User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

IPv6 range

I saw your post, and strictly speaking I should have used 2001:8003:1026:200::/64 as the IPv6 range.

Here are the instructions to see these IPv6 range contributions. Go to your "preferences", then select the "Gadgets" table, then enable "Splark". Then go to Special:Contributions and type, for example, "2001:8003:1026:200:*" in the "User" field. The asterisk is a wildcard. You will see plenty of edits introducing bogus information if you restrict the date range to the last few days. Ttwaring (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

50.78.192.57

• 50.78.192.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP editor is once again overlinking to the point of disruption and is not willing to explain their edits and continues to be disruptive after being warned several times. Would you consider blocking them again? Thanks. 89.114.83.66 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, another admin just blocked the IP for 1 year. Thanks. 89.114.83.66 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Copy right?

Can you please clarify what the copy right problem was? I made an error weeks ago when I first edited wiki but have since learned better how wiki works. I currently have 2 pics that I have uploaded that I took myself so I'm very confused where the copy right problem is. Thank you for any info you can provide. Sbearfi1 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to have discussions and have in turn been falsely accused of stealing pics or violating rules. Yes, I did make an error weeks ago when I first was becoming familiar with wiki but have since learned from that. I am simply trying to post a better and more flattering picture than the one's others are using from Wonder Con. Sbearfi1 (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

When I'm not falsely accused of stealing then I am ignored when I try to talk about the pics being used. Sbearfi1 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am looking into this now. It may take a few minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to open a discussion with C. Fred and did not receive a response. I did not open a conversation with Ringerfan23 until it was suggested by you. The reason being, I had seen Ringerfan23 convo with C. Fred and they did not appear to be open to discussion or compromise. I only want a flattering, legal pic posted of Mr. Croasdell. Sbearfi1 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok let's have that conversation over at the Common's file talk page. It is getting late in the US and it is possible that either or both of them may not be online. Also it is not necessary to create a new thread heading every time you post on my talk page. Using colons at the beginning of a line will indent one space per colon. It helps keep discussions orderly and uncluttered. I will be online for another half hour or so. If not tonight then we will sort this out tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Karamellpudding1999 broken 3RR, edit warring at One Kiss (song)

Hi AO. A user by the name of Karamellpudding1999 has been edit warring with Hayman30 and now an IP editor at One Kiss (song) using an unreliable source to cite a genre (the source appears to quote Reddit fan comments about the song). They have been warned and blatantly broken WP:3RR. Can you maybe have a word/take appropriate action? Thanks. Ss112 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they haven't done much since being warned. If they resume edit warring let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1click

Hey just a heads up that OneClickArchiver is sending things you archive that way to /Archive 1 rather than the most recent. I think changing the numberstart parameter might fix that (not sure, however, since it may require using MiszaBot rather than cluebot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ack. Have I mentioned how much I hate technology? Well really the modern world? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock ineffective?

Hi AO, it looks like the rangeblock on the IP removing numbers from year spans might have been a bit ineffective...they're back on 2600:1700:9a70:7ac0:b5b9:957:adc4:6799 this time. Ss112 08:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

IP 2600:1700:9A70:7AC0::/64 blocked x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User is claiming they are a New Zealand singer

Hi AO. I recently edited Darren Watson and made quite a few formatting fixes and removed what I thought were copyright-violating album covers. Now I see a user by the name of "Darren Watson NZ" has been editing the page for several years and uploaded the covers themselves. They reverted me today with this ranty edit summary "THESE ARE MY ALBUMS AND MY IMAGES LEAVE THEM ALONE", but honestly, there's no real way of verifying that this is them. Even if it is, I really don't think 10 or so album covers is necessary on the article to illustrate their albums. Either way, the previous formatting on the album article was terrible and they restored it, so I undid it. There may be a WP:COI here and they seem to think they have some superior say in what happens on the page. Ss112 09:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have done a username block. We do occasionally get famous people who set up accounts here and they can get unblocked via WMF. Jimmy Kimmel has an account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

???

If what I'm doing with the redirect is so wrong then why the hell is this acceptable?. These guys clearly went through no proper deletion steps for this article, yet they're still fighting to keep it a redirect. Second Skin (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting a poorly sourced article is perfectly acceptable as an alternative to deletion. Maybe you could add more sources to satisfy the general/subject-specific notability criteria so editors wouldn't redirect it again. KingAndGod 11:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Second Skin & KingAndGod- Deletion by redirection is a bit like an instant WP:Prod. If it is contested then it needs to be discussed. Ideally contesting a bold redirect should occur as soon as practicable but sometimes an editor might not notice that the article was turned into a redirect right away. In those situations we still have to discuss it because blanking and redirecting an article is a specie of deletion and unless it is uncontroversial editors are not generally allowed to do that unilaterally. For now I advise that the redirect be reverted and the issue be resolved on the article talk page. Failing that, AfD is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

One option that I forgot is that if an article is largely or entirely unsourced you can stub it. Stubbing an article is not a form of deletion and WP:V is policy so re-adding unsourced material is a no no. I have personally stubbed some fairly long and completely unsourced articles down to a single sentence back when schools were sacred cows and deleting articles about them was harder than parting the Red Sea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Barkeep49. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

IP evading block

Hi Ad Orientem, the seems to be back on 122.173.197.64 (talk · contribs). Maybe we need a range block. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

He's now using 122.173.201.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 122.173.128.0/17 x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bit odd

I'm confused by your edit here. As you know, it is extremely common for editors to leave messages of support for fellow editors who have left Wikipedia or have been blocked, for example here, and here. Given that previous "tributes" have been allowed on the very same talk page (see archives), including comments left by some of your admin colleagues, I am unsure why you are making an exception here and would be interested to know your reasons. In the meantime, I'm restoring the material but will archive it as has been done for previous comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Archiving is probably the better solution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Walmart cn tags

For whatever reason, you adding the cn tags to Walmart was not immediately verified as an ok pending change (despite you being an admin), and it was bunched together with some promotional edits, so I had to deny the edits from reaching your page. Do you have any idea why the edits were bunched together like that?💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate, I undid them because they were poorly phrased and incorrectly sourced.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not. The only thing I did was add three CN tags. It looked really weird but technical glitches will happen now and then. I'm not going to worry about it unless it becomes a recurring problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparent COI user threatening to take another to ArbCom over reverts?

Hi AO. I've come across a user by the name of NewsAgentEU, who's been editing Mall (song), Albania's entry in Eurovision this year. They've made extensive contributions to the article but recently got into a bit of an edit war with the user Sar2de, telling them to not "make unwarranted edits to this Wikipedia article!" and then "This is the last warning message to you! Do not make edits on this Wikipedia article or you will be reported to the Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee." Which seems like a case of OWN to me and a silly threat. They were restoring an iTunes chart position, which should not be in Wikipedia articles anyway per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Then I got to looking and thought that this user seems like they might have a bit of a COI as they seem quite consumed with the article. Can you have a word to them? I'll keep a look out on the article to see if they try to restore the iTunes peak again. Ss112 06:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet they still reverted me four times on the article later. Is this not breaking 3RR? Next time they do this (and I'm sure they will), I'm reporting them to AN/EW. This OWN business has gone on long enough, because it doesn't look like warnings will do anything and they clearly have no care about 3RR. Ss112 20:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I dropped a not so friendly note on their page. It doesn't look like they have done any reverting since your warning. Hopefully this is the end of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Check this out: "Ss112, I command you to lower the tone and tame your language when addressing ME. You have been reported to the Wikipedia and this issue will be mediated by them. Additionally, I shall file a lawsuit against you should further condescending messages of this nature will be received now or in the future. Hereby, I forbid you to contact me until the Wikipedia's decision." Aren't legal threats against Wikipedia's rules? Ss112 21:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Widr indeffed him which I agree with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

They tried to come back with "JonathanAUS", but I reverted them and reported them. Can you maybe protect the article for a bit to prevent newly registered editors from editing it? Ss112 10:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Russell Simmons

I just read about Russell Simmons on Wikipedia. It says he has sexual allegations against him.

If this has not been said, then let me be the first to say, that there is no reason for Wikipedia to post incorrect non-proven information about someone unless it is becoming a negative structure and is creating a pattern of thought incorrect or not. The information is belittling, more than likely untrue and should be removed.

