User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 8

DYK for Zingiber spectabile

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

23 November meeting

Hello Lankiveil

Thank you for inviting me to the meeting at the State Library of NSW on 23 November. I would have liked to attend but I will be in Mudgee at the Huntington Music Festival.

Please keep me informed of future gatherings.

Cheers, Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Wyndham (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lankiveil. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sacred Twenty.
Message added 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sammus Theory

Good day! I am writing to discuss The Sammus Theory before referring the issue to WP:DRV. Up until recently, I was on a topic ban that restricted me from taking part in WP:AFD. I strongly believe that the following references more than justify inclusion of The Sammus Theory on Wikipeda:

I think that the comments at the AfD were largely made prior to the implementation of the improvements. Can you please comment on this at your earliest convenience? Thank you very much.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Sammus Theory

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Sammus Theory. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Dobbs

Did you intend to close this AFD too? I saw it mentioned in the other case. It may be you just have not yet gotten to it. JodyB _talk 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work and all your help in 2013!

	Merry Christmas!
	Looking forward to working together on some Queensland content in 2014! Kerry (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris christman

You deleted this page as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Chris christman. Perhaps you failed to take note of the fact (mentioned in the discussion) that the article was moved to Christopher Christman after its nomination. Could you please delete the duplicate article as well? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That did slip by, luckily it seems another editor has dealt with it in the meantime. My apologies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC).

Thrill Drive

Hello there, Mr.Lan! Why the article is moved ( Thrill Drive 1 ) on the List of Konami Games? Where's the full detailed messages + the 3 pictures and how do you redirect it to the Konami Games? I really want to see it because I'm monitoring with the watch-list star above for the articles that I would show only for the video games and other stuffs. Please explain why because I'll gonna solve the mystery. If you have suggestions on your mind, feel free to tell me on my talk page, ok? Thanks!!! --The Game Expert (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been redirected per the discussion that took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrill Drive. For information on the technical way that redirects are created, please see Help:Redirect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC).

Some insights on Abigail Taylor's death

Hi there, I noticed you commented on the Death of Abigail Taylor AfD page. Now I know the article is very confusing and conflicting but I remember hearing a lot about this event so I did some extensive research to try to clarify the confusion. Given the new details I hope you can reconsider your view on this article. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Michelle MacNeil

Hi,

I see that the Michelle MacNeill article was deleted. The conversation started on the Martin MacNeill article and I think we've got consensus that this was not a run-of-the-mill regional crime issue, so I was surprised when Michelle's article was deleted. Then, though, I realized the discussion has been taking place on Martin's article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill

Was Michelle's article deleted solely because there was no discussion / relisting of the issue?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carole, I deleted Michele MacNeill as it had been listed for WP:Proposed deletion for over seven days. I'd be happy to restore it for you if requested. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

Alternatively, if I'm offline, the good folk at WP:Requests for undeletion can restore it for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

Hi, I posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Michele MacNeill for the article to be posted to my user space User:CaroleHenson/Michele MacNeill, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin MacNeill. If you could do that, it would be great! Otherwise, it's in the queue at the request space. Thanks! (You don't need to TB me, I've got this on my watchlist for the short run.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carole, all done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

Excellent! Thank you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Presley

You're right, this is not uncontroversial. Agricola44 carefully took apart the sources provided by Binksternet. Given the whole discussion, I don't understand how this could be anything else than a "no consensus", unless, of course, you think that Agricola44's (careful) argumentation was incorrect. --Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• There were indeed some misleading arguments in the AfD that were not checked/acknowledged by this "keep". I've commented on the talk page. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

It was explained repeatedly at the AfD that a googled list of "references" does not by itself demonstrate notability. The "keep" editors were repeatedly asked to state what elements of notability were established by the various sources. They never did so, even after a section was created for them to state how their view could be proved by the lists of google links. I was very disappointed to see the "keep" determination and wonder whether this could be reconsidered or appealed. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The confusion/overstatement regarding the 2 main sources on which the "keeps" seemed to focus (Stanford Encyc. and Encyc. Lib.) probably warrants appeal. Presley had a bio in neither, contrary to what was stated. Agricola44 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

The close tried to be definitive and concise, but in the process, mischaracterized the positions of many "deletes." We didn't just ask "what is she notable for"? (although that's obviously an important question), but provided analysis of the sources mentioned by Bink, and concluded they didn't establish her notability. Steeletrap (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously those who aren't much into deleting articles except the most egregiously unsourced and unnotable (or just obnoxious) ones think User:Lankiveil did a good job on both articles. Keep up the good work. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The main argument given is that the subject of the article is not notable. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". In this case, there are two sources presented by Binksternet that I find unambiguously meet this criteria; this article from the Milwaukee Journal (the largest newspaper in Wisconsin), and "A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s" by Klatch, which discussed Presley's views and history on multiple occasions. Some of the other sources presented are indeed a bit thin, but there's enough there that Presley unambiguously meets the WP:GNG. It is asserted that there was a consensus among editors that these sources were no good, but I disagree here, with User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge, User:Srich32977, User:TonyBallioni, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, despite badgering in some cases, all in some way stating that the sources were good enough for them to !vote Keep. She may or may not meet other notability guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC, but as she meets the GNG this is irrelevant. There are other arguments made, such as that the article should be deleted because it was originally an autobiography, but these are not grounded in policy and were discounted.

Now, you could potentially ask for a review and try to get the keep overturned to no consensus, however even if successful this would not actually change the situation on the ground, and would be process wonkery for the sake of it and a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

I opened up an RfC at Talk:Sharon Presley because there is controversy surrounding the sources and how to incorporate them into the article. Just thought that everyone here who contributed should know. Obviously the situation has gotten a bit heated, and I thought it best to get outside commentary on how to source and content. As you noted, the outcome of DRV would in the worst case be "no consensus", and the article would survive, so I thought it would be acceptable to open the RfC now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It might have been nice to give those who actually add content (i.e., mostly me) a chance to review material, etc. I am very busy dealing with the repeated AfDs and constant deletions of perfectly fine material on a number of BLP's in the Austrian Economics area by three editors. So it would help if others were making a good faith effort to research and add material and we don't have a lot of people who hate libertarians and feminists drawn to the article to diss it. Sigh.... Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget

