User talk:Malcolmxl5/Archive 13
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
Administrator changes
28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Julianne Benzel
FYI, in response to your question at WP:RFPP about the notability of Julianne Benzel, I have nominated the article for deletion. Peacock (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Question
Hello Malcolmxl5,
I have a question and would appreciate your advice. I have a concern that an editor with a possible COI is editing an article by adding non NPOV and OR material, removing cited criticism, criticizing the outlets/organizations that published the criticism, and presenting the article in a white light, per say. What suspects me of a COI is the user's username, small contribution history, as well as the edits performed. I have not attempted to edit the article, discuss with the editor, or engage in any reverting edits or edit wars. I've simply observed the users edits from afar. I did edit the article previously though. The editor has performed huge edits to the article and I don't feel experienced enough to revert all his contributions or open a COI notice board. I don't want to accuse someone of a COI or non constructive edits without proof and I don't feel very experienced to discuss or revert their edits. I would appreciate your advice if this is truly COI/non constructive edits or if I am totally wrong. The article of interest is Middle East Eye. Please let me know if my concern is valid or if I am wrong, I would appreciate to understand more about wiki's editing policies without going around throwing accusations on people or engaging in edit wars. Thank you. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Wikiemirati, it has taken me a while to dive into this article to see what has been going on and I’m sorry to have taken so long to respond to you. The article does have a history of COI editing but I do not think there is enough in recent edits to be able to form a view as to whether there is more COI editing going on. I would suggest focusing on the content rather than on editors and here, to my eye, the article is over-reliant on primary sources, particularly the Middle East Eye website, and trivial mentions, and lacking in significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that discuss the Middle East Eye in depth. This is something I think that would need to be discussed on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I agree with your assessment and I believe the article can be improved dramatically. I was just curious about the user who was editing it because looking through his editing history, his only major edits are on the Middle East Eye article (referencing primary sources from the MEE website) and another major contribution to a British Journalist (seems like he or she added a lot of unverifiable personal information). Couple that with the history of COI in that page I just wondered if this editor could be an editor who work for the paper or is associated with it. Regardless, I have no proof and do not wish to throw accusations and hence I consulted you, a more experienced editor. Thank you for your time going through the article and for your reply! Wikiemirati (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Inou Tsukai
Hi, You deleted and redirected Inou Tsukai. Would you mind undoing the delete? I'd like to SMERGE a bit to the target article and I'd need the article history to exist for citation purposes. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hobit, yes, no problem, I have restored the history and you can take it from there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Arindam Sharma
Hi, I noticed you have deleted Arindam Sharma. I request you kindly undone it. I have many other e-links, and news articles to represent this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im955 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, Im955. The community is usually sympathetic to requests to restore a page that has been deleted following a deletion discussion if substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Could I see your three best sources for Arindam Sharma? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I guess you won’t be doing this now you’ve been blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Please Help me!
On today, I’ve created article 2019 Delhi Temple attack and user Edward Zigma has completely vandalised article by removing some of the selective contents. I don’t know much about Wikipedia but I know that he must be given citations of Wiki policy to remove content but he provided none. He is undoing my every edits which mentions religion.
