Eggplant/aubergineEdit

Hello, I see you moved "Eggplant" to "Aubergine/Eggplant". Though of course this plant and vegetable have different names in different parts of the world, WP policy says that we choose one of the variants and stick with it. Please see WP:TITLE and WP:ENGVAR. --macrakis (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gloster HillEdit

You tagged this for a merger; I’ve replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2011Edit

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Where's Waldo? (comic strip) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Catalan independenceEdit

Hey, very minor heads-up here. I've taken the liberty to adjust the quoted titles and move target in your request to reflect that actual, correct capitalization (e.g. "Welsh independence", not "Welsh Independence"). --213.196.210.189 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Catalan independenceEdit

Hi FOARP, and thanks for closing discussion at Talk:Catalan independentism#Requested move. As you may know, RM has a big backlog, so non-admin closures help move the process along. You're probably ok in this case, but it's generally not considered appropriate to close your own RM, however. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for full instructions. Also, when you close an RM as move, you'll want to use the {{db-move}} template if you can't do so yourself. I've done that for you in this case. Thanks again. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Move discussion closing?Edit

Hello, FOARP. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 7Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

File:GlobalTimeslogo.png missing description detailsEdit

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Scramble for AfricaEdit

Hi FOARP, Thanks for the addition to Scramble for Africa, looks good. Do you have some reliable sources you can add to your section? The main articles that are referred to lack inline references too, making it hard to verify the content at the moment. Thanks in advance, let me know if you need help! Pim Rijkee (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, the rebellions against German rule were an important part of the Scramble for Africa and deserve mention, but the sources on them are a bit thin on the ground. I was hoping that the refs in the main articles might be enough, but having looked at them they need a lot of work also. The Herero Wars page was re-established after too many people complained that a re-direct to page on the German genocide of the Herero obscurred that fact that it had been a war, but it wasn't much more than a stub when it was merged with the Herero genocide page back in 2006. The Maji-Maji rebellion page is slightly better, but still not all that great.
I'm finding The Revolt of The Herero by Jon M. Bridgman a good source for the Herero Wars, but I don't have a good one for Maji-Maji - I remember Pakenham's The Scramble For Africa had a chapter on it but I don't have my copy of it with me. Do you have it? FOARP (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Had a quick look if I coulf find something, but I'm not well known with the topic, honestly. Hope you find something to add! Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creationEdit

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ARA General Belgrano may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • service. She was decommissioned from the US Navy (USN) after World War II ended, in July 1946<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item530_general_belgrano.htm |title=A Brief History of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kristian Hamon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to French, Breton and Occupation
Communist Party of Jamaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chris Lawrence
Guadeloupe Communist Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Capesterre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AN NoticeEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

As a thank you for motivating people across the project to do more good work. Happy editing!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shark IslandEdit

The discussion and vote was about the article name, which remains unchanged. As to other less used descripitions of the camp it has been named both death camp and extermination camp by some authors(and as death camp by German soldiers themselves. The Nature of Heritage: The New South Africa by Lynn Meskell on Page 1872 calls it as world's first extermination camp the world's first extermination camp on Shark Island. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Your comment at WP:AN about not rising to baiting by my detractors was a kick to the head I really needed. Not rising is working out much better. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Looking forward to seeing your topic-ban removal request - just so long as you stick to the positive side of the argument (i.e., you've done good work on Wiki), I don't see how they could keep it in place. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete discussionEdit

Hello,

Here is a link to delete discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Talk:Kosovo independence precedent says "This page was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.".
  • Also, I contested your turning this article into redirect and presented arguments at the talk page (diff)
If you still believe this article should not exist feel free to nominate it for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Runemaster (game)Edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Runemaster (game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hearts of Iron IV packshot.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Hearts of Iron IV packshot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Song ZuyingEdit

Hi, I don't know anything about the topic, I just saw sourced info being removed, but there are possible WP:BLP issues. Please check the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Song_Zuying. Regards. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IndyCamp Live, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holyrood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

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

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

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

Deleted. Have a nice day.

