll undo my revision to the page. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Notifying authors

Hi. Thanks for patrolling new programs, a tedious and depressing but essential task. When you PROD an article such as Andover HSx, please notify the author by copying to their talk page the notice that is generated at the bottom of the PROD template when it expands on the article and, if the author is new with a blank talk page, make it less WP:BITEy by preceding it with {{welcome}} or another welcome message, to give them some links to advice on how to do better next time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tippets+random+no.

Hello Eventhorizon51, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tippets+random+no., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your sig

Your signature at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/也是醉了 seems to be causing problems in the edit window by taking up far too many lines. It should take no more than two or three, per WP:SIGLEN, and should not be more than 255 char. It's not obvious why it's doing so: your signature looks very straightforward with just custom colours and could probably done with much simpler HTML.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's doing this. All I typed in for my signature is [[User:Eventhorizon51|'''{{fontcolor||yellow|Event}}{{fontcolor|#00FFFF|black|horizon51}}''']] <sup>([[User talk:Eventhorizon51|talk]])</sup>. Is it supposed to automatically change into whatever it is in the edit window? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't seem like my sig is doing the same thing on this page (or any other talk page I've edited). Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You should never include templates in your signature. There's not one reason but a whole list: WP:SIG#NT. If you are trying to achieve some formatting then do it using raw CSS/HTML; look at the output for where your sig worked as expected and copy and paste that. If it's too long, i.e. if it exceeds the 255 char limit, you'll have to find some way to shorten it even if that means losing some of the formatting. But your sig doesn't look as if it's doing anything too fancy that would need more than 255 chars.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it at the AfD by substing the parser functions. If you replace a template or call, {{...}} with the same but prefixed by 'subst:', i.e. {{subst:...}}, the template is replaced by its output as you hit save. WP:SIG#NT strongly discourages but does not disallow substing, for the reasons given. In this case I think using HTML/CSS is far better as then you can be sure what you'll get, and again I don't think you are doing anything that can't be done that way.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I fixed a couple more instances of it too: [1], [2]. Whatever the cause it's possibly something you changed around that time; earlier pages seem not to have the problem.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion not applicable to user pages or sandbox

Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#List of criteria states that you cannot request a page for speedy deletion if it is a user page or sandbox. Undescribed (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Undescribed: It most certainly does not say that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Under G1. Patent nonsense - line 2 "This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace." Undescribed (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's specific to G1, which isn't what you said, and you're wasting server resources for no good reason, with over 500 revisions in just a few minutes, so IAR would apply to delete anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
G1 is the violation that was applied. And what exactly is "IAR"? Undescribed (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Undescribed: WP:IAR stands for Ignore all rules, a policy that encourages actions that help the project even if they don't follow the letter of other guidelines. I do appreciate the reminder that G1 does not apply to user pages, but editing rapidly without a purpose is a drain on the servers. It wouldn't be as disruptive if you put meaningful content on your userpage about you as a user. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Matthew Patrick (YouTube), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"vandalism"

Please do not describe an article written in good faith by an apparent schoolchild as "vandalism". Vandalism is an attempt to deliberately harm the encyclopedia, not just a naïve failure to understand its purpose. As reviewing administrator, I deleted the page "School buddies" as a test page, which I consider the kindest way to deal with such pages. I will now go and try to say something nice to the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive criticism. I'll keep this in mind in the future when I'm patrolling new pages. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Pepper article

