Jump to content

User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 19

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cmhhmfo

He's further vandalising on his talk page. Should he have his talk page access revoked? Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

204.128.192.33

Please block user:204.128.192.33 I reported him to wp:aiv but he is not blocked yet. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3C9E:185E:7097:304E (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for the delay, AIV can get a bit backlogged sometimes. Hut 8.5 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Avyashu IT Solution Private Limited

Didn't you just delete this page a few hours ago? Avyashu IT Solution Private Limited. The same user appears to have re-created the page. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I see someone else has deleted and salted it. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Actors_Theatre_(Islington)

Hello, My apologies for breaching guidelines, I edited the old page in June and now without realising had contravened your guidelines. I am asking for the opportunity to rewrite the article having read that I should not use wiki as a promotional tool. Also I will read guidelines to understand how to have notability.Jamie LynchYoung Actors Theatre (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) - development manager Young Actors Theatre

One more to go!

Hi! Thanx for deleting the Halil Kayıkçı page. During the short life of the page, I at first took the page at face value and tried to improve it, among other things by moving it from the original title Halil Kayikci to the currently deleted title. The page with the original title is now left as a redirect with no target, so I would ask you to delete that one, too, together with the corresponding talk page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for quick response. I've made a note of your recipe for future situations. --T*U (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

About Action of 17 August 1779

That was fast, wasn't it? As I couldn't have a single word about it, let me tell you: I got those two paragraphs from HMS Ardent (1764). Yes, I made the mistake of forgetting to say it, but it could be easily resolved if someone asked me first, now I won't lost my time to write again. So, instead of accusing me of a copyright violation you people should point yours fingers into another direction. Nick 264 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Kakhaber Kakashvili

When I was patrolling this article, Kakhaber Kakashvili appeared twice thus my tagging it as a duplicate. Celestinesucess (talk) 7:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

block

Block user:141.155.184.23. 66.87.78.22 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Knocked Loose

There are vandals on Knocked Loose. 66.87.79.205 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the Georg Krauss page

Hi Hut 8.5. I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my request so promptly. My point in my quest for restoration of the Georg Krauss article is not in fact to challenge the result of the previous AFD. Not at all. In fact the article that Hut 8.5 has just speedily-deleted has significant new content relative to the one that was AFD-deleted (modulo the very last addition). I had tried "in extremis" to salvage that draft but my intervention came too late, the delay had past and the debate was over. In other words, there is a slight misunderstanding around here.

My suggestion in my first post above is that, most probably, this is what SwisterTwister had noticed when she reviewed the draft I officially submitted, accepted then published.

Therefore, I am appealing to your understanding and asking kindly that you restore this new article.

Thank you for your kind cooperation. Wynton1989 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Hut 8.5. Thank you for replying again. I think you are still missing my point. Please take a look at the time stamps of the votes during the AFD disucssion and compare them to the last update of the draft. The chronology of the events says it all. Then suddenly things will be clearer. My point is that my last resort addition during the AFD discussion had been ignored. Therefore, the only way to move forward was to take that same addition and submit it as a new draft. Therefore, of course it appears to you as identical content. Thank you. Wynton1989 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Georg Kraus

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Georg Kraus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wynton1989 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: I'll comment at this DRV but I thought I'd ask for your opinion first. At User talk:Wynton1989#Speedy deletion nomination of Georg Kraus you say the G4 comparison should be with the version current at the time of deletion but I don't think things can be as straightforward as that. Suppose someone had reduced the article to a sub-stub immediately before closure. Would that mean G4 would not apply to a recreation of an earlier version? I think discretion sometimes needs to be used as to with which version the comparison should be made. In this case it seems to me the changes towards the end of the AFD were not commented on so we do not know whether anyone would have changed their minds. I recently commented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21#FREAKAZOID that it can be a tactical mistake to improve an article during AFD but DGG peered at me in the way a benign but displeased headmaster might at a normally well-behaved pupil.[1] Do you think the comparison should always be with the deleted version? Should WP:CSD#G4 undergo instruction creep? Thincat (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is some need for discretion and I wouldn't want the comparison to be made only with a single version. If some content is removed from an article during the course of a discussion then it would be legitimate for a G4 comparison to be made with an earlier version. However that's quite different to saying that the comparison can't be made with the version immediately before deletion. If an admin disallows a G4 deletion on an article which is identical to the one deleted at the close of the AfD then I feel that is effectively overturning the deletion outcome of the AfD. That might be a legitimate thing to do in some circumstances (such as the passage of time or change in circumstances), but that's not the case here. I think the optimal outcome here would have been for the debate to be relisted to allow the additions to be reviewed, which is probably what would have happened if the AfD participants had been notified of them. Hut 6.5 11:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this and for your remarks at DRV. I'll comment when I get my brain into gear. The improved article still won't do anyway so I am probably wasting your, my, and everyone else's time on the niceties. Thincat (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Ompakash Saklecha

Hi! You rejected the speedy deletion of Draft:Ompakash Saklecha that I had tagged giving reason that "maybe the author wants to work on an improved version in draft space". Please note that the main author has him/herself created the new article in article space after some user decided to move this article into draft space without consulting them. I see no purpose of keeping this draft when the original creator's purpose has been served. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:CSL Projects Ltd.