Disambiguation link notification for May 11Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wrocław, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stadion Miejski. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, FOARP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan_Republic_(2017)#MergeEdit

Hi After the AfD, the merging have been done, so could you close the request merge ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

SomaliaEdit

Hello @FOARP, I see that you're well established editor. I'm writing this comment to let you know that i've made a change on the Somalia article, i have reinstated the map as it was before showcasing the whole of Somalia. The reason why i have done this is that, the disputed nature of Somaliland is mentioned in the same article itself, the internationally recognised borders of Somalia includes the whole territory including Somaliland. So for this reason it would not be a fair representation of the Somalia article to show Somaliland as disputed because then we would also need to show the disputed nature of Catalonia in Spain, but the Spain article includes the whole of sovereign Spain including Catalonia and rightly so. The same way the whole internationally recognised borders of Somalia should be shown on the map. You are correct in highlighting the disputed nature of Somaliland but as i said this is talked about in the very same article. If you scroll down the article it speaks about Somaliland being defacto autonomous self governing region and so on. Anyways, if we are going to show a map that is not consistant with the internationally recognised Somalia border, then we should talk about this on the talk page and reach some kind of understanding. Thanks Pepsmiand (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Catalonia is controlled by the Spanish government, Somaliland is not controlled by the Somalian government. This is the essential difference here. Nothing else really matters. It is standard practice in country articles that areas currently not controlled by the central government are should be shown in a different colour - look at Georgia (Country), China, Ukraine, Serbia etc. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FOARP (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is - I have no idea, but I am currently at the Shard in London and it is bloody foolish to block the IP address of an entire office/building in the centre of London. AFAIK no proxy is used here.

Accept reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

46.235.152.40 , at the very least registered users should still be able to edit. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That's normally the case with an IP block, though not necessarily with proxies or other services that hide the originating IP address. The range 46.235.152.0/24 is currently blocked with the explanation "Blue Coat Systems, a proxy service from Symantec" by @NinjaRobotPirate: who might be able to help further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, and the block does not appear to exclude logged-in users as far as I can see - I guess we need to wait for NinjaRobotPirate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm logged in, just tried editing - nope, definitely can't edit anything, I can see the source-code but not edit it, and there's a big notice saying I'm blocked from editing. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK, we'll have to wait for the expert to come along. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a hard block, which does affect logged-in editors. We could try turning it into an anon-only block to see what happens. There was some anon vandalism coming from here, but if business customers are also being routed through here, maybe it'd be best to try to avoid collateral damage. Give me a second, and you should be able to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Dunbar (1650), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What a delight to see such competent support for a changeEdit

With plenty of references to MacCullagh ellipsoid FOARP has exceeded my expectations. I have been battling a few quite primitive and lazy editors, so I much appreciate the difference your presence made. I'll be happy to return your favor. Cocorrector (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, FOARP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

weird sideshowEdit

Hello FOARP: Just a note to say I collapsed that back and forth with the supposed article subject over on the Adam Coley AfD. You can of course reverse that if you think it's better uncollapsed. It was getting a bit surreal and. I think it's a conscious effort to disrupt editors whose primary focus is not Adam Cooley. It all certainly looks like WP:DUCK to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Right thing to do. It just looks like an attempt to disrupt the process. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks more and more to me like paid editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail !banEdit

Hi just to let you know I would be interested in participating in a discussion about reopening the !ban discussion. I just want to make it clear that I have no COI or desire to see the image of the DM cleaned up. I think it is a trashy bit of journalism but that doesn't make it a generally unreliable source in my opinion. Probably not much more than the high brow broadsheets. The decision to ban it (sod the "this is not a ban" hypocrisy let's call a spade a spade) was taken on totally subjective opinions from users that was based on anecdotes and specifically chosen examples. I personally feel this is not a good image to give Wikipedia where a handful of editors can effectively prevent 122 years of journalism read by millions of people every day from being used as a source. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tuidang Movement AfDEdit

