Jump to content

User talk:Sjb72/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

>Sorry, was away - back now. Will try and do better now! Stephen! Coming... 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

yoybuy

Hello, 

      I am employee at yoybuy.com and I wanted to start new yoybuy page on Wikipedia.I just saw that before you have deleted our page.Can you tell me the reason for deleting?I also want to start new page Can you guide me how to do it because I am new here.Waiting for your reply.


Best Regards Shezi

Sorry for the delay - been tied up for a bit. I can't remember the details of your page, so I would suggest having a read of this essay: Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. If you still have any questions, please feel free to ask. Stephen! Coming... 15:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I improved an article that you had restored to my userspace

Hey, I don't know if you remember this long conversation about restoring Swathanthra Malayalam Computing. It was recently restored to the article space by User:Anoopjohn. Anyhow, I added a few references including this excellent coverage in an English newspaper talking directly about SMC. Could you please go through the page and let me know if you think it doesn't still deserve the article space?

Also, why are you so inactive on the wiki now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdofindia (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

> Sorry, real life got in the way, so please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'll have a look, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Stephen! Coming... 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) >> It's looking a lot better reference and notability-wise. With a bit more work I think this could easily become a very informative article. Good work! Stephen! Coming... 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pitchup.com

Pitchup.com has not won any awards. The links is to an article labeled "Awards" where the website is merely mentioned with others. Cotton2 (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

According to their page, they have - it would have been nice to see some evidence from third party sites though to back it up. At the moment, I would say that the article is barely showing notability. However, as there is a tiny amount of evidence, it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. Feel free to propose deletion or AFD it, or even improve it. Stephen! Coming... 13:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Sjb72. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Sjb72.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sjb72. 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)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating Godha (film)

Godha is a 2016 upcoming Malayalam film. It has almost finished shooting and has many references for the same. I would like to create its page, but the title has been blocked by repeated earlier deletions and requires an administrator to open it. The deletion log says that you deleted it, so if you could undo that, it would be very helpful.The page - Godha_(film). PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. But first, could you please provide me with the references so that I could check them out? Alternatively (if you wish), you could always create a draft or userfied article, and I can move it across when it is ready. Stephen! Coming... 10:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are some

I will find more are as I start writing. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources look ok: they are from notable third party sites, and don't appear to be press releases. I've unlocked the page so you can get writing. Just a reminder - the page was originally deleted and protected because of copyright issues (it was a recreation of someone else's work) and it appeared to be promotional in form; if you can avoid falling into the same trap, then I think the article will be just fine. Stephen! Coming... 10:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank You PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 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)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Aphmau Template

Hi! I recently created a template called Aphmau, and I saw that it got recently deleted for being an advertisment. Can you provide me a copy of the deleted template so I can update it to not be in violation? Also, I had a question about not being in direct violation. I used PewDiePie's PewDiePie Template to make the Aphmau template. What is the difference between the two for only the Aphmau one to get the advertising takedown. Thanks! Everything helps because I am a semi-new user to Wikipedia! :D Jamesjpk (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you are trying to create a page for a non-notable person. The tag used for deletion of your template was misleading; WP:CSD#A7 would have been more appropriate; my apologies for not correcting that when deleting. I see you have also created a page for Aphmau, also since deleted. Yes, I could give you a copy of what has been deleted, but you would only be wasting your time trying to edit something that will ultimately never be allowed to exist, unless Aphmau becomes a notable person. Have a read of the notability guidelines to see what is required.
If you can find me 3 independent third party sources that demonstrate Aphmau's notability, I will restore both the template and your article so you can get it ready for putting into Wikipedia. Please note: the sources must meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and independence (see Identifying Reliable Sources for more information). Remember - anything created by Aphmau (like her Twitter account or YouTube channel) won't count, nor will a fan wiki.
If you can't find anything that will indicate she will be a suitable topic, don't despair! There are MILLIONS of articles that already exist, so the chances are there are articles that need help that you already know a lot about. This directory helpfully lists all the major WikiProject topics; just scroll down the list and choose something you are interested in.
If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page, or go to the help desk if you need a quicker response - I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be. Stephen! Coming... 09:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You are kind of right about finding independant sources for her being hard. But, I bet this is possible. I will try and get back to you. If I fail and she isn;t notable enough now, can I go to someone in the future (other than you) and restore the deleted page? Jamesjpk (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
By all means; Deletion Review is the place to go. Just follow the instructions on the page. Put as much proof in your request to demonstrate why Aphmau is notable. I would also recommend requesting that it is undeleted for placing in a User page (called userfication), so you can edit it to your heart's content until it is ready to move into article space. See also Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Stephen! Coming... 14:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4. 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. Jamesjpk (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) (Thank you for giving me the steps to do this)