I want to be one to bring to the attention of All Def Digital and the entire family... The Courts and the Judicial System is a fluke! I'm paying extremely close attention to what's happening to some of our great leaders, and I've found something of the same nature happening to myself. I am being accused of a crime that I didn't commit. Police, attorneys, and government are backing it up, as if I've actually committed a crime, however, I have not been advised of the charges against me, and these people are guiding my life into a crash. I'm just about to lose everything because of a lie the someone else told, on me. The allegations are assault. Now, here is what I know, for every action there is honestly and truly a reaction. My action was literally protecting myself, by taking pictures of a dirty home, against a member of the US armed forces, and a certified nurse, two government employees. What is the correlation? I'm being lied on for not giving someone what they want. Other's, police who will devise a congruent strategy, along with government are going against me to cause my issues. I believe wholeheartedly that Russell Simmons is being forced to give up his fortune due to people not receiving something from Russell that they want. I believe there is a bonafide reason that the allegations against Russell are false and urge you to stay true to Russell and his movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prentice B Johnson (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Prentice B Johnson. Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately we are not concerned with what is or is not true. Please see WP:TRUTH. We only repeat what is reported in independent reliable secondary sources. Nothing more. And nothing less. We strongly discourage editing in pursuit of some WP:AGENDA or with an eye to righting great wrongs. This is an encyclopedia, not a WP:FORUM or social networking website. All of our articles must be neutral in their presentation of facts and tone. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Those who have difficulty editing in accord with our policies and guidelines are encouraged to find another hobby. Those who are unable or unwilling to do so will eventually have their editing privileges revoked. I hope you will stick around and help us build the encyclopedia. But you cannot edit articles in a way that is obviously disruptive and contrary to the preceding linked guidelines. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Credit blanker now made an account

Hi AO, looks like we have a credit blanker who's registered for an account named "Credits right", removing what looks like all other songwriters from Ne-Yo articles. Ss112 08:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. He hasn't edited in close to 24 hours so I am somewhat reluctant to block. But I smell a sock here, just not sure who it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer when I said this that I thought they were Giubbotto non ortodosso, but Bbb23 appears to have discovered that anyway. Anyway, looks like BlaccCrab is back using 2600:1003:B11B:2462:9916:9198:5DA1:3B68. Same tone of voice, choice of words and MO. They evidently got around the rangeblock... Ss112 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked IP 2600:1003:B11B:2462::/64 x 6 months. If nothing else I hope we are at least mildly inconveniencing the pest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

IP that is clearly BlaccCrab is claiming using 2600:1003:B11F:D49A:1475:FDF3:9B19:3431 at Talk:Diplomatic Immunity (song) as I reverted BlaccCrab commenting there that they are a different person but "share the same apartment block in Towson" (how awfully coincidental, they know who BlaccCrab is, are interested in editing Wikipedia too, and the same topics). Still getting around the block... Ss112 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, you previously blocked Hurricanebasketball7 in March for disruptive editing; they're back at it on Meghan Trainor discography and don't appear to have learnt anything. You stated in March that if it continued, they'd be likely to be blocked indefinitely. I don't know what's appropriate this time. Ss112 08:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hurricanebasketball7 is still making the same edits several days later. They're not getting the message after being reverted. Also, can you maybe protect That's the Way Love Goes (Janet Jackson song)? An IP who's block-evading (according to Binksternet, so I don't know who—you'd have to ask them) keeps coming back to change the genre. Thanks. Ss112 13:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IP warned (last block is far enough back to preclude a no warning block). Page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Last entry for this section—can you also protect Control (Janet Jackson album)? The IP is now using 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:FD7D:E57B:4CF4:6033 and reverting there. Thanks. Ss112 04:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Binksternet is this someone who is currently blocked? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the style of User:MariaJaydHicky, who is a persistent block evader. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued block evasion at Chris Brown discography

Hi AO, looks like Giubbotto non ortodosso is back with an IP at Chris Brown discography making the same changes as always. Can you protect the page again? Thanks. Also, I'm starting to think the IP that's still being disruptive at Control (Janet Jackson album) is MariaJaydHicky. It's an R&B topic, they're thinking their edits are a-okay with a source...definitely their M.O. Ss112 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Discography page protected. Waiting on Binksternet to confirm that this is a sock before blocking and protecting that page unless you are reasonably sure it's MJH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Their last reply on that article makes me pretty sure. Also pretty sure the user Perkgazer is them. They've targeted Rihanna articles, a Janet Jackson article (!), and they're a user who registered in April and got to edit warring over genres and quoting things like WP:OVERLINK and differentiating between "elements" of genres and full genres very soon after. Also edits other R&B articles extensively. That definitely says MJH to me. Ss112 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked- sock blocked- page protected x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I've also just discovered the user Catfishlake12, making disruptive edits to Doki Doki Literature Club! Appears to have attempted to edit legitimately in the past, and has blanked their talk of warnings. Ss112 15:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Warned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It just gets worse... Ss112 15:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They have put on notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed for socking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz shouting that I'm a liar in a discussion

Does this count as a personal attack? It's just entirely out of nowhere. I know you're not involved in the discussion, but Walter is calling me a liar because he seems to be forgetting that on this very talk page alone, he has mentioned AllMusic more than any other source that might say "producer". It's a fact, as anybody can see if they use the "find" function on their browser on the page, type in AllMusic and see how many come up in Walter's replies. Ss112 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi AO, I've found another block evader. It took me this long to realise that the user Dracoijui is the same editor behind Phantasus Magician and their long line of socks blanking/removing/adding entries from EDM acts' discographies. They don't stop even after being reverted or warned. Phantasus Magician and their socks also used to try to disguise themselves using my edit summaries ("Updated."), and they're back doing this when they're clearly not just updating something. Ss112 04:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked temporarily for disruptive editing pending CU confirmation on their socking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed and indeffed two socks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Increase in page protection

Hi AO, I was wondering if you could increase the page protection for Camila Cabello discography from pending changes to semi-protection. The pending changes protection doesn't appear to be stopping IPs from attempting to change the page, and it's annoying to have to revert their changes. It's happened three times since I requested protection yesterday. IP editors are blanking credits because they disagree with them being included over and over. Ss112 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Protected x 2 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, I've reverted two IPs at Tears for Fears discography now. They're attempting to restore an unsourced music videos section that the user Thimoty Freick originally added, and that also makes me believe they're that user using the IPs now to avoid suspicion, otherwise it seems very coincidental they're trying to re-add it now of all times... Ss112 18:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Warnings issued. If the pattern of editing continues to suggest IP socking we can take additional measures. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Still using 179.176.227.6 to add the unsourced section. Maybe page protection? I just suspected sockpuppetry, not sure on it... Ss112 03:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

PP x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:President's Call to Service Award

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:President's Call to Service Award. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

An oddity about Rostov-on-Don

Hi. In doing NPP today, I noticed an oddity. All of a sudden there was a spurt of new articles created about things to do with Rostov-On Don. The oddity is that they are by several different new editors. Not sure if this is a case of sockpuppetry, and don't know if there is a way to check to see if there is an editor who has recently been blocked who wrote on this topic, but I thought I perhaps might need to bring it to an admin's attention, and you were the lucky pick . Here are some of the articles/editors:

• The sculptural composition - Fat and Thin/User:Gym14
• Voroshilovsky bridge/User:TheFinLuck, also Avilova Cave
• The Rich Well/Elia Morrison
• The art-field Makaronka/Melloniin]]
• Monument to Vladimir Vysotsky (Rostov-on-Don)/Voyttt
• Aksay dungeons/AntilusViking
• The building of the State Bank (Rostov-on-Don)/Milenayeribekyan
• The main building of Warsaw University (Rostov-on-don)/BBGZ65
• The House of Kovalev (Azov)/Mbouschool111
• Trading house of Yablokovy/Youtwistmyarm
• Aksay customs outpost/AntilusViking

There might be others, but these were done pretty close together. And I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the articles, some are thinly sourced, others are of unsure notability, but several were well done. Not sure how, or if, to proceed. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, as I continued on the NPP list, there are quite a few more... all around the 11:00 timestamp on 5/18. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Could be an edit-a-thon or a program coordinated at a school?  Z0  17:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Onel5969. I'm not sure what to make of this. It may be completely innocuous... or not. Pinging Bbb23... anything here look like a red flag to you? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I asked for the big guns to be brought in... In going through the NPP page, there are probably 20 or more articles on just that day. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• One of the editors involved is JukoFF, an admin at ru.wiki. My guess is it's some sort of class the administrator is conducting. From a quick check, the editors appear to be students at a Russian educational institution. Also, take a look at JukoFF's contributions, and you can see they are editing the other users' sandboxes. Still, they should be following certain procedures here. Hopefully, JukoFF will explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Good deal. If there is a Russian Wiki admin involved then I am quite certain nothing malicious is going on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick Joong