...there were a number of articles also to be deleted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_Home_(Bee_Gees_song) as a group-nom. Cheers! ES&L 13:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, those other songs all have their own discussions which are still showing no consensus. It probably would have been best to bundle them all up as a single group nom but c'est la vie. "Back Home" is the only one so far as I can see with a clear consensus to delete at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

dont delete article

^ "Release information: CK Morgan - Shake It Down featuring Mzbel". Wellen. Retrieved 2012-12-10. Jump up ^ "Ghanaian movie stars up for AMAA". Retrieved 2009-10-15.[dead link] Jump up ^ "List of Movies from CK Morgan". Retrieved 2009-10-15. Jump up ^ "'Shake It Down' - CK Morgan". iTunes. 2013-11-11. Retrieved 2013-12-10. http://www.modernghana.com/music/24525/3/mzbel-shakes-it-down-with-ck-morga.html http://www.ghanamusic.com/news/from-the-diaspora/ck-morgan-collaborates-with-mzbel-on-qshake-it-downq/index.html http://exposeghana.com/2013/12/ck-morgan-drops-trick-ft-miss-flavia/ http://www.mtv.com/artists/ck-morgan/ http://omgghana.com/line-up-for-ck-morgans-world-tour/ http://www.ghanamma.com/ck-morgan-teams-up-with-akwaboah/ http://www.ghanamusic.com/news/from-the-diaspora/ck-morgons-qim-nearly-thereq-album-release-projected-to-move-100000-copies-in-1st-week/index.html

prooves alot theres much more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarajohnson1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

so are you saying you gonna delete the ck morgan article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarajohnson1 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there i dont think the page CK Morgan should be deleted remember his just an upcoming artist signed to atlantic just cause his name aint on the router yet doesnt mean nothing its not like his known atist all around the world if that was so then we could understand but if you follow him on twitter and read what he says that his only been signed like a month ago over there and his working on his debut album which is not even out yet so pleae dont delete this article because if this article gets deleted it would be very hard for people to read about him when he pops out thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.91.102 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting your favourite underground singers or artists. If a musician doesn't meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC we generally don't include them. If and when he gets widely popular and noted, then we will create an article about him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Barbara, you've unfortunately proven our point for us: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEXTBIGTHING explain it in a very friendly manner. The notability requirements listed under WP:NMUSIC are extremely tight, and they're not optional - they have been determined by the community. Someday when he does qualify, then someone who is completely unrelated to him will write an article, as per WP:COI. ES&L 13:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Open University of Switzerland

Hi Lankiveil, Greetings for the new year! I find that this new wiki article Open University of Switzerland is not notable with no independent sources, similar to the European Council of Leading Business Schools that was deleted. Could I ask for your help to look into this? Proposing deletion. Many thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya

Please can you re-list rather than close? I think a further week to provide stronger arguments one way or the other is a sensible course of action. GiantSnowman 12:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Toodyay Show

Hi Lankiveil, this redirect was left in mainspace when you moved the target page to Wikipedia space. I have nominated it for deletion as it now appears on Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Archit Panwar

Please do something about User:Archit Panwar as he continues to spam Wikipedia with his profile for the fourth time. --BiH (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the page against creation, lets see if that solves the problem or if it just moves elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Thomas Moffatt

Hi Lankiveil, yes quite a coincidence about Thomas Moffatt - thanks for your additions to the article I started. Thanks also for correcting his surname to double 't', I must have made an error when pasting info from the public domain The Dictionary of Australasian Biography [1] (1892) that I've been using to create some Wikipedia articles. Diverman (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of BlueSpice for MediaWiki

Hi Lankiveil.
You've deleted the article BlueSpice for MediaWiki with the reason "not-notable software". Unfortunately I didn't notice the proposed deletion early enough :( So I'd like to ask you to keep the article.

The background: BlueSpice is an enterprise Mediawiki distribution, well known in Germany and actually with an fast growing number of installations in the US and worldwide (area of distribution). One of the founders, Markus Glaser, is a MediaWiki core developer and release manager. The first release of BlueSpice was a couple of extensions and is today a complete stand-alone distribution, which has MediaWiki as a core system but offers in the free version more than 80 distinct extensions and a completely different user interface. The software project is commercial but to be aimed to explore new technologies for the MediaWiki community and make the maintenance of a MediaWiki for small non-profit organisations easier: One important next step is, that BlueSpice free will become a new project in the Translate Wiki in 2014.

But there are many objective or more formal reasons to undelete this article, too. BlueSpice is "discussed in reliable sources" and is "subject of reliable reviews". I'll give you just some online examples (most of them are german):

• Linux Magazine (no PR stuff - independend authors and publishers)
  • Long review in Linux Magazin 09/2011 and a translation of this article was published in the (english print edition),
  • News in Linux Magazin 9/2012 (german),
  • News about the major release in Linux Magazin 11/2013 (german)
• Independend Comparisons
  • Listing in Wikimatrix, see here the statistics of the most views for instance. BlueSpice is one of the most viewed wiki engines.
  • Comparison of the most important wiki engines for knowledge management by an leading IT consultancy (an english version is available)
  • Review by Productmanager Blog (german)
• Fairs and congresses
  • BlueSpice was several times (2010, 2011, 2012) exhibited at the world's largest and most international computer expo Cebit - for instance noticed by the famouse heise news ticker, but there must be better sources...
  • See also this lecture at the SMWCon Fall 2012

Do you think, this is already evidence enough? What else can I do? I can look for some more sources. And this article was quite new and has undoubtetly to be improved. Maybe you have some suggestions?

Best regards and thank you for your help, --RichardHeigl (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thank you for restoring the BlueSpice article! I'll immediately add the necessary sources :-) --RichardHeigl (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 05:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Challinor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electoral district of West Moreton (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) 13:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Matthias Ulungura at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Matthias Ulungura

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:PernixData

Just a note, I have corrected the oldafdfull template that you added to Talk:PernixData (Diff), by rewriting within it "page = PernixData (2nd nomination)". If you are using the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD script, it appears that second, third, etc. nominations need to be manually written in the template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup User:Northamerica1000, I am indeed using that script. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for taking notice regarding this matter, and happy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion debates

Hello, I participated in the deletion discussion for an article I have worked on, David Pearce (philosopher), which you closed for no consensus. I'm interested to see what you might consider consensus on deletion debates, since by my count, there were nine suggestions to keep the article, including three strong keeps, compared to three comments to delete it, including by the nominator. Percentage-wise, that falls strongly on the side of "keep" rather than "delete". I know strict numbers are not used in deletion debates, but from what I can see, that discussion does not appear to be one of "no consensus." As a recent comparison, the page for Samsung Galaxy S5 was closed as a "keep" after seven "keeps", three merge and redirect suggestions and one deletion vote (by virtue of it being nominated). (see: [2]) - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I consider that a lot of the "Keep" rationales were pretty weak; when you strip away the fluff they basically boil down to one group of people saying "He's done lots of stuff and that's notable", versus "That's all just trivial and doesn't prove notability". Clearly there was significant disagreement as to whether Pearce's achievements are substantial enough to confer notability, "no consensus" was the only realistic option. As to closes by other administrators in other cases, you'd need to ask them about that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Marketing Automation

Hi,

Please restore the page Marketing Automation - I take it you're not in Marketing - if you were you'd know it's an industry standard term - don't know why you think it isn't...