It didn't work. There's no AfD page. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Had to take a break in the middle of creating it but it should be up there now. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

neutral presentationEdit

I know. I did rather chuckle when I saw that. Granted, while precautions were taken to minimise the initiators framing advantage, it wasn't entirely offset, but that's only fair considering the balancing advantage held by the status quo consensus. The 7 day voting delay should easily be sufficient for others to prepare their arguments. Contrast with how other high impact RfCs have played out. The initiator lines up 3 closing admins in advance using back channels, and colludes off wiki to prepare arguments. One account opens the RfC with immediate voting. A 2nd account posts a long persuasive vote that has obviously been polished for days, with all the hall marks of being composed by a 2nd rank PR exec. Hence the initiators have a massive framing advantage, and the RfC almost inevitably closes the way they want.
In this case, despite the overwhelming evidence based case, there's a high chance it will fail, or even be procedurally closed, as we haven't greased the wheels by playing the social game. That said, it was seeing folk like Andy, Dom & yourself taking an interest that made me think it was worth giving this a go. It may help a bit that several of the folk against the ban are clearly not right wingers. I see you are an editor who likely has left/liberal sympathies and possibly a fellow Londoner. Huh, perhaps you are even attending the big champagne socialism event tomorrow evening near Holborn? If so, please say hello if you recognise me from my user page pic, always good to meet fellow wikipedians. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As a patent attorney I do sometimes get down Holborn way (CIPA is there) but if there is a champagne socialism event there I must have missed the invite. Actually I was a member of the conservative party up until the October 2016 party conference - citizens of nowhere was the last straw for me - so I might count as a liberal but certainly not as a lefty. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought you might be the type to join a party. We get a lot of lawyers at Labour party CS, QCs from Blackstone chambers and folk like that. Interesting, I really liked May's 2016 conference speech. Lots of genuine seeming concern for those who are struggling thanks to good Nick Timothy. I didn't mind 'citizens of nowhere', at the time I thought it was a back hand way to encourage positive patriotism. Took me a while to see why it was validly interpreted as anti semetic and an attack on immigrants. Sometimes it's hard to anticipate how others will see things, hence partly why the RfC has been so disappointing thanks to how I framed it. Sorry about that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I honestly think that was straight-up motivated reasoning and even if you had put it all in a support !vote then something else would have been picked on. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RFCEdit

You should not really alter another users comments, especially not an opening RFC comment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The rules of the RFC state that it is OK to edit the arguments. You have stated that section include arguments. I edited those arguments. Those edits were necessary to remove something that some editors seemed to believe was derogatory of them, and it was necessary to delete them in order to enable the RfC to go ahead. Feydhuxtable does not object to the edit I made, instead he had thanked me for my edit. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I was just about to remove the two sentences myself when I read your objection to them Slatersteven. I didn't mean to cast doubt on the original RfC, sorry if it came across like that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You are not allowed to edit other users comments (see WP:TPO), an RFC's rules does not trump policy. The fact the user has now given you permission (after the event) does not alter the fact you should not have done it without first being given permission.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
OK Steve, I'll try to remember not to be a bad boy in future. God forbid that I might remove wording that people object to as derogatory whilst trying to close the argument before a decision is even rendered, and then be targeted by criticism by the same people for removing the wording they said was derogatory. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Daily MailEdit