Hi, Ad. The user you indeffed few days ago (User:NickNikio) is back with a new account (User:Jackson wang31). He created User:Jackson wang31/sandbox which is linked from Nick Joong's IG page that has previously linked Nicknikio's sandbox. —Z0 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed and page deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

• 116.45.140.21 (talk · contribs) This IP have been warned multiple times and have been blocked by you for adding content without sources in March 2018, the editor is still doing the same thing [1] [2]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hey AO, the category vandal is back using 2601:248:C400:CF0:8492:32AA:DA69:2537 and targeting Dream on the Dancefloor and their usual targets again. Seems I reverted them exactly a month ago today on Dream on the Dancefloor... Ss112 09:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like the user Kealan07 registered just to vandalise (typed my username in a nonsensical edit summary as well), as they blanked part of On a Night Like This then kept on vandalising with IP(s). Ss112 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. It appears that he has been indeffed and the page has been protected. Also for FYI purposes I am going on vacation/holiday beginning tomorrow and will be gone for a couple of weeks. I won't be online much during that time frame. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Student Theatre at Glasgow (STAG)

Hi there,

My name is Alexander Hayward and I have recently been elected as the General Secretary for Student Theatre At Glasgow (STAG) a Student led theatre company at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Our society has existed as STAG since 1994 and before that as far back as the 1960’s as Glasgow University theatre and we also have some performance records from 1922. I have recently realised that the Wikipedia page for our organisation has been deleted and while my primary concern is retrieving the information which was on it as it contains specific details which I no longer have access too I would also like to try and restore the page if possible? We are one of the university oldest non-sports society and certainly the oldest running performance based society, I would really appreciate it if we could find a way to resolve whatever issue led to the pages deletion.

Many thanks and Kind Regards, Alexander Hayward, STAG General Secretary — Preceding unsigned comment added by STAG Gensec (talk • contribs) 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi STAG Gensec. The article was deleted following a discussion at WP:AFD which concluded that the article did not pass our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. The relevant guidelines for establishing notability in this case are WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The discussion can be found here. I have copied the deleted article into a user subpage where you can work on it. Please note that this draft should not be moved into the encyclopedia's article mainspace until the issues identified at the aforelinked AfD discussion have been corrected. The draft can be found at User:STAG Gensec/Student Theatre at Glasgow. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Repeal of 8th Amendment referendum

"The worst calamity to strike Ireland since the Great Famine. The loss of life is likely to be incalculable." etc You know better than this mate. You of all people should know what discussions should be like at ITN/C and this is not it.  Nixinova  T  C  20:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa. I repent of typing the words... but not the words themselves. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by BlaccCrab

Hey AO, hope you're having a good vacation. When you're back for a bit, can you maybe block 2600:1003:b128:d305:307a:f835:b10d:a193 for a bit? Geolocates to the same area of the US BlaccCrab is from, and speaks like him. Same topics, same edits. Thanks. Ss112 22:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, that promotional account you blocked on Darren Watson, "Darren Watson NZ", is back editing under "Deliashanly". Ss112 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a username soft block. Essentially they were blocked because their username was that of a famous person. In those cases editors are allowed to create a new account as long as they don't make any direct claim to being that well known person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello there, I’m not sure why you’ve blocked me from editing. I was already informed that pictures I uploaded several weeks ago would be removed because they didn’t meet requirements. This has now happened and I haven’t uploaded more. I was looking thru available photos in the Commons to replace them, when I was blocked.

....It would be a shame to think this ultimately came about because you looked at my user page and found things that differed from yours that you didn’t agree with. That would be unfortunate.

Thanks, Clarawolfe (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Clarawolfe (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You are obviously not currently blocked since you are posting on my talk page, nor do I see any record of you being blocked in the past. Are you currently blocked under another username? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

They should be sure to log in before they edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations. Legobot (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Tjdrum2000 is back again

Using 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:AA. Ss112 01:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:84 and Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:70. Maybe another rangeblock is in order... Ss112 08:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User OxfordLaw

This user continue to violate 3-RR and keep edit warring misconduct. Please care to check? Special:Contributions/OxfordLaw Mr.User200 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this report is now stale. If this editor is still engaging in in disruptive behavior please take it to one of our noticeboards such as WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. I am on vacation and won't be back for a couple of days yet, so time sensitive issues should not be posted here for the time being. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove talk page access of Addisu mamo

Hello,

You may want to remove talk page access of Addisu mamo [3]. [4] Hummerrocket (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

173.69.144.245

173.69.144.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It looks like BlaccCrab (talk · contribs) is back to using this IP again pretty much immediately after your 3 month block on them expired. Could you block them again? Thanks. 37.106.180.252 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like NeilN already took care of it. 37.106.180.252 (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia ECP

Hi Ad, I've been going through Middle Eastern Countries in light of the recent AE thread about Jordan. The consensus there was that the article on the whole country was broadly but not reasonably construed to be in the ARPIA topic area (there is apparently a difference: the committee imposed sanctions are reasonably construed while discretionary sanctions are broadly construed.)

Anyway, the two other Arab countries I found that were under ECP were Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. I took Lebanon to AN (see thread) and the emerging consensus there is that the Lebanon page is outside of the restrictions. I've read over the Saudi article again, and I think it probably is too. My gut here says that the only two country/national entity articles at this time that are under the restrictions should be Israel and State of Palestine, but that is obviously my gut and not consensus.

Anyway, would you mind reviewing your protection there and telling me what you think? If you'd rather test consensus at AE or AN, I'm also fine with that. I'm just trying to get some semblance of uniformity in that area TonyBallioni (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Unprotected Saudi Arabia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I logged the unprotection at the 2018 log for you (you should have gotten a ping but notifying here). Since I think you protected it before logging ECP's became common place, I thought just going ahead and making a new entry for the unprotection made the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure if this predated logging Arb protection or I simply forgot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Patricia CV evading block as "Rizzy Ocean"

Hi AO. Looks like Patricia CV (talk · contribs) is targeting Janet Jackson topics this time (which they have edited before) as Rizzy Ocean. Same type of edits (deciding what is a full single and what is promotional according to their own whims) and summaries. Ss112 08:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Samuelmarthouse

An editor named Samuelmarthouse have been adding unsourced content in the article Under Pressure [5], and made this uncivil edit summary after I reverted the edits [6]. The editor keep adding unsourced content in the article with another account [7] [8]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Final Warning issued. Let me know if this continues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Priyanka Agrawal

Unable to create her page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovedove2019 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Brand new users are not permitted to create new pages until they have been here for a little bit. Feel free to create a WP:DRAFT and send it to Articles for Creation. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you move the article in draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovedove2019 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lovedove2019. I have moved the article to User:Lovedove2019/Priyanka Agrawal. It should not be moved back into the article mainspace until clear evidence is presented that it passes notability guidelines. See WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Thank you for your efforts to improve the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

2600:1700:1260::/32

Hi. I reported this dynamic IP user yesterday (unfortunately there was no reaction), because I noticed, that smaller range had already been blocked [9]. Single IPs were blocked, but it wasn't helpful. Please verify his conributions. Most of his edits are vandalism and hoax. A few more days, and he will turn Wikipedia upside down. Regards. Cynko (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cynko. Regrettably I am not sufficiently familiar with many of the topics being edited to discern what is or is not a hoax. I suggest you open a discussion at WP:ANI and post diffs from outside the already blocked range along with your request to expand the range block. I apologize for not being more helpful. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for your help at WP:AIV! It looks like it's been a bit since an admin looked at WP:RPP. If you're comfortable, would you mind taking a look? Regardless, thanks for your help fighting vandalism!--Policy Reformer(c) 04:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On my way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done It's late here and I'm off to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Same. Which was why I flagged you. I really appreciate your dedication. Have a good night. --Policy Reformer(c) 04:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

NP. It's what I am here for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wielding tools...

I guess Prabharirajasthan needs to be dealt in the same manner as Piyushmishra420420.Best,∯WBG^converse 05:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. And now I really am going to bed. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

Hi AO, an IP requested page protection of Everything Is Love at WP:RFPP, and also filed an SPI report for Fanfrom1990, who definitely looks like a MariaJaydHicky sock edit warring. Ss112 09:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by DoRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey again. Can you maybe protect Playboi Carti (mixtape) and Die Lit for a bit? An IP editor keeps returning to revert and restore a fake credit (I think it's self-promotion) and their address changes so if I report one, they'll just revert on another. But all the ones they've used so far have been IPv6 beginning with "2601:408:c301:ff4e". Maybe that's a blockable range, not sure. Ss112 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Both pages protected and 2601:408:C301:FF4E:0:0:0:0/64 blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Amity School of Engineering & Technology, Kolkata"

It is my humble request, not to delete the page titled "Amity School of Engineering & Technology, Kolkata". We have the page for our University and now we want to develop a page for its Engineering School. Which will help people to understand more about the school which is offering engineering courses. Please help us.