Please help me to come out with this edit war and make this as my personal request. And help me to block him, I’m facing doxxing on Twitter. Also, Some unknown IP addresses are coming out in my support which maybe considered as sock puppetry. I don’t know what’s happening, I’m using Wikipedia for four years and this never happened.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Bl sorry to say. You are using wikipedia as spreading hate propaganda. In India thousands of people lose their life beacuse of fake news and in your article you clearly use the term muslim with mob and all that relgious hate is clearly shown in your article. I just saw you had posted your wiki page as a tweet too. You need help. You cant use wikipedia as relgious propaganda. You article was clearly directed to defame muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Harshil169, Please don’t remove people’s comments from my talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. I have fixed the link in Harshil169‘s message. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Harshil169 and Edward Zigma: The article seems relatively stable for now following protection, let’s try and keep it that way. Essentially, this appears to be a content dispute: use dispute resolution to resolve differences over content, starting with a calm discussion on the article talk page. See if you can reach a compromise. Some advice: write conservatively and remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Harshil169 and Malcolmxl5:
The thing I want to point out is this article is made to direct against muslims. You can check the tweets. I just checked them. He said if muslims got article why shouldn't we. This was just a minor tiff nothing else. But propaganda is spreaded by such people that no one is safe. This article uses relgious slogans so as to direct hate against relgion. I dont have any problem with the article, bit we still need to keep in mind that we cant make wiki page on any law n order issue. If I leave that the problem still persists. If the moderator agree to remove the relgious hate, And cite it properly from proper sources. He literally use small local news blogs which are anti muslims. If he agree to remove all this without lynching, I will agree on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
•@Malcolmxl5: You can check my edit log to see which was my original content. Article was written with NPOV, verifiablility and No original research. No citation from black listed websites were used. If person don’t like website then it doesn’t mean that website becomes anti-Muslim; it should be black listed on Wikipedia. Also, person has said that I used communal and racial slurs. One can check article and Wikipedia provided list whether I used it or not. What I do on Twitter is not business of any user, users should refrain from doxxing. —Harshil169 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
●@Harshil169: Do I need to show you how these site spread hate against muslims. I has requested the adminitrators to black list them. And let them check these propaganda sites themselves@Malcolmxl5:.
If she/he finds anything out of the way, he will decide wether to black list or not. If I start using all the hinduphobic sites showing hindu Terrorism in every wikipags and start citing them, i dont think you will last long here. Its better to keep your article in line with the wikipedia policiee and dont use it to provoke hate between communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigma (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 July 2019 Edward (UTC)
- Guys, let’s stop talking about each other, that’s not helpful, and focus on the article: comment on content, not on contributors. Start a calm, reasoned discussion on the article talk page about the text that is being disputed and reach agreement or compromise. Use dispute resolution. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
●@Malcolmxl5: This is the new way to spread hate between communities after fake videos and messages. This is just a daily news , just the issue got bigger. Even if you think this needed a wikipedia I have no problem as far as the content is moderated and no communal allegations are put on any religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It looks as though there are a lot of eyes on the article at the moment, which is good. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Kudos for taking the time & trouble to document and block that sockpuppet. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
- I think it was Djm-leighpark and Bbb23 who did the hard work here, I just did a little of the tidying up. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet on the Waekerlé deletion page. I sometimes feel like I’m discussing with an army of trolls and it’s heartening when someone looks in and whacks the more egregious accounts. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, TheMusicExperimental. I can’t claim all the credit I’m afraid, it was Djm-leighpark who identified the sockpuppetry and Bbb23 who blocked them. I just did a little of the tidying up. Tip for the AfD: list your best three sources (1, 2, 3) that show significance coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tip! I have leads on some good ones but they fall in the archive netherworld of the late 90s. I’ve started the process of getting copies of them so if the article gets deleted I can at least rewrite with them. Thanks again for being helpful! TheMusicExperimental (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
2600:1001:B106:9BAC:AD6F:75B:E193:CFA
user:2600:1001:B106:9BAC:AD6F:75B:E193:CFA is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, CLCStudent. TPA removed and the rev del wand waved over the history. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- You actually did not remove her talkpage access. She is still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, pressed the wrong buttons, hopefully I’ve hit the right ones this time! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- You actually did not remove her talkpage access. She is still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Thank you Thank you !!!