You may also want to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles-Edouard Levillain

You declined speedy. Ok if it asserts notability but he has created an article about himself. Can be clearly seen from his Userpage and Username. Therefore I am taking it to AFD VarunFEB2003 06:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

band page deletion to reconsider

Hi, In a page-deletion discussion for this page, I noticed lots of statements that were incorrect. I believe VO5's page should be reinstated. Thanks for your re-consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V05_(band)

1) "MTVu is only available on 750 or so college campuses to students living in on-campus residential housing, and only through the on-campus television offerings" It actually is available with most digital cable subscriptions and had over 2.6 million subscribers a few years ago. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mtvu-adds-26-million-subscribers-launches-on-charter-verizon-fios-suddenlink-att-and-nearly-70-other-carriers-nationwide-57408607.html

2) Was on MTVu "only for a week" VO5 had a music video on MTVu for an 8-week run after winning "The Freshman" competition.

3) "unsigned indie cover band": Actually 2 albums, one recently won "Unique Album of the Year" MAMA award.

4)"There are reviews, but all localized in Madison-specific sources." Nationwide, non Madison reviews include Milk Crater, Obscure Sound, votd.tv, the-monitor.com, The State Times, Tuna-A-Day, and Wee World. some: http://thestatetimes.com/2015/11/04/get-your-groove-on-with-dance-originality/ http://milkcrater.com/2016/02/03/v05-the-disco-haiku/ http://www.obscuresound.com/2016/06/vo5-aurora/

5)"This seems to be a band that isn't known beyond one city." VO5 has a music video youtube channel with over 500,000 views worldwide. https://www.youtube.com/c/vo5band They play around the state regularly and out of state (Chicago's Navy Pier recently) and have over 5000 facebook fans from around the country. Many radio stations nationwide played songs from the album.

Thanks again. Fantartic (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I replied to your comments/suggestions (in my page). I'm not familiar enough with this as to whether you get notified. Thanks for your time. Fantartic (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Hut 8.5. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision delete request

Please get rid of the offensive edit summary that 85.255.234.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made. Feinoha Talk 15:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted articles created by user Mushroom9

Some of the articles created by user Mushroom9 were deleted. Can I go ahead with creating the similar pages? Some of the articles deleted are-

  • List of T20I cricket matches played between Australia and India
  • List of T20I cricket matches played between England and India
  • List of T20I cricket matches played between India and South Africa

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Hut 8.5.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Help

would be kind to explain why https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=750382142&oldid=750381796 andreply @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:117.241.22.202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.22.202 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

117.241.22.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 59.96.59.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and many other IPs) edits sociology and psychology articles. The anon geolocates to Kerala, India. The anon often will not follow policy, take advise, get an account to facilitate communication, and has been blocked numerous times. The anon often denys having made previous edits from different IPs. One can see the anon learning, making similar erros, similar wording and accusations, reusing templates, use of aiv and other pages.  Looks like a duck to me. I and others have been reverting the anon on-sight per wp:deny See: Talk:Social work#IP-hopper and User:Jim1138/IP Hopper from Kerala Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you nuts or have we gone through a time warp?

You wrote here[2]- "decline, SNIyer12 was not blocked when this was created so G5 does not apply' was blocked indefinitely[3] in October 2012! The Template United states elections 1964 was created in September 2016 by an admitted sockpuppet[4] of SNIyer12. Nobody other than the sock edited the template. WP:DENY applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, must have misread the year on the block log, I've deleted the page now. Nevertheless please don't call people "nuts" - honest mistakes happen. Hut 8.5 22:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hut 8.5. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hut 8.5. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

You are cordially invited to a sockpuppet investigation discussion

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shivam268 --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

IP Socking? or at least trying to skirt ARBAP2 Sanctions?

I saw your involvement on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging

After exploring the posts, I came across a curious episode by an anon IP (possibly) related to user being investigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F

This edit by the anon [5] was then followed by these edits [6] [7] [8].

This is interesting because this edit [9]came right after this one [10] by the user being investigated. Then these edits happened [11] [12]

Doesn't seem like a big deal at first because sometimes people forget to log-in, but then I read this warning here to this member [13] being investigated: [14].

When I closely examined the this edit [15] the tone in the subject-heading sounds an awful a lot like the member TTAC being investigated when you examine the timing and content of this edit [16] and the language in the subject of it.

Normally it shouldn't be a big deal, but that anon edit just happened AFTER this warning here [17]. Wouldn't that be a socking violation AND trying to use an anon IP to get around limits by ARBAP2 Sanctions?

It almost appears like the user was trying to bait this other user named SPECIFICO with strange unnecessary corrections on their talk page, see this edit again [18]. At first I thought maybe the anon IP was SPECIFICO but it became clear that after looking at the rest of the edits from the anon, it was not. It then starts to look an awful a lot like maybe TTAC was trying to goad that member if they took the bait. That would aid him in some attempt to game the system if he tried to boomerang a response into a charge of trying to frame him. After closely reading the account summary on TTAC's page, it seems like that user views wikipedia in terms of opponents and gaming and then brags about his history of edit warring in the service of "taking down [editors]."