Hi, I've removed the criminal allegation from the article, per BLP. It is based on one anonymous complaint, with no indication that the police are investigating, and the second source you cited was simply repeating the first. It would need police involvement or at least much stronger sourcing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, just letting you know that I removed a self-published source that I missed yesterday. [3] I'm wondering whether this article is really policy-compliant, given the focus on these allegations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you removed only pointed out the presence of the letter referred to in the statement. It doesn't make any claims about anyone or anything else besides the letter itself, so I don't see why it's not appropriate for that sentence. Would you mind further explaining why it can't be cited as a source? If it is in fact inappropriate, the claim can still stand (but perhaps modified) since there are many other news articles that point out the significance of the tumblr post. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an SPS, self-published by someone other than the subject. See WP:BLPSPS. Do you have a good news source that refers to the Tumblr post? (Pinging MelanieN as the admin who unprotected.) Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The letter is actually referred to in the BBC article that I cited, though it's near the end. It also makes reference to the number of signatures it has received. However, I still don't quite understand why the letter can't be cited, since the sentence it was attached to didn't make any claims about any people, only the letter itself. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another source that refers to the letter in question. [4] Eventhorizon51 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you can use that as a source for the letter, but I think this is a problematic BLP. It's unlikely to have much content other than these allegations. See WP:BLP1E. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Sarah. Eventhorizon approached me about unprotecting, since the protecting administrator is not active. I discussed it with them here. I was mainly evaluating the new article on GNG grounds since the earlier deletion was based on lack of notability (their only claim to fame was having been on Big Brother). I was dubious at first, because the only new information is the controversy, and that seemed like just a social media dustup, unworthy of encyclopedia coverage. But looking closer I saw there was significant coverage from two Reliable Sources, which meant it might meet GNG. I decided it deserved a shot at article-hood - subject of course to AfD at anyone's pleasure. Feel free. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, thanks for the reply. I was wondering whether Eventhorizon51 would reconsider whether to publish it, so that it could be speedied. The BBC would normally be an RS, but the BBC article used as a source doesn't look good. One reporter speaks to women, all or most anonymous, who make various claims, then the reporter adds "We have been unable to independently verify that the messages were from [the subject]". Without the BBC, the only mainstream source in the article is CBC, which is about his "prank," or whatever it was. So we have a mixture of weak sourcing (including for one allegation of criminality, now removed), borderline notable, BLP1E, and very little chance of it ever developing into a full biography. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You are suggesting that Eventhorizon tag it G7? They could, of course. But personally I would rather see such a decision made by the community at AfD, rather than between two people on a talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The options are: Eventhorizon could request deletion; an admin could delete it, per WP:BLPDELETE; someone could take it back to AfD; or we could simply redirect it back to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Pepper. It would help to know how Eventhorizon intends to develop it into a biography. It can't stay the way it is forever, but it's not clear how many other RS exist for biographical material. Eventhorizon, could you say what your plans are? Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My original plan was to start this article off with whatever information I can find about the subject at the time, and then opening the article up to the community to develop as time went on. SlimVirgin, you say that the BBC article used as a source doesn't look good, but the only ambiguity in that article is the part where it says that "We have been unable to independently verify that the messages were from [the subject]". That part is only specific to a few online messages and does not eliminate the reliability of other statements made in the article. I can't be sure that I'm absolutely right, but I don't believe that anything in the article as of now (or at least anything controversial) violates the policy at WP:BLP. When I drafted the article, I was careful not to make any uncited claims and attribute every piece of information included to a source. I'm pretty sure that notability is not an issue here either because typing the subject's name into Google will turn up pages and pages of articles dedicated to discussing this person. Also, SlimVirgin, with this edit [5] you removed two references without much explanation. Right now, I still don't know what's wrong with those sources you removed. It seems like the only reasons for possible deletion at this point, as you state, are notability and sourcing, both of which I do not believe are issues with this page. Can you perhaps elaborate on any of the problems you find with sourcing? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, Eventhorizon. First, I should make clear that I have no interest in this as an editor; I'm here only as an admin because I saw it raised at RfPP. The main issue is that eventualism doesn't apply to BLPs; they have to be fair at all times (see Wikipedia:COATRACK).