Pretty easy to find references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_operations

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=marketing+automation

Cheers,

Mick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoovers (talk • contribs) 07:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Manoovers, restored as requested. Please note that there are some maintenance tags and other serious issues remaining with the article, which should be resolved quickly else the article may be nominated for deletion once more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Lonnie Stabler

Your comments are incorrect: these sources are not independent of the subject. They're primary sources, written and published in the same geographic and chronological context as their subject. I am not objecting to your closure (except perhaps thinking that you should have done it as "keep" rather than "no consensus"), since my comment by itself was nowhere near sufficient for deletion; it's just the rationale you mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Nyttend, your opinion on the discussion was certainly valid and one that I have sympathy for. Certainly, the scope of a source is important, a substantial piece in, say, the Sydney Morning Herald or New York Times is going to count for more than a substantial piece in the Redcliffe Herald. I did consider this argument, as part of the "substantial" part. However, I'm not sure that 'independent' is the correct word. WP:GNG doesn't mention geographic context when it demands independent sourcing, and neither does Wikipedia:Independent sources (it does mention local papers in the context of "indiscriminate" sources, but that's another kettle of fish). I think that your interpretation of the term is novel in Wikipedia terms, and perhaps slightly confusing for some less experienced users. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Request to userfy the page

Hello, I'm a student and I have a problem. About one month ago, I created pages named United Security Bancshares, but it had been deleted because the company does not assert notability. But the company is my homework and my teacher requires me to create it. I know you are very busy as an admin, but would you please userfy the page? I'll improve the quality of the page and I can also learn from it. Thank you very much! ReganChai (ReganChai) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored as requested, User:ReganChai. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Regarding Qutbi Bohra article

i am the author of Qutbi Bohra article and i appreciate your comments on the same. i really have evidences that are not on the internet as observed by you but i dont know how to connect them to Wikipedia. articles in local newspapers, testimonials, voice recordings, letters. I also have articles of evidence that will be defamatory for Khuzaima Qutbuddin but will definitely establish the authenticity of Qutbi Bohra. But i was of the opinion that defaming anybody is not the policy of Wikipedia and this article is just a description of a sect and does not validate the defamation of a person. I want your sincere advice on how to save this article. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer)

why did you delete the page "Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.197.160 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The community had a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer) where a decision was made to delete the article. I simply closed and processed the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC).

Edit warring IP

This IP you blocked for edit warring at 2015 in film is once again edit warring, on the exact same article. Rusted AutoParts 15:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like User:Kww beat me to it, I've also s-protected the article from edits by IP editors for a little while in case the person has access to other computers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Your claim of contributor "racism" at the Celtic Nations AfD

Can you point out where this 'racism' was please?

Only a few people voted to 'delete', and it was only myself who posed arguments beyond that the article is a 'fork' too many (ie that Wikipedia already has Celts and Modern Celts) - I argued on notability as its own-article, historical authenticity regarding 'nationhood', and politicisation of some very non-political sources. I also supported the 'exclusionist' over-forking argument, as I often will at 'Article For Deletion' polls. Almost all contributors of the AfD were linked to the article, and that has always been a problem inherent with AfD unfortunately. (you are into the Irish language yourself - hardly a totally unconnected editor, which is what AfDs desperately need more of imo).

The contributor 'watchlist' issue (ie they see there is an AfD) often means the 'stronger' arguments are from those who go for 'delete', as there is often a quick group of "keep of course" votes. To put it simply, you ought to expect strong arguments at AfDs.

So where was the "ugly Celtiphobia and racism"?

I can actually deal with 'Celtophibia' as I have become a critic of what I see as the 'over-promotion' of this area on Wikipedia (I'm actually from Wales, and notice the areas where nationalist politics can infuse with various facts and figures) - but I absolutely do not believe you can just use the term "racism" casually, even if you decided not to pinpoint where you saw it. I certainly took it very personally, as no other editor present argued along the lines that I did.

I've spent most of my life listening to people opine that there is no such thing as a Celtic identity, that we have "died out", that we didn't really exist and our heritage is made up, that I should do something 'useful' rather than study the language of my ancestors, that our culture is not as 'good' or 'worthy' as the dominant Anglo-English one, and that our motives are political and violent rather than cultural and peaceful. You'll have to pardon me if I've heard most of the arguments you've made in the AFD being directed at me in a venomous and hateful way many times before. I don't know you, so I'll take your word for it if you say you're not a racist. But many of the things you said in that discussion were quite ignorant and grossly offensive not just to me, but others in that discussion, and probably many Celtic people all over the world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC).

You don't have to take my word for it! I cannot possibly be racist. I've never seen the kind of "anti-Celts" you describe anywhere: anti-devolutionists maybe, but not 'anti-Celt' in anything other than a very-specific academic way - ie in saying that historically-speaking there were no Celtic 'nations' only tribes, and there is no modern 'Celt' ethnicity that isn't a modern cultural moniker that runs not just alongside other forms of 'national' identity but most-typically entirely contains or is even contained by them. If you have strong views on creating independent countries out of all these different places you may be seeing various 'anti-devolutionary' stances as being "anti-Celtic identity" of course. If you are, you shouldn't take it that far.

I will say that I do find the constant anti-anglo/English sentiment I always hear on Wikipedia pretty ignorant and offensive myself. I wonder sometimes if you can have one without the other? ie 'modern Celts' without oppressive neighbours? Historically it's a false dichotomy too, as Britain was all Celtic until separate nations developed. It's only in tradition we've decided that Scotland remained 'Celtic' in some way but most of England didn't at all. It's far more fanciful than historical. I've never personally heard the kind of 'anti-Celtic' sentiment you say you've suffered in your life: and I've lived and seen a lot too believe me. Nothing I said was ignorant in my opinion, and surely it was only 'racist and grossly offensive' if you want it to be - ie if you see a global race of modern Celts that are vulnerable to racism when someone argues against there being any actual 'racial' unity. But the widely-spread Celtic tribes died out because they were never that widely connected: centralism just wasn't their thing. When they became real nations they became something else. It's just the story of civilisation. Great Britain (and the whole British Isles to some degree) will always be inter-connected because it's a fairly small island. It's how civilisation started here (ie in the Celtic era), and it's how it will end - at least for as long as it remains an island!