Hello @Malcolmxl5: Thank you so much for helping me with that I guess when they say anything can happen to any one it can Jack90s15 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- It was a bit unfortunate, Jack90s15, but hopefully it’s all resolved now. Happy editing! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Desperately in need of advice
Please, would you be so kind and spare just a few moments to take a look at this case (History and Talk page), so that you could give me advice regarding protection, as Talk page engagement failed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa9 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Santasa9: Hello, Santasa9, I will have a look at this over the weekend. If there are any talk page watchers, perhaps they will have a look too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
Arbitration
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
Miscellaneous
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Welcome back
Hey ! welcome back to Wiki ! Hope you had fun during your break ! Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers, Wikaviani. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Please lock up article with title Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Hello @Malcolmxl5:
Not sure whether I'm in the right place, but could apply some protection to the page titled Mar Thoma Syrian Church? If you check the edit history, it would be clear that this page was continuously subject to multiple disruptive edits by various anonymous user's for the last 6 months. Named user's have largely intervened only to revert those edits. In the talk page of that article, one more user @Chad The Goatman: has placed the same request as he is fed up of persistent disruptive edits by various Anons who prevent any improvement to that page. Thanks and regards --Monitor37 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- RFPP is the best place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Administrator changes
Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
Floquenbeam • Lectonar- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
Technical news
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Miscellaneous
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Speedy deletion nomination of Pantea Rahmani
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Pantea Rahmani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Farhikht (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Farhikht. I’m not actually the author of this article, that would be user:Khashy21. WP:AFD looks like the appropriate next step. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hi, I randomly came across James Leasor today, which you created not long after he died. The biographical section as it now stands is well-written and cogent, but appears to have been gradually lifted in its entirety from this web page by user:Kipperx during a number of edits, without any attribution. I prefer to make positive contributions to WP, and dislike invoking rules like WP:COPYVIO followed by wholesale deletion. I wonder if you could make the necessary changes, perhaps reverting to something like your original bio section with a ref to the above web page. PS I came across Passport to Peril when I was a teenager, and only today realised how talented Leasor was, although I would never be seen dead in a Cord. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, MinorProphet. I’ll take a look. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers CAPTAIN RAJU. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I saw this IP 218.234.27.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I was wondering how do you know it was a proxy? Just curious. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi SharabSalam. Sometimes we can tell by behaviour, e.g. a vandal that jumps between IP addresses in different locations. This one though was probably listed at Wikipedia:Open proxy detection, which reports matches between IP addresses and a database of open proxy addresses. Then we would have a good look at the IP address: their contributions, global contributions, WHOIS, RDNS, WIMIA, DPIP, and various tools, such as IPQS, ipcheck and stalk toy. And then we form an opinion on whether an IP address is a proxy. Obviously in this case I did. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
Technical news
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Arbitration
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Miscellaneous
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Michele Martinez
Hello, you deleted Michele Martinez in 2016 following AFD. It's just been re-created by the same editor, but doesn't mention anything happening to her post-2016. Is it substantially different from when you deleted it? Thanks, Tracy Von Doom (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Tracy Von Doom, there were some differences, particularly in sourcing, but I see that it has now been deleted after a discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for Orlando's Summer of Love
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Orlando's Summer of Love. 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. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you, Johnvr4. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what to do
I am not sure how this should be handled. But the reference here to the deletion discussion that you closed is to a different person's bio. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C593:9124:B2F8:CCB5 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, yes, that’s right. There was originally an article about a minor league hockey player on that page, which was deleted after a discussion. Subsequently, an article about a baseball player with the same name has been created there. It’s not a problem, just part of the history of the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Orlando's Summer of Love
Malcolmxl5, I just came back to wikipedia editing and noticed that Orlando's Summer of Love stub had been deleted.
(01:03, 27 February 2018 Malcolmxl5 deleted page Orlando's Summer of Love (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando's Summer of Love)
It's not the end of the world as Beacham Theater covers a small portion of the subject. However it's getting quite large and cannot capture the rest of the material that a well written article on the subject would need to have. Florida breaks in the long term would probably not be appropriate for all of it either.
To the point, I found the supporting assertions of responding editors-some administrators very highly dubious. I have dealt with at least one them numerous times and in my experiences, he does it nearly every interaction I have with him. Can this be resolved without making a big deal out of it or is deletion review the only option here?