Sorry, the article was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. We do not permit Wikipedia to be used for promotion. Additionally there is no evidence that the engineering school has any claim to notability independent of the university. I would also note that the article on the university is completely unreferenced and does not establish a clear claim to encyclopedic notability. All claims of fact must cite independent reliable sources. See WP:RS. Further the article appears to be an advertisement for the school. In its current state it may well be nominated for deletion as well. I would encourage you to read our guidelines carefully and make urgent improvements to the remaining article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for the thanks . Regarding the SPI I created here, I am embarrassingly unfamiliar with SPI. Per the IPs comment about triggering the edit filter, how do I move the page to be under the correct master RJCola? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There is one already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No I mean since I created a page under the wrong master is there a way to just move all my content to go under that page or should I just manually do it through copy and paste. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would just open a new investigation. Copy and paste the relevant info, leave a note in the old one and then close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A New Subject

Welcome back from your vacation, AO! I would like to establish a new subject on the Southern aristocracy, but the page currently redirects to Plantations in the American South. How does one go about this? Am I to delete the redirect and begin contributing, or does the current page need deleting before the page can be used for content? – Conservatrix (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Though reliable sources often employ the term "aristocracy," I could alternatively use Planter class to avoid its pointed nature. – Conservatrix (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Good morning Conservatrix. I suggest you that propose the redirect for deletion (WP:PROD}. If no one objects the redirect will be deleted in seven days. The redirect has no substantial history of editing so I don't think it will be controversial. Just explain you want to create an article with that title. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ack. I just noticed that PROD can't be used with redirects which seems odd. Send it to RfD or nominate it for CSD (G6). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I near forgot! Had you noticed that our muse, the Mad Monarchist, has left his writing for new adventures? – Conservatrix (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I had. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That CSD (G6) is done. – Conservatrix (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cannot describe how excited I am to have this published! Thank you. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am glad your draft is up. However I note a rather glaring lack of references... I'd make that a priority item. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we use Template:Cite thesis to credit unpublished manuscripts? Are manuscript citations allowed? – Conservatrix (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A thesis or dissertation that has been accepted by an accredited university or college is typically regarded as a reliable source. If by unpublished you mean that you can't establish it's acceptance by a degree granting institution then I don't think that would fly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The subject is a typed manuscript procured from the LSU Department of Special Collections. Available for duplication w/ fee to any member of the public, the manuscript has been cited as a source for several published works. Does the University's ownership legitimize it? – Conservatrix (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Absent more details I can't express an informed opinion. But even if I did have one, I would encourage you to ask this question at WP:RSN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Love Story (Yelawolf album)

Disruptive editing at the article by IPs – probably the same person using various IPs: 109.161.146.252, 94.76.21.51, 109.161.172.33, 62.209.14.226 and 109.161.146.179. This editor keeps adding incorrect information by changing the date of the certification without explaining why. For example, in the RIAA database, it says June 8 not June 20. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Muboshgu just protected the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I did. It was at WP:RFPP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts... odd. I just got your message a few minutes ago and the page history shows you posted it at 21:56. But the time stamp says 16:56. I've never seen that before. @Muboshgu thanks for jumping on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Same time from different time zones? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but I always thought time stamps on Wikipedia are supposed to be standardized. We are all on Wikipedia standard time (i.e. GMT). -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I live in Central America, so my timeline is different than yours. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahhhh. I still don't get it lol. I am in the Eastern US Time Zone but my time stamp reflects GMT. Oh well. I'm not losing sleep over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor with various usernames

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi AO, can you maybe ask Bbb23 to run a CheckUser on a series of rather annoying editors? One is Clovaspark9, another is Margiela Yakimono, and I believe there have been a number of other (all registered accounts with red usernames) connected, but I have forgotten what these are (hence why CheckUser may be helpful). They update charts, often supplying unreliable ones, and continue adding/restoring these even after having it explained to them that said charts are on WP:BADCHARTS or are single-network charts (WP:SINGLENETWORK). Clovaspark9 is also another editor who never responds to talk page messages to supply accurate accessdates (of course, this is not a blockable offence in and of itself). Clovaspark9 also often updates the same charts Margiela Yakimono does, so it's quite suspect. Thanks. Ss112 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. Ss112 is one of our top editors in music related subjects and in my experience he has a good nose for socks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The two users are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the other user I forgot was Moviefan49. I'm quite sure this user is connected to one of the above two, but I get that after this my word might not be so trusted... Ss112 07:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Also AO, while I'm here, can you please have a word to the user Sebastian James? They've been edit warring the past few days on Utopia (Björk album), ? (XXXTentacion album) and 17 (XXXTentacion album). I believe I told you about them in the past. They're big on the snark and disruptive editing to get their way. They've been adding unreliable reviews (listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID) on XXXTentacion's albums and summarising critical consensus when it's not sourced (against WP:SYNTH) and still aren't getting it even after having it explained to them. Honestly, I don't think a block would be too much at this stage (but that's my opinion). On the Björk article they have been removing a critical aggregation site despite its acceptance as a source on Wikipedia. Ss112 07:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about The Needle Drop thing (his reviews count when covered by another sources). Sputnikmusic is not an unreliable source. You are the one who adds dubious sources of reliability that don't have any article on Wikipedia. AOTY shows reviews with green/yellow and red instead of positive/mixed and negative. On the Björk article, a user tried to add AnyDecentMusic?, a review aggregator that has been problematic with notability since December 2012. It will be better for you if you act politely to other users, including me, because you are in the wrong. Sebastian James (talk)

Ss112 & Sebastian James- I think a lot of this can be classified as a content dispute which should be handled in the normal manner and does not require administrator intervention. In any event the subject matter is outside my competency so I am not going to get involved in sorting those issues out. To the extent that there has been multiple reverting... don't do that. Also please remember that we are all on the same team here. We want a better encyclopedia. There is no need to be short with one another. Thank you both for your many contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Take a look at this. Most of the editors supported AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the album rating template, just because you don't agreed with the website doesn't mean you have to removed it, especially in the Utopia (Björk album) article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Oh, in response to this...when did you report me the first time? You didn't. So by all means, please report me to an admin for my "unkindness" in what I thought was a perfectly justified message due to your behaviour, especially when multiple editors tried to explain this to you and you reverted them all. I didn't say Sputnikmusic was reliable; I said "user reviews from Sputnikmusic are unreliable", which if you had read WP:ALBUMAVOID you would know (they are distinguished by "USER" in caps next to the author's name). Aside from my restoring two legitimate sources to 17 (pulse.ng, a Nigerian news source, and Salute Mag), you have no real experience in what sources I do and don't add to articles, so please by all means point out where else I have added "dubious sources of reliability" (which doesn't make a lot of sense, by the way). Also, music reviewers don't need to have articles here to be considered reliable. I think you're confusing notability to have an article made for them and reliability as a source. Sebastian, meanwhile, has a year-long history of removing sources without explanation and ADM scores simply because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. They did this half a year ago at a Björk article and they're still edit warring at several Björk articles (with other editors, mind you, so AO, I'm not really involved in this) to remove ADM scores despite the fact, as TheAmazingPeanuts pointed out, they are considred suitable for inclusion by the wider Wikipedia music community. Ss112 21:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: just because you don't agreed with the website doesn't mean you have to removed it, I have never mentioned that I "don't agreed" with the website. If you had looked ADM?'s page, you would have seen the template that has been staying there since 2012. I have done the reverts because of this. You should mention this on the article's talk page, because this thing is hard to find. (I also checked Utopia's talk page and there had been no consensus.) Sebastian James (talk)

I was pointing out your sentence (They've been adding unreliable reviews) when I mentioned Sputnikmusic, because I have only added one unreliable review (it may be two if you are gonna insist to add The Needle Drop).

music reviewers don't need to have articles here to be considered reliable: Again, I added this as an extra thing, you did understand it wrongly.

Sebastian, meanwhile, has a year-long history of removing sources without explanation and ADM scores simply because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.: I have already explained this, it is not a personal thing.