These various and varying areas that are traditionally called 'Celtic' are only connected to each other by sentiment, and only Celtic in varying levels of kept tradition too. It's all wonderful until it becomes political, then it's all divisive at least to some degree. So Wikipedia has to take care. It must also be careful it respects sovereignty and doesn't unduly and unfairly promote 'nationalist' sentiments. I personally think that the only way to do that is to keep the encyclopedia relatively tight and academic. All these endless sub-articles are a nightmare in my opinion, if only to monitor and upkeep. Outside of these kind of arguments, all I did was point out the level of involvement amongst the 'keep' editors: and call for some properly neutral voices in an area that is often desperate for them imo. Other than that it was just an AfD. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Alex-Wissener-Gross

Hi there. I saw you closed the AfD on Wissener-Gross for deletion. I'm not surprised about it, but I actually thought that vast majority of the delete votes only considered WP:PROF criteria, and not Wp:GNG. There were only three votes that mentioned anything about WP:GNG criteria, and I responded to each of them in what I felt was quite adequately (two of them did not seem to have even read what I posted at all). Anyways, I felt like maybe if the AfD got relisted, perhaps someone would agree with me. Could you expand on your reasons? I know AfDs aren't supposed to be pure voting, and I never felt like anyone responded to anything I said. It seems like plenty of articles pass WP:GNG with far, far less mentions in national media. There seemed like more than enough reliable sources to create a full sized article. (Can I mention again I have zero connection to him or have heard of him before this AfD? I just genuinely disagree with deleting the article. I did spend a lot of time editing the article after seeing it there though). mikeman67 (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from, and certainly it's not as straightforward as a straight headcount might suggest. Certainly a very clear majority were in favour of a delete, enough that I'm comfortable that the close represents the community consensus. With that said, looking at the sources, I concede that community consensus might have gotten in wrong in this case. Can I trouble you for a day or so to think about it further, and potentially relist it? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

On reflection, I think you make a compelling argument. I've undeleted the article and relisted the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Hey Lankiveil. Very impressed you decided to reopen it, I think it's a real credit to your integrity. I don't think there's much more I can add to that discussion, let's see if anyone else agrees with me. mikeman67 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

craig s. morford entry

The entry is much improved. It still has some small errors, such as his current title and the description of his company's business. Also, to my eyes, it contains a bit too much fluffy background for a person notable exclusively for his work in the Justice Department. I wrote a version that I consider better, especially for placing him in context. I defer to the Wiki community on whether to just fix the small errors or substitute the version below. (Original sources and formatting would be added if posted, of course.) Thanks.

Craig S. Morford

Craig S. Morford (born February 10, 1959) is an American attorney and former acting United States Deputy Attorney General.

Early life and education

Craig Morford grew up in Schenectady, New York, and graduated in 1981 from Hope College, a small liberal arts school in Holland, Michigan. He received a law degree from Valparaiso University in Indiana, in 1984.

Career

Morford spent most of his career prosecuting organized crime and public corruption cases in Ohio. As a member of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Strike Force in Cleveland, he helped convict the nation’s largest pornography distributor Reuben Sturman on tax evasion charges in 1990.

From 1996 to 2002, Morford oversaw more than 70 convictions against elected officials, law enforcement officers and mob figures in northern Ohio. Those convicted included three county judges, Mahoning County Prosecutor James A. Philomena, Mahoning County Sheriff Philip Chance, and Youngstown mob boss Lenine “Lennie” Strollo, along with 28 associates .

Morford joined Cardinal Health, a large healthcare services company in Dublin, Ohio, in May 2008 and is Chief Legal and Compliance Officer, overseeing legal, compliance, regulatory and government affairs.

In 2002, he was lead prosecutor in the second case against U.S. Rep. James Traficant, a Democratic Congress member from Youngstown, Ohio. Traficant was convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering and tax evasion and sentenced to eight years in prison.

In 2004, Morford led a court-ordered Justice Department review of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in a major terrorism case following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Morford’s 60-page report concluded that federal prosecutors had improperly withheld large amounts of evidence – e-mails, photographs, witness statements and other material – that cast doubt on the government’s case. In an admission of error, the Justice Department asked that key charges be dropped against two convicted defendants.

In 2006, Morford led a task force that prosecuted Toledo coin dealer Tom Noe, a Republican fundraiser convicted of stealing from a rare-coin fund that he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation. Then-Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, pled guilty in a separate state case to misdemeanor ethics charges for accepting gifts from Noe.

Morford served briefly as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Middle District of Tennessee. He was named acting Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 position in the Justice Department, in July 2007, and mentioned as a possible nominee for Attorney General.

The Morford Memo, written while he was acting Deputy Attorney General, established new guidelines for how federal prosecutors select and use compliance monitors in corporate crime settlements. The department had come under fire after then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie required a company to name former Attorney General John Ashcroft to a lucrative monitoring contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcauchon (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of FlexRAID page

Hi,

This page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRAID) should be restored. FlexRAID with its RAID over File System (RAID-F) and Transparent RAID (tRAID) implementations is a valid approaches to RAID that needs to be documented. RAID-F and tRAID are absolutely non-proprietary, which is their greatest feature and why more than 10,000 users use them.

The comments about how it is an advertisement is preposterous as RAID-F used to be an open source product that only turned commercial by user demands as they wanted a certain level of support. Many users are finding solutions such as Storage Spaces and standard RAID implementations grossly inferior to FlexRAID implementations.

It is a disservice to the tech community to dismiss the technical achievements and approaches being discussed on that page. The community needs awareness to the technical approaches being presented. Those that understand those approaches have become convert.

Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectwiki (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to restore it for you into your user space if desired, but it should not be recreated in the main space until there are reliable sources that document the product and demonstrate its notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Sure,

Can you provide example of what would be considered reliable sources?

The project really started on AVSforum. A simple search will reveal multiple threads: http://www.avsforum.com/newsearch?search=flexraid

Also: https://www.google.com/#q=flexraid

It started as people storing media data (data that infrequently changes) became frustrated with existing RAID approaches.

Unlike traditional RAID where a user loses all of the data if failures past the tolerance level is reached, users under FlexRAID only lose the failed disks.

The project is still under heavy development and hence why documentation is secondary.

Sources will be added once the page is added back and a re-write attempt will be made such that the relevant technical traits are clearer.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.15.125 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which I have linked you to previously. Specifically, it says that "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable", which rules out discussions at "AVS Forum". Likewise, the Google search you linked to turns up a whole bunch of discussion threads (and a bunch on unrelated stuff), but nothing that jumps out at me as meeting the reliable sources guideline. That page lists some of the things to look for, which I hope will be of assistance to you in identifying what we need before we can recreate the article on FlexRAID. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Hi,

Thanks. How are unrelated forum discussions "self-published"? You have thousands of users discussing of a technology on different unrelated sites. You even have companies talking of the technologies on their sites: http://assassinhtpcblog.com/server-flexraid/ The wiki page was created by this user who has no relation with the developers (search for FlexRAID on this page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smurf-IV/Toolset Again, how is a movement that being documented mostly in forums and other 3rd party websites self-publishing? The project neither owns nor influences neither of those sites.

If the users and companies using the technology cannot publish information deemed reliable about it, who do you suggest should? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.208.194 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please move deleted page Anukriti Gusain to my user space.