Hi I just thought I'd let you know I'm stepping back from the DM thing. Sadly I think that there is no way that we will ever see that ban overturned. The voters in the survey basically are all saying the same thing that it is too early to see a change since the new editor has taken over but noone is ready to say how they would mesure the change. The whole thing was based on anecdotal evidence so it is purely a "I just don't like it" vote. I feel like Don Quixote because it is impossible to counter systemic bias of this kind. Mainly because the paper is not the kind of paper anyone here would admit to liking because it is very low brow and the only people who are attacking the ban are like you and I and saying that don't actually like the paper. It doesn't matter how few upheld complaints there are how many awards they win it is paying the price of nasty editorial opinion choices. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can pick this one up again in 6 months to a year and stand a better chance of winning. I agree that the real reason for the ban is simply pure prejudice. FOARP (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So you both reckon the Daily Mail is a fine and dandy source, and it's only banned because of leftwing systemic bias? I challenge you both; find a story that is only carried or covered by the DM, and none of the other media cover it. Then ask yourself if it is essential for Wikipedia to carry the information. If you can do this, you won't have to continually lose this argument. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I challenge you to find a source for, say, some 1920's play that is a contemporary Daily Mail review, and then really accept that it is reasonable for you not to be able to use that article because of a ban based on present-day prejudices.
The presumption is that a corpus of work produced by professional journalists for more than a century is not something we should cut off lightly without real evidence. No evidence, beyond anecdotes sourced from blogs, was produced on that thread to show that the DM is in any way worse than the dozens of other tabloid publications which remain unblocked. Instead the evidence shows the opposite.
So yeah, I don't think reasonable people, analysing the situation objectively, would have arrived at this ban. Thank god people of the same censorious mindset as yourself keep losing the argument in relation to other publications - it looks like you're not going to win against the Sun, for example. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say systemic leftwing bias I just said systemic bias because it is a lowbrow publication. The ban was taken on anecdotal evidence and a vote where most of the votes showed a certain hatred for the paper. But it has also won a lot of awards as per Daily_Mail#Received. The argument for banning it is that it is not generally reliable, this is not supported by the independent watchdog. I believe that this amounts to censorship based on personal dislike of a source. No one voted to ban it on the basis of objective arguments. I saw a lot of "kill it with fire" "hell yes ban it" votes on the original RFC. I asked a number of editors on the survey who voted not yet how we will be able to measure the improvement of the paper and no-one has been able to tell me. The argument that they can be effectively banned because they do not have a story that noone else has or will carry is, I am afraid, ridiculous because it is the very nature of news in big circulation newspapers that they all finish by talking about the same things! Do the same thing for The Times that has a worse record for upheld complaints at IPSO and I guarantee you will not find a single story that is not reported elsewhere too. I personally think this blanket ban reflects extremely badly on the encyclopedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User:FOARP, have you even read the consensus you are vituperating about? It might be an idea. Your hypothetical example (shame you could not find a real one), "some 1920's play" is already mentioned as being potentially exempt from the deprecation (it isn't actually a ban). It's also rather disappointing that when politely challenged, you immediately resort to ad hominems like people of the same censorious mindset as yourself. I wouldn't agree that holding out for the best sources is in any way "censorious". And I'm not aware of having expressed an opinion on The Sun. Are you mixing me up with someone else? User:Domdeparis, you misunderstand the nature of my challenge. I'll repeat it; if you can find a modern subject that is only covered by the Daily Mail, and make a proper argument that this source's exclusion genuinely damages the project, I promise to reconsider my views. Can you do better than User:FOARP did? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