I don't want to stir the pot here and I don't have the time and experience to put together a proper SPI. But since you stepped into that debate in the API, maybe there is something here that helps to sort things out. The charge against TTAC in the ANI is that he is a long-time disruptive cunning member who will edit war when possible and exploit his experience on wikipedia to advance his POV in clear violation of rules against politicizing political pages. The behavior of that anon IP I listed above seems to fit that pattern and but maybe I'm overthinking it? Who knows.

Like I said, I have very little experience in these things. If you see something here of a serious nature, then it was right for me to bring this to your attention. Otherwise, forgive me wasting your time. Also- that episode was a couple of weeks ago so it might be considered stale for the purpose of this ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.129.181 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. We can certainly conclude that it's someone with similar views to TTAC who has substantial experience of Wikipedia, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was him, but it doesn't strike me as terribly disruptive. Using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny is against policy but I'm not seeing much evidence of that here and if the idea was to evade scrutiny then this is a rather poor attempt. All the edits were made over the period of a few hours. I wouldn't characterise those minor adjustments to SPECIFICO's talk page as baiting, although it does look odd for someone to be making those changes. I suspect this might just be someone who forgot to log in or who couldn't log in for some reason, and if that is the case then nothing will happen. Hut 8.5 23:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to shrug my shoulders and agree with you but then TTAC responded to you and the other admins with this explosive tirade: [19] In it, he accuses you and the others of a "witch hunt" and "stalking him" and then confesses to a right to attack others editors "twice as hard" when he perceives himself to be attacked. This is becoming a real problem and I didn't realize how disruptive this guy was until I read that 'rebuttal', ouch!
I'm not sure my initial thoughts in the above post rise to the level of an SPI but certainly if you (again) examine his outrageous response [20], it's hard not to see that his attempts to rationalize his way around wikipedia policies DO represent (to quote you) "poor attempts." My fear is that he's been getting away with this disruptiveness for too long. FCS, he's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the "founder of ISIS" and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies).
At the very least, since TTAC is now trying to bully his way out of his ANI with a lot of slander and red-herrings regarding what you and the other admins have said about him, maybe you could at least revisit the ANI with thoughts about his 'rebuttal' there? [21] After looking into it some more, it seems like this editor has a long history of WP:GAMING and just barely getting away with it simply because of (A) luck and (B) because a proper investigation has lacked proper follow-through. Again, if you have time and want to respond to his slippery attempts and manipulating the ANI it might help ensure that he is at least receiving a fair hearing for everyone else involved, most important of all for his victims. Thank you again for your time!
I've replied. Sadly this kind of thing is rather common here and our practices make it rather hard to stamp out. Hut 8.5 20:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hut 8.5, you're being misled by the notorious sockpuppeter User:Oneshotofwhiskey, who was indeffed as a result of a previous attempt to frame me. "He's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the "founder of ISIS" and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies)." I have never made any such edits. (Nor did I accuse you or any other admin of a "witch hunt"—I was referring solely to SPECIFICO's forum shopping.) The reference to "jailing conservatives" is an allusion to the aforementioned edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, where Oneshot replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight separate times ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]), claiming it was "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza," and adding: "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Dershowitz argued that D'Souza's conviction for campaign finance law violations "smacks of selective prosecution"; Onsehot and his IPs conflated that with "claiming ... Obama and the government imprisoned D'Souza which suggests Obama broke the law and that the government engaged in unconstitutional behavior," and sought to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in violation of WP:BLP, citing "his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him." (As another user noted: "Most people who have been prosecuted believe that they have been unfairly treated and lawyers routinely say that. We do not label all convicted criminals and defense lawyers conspiracy theorists.") On his talk page, Oneshot repeatedly accused me of "gaming the system" in terms strikingly similar to the IP. I will be filing an SPI shortly, and am willing to bet that the IPs commenting here will match the IP being "reported."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, I really have no desire to wade through a load of links on a content dispute which took place a month ago about some person I've never heard of, none of which seems to be terribly relevant to the AE thread. Hut 8.5 23:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
If you change your mind, or are simply curious about who's really socking here, the SPI can be found here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New Violations of Sanctions

Since you were one of the admins involved in this AE [30] I would like to report that there has been yet another blatant 1RR violation by this same user TheTimesAreAChanging no less than a mere few hours 'AFTER' the AE thread was closed.[31] [32].