Hi, I will appreciate if you move deleted page Anukriti Gusain to my user space/send box. GKCH (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline this time, on the basis that I've already done this before, it's been moved back to user space, and then deleted again. Unless you can give me some indication that there are additional sources that will allow it to survive this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Please restore deleted page Anukriti Gusain page

Hi, This time I am requesting to restore the article of Anukriti Gusain as User:JamesBWatson written to request to you. Gusain is participating in Miss Asia Pacific World 2014 and representing to India. I would like to request to review afd, because there are enough evidence that she is Notable e.g. Miss India Delhi 2013 winner, Miss India 2013 -in Top 5, BOW India 2013 and Miss Asia Pacific World India 2014.GKCH (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have the knowledge to know whether that's an important event, and I've not got the time to do research right now. I suggest listing this at WP:DRV, with a view to having it undeleted on the basis of new information having come to light since the last deletion discussion. Good luck. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Anukriti Gusain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anukriti Gusain. 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. GKCH (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2014

Wikimania 2014 will be held in London this August and it will be a great opportunity to discuss how to use the recently created Wikisource Community User Group to coordinate and to better promote Wikisource. We would like to invite the participants of each Wikisource language community to showcase the projects has been working in the past year and, of course, learn from each other experiences. See you there? Sign up in the meeting page.
—The preceding MassMessage was sent by Micru to the members of the Wikisource Community User Group according to this delivery list (sorry the duplication if you already received the message through the ws mailing list).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Checking backlinks after deletions

Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted Council Nedd II after an AfD, but did not remove the backlinks from template:Continuing Anglican, which is best practice according to WP:AFDAI.

Trust that you don't mind this reminder. Keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 19:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind telling me why you deleted the article Plankton Invasion? Haven't you noticed that I was in conflict with other wikimedia moderators and that we agreed to let some basics information on this article? Thanks for your reply --Constance Lassort (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mara Kayser

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mara Kayser. 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.Rjtucker (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy of email sent 18 May 2014, which apparently did not arrive:

Hi

I note that you deleted the Mara Kayser page that I created. For some reason (possibly because I did not write on the Talk page) I received no messages about the intended deletion of this page after a few formalities when I initially created the page.

I note relevant guidelines for the notability of a performing artists include:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Please consider:

The number of videos of her on YouTube where she is obviously on television sets.

The quality and number of CD's she has made.

She has had numerous Radio-Airplay hits. I happened to find reference to these two: http://www.radio-vhr.de/schlager/airplay-charts-15-woche-2013-jan-smit-verteidigt-platz-1.html http://www.countrygreatest.de/andreas-oscar.html or just check: http://www(dot)google(dot)de/cse?cx=partner-pub-9319370734496244:1275746307&ie=UTF-8&q=Mara+Kayser&sa=Suche#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Mara%20Kayser&gsc.page=1

Her page on the German (section of) Wikipedia has no more references than the English one had.

If you are going to delete the English page for Mara Kayser, what's to stop the deletion of the pages for Helene Fischer or Stefanie Hertel. The implication would seem to me that there is no place for singers singing in languages other than English in the English Wikipedia.

Regards

Rjtucker (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, noted. I've responded to the DRV that I'm happy to userify the page so it can be fortified with additional refs, and am happy to leave it there for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

In relation to recent BLP/N thread in which you made a comment

If you have the time, please comment on [3] and [4]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the FlexRAID Page

Hi, there wasn't a resolution to restoring the FlexRAID page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexRAID A discussion was started here, but was then deleted without any resolution. Sources were provided on the technology and it was explained that the page was deleted by user who did not understand the technology and history. FlexRAID has a large but quiet following and the developers spend more time on developing the technology than promoting it. The wiki page was helpful in getting new users wrap their head around the technology as it takes a very unorthodox approach to data protection. Deleting that page is a dis-service to the technology space. Wikipedia should not be about a popularity context but rather a place to be informative. So, please inform on how we can resolve this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectwiki (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I can add much more than the advice I've previously given. If FlexRAID is written about in reliable sources, as described at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, then there is a possibility it can be restored. But if the only sources are self-published or otherwise unacceptable, it simply can't be an article topic yet. I'm sorry, because I know that's probably frustrating, but it is also a long-standing requirement that Wikipedia has had in place, that is supported by the vast majority of the editing community. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

Informing about Afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Pacific Production was concerned with multiple pages. {i} Western Pacific Production {ii} Prashant Passy Pilley. Although Prashant Passy Pilley is still blue link. You may want to recheck the Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 03:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Camp Pathfinder

Please review your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Pathfinder (2nd nomination). The only rationales for keeping were "seems notable" and "per the above". Neither of the people making those comments suggested why the subject might be notable, nor offered sources in support of that contention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that and finding additional sources (per User:Bali88). There's not enough for a full "Keep", but with only one person concurring with your rationale for deletion, there's clearly not enough for "Delete" either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

Deletion review of Collabro

I was just wondering at what point it would potentially be appropriate to recreate the Collabro page that has now been deleted? They have now progressed to the final of the Britain's Got Talent competition and been the subject of further magazine and newspaper articles. 176.253.23.91 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)

User:RoySmith was the deletion admin here and he'd be the one to approach. However, my suggestion would be to wait until after Britain's Got Talent has finished, wait a few months, and then see if there is any further activity or if they sink like a stone. The general trend for talent show contestants is not to go on any further, but if Collabro release a record that charts well, independent of the TV programme, for instance, that's when I'd start to consider undeletion if I were the deleting admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

I agree with Lankiveil. The AfD just closed a few days ago, with a clear consensus to delete. We're an encyclopedia, not the nightly news. There's no need to track current events day-by-day. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara AfD decision

Hi Lankiveil, I'm writing about your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara (cat) as Keep ("The result was keep. This is pretty evenly split between 'Keep' and 'Merge', but there's an obvious consensus not to delete the content."). I thought the result should have been "no consensus", just as obviously as you think there was a consensus. The result is the same, as no action is taken in cases of no consensus, but past "keep" rulings are frequently cited in subsequent AfD discussions as a rationale to keep an article. (I don't think they should be, but they are). My way of looking at it is that "merging" or "redirecting" implicitly includes deletion of an article. In this case, almost all of the article's content would have been deleted in the merge to List of cats, which typically has a sentence or two about each cat.

Perhaps I've overlooked some guideline on how to decide how to close articles, but I haven't been able to find anything explicit one way or another. If none exist, I'm wondering if you'd consider changing the closure to "no consensus", or if not, if you might suggest the best venue to get a second opinion from other editors or administrators in this sort of situation. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion?