When I found the article it contained a serious criminal allegation based on one anonymous source who had spoken to one reporter; another claim that wasn't quite the way the source presented it (the photographs); and a third based on a self-published source (the letter). The BBC article – which I believe is BBC Newsbeat, i.e. Radio 1 – is a morass of mostly anonymous gossip, and I think we should not regard it as an RS for a BLP. That leaves the CBC piece, and no clear way of developing the article into a full biography. I think we should redirect it to List_of_Big_Brother_2010_housemates_(UK)#Sam. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, I don't think WP:COATRACK applies here because this subject's controversy is a significant if not the main claim to his notability. It would only be a coatrack if the article mostly focused on, say, one specific victim of his alleged crimes and went into extreme detail about that person instead. This article doesn't do that. It only focuses on his controversy because it's mainly what makes this person notable. Just like how an article about an astronaut focusing mostly on his moon landing is not a coatrack, this article about a web star focusing mostly on his controversy should not be considered one either. (WP:WINAC)
Secondly, the sources currently cited in the article are definitely not the only ones that exist. Just by doing a simple Google search, I can find all of the following sources revolving around the subject: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. None of these ones have been cited yet in the article. Though it's true that all of these mainly discuss the subject's controversy, they definitely establish his notability. I also believe that most if not all of these listed sources are reliable. With all these sources available, I think this article deserves to be kept. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
COATRACK BLPs are when a pseudo-BLP is created to write about one particular issue, which is what has happened here. As you say: "this subject's controversy is a significant if not the main claim to his notability." Please say what sources you're going to use to develop the article into a fuller biography. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are only against this article's inclusion due to the lack of biographical information about the person, fair enough. Finding biographical information about him is not as easy as finding information about the controversy (although there is this video [16] which is currently cited in the article). Nevertheless, can there at least be an article on this one incident as its notability can be clearly demonstrated? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean an article on the video itself? The answer is I don't know. It seems like a minor, non-notable issue to me, but perhaps I'm just not familiar with it. Perhaps you could develop it in draft space. I have no idea what it could be called that would be neutral, but for now perhaps Draft:YouTube pinch video? A stand-alone article would allow you to develop the responses to it without worries about UNDUE (but please watch out for BLP violations). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, the video I linked to in my last comment is a draw my life video that could potentially used for biographical information, not the video of controversy. I could just move the article into a draft space for now and see what I can do with it that would make it suitable for publication. Would that be a good idea? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That might be a good idea - both because Sarah finds BLP issues with it, and to keep it out of the way of edits like this. It might also be a good idea to check with Sarah before restoring it to mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good idea. If you could develop it so that it's not a BLP, but is about whatever notable event you think is worth an article, that would move you away from BLP concerns and personal allegations about him. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Or alternately, if it's still about him but has adequate sourcing for a biography, and adequate evidence of notability in addition to or instead of the tempest in the social media teapot. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Eventhorizon, I'm going to go ahead and move this to draft space, where you can work on it as a bio or event article, depending on how the sources look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), sorry I forgot to tell you about this, but I already copy pasted the article's content into a subpage of my user page at User:Eventhorizon51/Sam Pepper. There doesn't need to be another copy in the draft namespace, so you might want to delete that page or, if you want to preserve the page's history, delete the redirect currently located at Sam Pepper and move the page in the draft space back to its original title. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Everything's back to the way it was, except that Sam Pepper isn't protected (I'm waiting to hear from Melanie about that), so I'm trusting for now that you won't edit it without getting the go-ahead for your draft. Best of luck with it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

When you patrol the New Pages Feed, it'd be really helpful if you marked the page as "reviewed". This is true even if you only mark pages as reviewed if you tag the page for speedy deletion. --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 17:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll keep this in mind. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also mark the page as patrolled if you add other deletion tags. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 19:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary Snail

Hey, can we talk about this. I think it is article worthy because he is a main character of the show, and if Sandy has an article, why not Gary? If Gary should not have an article, than neither should Patrick, Plankton, Mr. Krabs, Sandy, or Squidward. It is just not right. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey ThatKongregateGuy, thanks for willing to discuss this. First of all, I think it goes without saying that in the show, Gary doesn't have nearly as much in the way of personality as the other characters in the series. This is mainly because he uses no real words and is portrayed as a pet, unlike all of the other characters. The characters that have articles of their own are all very complex and play a variety of different social roles in the story. They can all think critically to a certain extent (even though their intelligence may not be very high) and they all play a different role in the lives of different characters in the story. This drastically limits the amount that can be written for the character. Furthermore, Gary doesn't have much notability in the real world compared to the other characters in the show. The other characters regularly receive comments from audience and critics and have much more potential controversy surrounding them than does Gary. This makes them more significant and notable in the real world. In short, I simply don't believe that Gary meets the WP:GNG very well. However, I'm open to hearing what you have to say about this. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-English articles