He was given a "last warning" by admins in that AE and one LAST chance to turn-around his behavior. Seems like a clear-cut violation at this point. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.28.117 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Are those edits reverts? If so what are they reverting? Hut 8.5 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It's two diffs, and two different texts, but (yes) it's also two different reverts, as TTAAC knows very well. And [33] this edit is particularly problematic because, as has been pointed out, it misrepresents the source. The text inserted by TTAAC claims that " The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment". That is NOT what the source says. What the source actually says is "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling". In other words, the source says that while both the FBI and CIA agree that Russia meddled with the election, the FBI is not convinced about what the goal of that meddling was. TTAAC's edit purposefully tries to make it seem like the FBI is disputing that Russia meddled with the election at all. If this hadn't been brought up [34], then maybe it could be attributed to just sloppy rendering of the source, but the edit was made after it had been brought to the talk page (also this comment by TTAAC on another user's talk page indicates that they were aware of the issue). They have also tried to skew it in this way in other articles. Combined with the evidence already presented at WP:AE this is a pretty clear indication that the purpose here is just plain ol' POV pushing (and I get really irked when this is done by misrepresenting sources since that's basically a form of lying and if this was a scholarly community it'd be cracked down on hard). P.S. This is the second time he's tried to use lying to get away with this kind of revert without consensus (which is required). Last time he cited "vandalism":[35], which would've allowed him to get away with it if it truly WAS vandalism. It was most certainly NOT vandalism. Vandalism my A@#.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.92.205 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Disregard for the moment. Looks like another admin is already involved. But I may be back if TTAAC tries to bulls**t his way out of it, etc. Peace.
If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts. And misrepresenting sources, improper though it may be, has nothing to do with 1RR. Hut 8.5 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

deletion review for VO5 band

Finally got to filing the deletion review as you suggested (but didn't encourage). Please let me know if I did not follow any proper procedures. [1] Hopefully nudisco-hating editors or Alberto VO5 Corporation peons won't get their way this time (joke).

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V05_(band)

Deletion review for V05 (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of V05 (band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fantartic (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bilateral Investment Treaties

You deleted the pages List of bilateral investment treaties involving the United States and List of bilateral investment treaties involving India, but you did not use the "What Links Here" feature to see what you were deleting. As it turns out, these pages included information that had been removed from Bilateral investment treaties, which is now absent from anywhere on Wikipedia. Could you please fix this? Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw your note on my Talk page. It seems to me that because you're the editor who screwed it up, without checking to see first what you were erasing, you should be the one to take the time to fix it. I can't really figure out from the version comparison how to fix it myself anyway. --Think Fast (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2016

hello please protect all articles on Palestine and Israel 198.52.13.15 (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The template you've used there is for requesting that an edit be made to a protected page, not that a page be protected. If you want to request that a specific page be protected then go to WP:RFPP. Note I said specific, I don't think any administrator is going to spend ages figuring out what pages relate to "Palestine and Israel" just because you asked them to. Hut 8.5 17:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:S-rail/lines

Your recent edits to Template:S-rail/lines have broken something. You have broken the "noinclude" tags, which now puts every article using this template in the Category:Rail transport succession templates and adds a noinclude tag as a comment. Please fix this ASAP! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've put the tag back. It looks like TWINKLE broke something while trying to remove a previous (incorrect) protection template. Hut 8.5 19:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Needed following blatant WP:NPA violations by Disruptive User Previously Warned

Need help with enforcing the outcome of an ANI that DennisBrown presided over, that you were intimately involved.

Unfortunately, admin Dennis Brown has apparently resigned as an admin but, again, he was the enforcing admin for a particularly nasty ANI that ended with him giving one last chance to a troublesome editor named TTAAC - following his violation of discretionary standards and generally disruptive behavior. Before DennisBrown resigned from Wikipedia he clearly warned TTAAC very directly here [36] pointing out that he was on the razor's edge of a topic ban and other consequences if didn't cease and desist from disruptive behavior:

[37]

Since then, TTAAC has not only disregarded this serious FINAL warning, but has gone as far as retaliatory behavior, filing frivolous ANIs against editors as payback for blowing the whistle on him, as he did with this pointless ANI here:[38]

TTAAC was lucky this wasn't WP:BOOMERANGED on him, considering that this clearly was attempt to game the system, a WP:GAMING violation.

But since then he brazenly engaged in WP:NPA violations.

Review the following Netanyahu article edit histories:

[39]

[40]

So, it would seem enough is enough. Bottom line: he's not getting with the program and it would seem like now is a reasonable time for more direct action IMHO.

Ironically, in a fit of projecting, TTAAC childishly accuses his victim of WP:STALKING when clearly he is the one stalking other editors! In fact, all he can ever talk about is this other editor named @SPECIFICO: since TTAAC's disgrace in his own ANI. Apparently, SPECIFICO is TTAAC's go-to scapegoat when he's having a bad day. And, in that previous ANI where he was found in violation of the rules, TTAAC had also tried to blame his violation(s) of the rules (i.e. in that case violating a 1RR revert rule) on another silly excuse - in that case "vandalism", when clearly he was just trying to BS his way around the rules and guidelines (reviewed below):

  1. Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
  2. Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
  3. Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
  4. Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.

And now, again, since then (more violations) - (1) his frivolous ANI targeting an innocent editor and (2)these blatant personal attacks when he should really be on his best behavior, (recapped below etc.):

[41]

[42]

[43]

Since DennisBrown is no longer active, I can't go to him. So it seems like it might fall upon another admin in the know who was involved in that ANI to enforce the outcome; which is the ONLY reason I came to your doorstep. And if someone in an authority position doesn't eventually stop appeasing this disruptive editor who clearly knows better, then what's the point of "final warnings" and having discretionary sanctions if the rule of law has no teeth? That is not meant as a criticism of you, but clearly this editor's chronic violation of the rules persists and I would hope his rights end where other innocent editor's rights begin. And, again, I only reached out to you since you were also involved in BOTH ANIs (i.e. and that drama is still fresh and recent in most people's minds, so I don't think it's bad form to mention it now).