BLAZE KE Deletion

Hello,

I recently created a page on BLAZE, which is a subsidiary of Safaricom and the page was deleted. The reason was that I had not put the COI clause and the context was like promoting a brand . I revised the content and also put the COI under my user page but you deleted it. Could you explain as to why you deleted it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bichwa254 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The page read as if it were promoting BLAZE, and in addition there was nothing in the article to show there was anything notable about it. Stephen! Coming... 11:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Scepter Publishers Content

Hi Stephen

Thanks for the work you do. I apologize for not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm learning.

Is there any way to retrieve the content that was deleted?

Did it not pass a standard for notability?

Thank you. Sorry to cause problems.

LesTP 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

I see that you are connected to Scepter Publishers as a contractor, and as such I STRONGLY recommend that you do not write an article about the company for reasons of Conflict of Interest. The article, as you had written it, was written in the style of an advert (quoting mission statement, their vision, and many other phrases that would not look out of place in advertising copy). Because of this, I will not be restoring the article, and again I urge you to not write about the company. Besides, having an article about the company is not not necessarily something to aspire to.
I would also urge you not to go around adding links to Scepter Publishers, as that will be considered spamming, and may result in you getting blocked.
If you believe that you are able to write about Scepter Publishing in a neutral manner, then I recommending putting a request in to Deletion Review. You MUST be up front with your connection to Scepter Publishing: read the policy on being a paid contributor. Stephen! Coming... 11:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll use the wizard. And write it in a collaborative manner. Is there a way to access the deleted content? I do believe Scepter Publishers passes the standard for notability. It's founding Director, Fr. Joseph Muzquiz, is on the road to sainthood. In its history, it's published many important works of historical value that impact people every day. Look at all the references to Scepter Publishers, Scepter Publishing, Scepter Publications (the correct way to refer to it is: Scepter Publishers or merely Scepter). Before I do a deletion review, can we come to a resolution? I would like access to the old content so I can rewrite in an encyclopedic fashion.

I had found a copy of the articles of incorporation from 1952 (which I had posted), showing Venerable Fr. Joseph Muzquiz as the founding Director. He was one of the three original priests of Opus Dei, and personally sent by St. Josemaria Escriva to the United States.

Before you deleted the page, I had removed all the offending links, and was in the process of rewriting it in a neutral style per your request. I will disclose my affiliation with the organization.

I think it is an important page because of all the references to Scepter Publishers, Scepter Publishing, Scepter Publications in so many places. LesTP 14:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

LesTP,
  • Please sign your contributions on talk pages with ~~~~ rather than typing in your username and time manually. It adds links to your user account and talk page and is recognisable to the wiki's tools.
  • Your argument that the article should be recreated because there are so many links to Scepter would carry more weight had you not added so many of the references yourself.
  • Your argument for the company's notability, that Escriva sent Muzquiz to the US where he founded Scepter is known as WP:INHERIT and is not generally accepted. Expecting Scepter to be notable at two steps removed is not going to work.
  • WP:DRV is the route to getting the text back, it's a review before getting the text back, not after.
Regards, Cabayi (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to argue. I was just trying to be helpful. Those links are all still there and were made by others with the incorrect name. They've been there for years.