They did this half a year ago at a Björk article and they're still edit warring at several Björk articles: The last edit I have done to a Björk article was ADM? score on Utopia. Previous edit was this, as you can see I mostly explain when I revert, or if the edit really needs an explanation. So stop informing incorrect things about me. I have edited many music articles, not only the ones about Björk. So, Ss112, remember that your perception can be wrong. If the other person is writing in an unfamiliar language, or has a different cultural background, you may misunderstand their intentions. Being right about an issue does not mean you're behaving properly. Last but not least, don't try to persuade people of things that aren't true. Sebastian James (talk)

@Sebastian James: There is nothing with this bring added in the Utopia (Björk album) article, stop edit warring with other editors who have more experience in Wikipedia then you. You clearly don't fully understand how it works here, Ss112 already pointed it out to you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: You clearly have no intention to understand, and probably haven't read my reply properly. You don't and will never know who is experienced more "then" the other. Stop being salty, and mind your own business. Sebastian James (talk)

Sebastian James the well being of the project is the business of every editor. That part of your comment was not helpful. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this may need to be sent over to WP:DRN or possibly even ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anurag Arora

I added some references to Anurag Arora and added a heading for the list of roles. I think he might be notable. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anurag Arora Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied at the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

deleted bruce milne entry

hi ad orientum i posted the comprehensive entry on Bruce Milne that you have just deleted. i am not a fervent wiki contributor but an aust music biz insider who likes to correct things when they strike me as egregiously wrong. (this happened when i tried to correct the entry Aust Pub Rock which was so plain wrong it was just a joke, but my corrections/expensions were removed too and at that time i had neither the time now inclination to re-correct. but in this instance...) the entry on Bruce Milne as far as i could tell did what wiki asked - i.e., insert references. it is full of references. i don't think i need to try and justify the article, as opposed to being pulled down because it's advertising or promotion, the article justified itself in its content and the several dozen references present, i have vested interest in this living person and so i can't understand why the biography has been pulled down. i think the deletion is an error the same as the removal of my rewrite of the Aus Pub Rock entry, which is an appalling mistake. i'll take the trouble now i'm thinking about it to add something to that pub rock talk page, if this is the right way, i hope, for me to be making these asks, with thanks Flamippo (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flamippo. I have taken a second look and I am afraid I stand by the deletion. It clearly was a specie of unambiguous promotion of the subject. I also spot checked the references, and almost all of the ones I looked at likely fail WP:RS. I have not salted the article so you are free to try again. However if you do, please be careful about the language you use which cannot contain peacock phrases or adjectives that serve only to promote the subject. Also you are going to need better references in order to establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS and WP:BASIC. You should also read WP:COI as you have stated you have a connection to the subject. Alternatively you may appeal the deletion at WP:DRV. As an experienced editor I would advise you that in my opinion such an appeal will not succeed. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

hi ad. thanks for this. i think i get it. a lot less declamatory, just the facts. so okay, i'll give it another run through at some point in the near future when i've got time. although i do think the references are every bit as credible as references i see in other wiki pages. thing is, i could have cited published books in which this subject is discussed but wasn't sure how to cite books without a URL. but i've run out of time on this for the meantime, with thanks Flamippo (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

oh and the other thing was, it was just an unfortunate typo that it read i have vested interests, it should have read i have NO vested interests Flamippo (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion Article Sunteck Realty

Hi, I would request to undelete the Wikipedia page Sunteck Realty, because It passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines under WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED and WP:GNG.

The article was well referenced, verifiable and complying the Wikipedia's Policy. It would be unfair to delete under Speedy delete. If you still believe that the article is not Notable, I would say Article for deletion process would be best way to reach any consensus.Thank you.--Eramritasharma (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. After reviewing the references more closely I agree that there is enough independent RS coverage to make a plausible argument that the subject now passes NCORP. Courtesy ping SamHolt6. If doubts remain AfD is the best place to resolve them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing again

• 116.45.140.21 (talk · contribs) You have blocked this editor in March [10] and last month [11] for adding content without sources, the editor is still once again doing the same thing, especially in the Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) article. Like just recently [12]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Final warning issued. If this continues let me know and I will drop the hammer (again). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fhsig13

Thanks for the warning on his talk. Any chance you'd take a look at the report he just made at ANEW? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have declined the report, for now. I will comment further on his talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Thanks again. Any possibility you'd try to explain BRD to him? If you read his emotional responses in his talk, you'll see clearly he's not grasping some very basic notions, such as OR. He's also apparently pretty blinded by COI as his talk page makes clear. There's been a history of "be true to my school" editing on this article, and at least one other school article regular, Meters, is aware of it. I'm just gonna piss this dude off further, so I'm not gonna do anything for at least a day. Hopefully Meters will pick it up later. Have a good morning or evening or whatever it is where you are. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

He is clearly a newer editor who is not yet familiar with all of WP:PAG. Sometimes you need to gently walk them through things. Posting warning templates for mistakes that were almost certainly made in good faith might not be helpful. I will post a few links for their benefit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok I think we managed to sort this out w/o a trip to ANI or anyone getting blocked. I am going to go smoke a cigar. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping John from Idegon

User:Fhsig13/Thomas Green (Baseball Player)

Hey, I know you userfied this in trying to help me, but it's actually causing more harm. People are threatening to request speedy deletes on it, and I'm getting hammered on because the image that was on it when it was in the mainspace was non-free use uploaded. If you unuserfy it, I'd really appreciate it, as it was a viable article beforehand, and I've added to it since, so I'd much prefer it as it was, given that I was harrassed for it before. THis is only one of many times I've gotten this kind of treatment since joining Wikipedia, and I'm almost at the point of quitting. Please help. Thanks, Fhsig13 (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already been userfied and it should not be deleted unless you request it. The image is a different story. Copyright is something we take super seriously and unless you can pass muster there it is going to get deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

CSD 15

I think it is an interesting suggestion, though I am not too sure that the community would be open to it. Perhaps worth an RfC some day? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly but I am doubtful that the community would be prepared to give that kind of discretion to admins. All of the other CSD criteria is written in very narrow language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Deb Haaland

I've been noticing that as well, though I'm not sure it's as sudden as you seem to think — so far, this entire year has been an unprecedented barrage of pushback against WP:NPOL. A lot more candidates are trying to get Wikipedia articles than usual (I don't remember even 2016 being this bad!), and a lot more editors than ever are trying to drown the notion that campaign coverage in and of itself shouldn't be enough to get a person over WP:GNG. Try pointing out that every candidate always gets enough coverage to technically pass GNG if campaign coverage itself were automatically enough to pass GNG in and of itself, or try pointing out that Wikipedia's standard is the ten-year test for permanent significance and not the every single person who happens to get into the news today test, and people just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat that their candidate has enough campaign coverage to clear GNG — and try raising WP:BLP1E, and you get the response that an election is somehow not an event. Which, er, yes, it is.

It's tiresome, and I'm extremely fed up with it — if we don't hold "candidates do not get to use Wikipedia as a platform for their campaign brochures" as the bright red line that NPOL does not erase, then we may as well just fold up. Our value as a project depends on having standards for how a person becomes notable enough to get in here, and what their article has to look and sound like, and how it has to be referenced — without those, we're just Ballotpedia x LinkedIn, not a proper encyclopedia anymore. But what to do about it, I simply don't know. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Perhaps we need to open a discussion of this issue somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Block

Hi can you please block IHateWalter666 and Fuckwalter? The former one is vandalising Walter Bustamante and the latter one is a sock I suppose. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done First one blocked by Anachronist (what an awesome user name) and I got the 2nd one. FYI I am off to bed so if there are anymore issues of this sort please report them at WP:AIV. Thanks for your great work and good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Some friendly advice

I never said nor hinted that editors should be penalized, that I my edits are not neutral, nor that I have an agenda (as does the "Sovereign citizen movement" page). The data I provided is backed by the stated sources - current law, .... I have said over and over that, as you said, "Sovereign citizens lacks balance or fails". Content disputes by majority vote do NOT change the information to a truth. Majority rules does not = reality. My political views are not the subject nor have I given any. The "other side" of the sovereign citizen is all I provided backed by actual current law (see below). Nothing "odd" here except the emotional and exaggerated responses to my evidence and comments.