that is a ridulous argument for banning a publication and yes it is a ban because WP:DAILY MAIL says " As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." With wording like that you can remove it every single time. If it can't be used for notability or a source what can it be used for? Why not ban all tabloids and all spread sheets except for the guardian because I am sure they cover everything. If you need multiple sources for notability and the info is carried only in the Times and The Daily Mail what do we do? Have a look at an article I wrote called The Horse (poem) I wanted to add the daily mail as a source for something a well known television journalist wrote about this poem as part of the legacy section. It was removed citing this RFC. Do we really think that the paper fabricated an article by Alistair Stewart ? I added it back again and it will probably get removed again. And once again how do we measure if the paper has improved with the new editor? Since when can a source simply be banned because they are not the sole source for certain information? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dom. The idea that this isn't a ban fails WP:DUCK - it walks like a ban, talks like a ban, everyone calls it a ban except when they are trying to pretend it isn't one, including reliable sources like the Guardian. I was recently in an AfD discussion for Double-nosed Andean tiger hound (about as uncontroversial a topic as you can possibly get) where the fact that one of the sources sustaining notability was the Daily Mail was used as a deletion argument, since that reference apparently didn't count. Never mind that the BBC independently reported the same thing. I see editors sweep in to remove Daily Mail references when it is simply one of 2-3 references all independently saying the same thing, obviously without even reading the article or the reference to examine if what they were doing was necessary.
I think there's too many editors nowadays who no longer work on starting new articles (or, in some cases, have never started an actual new article in all their years on this site) and have no idea how difficult it can be to find a source for an obscure (but still potentially notable) topic. To effectively bar editors completely from using a newspaper that has been published daily for 122 years, and which people like Roy Hattersley, William Le Queux, Quentin Letts, Auberon Waugh and so-forth wrote for, when it may be one of only two sources that describes a non-BLP, uncontroversial topic in sufficient detail to confer notability, is simply vandalism. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware that anyone has suggested banning The Times; do you have a source for that, User:Domdeparis? User:FOARP, I took a look at that AfD discussion; if you're maintaining that the double-nosed Andean tiger hound [is] ... as uncontroversial a topic as you can possibly get, when the consensus of the discussion was to merge it, there maybe isn't anything for us to discuss. That seems like an outlandish statement. Are you sure you stand by it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose I don't have much to discuss with people who feel no need at all to substantiate their own position in evidence. And not to put too fine a point on it, you came here, so the flouncy "We have nothing more to discuss" attempt at exiting an argument you are losing is always going to come off as somewhat contrived. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're winning? I hadn't realised. I won't unwatch just yet then. I can't wait to see your winning argument. A good start will be to answer some of the questions. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a well-evidence position based on surveys and regulatory reports, you have anecdotes reported in blogs. This is not a contest. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have? Now I know you're thinking of someone else. I've never referred to anything from a blog. I don't even read blogs. You were going to find me a real example of the harm this deprecation is supposedly causing to Wikipedia and its readers. You brought me the double-nosed Andean tiger hound. If that is the best you can come up with, I think the project is safe for now. Is it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Simple questions for you MoD. What yard stick was used to say generally unreliable so that we can use the same when reviewing? Now the editor has been replaced how do we measure any improvements which is a sine qua non condition for a lot of people to review the question? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Simple answer for you, Dom from Paris. Editorial judgement. For both. Ever read the Mail? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
"Editorial judgement" is not what is being applied when a ban is imposed by people stating "kill it" as their reasons for banning. What editorial judgement IS is decisions being made on a case-by-case basis, not some WP:CREEP instruction that makes a source impossible to use even where it's the best source for a particular subject. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess brings us back to the double-nosed Andean tiger hound. If Wikipedia was to lose that one source on an obscure freak breed of dog, and in return we could clean up the tabloid sleaze, lies and rubbish that the Mail routinely dishes up, I would consider it a highly worthwhile trade. So would the community. Is it a political thing for you? Are we in the business of trying to correct our left-wing bias by including material from right-wing populist rags? That would be sad. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The political nature of the ban is undeniable. Were it not politically-motivated, it would not only be the Mail that is banned. I am merely trying to remove a bias-fueled ban, not counter it with other bias. I do not think the Mail should be used for BLP/controversial subjects, which is good because that is already the policy for tabloids. FOARP (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that's one point we can agree on, that this should never be used on BLPs. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
And since the instructions we have already state that tabloids not be used for BLPs/controversial subjects, what is the point of this ban? FOARP (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

BludgeoningEdit

I think this is the place to discuss the accusation you are WP:BLUDGEON.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not even the foggiest clue what you are talking about Steve. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