Would you consider restoring it to draft space for improvement, please? I will follow the guidelines you suggested. LesTP 21:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

LesTP, By "argument" I meant "a reasoned case", not "bickering". The reasons you're advancing aren't convincing. And I'll repeat, WP:DRV is the route to getting the text back, it's a review before getting the text back, not after. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
LesTP Just to let you know, I had accidentally omitted the word "not" from the sentence urging you not to write about the company. I have inserted it now, but I draw your attention to it as extra emphasis that you really shouldn't be writing about this company. Stephen! Coming... 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
LesTP In answer to your other question, could I reinstate your text in Draft, as was suggested to you at Request for Undeletion? The answer is still no. This is because you have a conflict of interest, and I believe you to be acting as a paid writer for this company, and to make things worse, you still have not formally declared your connection to this company. You need to go to Deletion Review (sorry about the incorrect link above; that has been corrected now) and state your case. You also need to declare your connection with this company at WP:PAID. It is vitally important that you do declare these, or you run the risk of being blocked from editing and the page being deleted. Stephen! Coming... 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just getting ready to respond to you when I saw your messages. What you're telling me, what you've told me, and what I've learned is that it's best that I not write the page. Or if I enlist the help of a third party to correct all the errors and start a stub that I disclose my affiliation. Also we have to make a better argument regarding notability, because inherent notability does not count on Wikipedia. Is that it? So it's probably best not to request a review to get the content back because it needed to be rewritten anyway. Thank you for your patience. LesTP 14:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

Why does it say my posts are unsigned? I add the tildes each time? Apologies for the troubles. LesTP 14:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

LesTP, My best guess is that on Special:Preferences you've put the plain text "LesTP" in the Signature box. Blank the box & save your preferences so that the default sig will be used. The default contains links to your user page and talk page & will be recognised. If it's not that I'm stumped. Cabayi (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your sig

Could you fix your sig so that it links to your user account rather than to StephenBuxton? Even though StephenBuxton is a REDIR it means the AdminHighlighter tool doesn't work on your sig, and it's caused LesTP to leave a message at User talk:StephenBuxton. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do, I wondered why he posted there! Stephen! Coming... 11:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all looks good on your latest sig below. By the way, "again I urge you to write about the company" may be missing a "not"? Cabayi (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:Changing username#Other things to consider:. Does it look OK and is it consistent with your experience? I hadn't altered my sig so it's one side-effect I didn't hit when I changed username. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated for the heads up on the errors (I've amended them now). Your addition to WP:CHU looked good; I tweaked it a little to clarify it a bit more - hope that's ok. Stephen! Coming... 14:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, the tweak looks good. Cabayi (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Explain the reason

Please Explain the reason why you deleted the page Rentseeker.ca? Have you checked notability? You make a blind deletion without checking anything. Macrolancer (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability had nothing to do with it. The way it had been written resembled advertising copy, and as such was deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Please may I also take this opportunity to read the Assume Good Faith principle Going straight in and making blind accusations is not the appropriate way to behave on Wikipedia. Stephen! Coming... 11:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As a senior, you should help other to reformat the article before deleting. Please restore it and allow the other editors to help me in editing. If an article has a proper notability then you must not delete it, you need to edit as Wikipedia guideline or just left for others. You should tell me what you have done to help others? Macrolancer (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Page by unprofessional Method

Hi Stephen!, as you have accepted, Article Rentseeker.ca is no issue of Notability. Then restore it and promotional part of the article should be cleaned by professional editors. Allow others to use this Free encyclopedia as professional ethics.Macrolancer (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but articles that are promotional in nature may be speedily deleted. As there are concerns about your account being used for promotional purposes, I cannot restore the article, and certainly not for paid editors to use. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, I will reconsider when it has concluded. In the meantime, if you cannot wait, please make a request at Deletion Review.
In addition, I would suggest that the heading you gave for this topic "Deletion of Page by unprofessional Method" definitely comes under Assuming Bad Faith. Assuming Good Faith is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and is essential in such a community project as Wikipedia. In future, instead of assuming unprofessional actions by administrators when they delete an article, or that someone is your "personal enemy", you should take a less aggressive approach. Assume that they had a valid reason for doing something, and ask them why they did that in a matter-of-fact way. Being civil costs nothing, and people will be more inclined to help you than if you accuse them of other things.
Remember - people who show persistent aggressive behaviours towards other editors run the risk of being blocked. Stephen! Coming... 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OTWGBEATS