Long List

Preamble to the U.S.A. Constitution ww.patriotnetwork.info/ The American’s Creed The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork, mostly on page 4-9 Declaration of Independence 1776 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 https ://dictionary.law.com https ://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malum-in-se/ https ://www.jstor.org/stable/1109251?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Federalist Papers 78, 81, 82, 83 http ://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-article-iii.html https: //definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-jure-government-and-de-facto-government/ Black’s Law Dictionary at https ://thelawdictionary.org/de-jure-government/ The Oxford Dictionaries http s://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/laws-rules-regulations-serve-to-control-people/ Article VI of the U.S.A. Constitution. Amendment 10 of the U.S.A. Constitution. James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45. Alexander. Hamilton, Federalist Paper 22. Stephen Moore https ://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/our-unconstitutional-congress/ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbyist Statute at Large 2/21/1871. Also United States Code title 28, section 3002 (15). Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) https ://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/case.html Statutes at Large, July 27, 1868. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork From the U.S.A. government Style Manual, chapters 5.22 and 5.23 U.S.C. title 8, section 1101 (a)(21). https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state U.S.C. title 8, section 1101(a)(22). U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (15). U.S.C. title 26, section 7701 (a)(1). Also U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (10); Administrative Procedures, title 14, Chapter 1, sec. 1001, 10; and many other places that have the same or similar definitions. Arizona Revised Statutes 14-10103 11. Colorado Revised Statutes 13-1.5-102 and elsewhere. ww.famguardian.org , ww.patriotnetwork.info/ , ww.livefreenow.org, www .1215.org , and www .barefootsworld.net Cracking the Code by Peter Eric Hendrickson, The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by David E. Robinsonand, and others. https ://www.scribd.com/document/82236209/Act-of-State-Generic and else where https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign James Madison in Federalist Paper 19 Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356. https ://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356 Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 2 North Carolina State Constitution, article I, section 2 - https ://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html California Government Code, sections 100, 11120 and 54950 https ://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/Articles%20of%20Freedom.pdf James Madison in Federalist Paper 37 California Constitution (1879), article I, section 1 California Constitution (1879), article II, section 1 Colorado Constitution, article II, section 1. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 16. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1 Cond. Rep. 267 Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178 http ://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177 Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina vs. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) Miller vs. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943) Law maxim and The Federal Register – https ://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/556.html. http ://legaldictionary.lawin.org/actori-incumbit-probatio/) and U.S.C. title 5, section 556 (d) Statute at Large I, chapter I, section 1, June 1, 1789. Oaths are also stated in state constitutions. For example, article XX, section 3 of the Constitution of California.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgojoey (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Rgojoey please read WP:TRUTH. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What, you don't think patriotnetwork.info is a trustworthy source? /s clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, given my own political inclinations... oh never mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gudrun Burwitz

On 2 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gudrun Burwitz, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lee (artist)

You closed the discussion with a no consensus, defaulted to keep. Can you take another look at the decision? The only keep vote is from the article's creator who has less than a hundred minor edits. His rationale for keep is pretty week as well. 2Joules (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2Joules. I took another look at the AfD and I do agree that the sole Keep is not really impressive. Unfortunately there is only one comment supporting Deletion. And the single Keep, which though not compelling is also not frivolous enough for me to completely disregard. The unhappy fact is that there is not a CONSENSUS favoring deletion. I considered relisting but the discussion has already been relisted twice and absent something unusual that's typically my limit. I suggest waiting a couple of weeks and renominating it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim Bjorkman

I am puzzled by your decision and why, frankly, you are granted such authority. Your stated political beliefs lead me to believe you must, repeat MUST, no longer be involved in this process. Your bias is clear. Tim Bjorkman is a lawyer, a judge who served more than a decade on the South Dakota bench, an author, historian and legal scholar and the 2018 Democratic candidate for South Dakota's lone congressional seat. There have been dozens and dozens of media reports on his campaign. He is indeed a newsworthy person. In the page on the campaign, it appears all other candidates have pages. Why were they not deleted? I believe the answer is obvious. Yes, I work for Tim's campaign as communications director. I want to be upfront about that. But as a longtime Wikipedia user, it's clear to me Mr. Bjorkman merits a Wikipedia page -- and you should have no role in deciding if it should exist. Tom Lawrence sdwriter25@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 26SDWriter (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@26SDWriter:If you can cite "dozens and dozens" of media reports, you should probably do that. Merely insisting that they exist (while insulting the person whom you expect to help you, no less) is only going to result in most people assuming you are lying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@26SDWriter I am sorry that you feel that I have acted in bad faith [I also redirected a Republican candidates article last night]. You might also want to read this thread a few spaces above. On Wikipedia we live and die by WP:CONSENSUS. And as I noted in my earlier reply to you, in my judgement a rough consensus exists favoring deletion. If you wish to appeal my close you may do so at WP:DRV. I do appreciate your disclosure of your WP:COI. Again, best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is a little off topic, but I think the obvious explanation for why there's a push for articles about politicians is the little infoboxes google puts on the results page for the most famous person matching a name when you google that name. They used to pull information from a wide variety of sources, but seem to have cut back to just using WP data after the recent google image search lawsuit. I'd not be surprised if this push extended to all BLPs who value exposure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Permissions

What permission/user rights are required to view logs of deleted pages? I want to check who created a couple of pages I AFD'ed, but even though I watchlisted them, I am unable to view the history. I hold only extended confirmed rights. Which user rights should I apply for in order to view creation logs?

Good morning 2Joules. You have to be an administrator to see deleted pages. If you let me know which articles, I will check and get you the names of the creating editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sussman (Deletion)

Hello I am asking that the Jeffrey Sussman page be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagemovieguy (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Sussman. I stand by my close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Żegota

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Żegota. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Graham Kentsley

Hello Ad Orientem! You decided to keep the article about Graham Kentsley referring to lack of consensus. I think, that there was a consensus because all the real users with a real contribution to Wikipedia concurred that the person isn't notable enough for the encyclopedia. The lack of consensus was made only by newly registered users, who are probably associated with Kentsley. Moreover, all their arguments are like "look, he was mentioned in some local tabloid", but I believe that this is not a sufficient reason. So, what do you think about it? Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with the rules of English Wikipedia, so could you please explain me how can I appeal the keeping decision? --XVodolazx (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ad Orientem, I found the fact that all the keep votes were made by new accounts suspicious as well, so I checked. The following accounts are  Likely to each other:
  • Joaomufc (talk · contribs · count)
  • Otrantos (talk · contribs · count)
• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Unrelated to the other two:
  • Garfild2017 (talk · contribs · count)
  • Alexandr France (talk · contribs · count)
•  Blocked without tags. You might want to consider reopening the AfD. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi XVodolazx & Bbb23 I have reverted my previous close and reclosed the discussion as delete. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --XVodolazx (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Toontown

There are several issues with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toontown. Firstly your close redirect to Toontown (disambiguation) should be a nonstarter as that put the pages in the WP:MALPLACED work queue (which is how I found this close). Secondly, you should have realized that this close made some 25 pages link to the disambiguation and taken it upon yourself to clean those up rather than leaving the task for some random editor to sort out. Of course, de facto deletion of the article on the topic (without actually deleting it) left nothing to disambiguate these links to, so I removed the links, and made sure that there was a nearby link to Who Framed Roger Rabbit or a related article, so that the meaning of "Toontown" could still be ascertained by the reader. Thirdly, since this close effectively removed the article from WP:primary topic status, it became necessary to move the article to a newly disambiguated title. While I was pondering over what title to move the article to, and sleeping on the matter, another editor filed a technical request to move the malplaced dab page, and administrator Anthony Appleyard move the redirected article page to Toontown (version 2) – a title I'm not keen on, but understandable in this case. Fourthly, I question the need for a disambiguation page at all, as all of the items on the dab are Disney-related, excepting "Toontown", a nickname for Saskatoon which makes it a WP:TWODABS situation that could be handled by a hatnote. Checking Google Ngrams for the date the term originated, I see that it wasn't on the radar until 1985, although there was some obscure usage before then. Looking at Google Books shows a handful of references that these mostly relate to Roger Rabbit, as Who Censored Roger Rabbit? was published in 1981. The floodgates opened by the early 1990s, following the 1988 release of the film. I don't find the argument that the term fails WP:GNG very convincing, given all these mentions by multiple independent publications. I think Disney made this a valid topic for a WP:Broad-concept article – there is a somewhat amorphous relationship between the articles on the disambiguation page. The idea that the article should "Merge with Toontown (disambiguation)" is another nonstarter. We don't merge content into disambiguation pages. This is more an argument for merging the disambiguation into the broad-concept article and deleting Toontown (disambiguation). If this is indeed a valid broad-concept created by Disney, then that negates the need to remove those 25 links to the topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058. Ouch. I am somewhat surprised at the technical cluster bleep I appear to have caused. In particular the 25 links as I almost always use XFD Closer and opt for the automatic removal of links to articles that are being deleted. I am not sure if this was something that XFD Closer missed or if I failed to hit the button when closing. I am guessing the latter. In any event I apologize for the unnecessary added work. With respect to your analysis of the article, I think it is reasonable and I wish it had been a part of the discussion. It likely would have given me pause even in the face of the other four comments favoring redirection. (I dismissed the idea of a merge based on the poor referencing.). If you think it would be beneficial to reopen the discussion so you can add your views and see if that might change some of the minds of the other participating editors or persuade new ones, I am prepared to revert my close and relist the discussion. Let me know, and again I apologize for the abandoned links. Mea culp mea culpa mea maxima culpa... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok I am an idiot. Redirection does not = deletion. I should have grasped that and handled those. [facepalm]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no need to call yourself names, but I appreciate the response. That reminds me of an essay I made significant contributions to five years ago, Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection. Yes, I think reopening it is a good idea. I don't often participate in AfD discussions but would be happy to make the above points in a relisted discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. @Wbm1058 When you comment, please ping the other participants to the discussion so they are aware the discussion has been reopened. Now I need to find the original article somewhere. Ugh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The original article is sitting at Toontown (version 2), as I mentioned above. Check the page history of that. wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok this is going to get a bit messy. I think the best thing to do is revert the moves and redirects and reset to the status quo ante. Any objections? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I could have run with it either way (reverse now, or reverse later if necessary). wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I decided to just revert pending the final close. The AfD template was on the wrong article and the links would have caused confusion for anyone joining the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by PeopleEater143