Hi Eventhorizon. The procedure we have at WP:PNT is that an article stays for two weeks, if it is not translated or otherwise dealt with in that time it is proceduraly prodded/afd'd, meaning that non-English articles last for at most 3 weeks. This is a long established procedure, if you feel that it should be changed please propose it at WT:PNT--Jac16888 Talk 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Jac16888, thanks for the clarification. However, my point at WT:CSD still stands. I see no reason for an AfD or PROD to fail after an article has gone untranslated for two weeks or more (especially if it's an AfD). That's why I had the idea of developing a CSD criterion to deal with these types of articles. One editor commented on the thread that I started that foreign language articles can be PRODed after only one week, so that by the time the PROD expires, the article would have had its two weeks and be eligible for deletion. I personally think this wouldn't work, but I elaborate more on the talk page I linked to. I hope you can see the rationale behind my proposal. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A csd criterion would be overkill, you're talking about a very small number of articles. As I said, PNT has a procedure and it is that procedure you are looking to change, please propose this there--Jac16888 Talk 17:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Jac16888, the PNT procedure is that a foreign language article should be nominated for deletion if it has not been translated in two weeks or more. There is nothing about that process that I'm looking to change. The only thing I wanted to propose is a speedy deletion criterion to see if these articles can be dealt with more efficiently than AfD or PROD after their two weeks is up. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you don't want to change the current process, please do not prod articles already after one week as you did recently at a number of pages. Your reasoning "Not translated in over a week, eligible for deletion once this PROD expires" does not comply with the established procedure which is "14 days at PNT plus regular prod time". I just deleted some of these pages because nobody objected to the early prods anyway but next time please try to wait two weeks before clicking the prod button. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
De728631, I got the idea of PRODing after one week from this thread where I tried to put a CSD criterion in place to deal with these articles. In that thread, a comment by user WillyD gave me the impression that it was ok to PROD after one week. As it turns out, this may not be the case. I'll stop PRODing these articles for now. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this. You may, of course, still PROD such articles for other valid reasons, and also once 14 days have gone past and there is no effort in translating the page. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Pepper 2 (April 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
wia (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pepper page

Hi Eventhorizon, just letting you know that I deleted the Pepper bio in your userspace, as no one was working on it and parts were problematic, per BLP, as discussed before. Best wishes, Sarah (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of the most subscribed users on YouTube, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--JacktheHarry (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

JacktheHarry, I never added anything unsourced to that article after we had our discussion. The only thing I restored on that page was the First to subscriber milestones table, which was in fact completely cited. The restoration of unsourced content came after my edit. Please don't automatically assume I'm the one who added the unsourced content just because you see it there. I honestly didn't even know someone had restored the other unsourced content until now, since I haven't checked the page since that last edit i mentioned. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Pepper 2 concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sam Pepper 2, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sam Pepper 2

Hello, Eventhorizon51. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sam Pepper 2".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. samtar {t} 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Target intercom incident

Hello, Eventhorizon51,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Target intercom incident should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Target intercom incident .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Pepper (December 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Pepper has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Pepper. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Pepper (February 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
This is a youtuber - and therefore someone who is self-published. We don't recognize notability for self-published musicians, bloggers, nor writers, and youtube is essentially the same. This person has achieve notoriety through some pranks, but notoriety is not notability. If this person is doing some notable in the future, a WP page might make sense.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Eventhorizon51, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Prod of non-English articles

Hi, I've noticed you have just proposed deletion of three articles listed at WP:PNT, with the reason that each had been listed for more than two weeks without progress. I thought it was worth noting that they had only been listed for eight days (ചക്കളത്തിപ്പോരാട്ടം) and nine days (the two Somali articles) respectively, so a bit short of the two weeks. Don't worry, I won't be opposing the deletion though, because the authors still have one more week to get around to translating (which they probably won't). You may wish to notify them of the nominations though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AtHomeIn神戸. Thank you for catching my mistake. Even though I said in my prod rationales that they had been there for two weeks, I was looking on my calendar at the one week mark. I didn't even realize what I was doing until you brought it up. I'll leave the prods there for now since it will be two weeks by the time they expire, but I won't nominate them for deletion again if anyone removes them before then. Thanks again for letting me know of my error. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized article with similar name