Hi there. I had marked this article as CSD A7 earlier today and you downgraded to BLPPROD, which is fine to give the author the opportunity to substantiate notability. He has now added refs and removed BLPPROD, however I think they are low key references from rather non-notable publications and/or fan pages. I don't think that establishes strong enough notability under WP:BAND. Possibly marginal. I googled some more and did not really find any mainstream mentions. Thoughts? Jake Brockman (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Prod/AFD/Improve - as there is an assertion of notability, it isn't a candidate for speedy. Stephen! Coming... 15:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Eke U. Eke

I think is the same as your previously deleted Draft:Eke Ugbaga Eke, except for the cunning change of name. Never sure in these circs whether to reatg or personally notify the blocking admin. Still, no rush. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding. I've had a look, and it is nearly identical. What I have done is remove all the text and sections that made it read as an advert. It had already been declined for submission, but should it be properly referenced now, there is a case for it to become an article. Stephen! Coming... 09:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:WWE Y ECW

Hi Stephan. I see you helping out at WP:UAA and I'm wondering what you think about the username "WWE Y ECW". The editor is heavily into editing Pro wrestling articles and the name seems to be a combination of WWE and Extreme Championship Wrestling/ECW (WWE), some fairly well-known wresting promtion organizations. I think it's probably just a hardcore fan, but we wouldn't allow such organization names to be separately used as a username per WP:ORGNAME, but not sure about any combination of them. Moreover, the letter "y" can mean the word "and" in Spanish which means the user name could be read as "WWE and ECW". Are usernames which are combinations such as "Coke and Pepsi", "Microsoft and Apple", "FBI and CIA", etc. allowed? Anyway, I was going to add {{uw-username}} to the user's talk page, but then thought maybe UAA would be better. That's when I saw your posts, so I decided to ask for your opinion first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for the delay, but it was Easter and I didn't go on the computer that much. This user has been active for many years, and in that time they have contributed positively. In all that time, it is possible that there have been previous discussions about his username, and if so it wouldn't be good form to bring it up again. This is not going to be a fun task, but I recommend before you do anything else you go through his user history, right back to when the user started, and see if there is anything relevant. If it has been discussed before, then see what the outcome was and decide whether it is worth pursuing again. If it hasn't, I would suggest that before you raise anyone's attention to the username, you talk to the user first. I would advise against using the templated warning as per WP:DTR. Hope that helps. If you have any other questions, do drop me a note. Stephen! Coming... 06:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate the advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Guilty 'til Proven Innocent

So, I see that Wikipedia takes the Reddit stance that you're guilty 'til proven innocent. That's okay - I'm not going anywhere, because I'm not a spammer.

If you'll take a look at my entries at Quora, you'll see that I provide plenty of substance with my posts.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see what can be done to fix this, as again this is a seriously neglected term. Field inspections have been around for year, as my entry tried to explain. So it's really puzzling why this is still NOT in Wikipedia, besides your own deletion with little thought or care.

If you'd like, I can send you a copy of my Kindle ebook. Some people may argue the same thing that it's promotional, but let's be honest. Why does any author write? Yes, they may want to educate, entertain or inspire. But the bottom-line? To make money.