Hi AO. I have just been waiting since last year for this user to come back in some way, shape or form, and they're back using 208.28.133.202 (they previously used this IP in 2017 with the same snark). I can spot their attitude anywhere. Last year they edit warred over the mere order of singles on ÷ (album) and a slew of other then-recent pop music articles. Now they're back with their snark on recent pop music articles again. You can see (some) of their editing history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143/Archive. It's like they can't edit without writing smart alec edit summaries, for example usually something along the lines of "that's not how it works" and acting like they have final say on everything. Looks like they've been around for a while now with their snark, but I only just spotted them at Palo Santo (Years & Years album). They also edit war like crazy. I'll report any further IP hops to you, because they came back using different usernames and IPs last year when users like myself and Jennica spotted a pattern (Jennica even said that she was sure they frequented a pop music forum she visited and were distinguishable by their attitude there). @Hayman30: because they appeared to be editing Sweetener (album) quite a bit and you watch that article quite a bit. Can you be on the lookout there? Thanks! Ss112 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

They're already back evading on the same article with the same attitude, using 2601:48:8100:6d8a:6c2c:18f2:ae34:53c4, which geolocates to the same area of the US. Can you please protect Palo Santo (Years & Years album)? Looks like it's going to be the latest target of sock activity. I've told them to find a hobby outside of Wikipedia; doubtful they'll comply. Also, I think it'd be wise to protect Sweetener (album) as I'm sure they'll go back there. Ss112 04:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 When you get a minute can you check out Braxlee2323? I suspect they are PeopleEater143. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that. I'm not so sure this Braxlee2323 editor is PeopleEater143 myself. They seem like a newbie, and I don't get the impression PeopleEater143 would write kind of naive summaries like "I just added a link to Sweetener on the top" and "Sry still learning". They're usually far more cocky and standoffish than to communicate doubt in anything they do. Ss112 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You may well be right which is why I didn't block them. But I am very suspicious that a newbie editor shows up at this particular moment and lands on the same article we are having sock issues with. I dropped a Welcome on their talk page in case I am wrong. Bbb23 can give us a verdict at his convenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What account would I be comparing Braxlee2323 to? I can see only two named accounts that were ever blocked as socks of PE, and they're both quite stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 Ah. I think we will just have to wait and see how this user behaves. Thanks for looking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Prabesh Samrat Bara

Hey, Ad. The author of Prabesh Samrat Baral keeps removing the CSD tag of the article you deleted via AFD. Could you please take a look and maybe delete/salt the article? Thanks. The editor whose username is Z0 04:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also a draft - Draft:Prabesh Samrat Baral. The editor whose username is Z0 04:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Not anymore. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)

Hello, Ad. Recently, I merged List of England international footballers (alphabetical) to List of England international footballers and later redirected it to the latter per the result of an AFD. Another editor kept undoing the redirect, saying "the result is merge not redirect" but after completing the merge it is normal practice to redirect to the target article. It'll be great if you could take a look. The editor whose username is Z0 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect per the clear consensus in the AfD. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RE: restore John Humphrey (drummer)

Hello, please restore John Humphrey (drummer) rather than redirect to The Nixons. His discography is with both bands. Also member of both bands. Here is one source showing Humphrey joining Seether in 2003.

https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/07/seether_on_the_right_track_as.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhdrumr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Jhdrumr. As was explained on your talk page, a discussion about the article resulted in a consensus that the subject does not currently meet our guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. Please see WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO for a more detailed explanation for how to establish notability. If you believe that you have found enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to do this you may create a WP:DRAFT and submit for review at WP:AfC. Please be sure to declare any relationship you may have with the subject before doing so. See also WP:COI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.moderndrummer.com/article/july-2018-seethers-john-humphrey/

https://www.sabian.com/en/artist/john-humphrey

https://www.therockpit.net/2018/interview-john-humphrey-seether/

http://www.goldminemag.com/articles/kiss-collection-is-seether-drummers-pride-and-joy

https://www.axs.com/into-the-pit-interview-with-seether-drummer-john-humphrey-68927

https://substreammagazine.com/2014/06/seethers-john-humphrey-talks-isolate-and-medicate-music-and-family/

https://amnplify.com.au/portfolio-items/interview-with-john-humphrey-of-seether/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhdrumr (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Again, please see my comment above. You can write a draft and add the sources. Then submit to AfC. The original article is still available in the page history of the redirect if you want the text. However, I am not going to reverse the decision of the discussion when the consensus was so clear. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You should be a comedian

I happened to come across your express lane analogy here. Thanks for the laughs! Noticed their name had a strike-through at Chris Savino and got curious, then I see your funny message. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Tanapot2001 socking again

Hey AO, the Drake-loving block-evading editor from Thailand, Tanapot2001, is back using 27.55.99.17 Ss112 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reporting 108.31.98.232

108.31.98.232 (talk · contribs) This editor keeps adding false information in the album ratings template in music-related articles [13] [14] [15]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 60 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

TITANIIC

Can you take a look at the article TITANIIC? (Yes, that's the way it is spelled.) This is another Titanic replica project but by Czech entrepreneur Ondřej Vrkoč. It's flown under the radar here as it is an orphan article. Very hard to evaluate the reliability of the sources as they are mostly in Czech and the English language articles are Wiki mirrors. But from what I can tell it's all self promotion with help from an editor with an apparent COI. The project leader claims a collaboration with QM2 designer Stephen Payne and a business partnership with shipyard STX France. Maybe he spoke with them but an official role in his project is something on another level. As the main editor of Payne's article I don't see somebody with his credentials being associated with a ship that would have numerous SOLAS issues if built in the 1912 form. STX France's site comes up with zero results for a search of "Titaniic".