On the RSN board you have been accused of bludgeoning the debate. I do not think that is an appropriate place for such an accusation (or for your response), this is. Thus I am raising it here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Whoever did it didn’t tag me so I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m sure you’re trying to be helpful though Steve. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah! You mean the DM debate? Yeah, just saw it: same editors playing the same procedural game they have been since before the debate even started. No new !votes there anyway and the discussion has clearly wound down so why are they doing this now? You were right to oppose. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Nice job sourcing Elizabeth O. Hiller. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops. but do enjoy the beer, you and I meet a lot on AfD pages, and you've earned it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Another beer, you deserve it after that string of unfounded nominations of deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • But, do you have any idea what that was about. Come clue to that editor's motivation for nominating a series of notable if minor 20th century writers and artists? E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No idea. The nom (who is an admin and apparently in poor health) appears to have been angry at the author of those pieces. Happily AfD editors don't like being treated as a dumping ground. FOARP (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nana Ampadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Congress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

  Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch (2nd nomination). Thank you. DBigXray 12:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC) I AGF, but I also see the table thing pulled out to hide something about the references over and over in recent AFDs in general. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Does theEdit

... recent batch of edits by user Kzl55 constitutes a form of WP:GRAVEDANCING? They created a draftification log of pages supposedly created by a blocked user they were in a content dispute with. They went for a back-door deletion of a page that was kept at AfD. It may extend to collatoral damage as a page created by Awalbaacaashaqa who has a clean block log was draftified and they turned this 13,000 kb page into a stub. 88.104.37.149 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think that someone is behaving badly, and can't resolve it via their talk page etc., take it to WP:ANI. My essay on WP:GRAVEDANCING isn't official WP policy so my opinion on this doesn't really matter one way or the other. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Notice Board incident report involving "Callout culture" articleEdit

There is an Administrative Notice Board report (which can be found here) concerning Bacondrum's edits to the Call-out culture article. I am posting this notice on the Talk pages of the ten most frequent contributors to the article who have accounts on Wikipedia. -- DeRossitt (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC (wider comment)Edit

I think that the whole banning the Daily Mail business is just basically the continuation of a more-questionable publicity stunt back in 2017. 'The owner' is not British (and I don't even think he lives in Britain full time), and neither are most of the most vociferous proponents, and they know that the underlying arguments are not really that particularly strong, so the debate inevitably descend into something similar to an uncivil shouty Twitter spat. I mean, how could they possibly attack the printed copy of the Daily Mail of any given day is full of 'fake news', when they are not in fact based in England and Wales or Scotland, and can't actually get hold of a copy readily and cheaply, and read up and reference on it?! Cannot really reason with political activists who are supporting that 'Stop Funding Hate' Twitter handle and otherwise harbouring a clear political agenda, and no point in bothering trying. I momentarily thought of suggesting a new RfC limiting to the scope (ex MOS, MOL pre-2011, the print edition pre-2011 and (for now, the Saturday print editions) post-2017/8) might have been workable, but I soon have my doubts. I mean, anyone who thinks that RT, al-Jazeera and Press TV are e.g. somehow more reliable than the Mail... and the Independent has been recently attacked on Private Eye for doing no fact-checking and otherwise going down the road of Huff Post and Business Insider, rather than still maintaining the pretence that they are still a serious digital newspaper. Anyway, you nevertheless might however still wish to decide to come to that conclusion and take that particular course of action. (A complete lifting of the 'ban' is probably now impossible and unwise, now that the MOL has gone on this no-sub-editing, clickbaityesque, 'instant news' model; and I believe also that fake news are also knowingly and deliberately written on that website from time to time (e.g. regarding Interpal).) A cursory search on the editing history of the article of Labour MPs (in particular their wider editing behaviour) would suggest that this platform is not free from UK domestic political interference. (PS: I don't know if I had in my younger self once (in 2011/2?) commented on your Blog when you were still based in Taiwan or Japan?!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Page renameEdit

  • If you are proposing a page rename/move I believe it is not appropriate for you to add a Support !vote for it also
  • See WP:RM#CM for my best understanding of the approach to controversial moves.