I await your timely response. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John chang (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Before I address the content of your post, please let me draw your attention to this page: Wikipedia:Civility, and I would encourage you to read it, as it describes the policy here about how to interact with other editors. Civility, as they say, costs nothing, and you are more likely to get a positive result if you ask nicely and not make negative claims about people's motives. For what it's worth, I have never been on Reddit, and I have no idea what approach they take to anything.
All articles are subject to the same standard. They need to be of something or someone notable, properly sourced, and written in a neutral point of view. Articles are constantly being reviewed by people, and should they be deemed to fall short of the standards, they are nominated for deletion., This is a review that lasts about a week, after which it might be deleted (but not always). This is a lengthy process, but essential in keeping Wikipedia to a good standard. However, it was decided some years ago that there are a lot of articles being written each day and not all of them are acceptable, that this would swamp the system. So the Speedy Deletion process was created. This allows an administrator to assess an article to see if it is likely to ever meet the requirements, and if not, delete.
One of the categories is for blatant advertising (see WP:CSD#G11 for criteria). It was this I assessed your article to, and I have to say that your article was borderline between deletion and keeping. First of all I read the content - there was only one bit in there that made it seem like an advert, where it started talking about your product. I was going to just delete that, but the problem was that the rest of the article was classed as Original Research (see WP:OR). Now, you might well have been able to add proper third party sources to back up the claims of the rest of it, but because you are so close to the subject (see WP:COI) and you were promoting your own product I took the decision to delete.
You are welcome to add to Wikipedia and use your cast experience to improve articles, but what you are not allowed to do is to use Wikipedia as a means to promote yourself or your company. Those who do will get blocked. I will not be restoring the article, but if you are still insistent that the article be created, then you should go to Deletion Review. Stephen! Coming... 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Traveling Guitar Foundation

To whom it may concern, The Traveling Guitar Foundation is a 7 year old award winning 501(c)3 non profit with a large amount of factual media and celebrity support. This page should not have been deleted. The foundation has worked with over 30,000 under privileged students and schools throughout the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.149.143 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt the claim that The Traveling Guitar Foundation deserves an article; the problem was that the article read far too much like an advert, and as such had to be removed. I did try to remove the text that made it read like an advert, but the problem was that I ended up with no meaningful content. By all means rewrite the article. If you do so, try and write it in a more neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV)~.
If you still believe that the article should be restored in the form it was in before deletion, you may appeal at WP:DRV. Stephen! Coming... 06:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen, we will rewrite a new page with meaningful content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.149.143 (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Unus Mundus

Hi. I accept the deletion of the article on "The Unus Mundus"... It was about my band. I meant it only as a "placeholder" for another article so I will never elaborate on the entry. Seems like somebody else should write about my infamy. I agree that individuals should not write about themselves: conflict of interest. I will not contest this.

As for the "significance" of my band... Well, we've been written about in the press, played numerous festivals, created five albums and made quite a few fans. It would not be difficult to list out reasons why we rule... Ha! ...As well as site confirmable sources but again, I know that such things are inappropriate for me (a member of said band) to do so myself.

But! Feel free to write about us yourself! We've done some pretty cool things! :-)

Oh, and the intellectual meaning of "Unus Mundus"... We get it (Jung... spirituality... yeah) but we also do the situationist, primitive thing... Anti-ivory tower anti-intellectual music for smart people who kick butt: blues rock! Ah! Anyway! Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.houston (talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so reasonable. You wouldn't believe the number of angry posts I've received demanding to know why I deleted their band article, and why they should have it because they are "awesome" and "dude, we've got, like, a hundred followers on YouTube!". It makes a real change to have someone being civil about an article deletion, so for that I thank you!
For what it's worth, I did look online to see if I could see anything to back up the notability. I dare say it's out there, but unfortunately nothing that showed up. If I had found something, I would have declined the speedy deletion, tagged the article for conflict of interest and advised you against editing the article further. I dare say in time that someone will create an article about your band. In the meantime, good luck with your band and I hope you go from strength to strength! Stephen! Coming... 11:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I thank you... I go by the Frank Zappa school of thought on music... It's, uh, entertainment folks! It makes no sense to me why people get so worked up about their "awesome bands, dude!"

As for online material about my band... Well it's definitely there. A simple Google search with the term "music" would suffice. Using the word "Athens" or "Atlanta" is even better... Thanks!