Thank you for your time and sorry for the overly thorough nature of this report! Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.141.67 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you go to WP:AE and file a report there if you want this person to be topic banned. Although frankly if the only new evidence you have is this edit summary I don't think you're going to get that. Hut 8.5 15:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Hut8.5. As a matter of fact, TTAAC has violated DS restrictions numerous times starting immediately after the AE cited above. He has violated 1RR at least twice. He has reinserted content where such reinsertion is expressly prohibited by the talk page DS template. He has engaged in numerous soapbox, personal attack, and TE disruptions. Admins are empowered to block editors who repeatedly violate DS. If you set a high bar that requires other editors to compile indictments, slog through AE threads, and endure retaliatory personal attacks, you are enabling this kind of disruption. I can understand that you would not block a user for whom there's not a clear pattern of disruption and violation, but TTAAC has shown that he is either incapable of understanding WP policy or unwilling to follow it. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've never violated 1RR on any article related to American Politics; this has already been explained to SPECIFICO numerous times, but that user obviously suffers from a reckless disregard for the truth. The sock above, quoting from MelanieN's earlier AE report, accused me of violating "the prohibition against restoring controversial material"—not breaking 1RR—because the diffs in question were more than 24 hours apart. To SPECIFICO, however, arbitrary exaggerations, "misguided...at best" distortions of my edits, "false statements and threats" are the norm—indeed, even the sock is more scrupulous with the facts than SPECIFICO! The notion that this edit summary is a "new violation" meriting sanctions only makes sense if you are a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor whose primary purpose is to get political opponents banned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Violation: [44] [45]. I forget where the other violations were. There have also been at least 2 times when TTAAC reinserted material that had been reverted prior to discussion/consensus on the talk page. He's also violated DS on Israel/Palestine and DS on BLP, as well as scattering personal attacks hither and yon. Nobody has the interest or energy to document all his misconduct and suffer through yet another drama board round replete with misrepresented and cherrypicked attacks from him. In the spurious AE he brought against me he demonstrated that he doesn't understand WP policy regarding "revert" despite the numerous warnings, notices, and templates that he's seen. He's on his third or fourth "last warning now, so it would not be undue for an Admin to enforce DS. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
We've been over this. In the first diff, I trimmed and revised the text with no change to the meaning of the paragraphs, for example by replacing "Trump mocked the report as fabricated" with "Trump's transition team dismissed the allegations, remarking: 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction'," and added material on the FBI's dissent (which Volunteer Marek partially reverted): Nothing was "reverted," and if I thought anything had been reverted, I would have simply waited a few more hours before making my next edit so the "reverts" would have been 24 hours apart. You were wrong; you need to accept it and move on. The only relevant DS in Israel/Palestine is the 1RR—there is no restriction on restoring "material reverted prior to discussion/consensus on the talk page" for POV-pushing editors to game and exploit. "He's on his third or fourth 'last warning' now" is simply a careless, false, undocumented smear. Dennis Brown warned me at AE for making one revert without consensus—I assume you advocate topic banning Volunteer Marek and BullRangifer for the same infraction ([46], [47], [48], [49]), which is actually routine in the area due to how poorly and inconsistently the DS are enforced? Your newfound concern for civility is strikingly inconsistent with your prior contention that these edits by your indeffed sockpuppet friend deserved no more consideration than a "speedy close" at ANI—is this double standard explicable by anything other than your political biases?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's get something straight- I'm not either one of your "friends", "enemies", "allies" or anything else in between. This is about what I think about your behavior, not you. The nice thing about the internet is that none of us really know each other. And let's keep it that way. For all I know, you are a great guy and personally I like your passion for Sega video games elsewhere (I'm actually one of the first Sega fans around, and I go back to the Colecovision and Sega Master System era). However this isn't Facebook and it's not about popularity contest. This is about your behavior in which there can be no doubt is chronically disruptive and driven by a WP:Battleground mindset when it comes to editing political pages. That alone is the only topic that matters to me and this bizarre habit you have of making things personal only highlights the problem. Also, for the record, it is clear YOU and YOU alone are stalking editors and NOT the other way around. It is clear that YOU are obsessed with the editor named SPECIFICO and you can't stop talking about her here and elsewhere. Also, it is NOT your place to tell another editor which pages they can not or can not edit. Just because you consider yourself a self-appointed expert on Israeli politics doesn't mean you get decide who is qualified enough to contribute to an article. You are making a WP:OWN violation when you make this kind of arrogant WP:NPA: [50] You revert another veteran editor's contributions with this WP:OWN rationale you gave, "You've never previously edited articles related to Israel or the Middle East--leave this to established, knowledgeable editors." when, seriously...who gives you the right to decide who is "an established, knowledgeable editor"??? For example, it is quite clear you are so blinded by partisan politics you think that Obama is the founder of ISIS [51] and other ridiculous conspiratorial thinking. Slandering a law-abiding Christian man like Obama by falsely accusing him of being the Muslim creator of a homicidal terrorist organization like ISIS is the ultimate WP:BLP violation around. And yet admins have oddly ignored this most horrible of offense. So you should consider yourself lucky. Even on Israeli politics, you are ideological to the extreme. Yet, even so, I would NEVER advocate taking away your right to edit on an article based upon your clear lack of education and intelligence on the subject, or any subject for that matter. You have just as much right to edit that article as SPECIFICO regardless of how IGNORANT you are. The reason you shouldn't be editing these articles at all is because of your addiction to attacking others in a deep and personal way and because of the aforementioned slander where you accuse law-abiding public servants like Obama of being terrorists.
And if admins here want to continue to play the game of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil regarding your blatant disruptive behavior on political articles like I mentioned above and elsewhere, then they will have to live with the shame of cheapening the Wikipedia community and brand by enabling the angry mob of anti-intellectual WP:NOWHERES like yourself.@MelanieN: was the one who first brought this problem editor TTAAC to our attention in a much needed ANI and should she be so inclined maybe she can provide us all some perspective now that the enforcing admin DennisBrown has resigned.
It's a simply a no-brainer regarding you, TTAAC. You have gotten away with disruptive behavior for far too long. You should be topic banned and probably indeffed for your sociopathic behavior here and elsewhere. The longer that admins continue to ignore your fascistic stalking behavior, then the longer that innocent editors that will continue to suffer at your hands. Sadly, this is something that apparently you get off on and went as far to brag about on your own intro page before hiding it in a cowardly display when under the gallows of an API. When it comes to justice and (journalistic) integrity, admins will have to decide what kind of world do they want Wikipedia to live in when someone like you clearly treats it like a battleground and where you harass liberal editors for sport.
Oneshot, once you've been indeffed, it is customary to stop editing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Nice try. I have no idea what you are talking about, mostly because you seem to rarely know what you are talking about. If you want to con admins into thinking I'm some indeffed anon, then more power to you. As far as what the truth is on such matters, rarely is wikipedia truly concerned about that anyways- which probably explains why you enjoy gaming that process for your end, since it is represents a deficiency that you gleefully exploit as a game. You have already recently accused admins and others in the past of being part of a DNC-lead liberal conspiracy to frame you when being investigated in an ANI. So I will happily play the part if for no other reason than for the sake of personal amusement. I can be your deep-throat or cigarette smoking man. However, Mulder, at least make it interesting for your intended audience. There has been no "editing" of articles by me so I'm not sure where you are getting 'that' from. Just a random anonymous guy like me offering his opinion on an anonymous troll like yourself on an admin's page. In other words, in the greater scheme of things, who cares? Who you think I may or may not be isn't really pertinent to these issues at hand and you are not psychic. So you truly have no idea who I am and I won't waste the time entertaining your paranoia, justified or not. On that, then, we have to agree to disagree. Whether any of your drama above matters to the admin above is at his discretion and up to him, not you. This is isn't a forum. You have already made your opinion and accusations about others known. It is "customary" then to move on, especially since I made it clear above and elsewhere that I was finished offering my two cents anyways. Then again, after reviewing your history, it is "customary" for you to not give a sh*t. You should admire me, then, for reciprocating. Such is the nature of the internet and the wonderful freedom it affords everyone, including people like me that you don't think should be on it and trolls like yourself who harass others for sport. Good luck with that quixotic effort. It is clearly not 'completely' in vain since, in your case, you can at least pat yourself on the back regarding your fascistic President-elect who essentially trolled his way into the White House on a Twitter account. You clearly admire him and 'his' trolling of America's democracy. Whether that is ultimately healthy for you and your nation in the "long run" is up to karma at this point. I would imagine the same goes for your fate on wikipedia. As for me, that same "karma" has offered me the opportunity to speak my mind here. And out of respect for that, this will be my last post on this subject for a while. In the spirit of that generosity then, happy holidays to you TTAAC.71.218.141.67 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