Also, thanks for the effort you and other administrators put into helping Wikipedia run as smoothly as it does! Best regards. --Agyle (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Agyle. "No consensus between keep and merge, consensus not to delete" would be a legitimate way of putting it. A simple "no consensus" would imply that there was no consensus regarding deletion, which isn't really the case. I know that AFD discussions sometimes end in merge results where there's a clear consensus to do so, but that's not really the purpose of that forum, which is why I suggested in the closing statement that Proposed Mergers might be a better place to have that discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Charmaine

You may want to take a second look because of the charts and the CNN International interview in Espanola or Spanish.HotHat (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Howdy, my name is Mario, and you recently deleted an article about my company. I was not the person who created it, and I have no vested interest in that topic from an encyclopedic point of view. I am, however, a more experienced editor than the prior editor. If you have the time, please review the userfied version User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming. I have corrected several errors with the original article, and more correctly asserted notability of the topic in a clear and concise manner. I need to expand the Works section more to cover the topic more in depth. What else do you think needs fixing? Best wishes, Smile Lee (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Smile Lee, I've not got time to look into it in detail, but the problem from memory was not with the article itself, but rather with the lack of reliable sources describing the subject in detail which would demonstrate it's a notable entity, and allow a well supported article to be created. Unless the existence of such sources can be demonstrated, the changes of Heaven Sent Gaming having an article on Wikipedia up for any length of time are slim, I'm afraid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

I honestly don't care about the idea of "Heaven Sent Gaming having an article". There are reliable sources on the article, though for what ever reason the AfD devolved into several different reasons for deletion, not WP:RS in particular. Best wishes, Smile Lee (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the FlexRAID wiki page

First, apologies if you replied to a previous request on this topic. I was not able to track your response and don't know where to find it. The FlexRAID page needs to be restored as valid comparison exist to competing technologies currently documented here on wikipedia. ZFS, BeyondRAID, Drobo, and standard RAID are all documented here. FlexRAID is a technology that takes a significant departure on existing approaches to arrive at a specific innovation. You can see some comparison here: http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html The technology is being used by well over 10,000 users even though it is purely grassroots in its evolution. The technology even has pending patents. The page stands some editing, true. However, it is a significant innovation changing the space of data storage protection. If thousands of users can choose FlexRAID over Linux RAID, ZFS, BeyondRAID, etc., you have to understand that it has a significance. The technology is not marketed only because the developers are choosing to maintain a smaller user base while it is still developing to avoid being overwhelmed. A Google search will reveal many sites where the technology is being discussed, but here are a few quick references: http://assassinhtpcblog.com/server-flexraid/ https://wiki.amahi.org/index.php/FlexRAID

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectwiki (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spectwiki:, I have responded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#FlexRAID. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameroon vs England (1990)

Surely the consensus after relisting was delete not merge? LibStar (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cameroon vs England (1990)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cameroon vs England (1990). 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. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

apologies, I realise you deleted then redirected which is perfectly ok. I will withdraw DRV. Sorry for bothering you. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) close

Do you really think "sources should exist" is a valid reason to keep an article with no outside sourcing and 10 days of research into finding them? Several "long-term and experienced hands" (like myself, I've been editing Wikipedia for 8+ years or Nyttend, an 8 year editor) strongly suggested deletion is the best option. If you look at other synagogue discussions, editors went and improved the article while editing, or at least provided valid sources during the discussion. I really think you should reconsider how you closed this AFD.--TM 11:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no possible way that you can get a consensus to delete out of that discussion. If we were talking about freshly minted new accounts I'd agree with you, but we're talking about experienced and long term users raising objections to deletion in good faith here. We don't delete unless there's a consensus to do so, and there's no consensus in that discussion to take any particular action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

Roger Goodman

"Goodman has stated that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and originated from a 2012 divorce filing, where he claims that his ex-wife was trying to convince the judge of her then-husband's unworthiness in an attempt to get more money from the divorce.[12]"

Please review the sourced information. Goodman did not "state that the allegations were completely unsubstantiated" and does not "claim" anything about his ex-wife. This sentence should be removed.

FYI. The research would show that the divorce declaration cited, occurred in October 2012. The Motion of Contempt filed in August 2013 (presented in court September of 2013) is a completely separate entity from the Temporary Orders filed back in October. The Motion of Contempt, was in fact, filed in regard to violations to the Final Order (which was the settlement) which occurred in June of 2013. The divorce documents from October 2012 were not a part of the Final Order.

The original quote "I asked Carns if it was fair to quote contentious divorce documents in the Goodman ad, particularly since they're part of his ex-wife requesting more money in the settlement." was a false statement and has since been removed by KOMO 4 TV--the source continues to be quoted but if you look at the source it is simply not there. Since it is not sourced, the libelous statement should be removed.

The divorce documents had nothing to do with the Motion of Contempt mentioned in that false quote which continues to be cited. And since it is is impossible to change any financials after a divorce settlement is signed (in our case June 2013)--the three things are not one related to the other, placed in a sentence as if they are:

contentious divorce documents (Temporary Order--October 2013) and settlement (Final Order/Settlement--June 2013) requesting more money (Motion of Contempt--August/September 2013)

Requests for financial relief for attorney fees when forced to return to court for violations of parenting plans and settlement agreements is routine, but completely separate from the final settlement (inferring money) Final Order.

That is why I continue to edit this so that it is factual. The "undo" edits are disingenuous and an inaccurate picture. Erroneous and libelous.

I need to add that while you might have an opinion that my statements made under penalty of perjury were simply allegations, that is an opinion--not based in fact. Contentious indicates: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Roger too, had the right to respond to my supposed "allegations," under penalty of perjury but chose not to. That was the time to dispute my supposed "allegations." Under penalty of perjury. Through the court of law. Not now, through a medium other than the court of law that doesn't apply the same standards or opportunity to rebut the accusations made.

Therefore, it should be assumed that my divorce declaration statements were not contentious because they caused no argument or disagreement. Roger, making no response to the court, indicates concurrence, not controversy.

I can only assume that the edits are made by supporters who are not caring about the Wikipedia standards for truth and non-inflamotory statements. Facts are very different from truth in Wiki world as well as my world. The edits essentially state that statements made under penalty of perjury are assumed false while statements with no standards for assessment or recourse are not. That is incongruent with reason. As you know, edits must be made fairly and rationally accessing the validity of claims. The rules for biographies are not being followed. Do I need to continue to report those who continue to make libelous claims?

If you would like, I can have one of my attorneys explain in legalese. If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

I understand completely how this kind of error could have been made. That is why I simply request that you make the corrections asked.

Liv Grohn (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn

Elysian Shadows

Could I please have the page's transcript moved to my sandbos/elysian_shadows so that I may continue working on the page and present it when I have sufficient secondary references?--Cube b3 (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cube b3: Done at User:Cube b3/Elysian Shadows. I reiterate that the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the draft is assessed by the community as being ready to go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Your cooperation is appreciate chief. I will present it for review soon.