1. Unus Mundus at Bandcamp

2. Unus Mundus at reverbnation

3. Unus Mundus article at Aural Innovations

4. Unus Mundus at Soundclick

5. Unus Mundus at Flagpole

6. Unus Mundus on some weird music site outside of USA

My search was Unus Mundus band. As it happened, I did see some of those links, but I disregarded them as they unfortunately do not qualify as notable sources. I checked the other links you provided, and none of them count either. In short, for a band to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, they need to have met at least one of the criteria shown at WP:BAND. At the moment, I cannot find anything to demonstrate this, so the article will have to remain deleted. Sorry! Stephen! Coming... 11:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't say that I agree with many of Wikipedia's criteria for bands especially the "national charts" clause, Sjb72. It makes Wikipedia a little too mainstream and drowns out many excellent regional bands: I ain't talking about us either! I personally think that Wikipedia should be all-inclusive. Maybe somebody will invent such a thing. Anyway, rules are rules. Not much to do here but I sure do appreciate ya'll getiing back to me in this manner. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.houston (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, the policies of Wikipedia are set by consensus, so you would be well within your rights to open up a topic on the talk page of WP:BAND to propose a revised set of criteria. Stephen! Coming... 12:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That might be a good idea... Steve.houston —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:Incorrect CSD tagging

I don't know if you noticed, but most of the promo content was in the edit summary, rather than in the article itself. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Replying to your message on your talk page in the original thread. Stephen! Coming...

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Marked for Deletion Zunera - Advise What Amendments to Make

Update: (I just realized, you actually removed the quick deletion tag from my page :) Thank you for that, I am new so I didn't know I can't use superlatives & focus on people's achievement only, as it is deemed "advertising". You seem to be helping & guiding people all the time so I had a request, there is another admin who marked it now again for deletion, can you please weigh in on the discussion? There was another admin who tried to persuade & marked it "Keep" because she is a fairly notable person, she was twice invited as a panelist on CNN that should account for something, how is that not notable? One of her videos was also shared by Anonymous. It was also said that no reliable sources were cited, Express Tribune which is NewYork Times sister publication in Pakistan & Pakistan Today which is a US equivalent of Politico in Pakistan wrote about her more than once. Sunday is a major Lifestyle & Fashion magazine who interviewed her. These sources are cited & still one of the admin is of the view that no reliable sources are cited. These are actual news publications, what are more credible sources than these? Please advise me what I should do?

P.S I Wrote this earlier thinking that maybe you're the admin who marked it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecapital15 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Zunera on CNN

2. Zunera on CNN

3. Sunday Interview Zunera

4. Pakistan Today Zunera

5. Express Tribune on Zunera

Hi,

I had heard about the rigorous scrutiny of Wikipedia articles but didn't know it was this brutal. I, first of all, would like to clarify that I am a 29yr old male :) & if you google thecapital15 you will see my twitter & facebook accounts. I felt the need to reveal my identity because at one place I saw a comment that said something to the effect that I might be creating my own page :)

I created this page because I have decided to create pages of extraordinary Pakistanis who come from humble beginnings & against all odds succeed & get recognized internationally. So this is the first of many I will be making, next is Nighat Dad - a Pakistani Digital Rights Activist. Therefore I would love your advice on what you would suggest I do to have the deletion tag removed? Some of the community members were very kind who made the necessary language and technical adjustments related to citations, in order to make the page more wiki worthy.