My talk page really isn't the venue for a wall-of-text feud between other editors, which I'm not going to read all of. TTAC was strongly warned in response to the last AE thread that his/her behaviour was inappropriate and if continued would result in a topic ban or block, so if there has been further breaches of sanctions since then by this editor in the topic of contemporary American politics since then I would certainly not be above imposing something. However I don't see a great deal of actual evidence of this in the above. The most concrete claim is that of a 1RR violation on Donald Trump, supported by these diffs. It's not clear to me at all that this is in fact a 1RR violation. 1RR only prevents an editor from reverting twice in a 24 hour period - it doesn't forbid people from removing text twice in a 24 hour period, or editing an article twice in a 24 hour period. If you do want to accuse someone of a 1RR violation then you need to present edits which are obviously reverts or evidence which shows that they are in fact reverts. If you want someone to be topic banned then the burden of proof is - rightly - on you to provide concrete evidence of their inappropriate behaviour. Filing an AE thread isn't a "slog", you just file a report stating what remedies have been violated and what your evidence is. Now I will politely suggest that the anon and TTAAC do something over the Christmas period other than feuding with random strangers on the internet, as I will be. Hut 8.5 13:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood, sir. Those final warnings against TTAAC weren't for the editor to JUST stop reverting without consensus. They were warnings for him to stop violating guidelines, period. Certainly personal attacks are violations. As for the rest, I don't believe in X-mas as it is a Xtian holiday and I am a Muslim. Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha are my days. But I understand the sentiment on the rest, and I don't blame you for wanting to avoid this quagmire of childish feuding. Of course, I apologize for my end of it. That said, if you do eventually choose to slog through any of this, my concerns had more to do with TTAAC's personal attacks in violation of a 'last' warning on an ANI to stop trolling AND another last FINAL warning before then to be on his best behavior, not to mention his repeated attempts to slander public servants in blatant WP:BLP violations, like when he falsely accused the Christian President Obama of being the founder of an Islamic terrorist organization.[52]. The hint of sarcasm above points to reasonable frustration by the victims of TTAAC who are wondering out loud about the point of giving one last FINAL warning after another if no one is willing to enforce it. In any case, happy holidays to you and thank you for ending this on a positive note. May Allah bless you and yours.71.218.141.67 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I am very surprised that those two removals of another editor's text to change the meaning could be considered anything but reverts, per WP:3RR and WP:1RR. In fact, at one of his many drama board incidents, TTAAC was told that he did not understand the meaning of revert and he was specifically instructed by an Admin. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • IP 71.218.141.67: "If you want to con admins into thinking I'm some indeffed anon, then more power to you." Self-awareness fail.
  • SPECIFICO: "TTAAC was told that he did not understand the meaning of revert and he was specifically instructed by an Admin." Self-awareness fail.
  • Hope ya'll had a Merry Christmas!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SPECIFICO: you seem to be arguing that any edit which removes or rewords any text added by someone else at some point in the past is a revert, which is a much broader definition than the one customarily used. I would expect that for an edit to constitute a revert you should be able to point to the edit(s) which it reverted, if its only effect was to remove content added by many people over a long span of time then I don't think it qualifies. TTAAC: please knock it off and remain civil if you want to continue being able to post here. Hut 8.5 12:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Hut 8.5!