After the stub was made, an editor moving to merge in March 2017 questioned whether the subject term was used by only one author. More sources were offered to the editor, and a second move to merge was made. More sources were added for the pending notability discussion as shown below (apologies for the formatting error):
Talk:Orlando,_Florida#Merger_proposal
- 768073072
2017-03-01 Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article. Merged to Orlando, Florida#Local culture
- 768077605
2017-03-01 Undid revision 768073072 by Ahecht more sources can be added outside of Orlando
- 768079852
2017-03-01 merge to|Orlando, Florida#Local culture|discuss=Talk:Orlando, Florida#Merger proposal|date=March 2017
- 768080830
2017-03-01 Sources added for notability discussion
Per WP:FAILN this editor requested that the author provide additional sources (I suppose I am the default "subject expert" too but there may be others or better subject experts on WP). That edior was offered and then received many additional sources that should have easily satisfied any WP:FAILN concern. Despite the additional reliable sources added to demonstrate WP:N and WP:GNG for the requesting editor, the merge discussion was opened at Talk:Orlando.
It appears that the original question of WP:FAILN was the only concern put forth to continue the merge discussion and then AfD discussion continued following that.
However, the specific WP:FAILN complaint was that the term "Orlando Summer of Love" was coined by only one author in 1998. However, there is a 2017 source from a different author which was published between the two WP discussions (as discussed below). This source new shows that this concern of the term being used by only one author is unfounded and that there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this subject.
I didn't oppose that merge and a (ridiculous) line now in a sea of garbage was added to Orlando,_Florida#Local_culture while it was decided (recently corrected).
This merge action put the first merge editor into the delete camp when it was re-nominated on 12 February 2018.
In sum, upon renomination, the first editor found that there was (uncontested) reliable and verifiable evidence that the subject existed. But next they complained that there were then fifteen separate references describing the specific time period in Orlando and its impact on local, state, national and international culture where they could read a quote from many sources to know its relevance in establishing this subject was a real thing.
He observed that "references, each directly quoting enough of the source's content that it's dancing right on the edge of the line dividing "fair use" quotation from outright copyright violation," Clearly, this editor was unwilling to read the numerous references he complained about. This editor claimed and summed his complaint as "the biggest reference bomb they'd ever seen". However the WP:OVERCITE accusation was actually a Notibility bomb accusation per the link he supplied. Yet this editor was apparently unable read any of the quoted citation text that established the relationship of the reference to the subject. The implication of his accusation is that "the sources were deceptively added to support notability without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic." However, the editor acknowledged the alleged reference bomb "is a lot more than we need to support a one-sentence substub which just says "this topic existed, the end".
Following a relisting one year later on 19 February 2018, A second editor, who wanted redirection, found the current stub "worse than useless" but that the links would be useful to someone writing a history of music in Orlando. The Irony should not be lost on wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, where any editor could somehow expand a tiny stub into a larger well-referenced article on this period of electronic music history in Orlando--which this article was intended to do someday. This editor found the mention at Orlando# Local culture sufficient for this subject.
A third editor claimed that some of the one sentence might be useful but had "tried to search for this umteen ways, there's just no such thing, not under this name at any rate. This is just something someone made up one day."
Assuming good faith, here, any English reader can establish that this subject exists and is not made up by reading the unchallenged assertion of the first editor or any of the quotations in the alleged "reference bomb". What reasonable person makes the claim of it's just made up in the face of a real or imagined reference bomb and is it actually a reference bomb if two separate editor/administrators are going to come in and make such an unfounded and offensive claim of just making it up?
The other irony here is that not even one of the umpteen super through searches of the internet by this editor apparently included a search engine (or specifically Google). After ten seconds, (eight of those typing the search term and one to press enter) I was able to find new source from November 2017 that was not even included in the aforementioned "reference bomb". There may be more. I stopped here with this one :
The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks. Fast-forward to 2017 and he is doing just that, but in the form of gigantic parties. It's an extremely rare event that can mix a local history lesson with nonstop ecstatic dancing, but AAHZ nights are just that...Collins explains that this is a party with a purpose, a celebration of an era when Orlando was ground zero for a new type of dance music, and a survey of how that music has changed over the years: "Florida, and Central Florida in particular, gravitated heavily to all types of genres that relied on a type of break-beat from electro, techno, freestyle, Miami bass to straight-up U.K. rave breaks. Those influences went on to develop what would soon become the signature 'Florida break-beat sound.'