I know it is not your duty to guide newbies like me but just here for some friendly mentorship & guidance. After seeing your discussions and many on the community I realized how difficult it is for you guys to keep this place spam free & full of quality content. So I really appreciate the hard work you guys are doing.Thecapital15 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for coming back and correcting what you wrote here. Just a quick thing though - talk pages run from top to bottom, and it is generally preferred to read the comments in chronological order. Whilst editing others comments is a no-no, you are allowed to delete your own comments if no one else has said anything; just explain why in the edit summary. If you absolutely have to leave your comments, but no longer agree with them, use the strike tags <s> </s> around the text you want to put a line through.
Now to the article. I did post a comment on the talk page, briefly describing the issue you had. Here it is:
Your tidy up edits have saved it from deletion, so you did do a good job there. There is nothing wrong with listing achievements, provided it is done in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner. Have a read of WP:neutral to find out how to write in a neutral point of view, and also Words to Watch, which describes the types of phrases to avoid (as well as suggesting alternative phrasing). If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 11:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is facing deletion, but keep on working on improving it. If it does end up getting deleted (which, from looking at the content, I doubt will happen as it showing notable sources), I am happy to provide a copy of the deleted article for you to work on in a userfied area. I would avoid if at all possible the YouTube references, but instead try and link to the original CNN source. If you can't, then leave the links as is - it is better to have something than nothing.
If you have any more questions, then please feel free to ask away, either here or at the [{WP:HD|Help Desk]]. I'm not as active on the wiki as I used to be, but I will always respond. If you need a quicker response, then the help desk is the place to go. Stephen! Coming... 06:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Stephen, thank you very much for your kind response. Unfortunately, I have two votes that are in favor of deletion only one keep vote. Maybe you can become a part of the discussion and share your wisdom with others? Also can you please kindly tell me how I can find articles related to Pakistan which are recently added & needs improvement? I really appreciate the help, you have been very kind.
Thecapital15 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Not knowing much about the article, my addition to the discussion won't be much good, but I'll see what I can do. No promises, though! Before I go on to answering your next question, as it looks like you will be doing a lot to help Wikipedia (and for that I shall offer my thanks), could I possibly tell you about indenting in talk space? It makes things so much easier to follow, particularly when you get a lot of people talking on one topic. To distinguish them, we use indents, also known as colons, at the start of each paragraph. If you click edit on this page, you will see one colon at the start of this paragraph...
...two on this one...
...and back to one for this paragraph. It isn't recommended for one user to use different numbers of colons in one single post, but I'm doing it here for demonstration. You can find a more complete set of instructions at WP:INDENT.
As for Pakistan articles, you might be interested to know about the Portal Pages. A single topic can cover a wide range of articles, so they are grouped within different portals. A list of them may be found at Portal:Contents/Portals. The articles you might be more interested in are in Portal:Pakistan. Looking after these articles are the Wiki Project Pakistan editors. Among these pages are a list of new Pakistan-related articles. Hopefully there is enough content there to keep you happy. And if not, then why not add more? Stephen! Coming... 09:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sir! :) how are you? Unfortunately my worst fear was realized & the hours that I had spent putting together the page were... let's just say fell short of bearing any tangible results. Although i learned so much, didn't know I could pull off editing a full on Wikipedia page, that is one feather to my cap that I will greatly cherish. It would be great if the page was added all the way but *sigh I just saw your username on a page that said you can help with getting the page userified, which I guess will help in keeping the page intact for future edits? I am guessing, like one of the editor here said that may be it was WP:TOOSOON for this page. So please kindly help me with getting this page userified. When I look back at my days from university & think how wikipedia was always my prime source for gathering information :) never realized that one day I will be looking through the Pakistani section Wiki Project Pakistan looking for improvements to make & pages to edit. I looked through all the guidelines that were related to getting a page userified & thankfully none said anything in arbitration to userifying this page. So please help me. Also can you help me understand, the difference in a draft and userifying a page?
Once again, you've been very polite and kind throughout, I can't thank you enough for your guidance & support. Really appreciate it.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
According ro WP:USERFY: "For articles, an alternative to userfication is the draft space. Like userfication, draft space allows editors the opportunity to work on sub-par articles outside of the main article namespace. Draft space, however, may increase the chance of collaboration by placing draft articles in a central location. Another advantage is that incubated articles are automatically "noindexed", meaning they won't show up in search engines."
The article is now at User:Thecapital15/Zunera Mazhar; happy editing! Stephen! Coming... 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sjb72: Thank you so much! really appreciate the help! So is my page userified or is it in the draft space? Do I have to add tags to it? So that other editors can collaborate with me on that? How do i place it in a "central location"? I am sorry if i am asking too many inane questions. :) Once again thanks so much for your help.Thecapital15 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Your article is classed as Userfied; if you want it in draft space (which is a more central area), you need to carry out a WP:MOVE to Draft:Zunera Mazhar. Depending on your user privileges, you should be able to do that yourself (give it a try; it is easy to do). If you are unable to do so, or make a mess of it, then let me know and I'll sort it out. Not sure about what you mean by tags; best ask at The Help Desk. I wouldn't put any categories on it though. Don't worry about asking questions; we all have to learn somewhere. Stephen! Coming... 11:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I just moved it to Draft Draft:Zunera Mazhar :) & as you advised no categories on it. :) Thanks so much for your help. you're awesome!Thecapital15 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Stephen! Coming... 16:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sjb72:how do i add myself to this list -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Pashtun_members (i tried inserting a category wiki markup but it won't work) Thecapital15 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Thecapital15: I think you follow the instructions at the top of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun. BTW, you don't need to ping someone on their own talk page, as we get notifications if anyone posts on there ;-) Stephen! Coming... 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh! well i don't get an email or notification when someone leaves a message on my talk page.. maybe i should peek into my notification settings. I just added myself to the list, thank you! Can you help me with something. What are Wikipedia's religious guidelines? Like any content posted by editors on category pages with religious connotations is that allowed? The top of this Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun page has Arabic religious scripture which shouldn't be part of a category that is related to an ethnic group which has nothing to do with Arab culture. It was added purely because of the contributor's religious beliefs.Thecapital15 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have any idea; you're moving out of my area of work in Wikipedia and into other realms. Your best bet is to raise the question on the project's talk page. Stephen! Coming... 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Aspect Software