Hello,

The page was already wrong when I tagged it. That page needed to be deleted.Yamont (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Eventhorizon51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #15914 was submitted on Jun 06, 2016 20:50:05. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Information icon Hello Eventhorizon51. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Michael Holohan. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To piggyback off this, while it's not wrong to tag things for speedy deletion with your own reasons, VOTO Support could've easily been tagged with a G11 tag as it was clearly promotional---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patar knight. I was actually thinking of tagging it as G11. However, that article didn't seem to me like it was "promoting" anything per se. It seemed like a page that a person or group of people would use to manage something internally. Because of this, I wasn't sure it would strictly meet G11. Then again, I knew for sure it wouldn't survive deletion. That's why I tagged it with a custom rationale. If these types of articles are in fact within the scope of G11, I'll be sure to tag them correctly in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In this case, the now-deleted page had lines such as "The page will be used as reference documentation for anyone requiring detailed info about the Support function at VOTO." It's basically a "Welcome to the VOTO support page", and I would say that crosses the line into promotional territory in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Why You adding redirect to this Page? to District Page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhuri&redirect=no this is a separate city in sangrur district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.68.145 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

117.205.68.145 The original article was poorly sourced and did not meet notability criteria. Just because the place exists doesn't mean it should have an article. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Security issues in Colombia#Requested move 14 June 2016

I was surprised by your close of the above linked RM discussion. Could you expand your closing statement to explain why you believe no consensus has been reached and why relisting is inappropriate? With only a single largely-refuted oppose that fails to point to any specific information in the article about non-national-security security issues, I struggle to see how a close as no consensus without relisting makes much sense here. Thanks for your time. ~ RobTalk 15:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob. First of all, it doesn't seem like that requested move received much attention to begin with. It only got two votes before it was relisted and only one more pile-on after relisting before the relist had elapsed. So there was not much to go off in regards to consensus. Also, WP:RM#Relisting specifies that move discussions should not be relisted more than once, which was why I chose not to relist it. As for the result, I feel that consensus was not reached in that discussion because I thought the opposer had a valid point in opposing the move. Their argument was that the articles proposed for move didn't fully cover everything in the scope of national security; they only covered the issues, unlike the articles at National security of China and National security of the United States which cover not just the issues but national security as a whole. I thought this was a decent argument contradicting yours, so I decided on no consensus. (Perhaps "National security issues" would work better in than either of the proposed ones, but that wasn't proposed). Eventhorizon51 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. With three editors in support and a single dissenting opinion, there seems to be a rough consensus in favor of the move in the absence of substantially stronger arguments on the opposing side. You stated "I thought this was a decent argument contradicting yours, so I decided on no consensus", but a closer's personal opinion of strength of arguments are not how consensus is determined. The persuasiveness of an argument to other participants in the discussion is hugely important to determining consensus, but the persuasiveness of an argument to the closer is not. Opinions should be discounted if they contradict policies or guidelines, but I don't see that as being relevant in this particular discussion. As a sanity check: PanchoS, would you mind taking a look at this and letting me know if I'm going nuts? ~ RobTalk 03:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I concur. While the dissenting opinion does have a point, the argument would only be convincing if put forward in favor of an even more specific title such as National security issues in Colombia. The fact that food security, corporate security or insurance shouldn't be within the scope of the article however wasn't contested at all. --PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok BU Rob13 and PanchoS, I've taken another look at the discussion and thought about the points you made here, as well as revisited the policy and guideline pages regarding consensus. I must say, both of you have made credible arguments. There does seem to be a rough consensus to move the page, given that the supporting side (the two of you) were not convinced by the opposer and refuted their argument to the best of your abilities. I'll go ahead and change the close and move the pages. If the opposer disagrees with this close, they can start a discussion at WP:MR. I appreciate both of you being WP:CIVIL and discussing this with me calmly. I also especially appreciate Rob for telling me something about consensus I've never seen in the past. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you being open to reconsidering. As a side note, if you were convinced by the opposing argument, there's always the option to vote oppose even if you came to the discussion with the intent to close. I do this quite often, especially at WP:CFD. If I find myself wanting to make a close primarily on strength of arguments, I always take a good 5–10 minutes to distinguish between strength of arguments based on unambiguous policies/guidelines and strength of arguments based on my own opinion of what's best for the encyclopedia. If it's the latter case, I participate in the discussion rather than closing it. ~ RobTalk 13:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eventhorizon51/Archive_1&oldid=1145828360"