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Lankiveil, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Wong (immunologist) finis

I am sorry that you are unable to give further guidance (see your last edit comment). I have consolidated this thread on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Terence M. Vinson

A while back, consensus was gained for the deletion of an article about Terence M. Vinson. Because of that consensus, you closed the discussion and the article was deleted/redirected. In the interim, proposals have been made to delete other articles about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Some gained consensus for deletion, some did not. But also in the meantime, Vojen presented a concrete argument against deletion of such articles (on Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion/Randy D. Funk) that has resulted in all subsequent nominations failing. My question is this: Would you consider restoring the Vinson article if it could be shown that the consensus was for it? I think if a proposal was made to restore or recreate it, the result would be much different in light of Vojen's argument. So I was just curious about how you would feel on the issue. Please post any reply to my talk page, as I don't habitually check other user's talk pages for responses. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I understand your concerns about restoring an article where sources may be biased and where a COI exists. But I still believe that if the article were to be restored and relisted, the result would be much different today than it was then, especially in light of Vojen's argument, which, by your own admission, you have only skimmed the surface of. I would be very grateful if you were to restore the article and relist it at AfD for a second look. That would be more than I could ever have hoped for. And that's all I wanted: a second chance for the consensus to decide whether or not the article is worth keeping in light of the new argument that has been presented. So I would be very grateful if you would do that for me. Just let me know when it is done and where to comment and I will do so. Thanks for giving this another chance at life. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lankiveil. You have new messages at Jgstokes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jgstokes (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comic Sans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent Commission Against Corruption. 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) 09:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Consultation re undeletion

Hello Lankiveil - I am the oversighter who suppressed certain edits about a subject where you subsequently did some deletions at Deletion Review. Real-world circumstances have changed with respect to the subject of those edits, and the bulk of them don't qualify under the oversight policy any longer, so I am going to be reversing many if not all of my suppressions. I don't normally reverse the good-faith administrator actions of a colleague without discussion but because the AfD and deletion review are probably relevant to other discussions that are or are likely to take place on the site, I'm going to undelete them, unless you can let me know fairly quickly if you have a problem with this. I'll be watching your page, as well as my email address and the relevant OTRS oversight queue if you'd like to discuss. Thanks, Risker (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Risker:, if the circumstances have now changed and it's possible to remove the oversighting from said pages, I have no objection whatsoever to you doing so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Lankiveil. Have done. Risker (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD

Hi Lankiveil. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

DRV

Hi there -- this DRV of one of your AfD closes (the second one on the DRV page, Susan Lindauer) doesn't seem to have been brought to your attention... --Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Senate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Labour Party. 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) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Please honor the request for undeletion of Susan Lindauer during the duration of deletion review. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Delighted you managed to find my user page. Noting here for posterity that the request is moot since User:RoySmith has already undeleted the page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Torbanlea Colliery Disaster

Oh my gosh! I don't know how that happened, but thank you so much for pointing it out to me. I just put it in Prep 5. Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Criminal Cases/Lavine

So are you saying for the articles to be included there have to be 3 positive ones to balance it out. Wouldn't that be cherry picking for positive articles? -Askjessica

No, I'm saying the article should not be set up to demonise or praise particular political candidates. I suggest a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, followed by a reflection of whether focusing on only three trials where the subject of the article was doing his job and defending morally objectionable individuals in a court of law, framed in such a way that it might appear to the casual reader that Lavine was himself doing something morally dubious, meets either the spirit or the letter of those policies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

It might have been worded poorly, but these were high profile cases that carried heavy media attention. Whether it was done on purpose or not, the politician decided to take on cases that might be perceived negatively. That's not a reflection on the editor. And in my opinion to delete it because it might be perceived "negatively" is censorship. -Askjessica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askjessica (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Robert Sheen Wikipedia

Hey there, I would really like to get the Robert Sheen page back up with different content. I was wondering if you could help me with that since you deleted it? I would post as normal with new content and maybe you can check it for me before slapping that huge deletion notice across the page again? Thanks in advance! Artthings (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Artthings: I've restored the article and put it at Draft:Robert Sheen for now. Please feel free to work on that draft until it is ready to be put back into the mainspace. I suggest looking at a process like WP:Articles for creation to get a second opinion from an experienced Wikipedian before moving it back into mainspace, to avoid the deletion problems occurring again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Ok, thank you so much!! Artthings (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

United Independent Party

Will you reconsider your decision to delete the United Independent Party now that it is an official party? [5]--TM 15:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

clerk?

Your have a clerk userbox but are listed as "former" at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Personnel? Not that important, but if you are you should probably listed yourself as recused on the DP case. NE Ent 11:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Sort of still around, subscribed to the list and I handle stuff still in emergencies. I'll add myself to that section to avoid any suggestion of impropriety, thanks for the suggestion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Welcome to SPI!

Re: [6], Welcome to SPI! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Nomination of Russell Welch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russell Welch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Welch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

"Endorse deletion"

Are you sure that's what you meant?—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your allegation of misconduct against me

Earlier tonight, on an AN, you made a conclusory statement endorsing TFD's argument that I have engaged in misconduct on the Raimondo. But you did not provide any specific evidence or argument to support this bare conclusory statement. I wonder if you'd be willing to elaborate and explain how I violated policy regarding BLP? Do you reject the characterization (adopted by WP, incidentally) of 9/11 truthers as conspiracy theorists? Or do you reject the idea that Raimondo has promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories? I don't see how either view is supportable. (Incidentally, the guy whose argument you endorsed--TFD--previously attacked me for characterizing former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as an extremist; specifically, he argued that his political platform was mainstream rather than racist, when Duke ran for governor/Senator.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:: I don't personally disagree with any of those conclusions, but Wikipedia is not made from personal observations and opinions, it is made from what is written down in reliable sources. If you can't find reliable sources that characterise those persons as conspiracy theorists, then no such conclusion should be made in the article and if it is ever added it should be immediately removed per the BLP policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

That's fair, Lankiveil. But a charge of synthesis (which I also object to) is very different than a charge of defamation. Clearly one should not be banned for truthful synthesis, though it should be reverted. Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:: Well, now that you know it's synthesis and that it's not allowed, I'm confident that you won't repeat it, in which case the whole matter will be moot. But, I'd advise you to stay far, far away from the topic that you're banned from. Attempting to be clever and skirt close to what's not allowed will almost inevitably end in tears. Build up some solid credentials in other areas, that'll make it easier to assume good faith and to perhaps get the topic ban vacated later on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. At a pragmatic level, that's probably good advice and I'll try to follow it. I do think the topic ban was a bad decision. It wasn't an unreasonable decision, because (on talk pages) I had mocked some of the subjects in the articles I edited. But my actual content additions to the articles have held up since I've been banned. I do plan on appealing eventually. Steeletrap (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Personal attacks and insults like this are not acceptable here. It is acceptable to privately disagree with another Wikipedian, however plastering this sort of content over multiple talk pages is not the way to resolve disputes. Knock it off, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Please make formal report to Wikipedia. Nestwiki (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pembina Territory (Region)

You recently redirected the article to Treaty of 1818 because it appeared the was no consensus in having it. The reasons stated for deletion were valid as there were no references which of course led to a lack of notability although there were comments to redirect. I came across the article late and expanded it with more references than many, many stubs. This negated the reasons for the entire Afd and one editor suggested a name change. I agree and the article should have been at Pembina Region. I initially considered that Pambina region would be more correct but other region articles capitalize it. This would be the area south of the Canadian line. The area north of the line is the Pembina Valley Region of Canada.