Given the lack of geographic scope, and difficulty of RS verification, at best this is a merger with Replica Titanic or a straight up AfD. I can merge it but I'd like to get another editor's opinion. Blue Riband► 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blue Riband. Wow. That is dreadful. You can always ask for help on the Project Ships talk page. But FWIW I think it's an unencyclopedic mess with far too many issues to be in the mainspace as a stand alone article. My suggestion is boldly merge and redirect it. If challenged send it to AfD. If there is a sense that the subject is actually independently notable I could see sending it into draft space pending a massive overhaul. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. It's getting late here and I am off to bed. But I will look in on this tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Registered user using an IP to make disruptive edits

Hi AO, a week ago I reverted the user InUser on CeCe Peniston discography for their thinking things don't need to be sourced on Wikipedia, because they seem to be under the impression that some very relative things are "common knowledge". Just half an hour ago, they edited using the IP 89.24.184.201 to revert me twice: once on CeCe Peniston discography and InUser's talk page, both times using the summary I wrote when I reverted InUser's message on my talk page (which is a giveaway it was them). Now, not only that, but InUser seems to have edited several topics related to Jessica Lange. Not coincidentally, the IP address has edited Jessica Lange's awards and nominations page. This seems like a deliberate attempt to make disruptive, spiteful edits/reverts (copying my edit summary) while logged out. Ss112 11:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning on their talk page about the logged out editing. That's definitely a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Drizzy010

Hey again AO. The editor Drizzy010 (talk · contribs) mostly edited Drake discography and several Billboard achievement pages; Dalzon9596 is doing exactly the same thing. Same type of edits to Drake discography and editing the other pages Drizzy010 did. Ss112 16:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The user @ʎɐpʎɹəʌə pəəʍ əʞoɯs: doesn't appear to be here for any constructive purpose. See here, here, and here. Ss112 07:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Drizzy010/Dalzon9596 is back as WD1024, who appears to have registered after you blocked Dalzon9596. Editing several pages related to Drake's recent achievements and several pages Dalzon and Drizzy frequented (2018 in hip hop music, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade). Ss112 16:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and pages protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of The Signals Network page

Hi Ad Orientem, First of all beware I'm a newbie in wikipedia. I tried to get a new page in wikipedia for a non profit called "The Signals Network" that offers protection for whistleblowers. It appeared that the page was instantly marked for deletion : not enough notable sources -- from what I understood. I wanted to improve it but now that it has been removed is there a way I can get my text back in some way? (through some kind of revision history?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Signals_Network --Mathieuleddet (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good morning Mathieuleddet. I have userfied the article which can now be found at User:Mathieuleddet/The Signals Network. Please note, this page is not to be moved back into the article mainspace w/o first submitting it to WP:AfC for review and approval. I am going to tag it as a WP:DRAFT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Miller Baking Company Comment

Hi, can you expand a little on your rationale for No Consensus? The first Keep !vote uses the term "reliable sources" which is not the criteria for establishing notability. The next doesn't use any policy based arguments. The next also uses "third-party reliable sources" which isn't the criteria. The last states they've added references and posted a requested move. Basically, none of the Keep !voters have provided any indication of the criteria in NCORP. Can you help me understand how you weighted the Yea and Nay !votes? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:HighKing hmm, I thought I had satisfied WP:BEFORE and the article was deletion worthy. I seem to have removed it from my watchlist, or else I would have made this request myself. 2Joules (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I will take another look as soon as I have cleared out my morning inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@HighKing & 2Joules After taking a closer look at the discussion and the article I have decided to re-open the discussion and relist it. You can read my explanation in the relist notice, but the short version is I think the pro-delete arguments are weightier than the keep, but I am not satisfied that consensus to that end is sufficiently strong to delete. This could be called a no consensus given that it has already been relisted twice, but I think we are close enough to consensus to justify a third relist. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, sorry to come back to this but I just don't get it. There were two more Keep !votes added after the discussion. One from the author, Jayfish420 who pretty much admits as his last comment that he's uploading appropriate supporting material now but never did. The last was by HenryMP02 who !votes using reasoning that is clearly ruled out in policy and guidelines. At worst (and only because the nom had been blocked as a sock) it should have been closed as No Consensus. Based on your comments before reopening that the arguments were stronger for deletion, it should have been closed as Delete. This isn't a !vote counting contest as we all know but the evidence on this AfD makes me think that sometimes, that is actually what is comes down to. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good morning HighKing OK, I took yet another look at this. There is no way this could be closed as a delete. There is clearly no consensus that supports such a close. NOTAVOTE is not carte blanche for ignoring what appears to be consensus or inventing one that doesn't exist. However, I do think I erred in the close. This should have been procedurally closed as soon as the nom was identified as a sock per DENY. I am going to alter the close accordingly. This will be w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination if you are so inclined. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No probs. I won't renom straight away either - I think the product might be notable so there's no real harm in leaving it at the "wrong" title for a while HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there's another AfD that was nominated by a (now) blocked sock - StuMagz. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD closed per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. While you're on a roll - here's yet another couple - AfD of Furniture Choice and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Closed per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@HighKing FYI most of these have been reverted, correctly, based on WP:SK4. As I just got handed my head so to speak, I am going to recuse myself from further involvement in those discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Denis Law (politician)

I understand that the numerical votes in the discussion (as it was) favored deletion, but I think it is important that as the closer of the AfD, that you add explanation for the close. Most of the delete votes (Nom, Tillerh11, John Paul Lambert) put in their comments before the expansion of the article (now I feel appropriate proclaiming WP:HEY). The argument raised in favor of deletion by SportingFlyer was rejected by Bearcat. And, it is not hard to characterize Mangoe's argument as "only things that happen in big cities are important." But, because AfD is not a vote, but a discussion of policy, I feel that as the closer, you should articulate which rational(s) you based the close upon, rather than a simple "delete."

As Bearcat alluded earlier on your talk page (which I also fully agree with), these AfDs do set precedent (to a degree, as certain arguments are stronger than others). In my concluding comments on the AfD, "there are lots of local mayors" who are similar to the final version of the (now) deleted page, who are mayors of cities with a substantial sized population, whose article is greater than stub length, and whose merits would presumably be debated around the "significant things he did in the position" - as Bearcat mentioned, which is not, traditionally, been a question of this project. --Enos733 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a case of vote counting. There is a fairly strong WP:CONSENSUS that the coverage in reliable sources is insufficient to ring the WP:N bell. When I read the discussion it appeared that you were taking issue with NPOL and or the way it has been applied. That may well be a discussion worth having. But this isn't the right venue for that. The bottomline is that AfD is not always perfect or even generally consistent. We base our decisions on consensus and that is typically dictated by those who show up for the discussion and in all but the rarest of cases, which would need a serious explanation, a closing admin is bound to respect that. Indeed if anyone closed this as a Keep or even a No Consensus I think such a close might well be challenged at DRV with a very strong likelihood of being overturned. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Where would be the appropriate forum to have the discussion? Because, by endorsing the close, I feel that the strongest argument for deletion along the lines of not sufficient coverage in reliable sources completely discounts any local reporting, to the point of worthlessness. Also, because the arguments that the sources were insufficient came before substantial work was done on the article (taking it from a very incomplete stub to a full article), the close also has the effect of discouraging recreation (as revised). --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 

If you want to discuss the guidelines for notability relating to politicians that can be done at WT:BIO. If you want to challenge the actual close that would be done at WP:DRV. In the latter case please read the directions carefully as DRV is not where you rehash the AfD but rather whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you wiling to put the article in my draft space? The problem I run into is that if the decision to close was based on inadequate sources I am not sure what sources are needed to add to the article to satisfy concerns of the delete votes (based on the most recent version, not the article when it was proposed for deletion). --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Enos733 This page is not to be restored to the mainspace w/o first being submitted as a draft for review at WP:AfC. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Girls Like You page protection

Hey AO. Basically every day, an IP in the 83.xx.xxx.xxx range is coming back around to Girls Like You and adding a bunch of unreliable charts (listed at WP:BADCHARTS), unsourced or component charts we don't need. Can you maybe protect it for a bit? This 83-range IP is persistent with Maroon 5 articles; they did it previously at What Lovers Do as well. Ss112 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Has there been any attempt to communicate with this user on a talk page somewhere? I realize that may be difficult if they are a dynamic IP. But while potentially disruptive, and certainly irritating, this isn't naked vandalism. Some attempt at communication should normally be attempted before protecting pages that do garner a high level of editing from the internet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I did explain them multiple times to check WP:BADCHARTS on the talk pages of various IP addresses they used to edit What Lovers Do. They would continue restoring it regardless. This is what's happening here, and I've just undone another round of it. Ss112 16:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Page protected for a few days. Let's see what happens after that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Choice?

Hi there! I was interested to see your close here, and wondered if you had seen the brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Sockpuppet nominations. I'm fully in agreement with you, but I'm not sure that those other editors would be. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of the discussion and have just dropped a note there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hutterite Christian Communities

Hi there, please help me understand why two of our communities have been deleted. Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rus2er (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rus2er. Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately two articles that were created in good faith were alleged to not meet our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generally we require any subject being considered for a possible article to have a certain measure of notability. This is discussed in detail at WP:N. The principle guidelines for establishing notability in this situation are WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Discussions regarding these two articles were opened in WP:AFD. Those discussions can be viewed here and here. Due to inadequate participation these discussions were closed as what we call a "soft delete." This means that anyone can request the articles be restored. However I must advise you that I believe both articles have significant shortcomings that are likely to result in their being renominated for deletion. If you would like, I can restore them both and move them into a subpage of your username. This will allow you to work on them while they are not in the encyclopedia's mainspace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)