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, don't count my vote - it really doesn't make any difference if my vote is counted or not. FYI the process for RFCs requires that you put your arguments in a support vote and make the proposal neutral and this was the one I was following. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
PS - Apologies if the above was a bit brusque, I've swapped it out for the template you linked to. FOARP (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That OK. Compared to the moans on my talk page its nothing. Best Regards. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noah Carl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No deal will need an admin moveEdit

Although it looks like there is a strong consensus for the move, presumably you realise that you can't just be bold and move it, because the article name already exists as a redirect. So an administrator will have to do it. Meanwhile, assuming there are no serious objections to my transferring the no-deal material out of Negotiations, I intend to be bold and change the target of No-deal Brexit away from Negotiations and onto Immediate Effect. So the desired outcome is likely to happen in effect very soon, even if it takes until 28/7 to do it properly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @John Maynard Friedman: Confirming I have no objection to those bold moves for the reasoning given and have no intention to revert them (Subject to a "safe habour" in the unlikely event I have some sort of big issue with the result). A simply redirect with no history could probably be overwitten this has historic edits.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I've added a WP:BOLD Under construction to the article which if it remains in place allows article to be re-purposed (I've generally wanted to keep a health warning of some sort on that article since it was curated especially given curation comments. Now that is a bold move. Note I may or may not edit that article myself ... I'm mostly concerned with editing the D&KR at the moment ad while I'm doing that I'm probably not causing too much trouble. Probably. But I will be trying to make sure the 1st paragraph describes No-deal Brexit" in terms hopefully understandable by an eight year old. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
When I move the material across, I shall note "copied from with attribution". I think that there is a template for that. Is that what you had in mind? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: Its more just the way I word things ... If I think there is a say 0.01% of something occurring I will tend to say probably. I think Wikipedia:PATT gives the required attribution. I'm just being ultra pedantic. I'd suggest keave the "under construction" in placed until the move occurs. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Camp BecketEdit

Hi I saw your opposition to changing the name of the Camp Becket Wikipedia page to Becket-Chimney Corners YMCA. I agree with you that the best solution would be to make a new page entirely for chimney corners camp. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am not quite sure how to go about this I was wondering either if you could help me make a new page for Chimney, or change your opposing vote to changing the name for all the reasons I requested in my name change proposal. Thank you so much. Jmansfield2021 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sweden during World War IEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sweden during World War I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, FOARP! Is there anything in my review which you'd like to discuss? Haukur (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Haukur - Thanks a lot for taking the time to review it. What you said all seems very sensible. I just need to take the time to implement it - I'll get in touch once I've done it. I think something like this should be possible to get a GA on as it's very stable history. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
All right, there's no rush. And it's an interesting topic. Haukur (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Haukur - I did sweep through to try to address your points. I was able to at least partially address all of the except for the issue with the Salmon reference which I do not have direct access to - however the chapter appears to be only 2-3 pages long judging by the word-count so referring to it simply by chapter should still allow the relevant content to be located. You can still send the reference to me if you like (fearofaredplanet at yahoo dot co dot uk). I also tried to expand the content, though without knowing Swedish it is hard to go very far on the cultural impact and domestic side of things, but at least I included the basic information from the Qvarnstrom reference. FOARP (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Impressive work today. I'll try to get through another pass over the weekend. I can read Swedish if there are key sources in Swedish we need to consult. Haukur (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I finally got around to another read! Good work. I left some more comments on the review page. Haukur (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for InstanaEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Instana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FabianLange (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have a question though: How is one actually supposed to come up with a a completely new article? You have read the article right? The deleted version provides a history of the company with the significant dates and events. Then it includes the standard company box. And it contains an explanation about the market and the technology. Are you saying none of that can be reused in a new article? No certainly not. A new article needs to include all of that information. It looks like the problem is, the original article was just too good, so it is impossible to write a better one now ;) FabianLange (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Write a different article. Add in as many of the references as possible and refer to what they say (i.e., only write about what the references discuss). Infoboxes and so-forth aren't essential. Referenced content is. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats certainly not possible. The article would need to be on topic and all the content was from the references. Anyhow, doesn't look like the community would be welcoming another attempt for a while. We will see next year. FabianLange (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You discussed new sources in your DelRev request - didn't they discuss anything not already covered in the original article? FOARP (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, additional content. It was Speedy Deleted because it also contained the same old content as before + 200 new words. Apparently thats not yet enough :) The sad part is that DelRev explicitly says that such appeals should be relisted and then a discussion should be had on the deletion page. I hate citing Wikipedia rules to admins, and it is just frustrating and it sucks the energy out of my life. Let's just wait this out, maybe in 2-3 years the page gets unlocked and somebody will make another attempt to please the admins in the future :) - Thanks for your comment, also on the original AfD FabianLange (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Just adding 200 words to the same article that had already been deleted is unlikely to cut it. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
PS - I tried my best to write an article that might pass which you can see on my sandbox FOARP (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey FabianLange, I've posted the above article with an additional reference (the piece that WDR did on Instana). Although someone tried to speedy delete it the speedy was declined as it was obviously a different article, was more neutral, and better referenced. Someone also tried to add a COI noticed for "undisclosed paid editing" to the article but I deleted it and complained on their talk page (because obviously I have not been paid for doing this - I'm just an editor who thinks that Wiki is too negative about companies). Assuming no-one tries to send it to AFD in the next few weeks it looks like it should stick this time. Some words of advice:
1) It really is better if you don't edit this page, anything that you add will be judged with a lot of suspicion since you have an obvious COI. Especially don't upset the neutral tone of the article.
2) If it does go to AFD, please, please do not vote in the AFD as COI editors are rarely listened to much. ESPECIALLY do not vote as an IP editor (I'm not saying that those two keep votes from IP editors in the last AFD were you, but of course people were going to think that they were). FOARP (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of InstanaEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Instana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instana. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ... discospinster talk 14:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Let the record show that the Speedy deletion was declined. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sweden during World War IEdit