Hi Sjb72,

While much (not all) of the content was sourced from the company's webpage and LinkedIn, advertisement, blatant or not, was certainly not the intention. The company is one of the biggest players in the area, and is mentioned by competitors, like, say, Avaya (I quickly googled it): https://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/2016/04/you-asked-we-responded-avaya-launches-competitive-replacement-program-for-aspect-and-genesys-customers.html

Moreover, its much smaller acquisitions are considered noteworthy. One issue is, however, that the products are too specialized to be described by major outlets, so indeed I pointed to the source (but no praise, simply a statement what they do). I actually tried to make it similar to the German article and that of an equivalent company (Interactive Intelligence).

I would like to work on the original draft to correct whatever is objectionable there. Thanks. For example, they filed for Chapter 11 a year ago. If I add it, obviously it can't be an advertisement.

Galilite (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have restored it, and removed a lot of the more blatant promotional language, but there is still a bit to do to make the content more neutral in tone. Please also bear in mind that if the company doesn't make the notability requirements, nothing will enable it to be added. Happy editing! Stephen! Coming... 06:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephen. A question though. You removed the Products section. I actually borrowed the format of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Intelligence which is a company in the same space. Is it wrong? Galilite (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong in having a section on it; it just needs to be written in a matter-of-fact manner, not as if it was written by the marketing department. Stephen! Coming... 17:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, I made a lot of changes and seriously revised the references. Can you please take a look and let me know if it's acceptable now? Galilite (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Borderline, teetering on not notable, I'm afraid. The awards don't appear to be notable, so you might be having to rely on the General Notability Guidelines, which include being written about by multiple notable third party sources. I can't read the Wall Street Journal reference, so I can't comment on that, but the vast majority of the rest are press releases or Aspect's own pages, none of which count as reliable sources. Also, regarding promotional tone, there are few words and phrases in there which reviewers tend to look unfavourably at, because of the peacock nature of them: "bolster", "complement", "focus" and "encompassing" are a few. Replace them with more neutral words and phrases, and it is less likely to be viewed as an advert. It's nowhere near as bad as when I deleted the original, so you're on the right track. Stephen! Coming... 17:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, I'll continue to work on it. Galilite (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, replaced press releases, dug up more references, replaced the non-neutral terms, improved the formatting of the URLs. The product descriptions are pointing to the Aspect's website (because it has the fullest descriptions) but the rest are The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reuters, Gartner, IT Web, and smaller industry periodicals. Admittedly, it's not a very exciting area, which is why the only reason it can be mentioned is a large amount of money changing hands. Still, any description of the industry would be incomplete without Aspect, which is why I'm working on the article. Hope now it satisfies the Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your help. Galilite (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries; glad to have been of help. I'll let someone who can view all the links do the reviewing, but if you need any more assistance, feel free to ask. Stephen! Coming... 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjb72/Archive_10&oldid=793982015"