Happy New Year!

Hut 8.5,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Asking for assistance with an enforcement Matter

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) has just been indeffed TBANNED from editing politically-charged pages [53]based upon serious violations of policy.

Rather than take to time to reflect on his behavior and take some time to cool off (like the admins have recommended he do) he's continuing with the attacks like he did here not more than a day after his TBAN:[54]

If he honestly thinks I'm some sort of indeffed sock of some sort, then he knows better by now to file a proper report or SPI given his longtime experience and the conditions of his TBAN. Instead he's making his unsubstantiated accusation as a statement of fact then decides to unilaterally revert my contribution like this:[55]

To make matters worse, he's doing this in the face of evolving consensus against him, since another user joined in to restore the material he deleted, as the other user did here:[56]

So, it's not just me he is doing this too.

Too make matters worse, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) took a break from his edit warring mere hours before his TBAN to bring his socking allegation to the attention of an admin who promptly ignored his request, telling everyone "Enough."[57]

Rather than respect this admin's decision and drop this drama following his TBAN he decided to revert the article anyways (as listed above).

In the final decision in the above AE, it was determined this disruptive editor must stay away from pages like this given his WIKI:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He was more than made aware of this decision and the reasoning behind it so he can't feign ignorance.

Not to mention that he's supposed to stay away from politically-charged articles like this one, period! (and you can't get more politically-charged than an article about America's nemesis Saddam Hussein, and his behavior during America's Iraq War and his murders following America's covert actions in Iraq to install him,etc.} Yet here he is edit warring about it anyways to advance his political point of view and soapboxing about it. Unbelievable.

If you take time to review the TBAN decision, one of the conclusions derived from it is that TTAAC had received final warning after final warning yet he was being too WP:POINTY and too busy soapboxing to get the message. So it was finally decided that only enforcement was possible with this WP:NOTHERE of an editor.

The advice moving forward by other admins on the talk page when dealing with him is that rather than bog down the AE boards with obvious violations of policy like this with more elaborate reports, sometimes it is better to reach out to a neutral admin for simple enforcement, hence my post here. So forgive the length of it! Maybe a time out over this WP:FINALSTRAW is in order since he continues to ignore the advice of admins to voluntarily do so.

Thank you for your time! :) 174.29.180.252 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So you want me to do what exactly - block TTAAC for calling you a sockpuppet? I have no idea whether this accusation is right but you've definitely been here before in some incarnation and if you are evading any sort of block or ban than TTAAC would be perfectly entitled to revert your edits. Hut 8.5 07:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I'm not. But it matters not. Someone else is already on it. Thanks for your time. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.159.116 (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Update: The TTAAC has just been found guilty for socking puppetry: [58] So admin intervention for the other listed reasons won't be necessary, he found a way to block himself.71.218.133.71 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Obituaries