The article Sweden during World War I you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Sweden during World War I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herero Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Day by Day (webcomic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebonics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"a change in strategy"Edit

In regards to your Talk:Call-out_culture#A_Chill_Pill I'm curious to learn what you meant by "a change in strategy"? Suggestions welcome, in Talk page or by email. Thanks. (Please ping when replying anywhere other than my Talk page) —Srid🍁 14:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc - Mostly, don't get involved in bad-tempered-looking wall-of-text discussions that don't seem to actually achieve anything. Particularly where there's only two editors involved and no-one else is likely to want to become involved because of the way the discussion looks. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

AFD you participated in back againEdit

Five months ago you participated in the first AFD for List of mechanical keyboards.  It is now back at AFD yet again. Dream Focus 02:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Redwall charactersEdit

Hi FOARP,

I see administrator RoySmith has closed the deletion review for List of Redwall characters as no consensus, which defaults to the original "delete" close being upheld. The closure was reasonable, but in the close, it's noted that the article may be able to be restored.

I'm not even sure what "Redwall" is, but if you want to work on this list in Draft: namespace, I'm writing to let you know I'd support any bid you make for undeletion and move-ing to the "draft" namespace, should you wish to pursue that.

Happy editing,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Doug, they're good books (or at least were when read them as a kid) so I'll give it a try, but possily not right now as I'm on a business trip. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online BlockchainEdit

I have just relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Blockchain. If you would prefer this be soft deleted ping me and I will close the AfD that way (assuming no one has come along and !voted kept in the interim). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HacklashEdit

Sad to see certain governments following Wikipedia's lead in 'banning' newspapers they don't like. Kind of funny to see the Daily Mail offering some of the most effective criticism on this. Hope all is going well for you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

AfDsEdit

Thanks for your help with Complex (English band). If you have time, you may want to check out the other articles I have nominated in case I have made any more mistakes. I plan to stop nominating AFDs for now, as I think I over-estimated the quality of my research. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

InvitationEdit

You are invited to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang for making a comment on the issue. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)