Only one editor weighed back in but that does not mean that now there shouldn't be an article since the concerns were solved and I feel should have been considered. Will you reinstate the article under the proposed name? I do have additional information for expansion. Otr500 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Otr500:: I don't feel I can restore the article so soon after the AFD as-is, but I have restored the article to Draft:Pembina Territory, which you can rename as you see fit and add references to try and address the issues that came up during the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

That is certainly fair. I was sort of rushed with a time limit to make "some sort of improvement". I think that I did not do bad so will see about improvements, including issue resolutions, when not rushed. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia: Talk

Hi Lankiveil: in 2011 you intervened in Talk: Constitution of Australia to reduce #15. "Abdication of King in 1936" to "show" only. Could you please do the same for #1.1 "Another point entirely"? Wikiain (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikiain (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion/Amalia Marquez.

Hi.. although this wikipage has been deleted, it still exists on Wikipedia as part of the user Mmyotis' user page, suspect references and all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mmyotis/Amalia_Marquez

To be noted is the user's connection to a multi-cited website source, (sustained action/reaction), where said user has moderator/admin permissions. Vested interests apart, is this page continuation permissible under Wiki's rules/guidelines? If so, it would seem to be rather odd and some feedback would be appreciated.

(I was directed to you by User:Mojo Hand).

Thankyou. 89.240.172.57 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with User:Mojo Hand on this one, it is permitted to develop drafts and other content out of sight deep in the user space. The page could be proposed for deletion using the Miscellany for deletion, but I'm skeptical over whether a consensus would be found to delete it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Deletion of DWWQ

Hi and Merry Christmas, I would like to recreate the article DWWQ because I will post a new content of that article. Its because I can't post in that article because of the decision of delation of the article. Can you allow me to post a new content of the article, Thank you. 17:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nikbert16:: I suggest you create a draft version of the article first (please read Wikipedia:Drafts), to ensure that your article on the topic doesn't get deleted for the same reasons that the original did. 'd be happy to review your draft once it's up and give you my opinion on whether it is likely to survive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:: I posted a draft of the article and you can review it now. 17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

@Nikbert16:: Okay, thanks. I suggest you add some reliable sources that discuss the station before going forward, at the moment all we can establish for sure from what's in the article is that it has a broadcast licence. Every statement must be referenced to a reliable source. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:: I added some reliable sources to the draft and you can review it now. 17:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:: Can I ask if the draft is ready to become an article? 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:: Good day, can I ask if you can review the draft and it is ready to become a article. 17:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikbert16:: The Manila Bulletin reference is good, but one or two more like that are probably needed to make it clear that notability is met. The various Facebook references on the other hand, are not valuable in this case; anyone can write stuff on Facebook and call it authentic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Djoir

Hi,

Could I ask you to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djoir, which you closed as keep? The only outright keep !vote was from the SPA page creator (who cast multiple bold !votes and occupies most of the AfD thread). One other person said "Keep or incubate" deferring to whether the sources are deemed reliable, and the last was only in favor of "incubating". Clearly there is no consensus to delete, but I don't think there is consensus to keep either (move to Draft namespace seems most agreeable). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I'd see it as no consensus between those two options (but emphatically not delete), I wouldn't object if someone were bold and moved it into draft space. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Well, you wouldn't :) but the article creator is clearly very interested in keeping this article. I agree it's not delete, but could you modify the close language if you don't think it's just a keep? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:: Done. Hope it's umambiguous enough for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Works for me. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion Morrow, Kemp, Ellenbogen

Hi Lankiveil, you recently closed the AfD discussion here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Herbert_Kemp You decided to Delete Ellenbogen, without giving an explanation and retain Kemp, commenting that you felt that most participants were overlooking him. It must have been difficult to follow a discussion on three different individuals, and I think that you may have been slightly wrong in your comments. I think there was a fair bit of discussion about Kemp and that most participants overlooked Ellenbogen. As the creator of the articles I argued Ellenbogen's notability as a legal writer of key UK reference works. I also admitted that the article could be improved to reflect this. No other participant discussed this apart from one other who just said they disagreed. Since deletion I have taken the trouble to improve the Ellenbogen article, justifying his notability as an author and adding the key references and would like to see the improved article re-instated. I would be happy to show you the updated article. Graemp (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Graemp, I've reread the nomination and I'm afraid that I think the consensus was fairly clear to delete Ellenbogen's article. You were the only one arguing to retain it, User:Clarityfiend and User:JTdale specifically asked for that particular article to be deleted, User:Necrothesp was a bit more circumspect but didn't advance any particular argument to keep that specific article. I'm happy to put the text of the article into the draft space for you if you wish, but I think the consensus was pretty clear to delete it for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

I agree with you about User:Necrothesp but I would interpret the contributions of User:Clarityfiend and User:JTdale differently. User:JTdale, an Australian based user, agreed with me that not being a UK resident with access to UK sources such as The Times Digital Archive made assessing the merits difficult. User:Clarityfiend a Canadian based user also suffers from the same handicap as was demonstrated in the discussion. Ellenbogen was a regular contributor to The Times, writing on legal matters and a search of the archive revealed 80 results. I accept that as you are also not a UK resident, you probably won't be in a position to see this either. Aside from Ellenbogen's coverage in The Times, they key to his notability rests with his contribution to the legal reference work the Constitutional Laws of Great Britain. Given that the discussion's advocates for deletion did not include either a UK based user or a user declaring to have any knowledge of law or the British legal system, it is not surprising that the significance of this work was not known to them. My request for re-instatement stands along with my offer to let you see the updated article. Graemp (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC) 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp:. I have restored the article to Draft:Gershon Ellenbogen. You can add additional secondary sources that demonstrate notability if you have them. I recommend you have someone impartial review the article before moving it back to the mainspace, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Thanks, but it may be best to delete this as I had already created the draft that I wanted you to look at here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graemp/Gershon_Ellenbogen where notability is demonstrated. Please note that I have no problem with your impartiality. Graemp (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp:. Okay, they'll have to be histmerged to join the histories, which I can do later, but I won't have time tonight. I'd honestly prefer not to be the one to review given that I'm involved in deleting the article and having this discussion with you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

If you would sooner refer it to someone else, that is fine by me. Graemp (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: I have received an unsolicited comment on my user talkpage from the original nominator for the deletion of the Ellenbogen article. The user has clearly seen the re-vamped article here Draft:Gershon Ellenbogen and has commented "I believe that Gershon Ellenbogen deserves a second chance as an article." That should remove any doubt you may have about moving the article back into mainspace. Graemp (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mako's & Tenzin's Articles (Legend of Korra)

I've read your message on this article. What do we need to do to bring the two articles up to snuff? Any help on this would be appreciated. G. Capo (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)