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson

Are you approachable to talk about this person and an article about him? I know that, generally, Wikipedia Administrators don't much like discussing things or changing their views on things, but I hope you might at least be willing to discuss the matter? The issue is whether or not PJW should have an article. Whether we like his politics or not is immaterial. Or it should be. Nevertheless, this is someone who is known for his own YouTube channel and for the numerous articles he writes for Alex Jones on Infowars. As of January 2017, his YouTube channel boasts just over 685,000 subscribers and has had 155,000,000 views in total.. His video on Hilary Clinton's health has had 5.7 million views and made a not insignificant impact on the recent Presidential Election. His also a published author. The fact that there is a block on creating a page for him is actually quite troubling - is Wikipedia politically neutral? Should it be? This action to prevent him having an article appears partisan. This is particularly strange given the number of articles for virtually unknown and arguable insufficiently notable local councillors (here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwara_Ali) who are usually from the far-left. Clearly, this process looks politically skewed. Would you see if the "powers at be" in Wikipedia might now permit an article about this person who is demonstrably notable and more so since the presidential election this year. Aetheling1125 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The h.wood Group

Why did you delete The h.wood Group page? I sited many sources. Its a very well known company that gets a lot of media buzz. We would like a page on wiki so we can reference the information on your page.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99D7:BA00:55FA:BE22:A6B5:A3D4 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy revdeletion!

Wow! I went to stick a {{cclean}} on the talk page, went back to the article and the revdeletion was already done! Thank you so much! Mostly I think we're just sinking under the weight of the copyvio (and the COI and the paid editing ...), but sometimes I feel that if we pull together we still have a chance. This is one of those moments – thank you for it! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yuli Muñoz

Can you userfy Yuli Muñoz for me? Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Found the content here: Draft:Yuly Muñoz. Please disregard. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - was just about to tell you that. Hut 8.5 21:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Paul Joseph Watson

I want to request an unprotection of Paul Joseph Watson, a page that you create-protected in June 2016. While the AfD at the time was correct, as there was very little in-depth coverage of him at the time, there were subsequent stories about him published in August 2016 (about his controvertial stories about Hillary clinton during the election) and recently in late February 2017 (about his offer to fly a journalist to Malmo in sweden). In-depth sources include the BBC, Huff Post, Independent, the Guardian, and other reliable but less known sources. I have rewritten the draft article Draft:Paul Joseph Watson to include these new sources, but I can't create the stub until it is unprotected. Some help would be appreciated.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted the logs - I didn't protect the page against recreation, I'm just the most recent admin to delete the page. I suggest you talk to @DGG: who is the protecting admin. Hut 8.5 13:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I'll do that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

South Front

Your decision to delete South Front was erroneous. Specifically, it is an instance of Groupthink to which Wikipedia as an open source community (see The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar) is not immune. The only way that your decision can be legitimized is by denying that there exists an information_bubble that excludes material as published by South Front. Please note that Wikipedia editors are not saints, in respect of which I suggest you peruse the THE WIKIPEDIA POINT OF VIEW on http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?title=Main_Page 114.77.12.93 (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avedis Zildjian Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Riley. 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) 10:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Page titled Sanam Arora

Regarding the contested self-promotion claim and subsequent speedy deletion flag, the article was checked and passed for its language, content, intention and notability of the person by User:Beeblebrox who re-instated the page after it was shortly deleted for copyright issue on 11 September 2015 (sorted out instantaneously as it was not intended).

Speedy deletion claim on page Ms Sanam Arora, who heads a pan-UK youth organisation namely National Indian Students Union and Alumni Union (NISAU) UK, by user Rd897 looks like a case of someone trying to settle the personal score instead. Since creating the profile on Wikipedia, user Rd897 has only contested NISAU or Sanam Arora for their notability (which is evident by the external references mentioned in both articles) which this screenshot proves clearly.

Screenshot of wiki activity of user Rd897

The other fact to take into account is that user created the account on 4th of March, a day after NISAU appointed Dr Shashi Tharoor, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, India as its Patron covered widely by media in the UK including the Independent and in India (The Indian Express)and contested both the pages soon after Dr Tharoor left the UK. This creates suspicion of some political/ideological vendetta involved as well because Dr Tharoor was vocal regarding British rule and Indian government led by Mr Narendra Modi during his stay in the UK. MohanishB (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of a page on "Rubrik"

Hi There,

Hope you're well!

A wikipedia page on Rubrik was recently deleted. It was very thoroughly cited, as noted by other editors. The page was deleted because the company is a startup, not because of the content. This seems like an error for several reasons:

- It's not an early-stage, unknown startup. - There are many startups on Wikipedia that are smaller/earlier/have less momentum that have their own pages. So it's unclear why Rubrik specifically was flagged; it doesn't seem right. - The article written in an objective way, as supported by the many citations.

I am requesting that this page be undeleted. I'm happy to make any edits if that's an issue as well.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaLoo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent RFPP

Hello Hut 8.5. Please see my closure of this AN3. The same guy who reverted at Largest capital cities of the European Union and was handled by you at RfPP was seriously revert-warring at Warsaw from a variety of IPs from the range 5.172.255.0/24. So I went ahead with semiprotection as a less drastic answer than a range block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kraków

Hi, is it possible for you to delete all of that crude and vile language off the Kraków revision page? Best Regards. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:R3

Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. You have just declined a speedy deletion of Andreas aase, a redirect left over from a page move. As the page was created with incorrect capitals, it was moved. The original article was created within minutes of me carrying out the move. If you read WP:R3 you will see that this exact circumstance was recently added to the criteria. Can you please remove the redirect? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hut_8.5/Archive_15&oldid=1096255295"