The fourth editor for delete echoed the completely and totally absurd assertion of the third editor--if true--which it very obviously was not.
The last editor offered comment that notability of the subject was an issue and that references outweighing the body were problematic (a rule or guideline was not specified) and uploaded a screenshot-- apparently to make this stub into some sort of example. see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example_of_article_with_excessive_citation_compared_to_content.png
I submit that the citations may need to merge, but it does not make any sense to merge them in a stub that needs further expansion. Some large quotes may not be entirely necessary (if still online) and the two sources submitted to date that specifically name the subject of the article are both local sources. The sources provided verify the name and reliably describe this subject and show how the subject fits into eight or more different subject articles already established on wikipedia.
Is this something you are able to sort out? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5, I opened a request at Requests_for_undeletion#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love but clarification on the exact reason for your deletion is required to determine what needs to change in a new entry. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Johnvr4, I would suggest that you simply write a more substantial article citing significant coverage in three or more reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5, Thank you for the reply.
- The suggestion that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates WP:AADD#Article size and WP:STUB among others.
- I do not intend to argue here. I do intend to have a policy-based-discussion on requirements for restoration, and improvement but I sure do not want to have to WP:REHASH any of it again.
- As I stated above. There are other policy-based discussions that I beg you to take pause to review in regard to your reply to me, the tally of the discussion votes, and in contemplation to resolve this issue without further discussion with admins that appear to blatantly ignore policy in discussion, comment and action.
- The deletion discussion rests entirely on WP:AADD.
- I don't believe there was ever any legitimate concern of whether this subject would even remotely Fail the significant coverage test of WP:GNG.
- No one should deny that the actual concern put forth was that the term for this subject was used in only one source. Talk:Orlando,_Florida#Merger_proposal There are now Two sources WP:SUSTAINED sources for that term. IMHO, the issue now is whether the subject should--per two sources separated by 20 years--be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" or not.
- The suggestion that that any of these fifteen (now sixteen) reliable sources are not significant coverage to demonstrate WP:N is Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources.
- Please note that there is some WP:OWH and cross-wiki harassment. I do not know from whom.
- Several well-meaning administrators have advised action inconsistent with policy. One has attempted turn my policy-based request into some type of content dispute and then abused his tools to defend his position. I find this behavior unacceptable. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, Johnvr4, it seems that there has been some discussion already. My role was to assess the consensus at the deletion discussion. It seemed to me that there was no desire among the participants to keep the page, that the consensus was to delete. If you feel I was wrong in that (and that’s fine), you can ask the community to review my assessment at WP:DRV. If you want to have a policy-based-discussion on requirements for restoration and improvement, that is probably best done at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Lastly, I am perturbed that you are suffering some cross-wiki harassment. If you let me or another admin know a bit more about this then we may be able to do something about it. P.S. I was just writing this reply when I got your note below that you have referred my closure to WP:DRV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5, I may have jumped the gun a little bit with my DRV request. I got frustrated by another message at RFU today that seemed pretty final so I opened a DRV. The decision that I think was wrong was opening the AfD without acknowledging the premise of why the merge request was opened. It wasn't easily linked and even I had trouble finding it. I'll edit my comment about your willingness to participate. I would certainly not blame you at all if you do not want to engage. I am for the record rewriting it but I think it would have to go at Orlando, FL and also have substantial changes TDB. The helpfulness of the addition of a second source using the term has been questioned too. I suppose DRV can figure it out for us.
- I'm not sure about the harassment or if it even qualifies as harassment. Nor, do I know, or have any suspicion of who is responsible or whether they are still editing. The only info available to me is the date of the AfD, The close date of the screen shot upload, and the close date of the off-wiki posting Thank you very much. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, Johnvr4, we’ll see what the DRV brings. I’ll take a look at the harassment info. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Malcolmxl5: We're still no closer to resolving the original content dispute disguised as a policy concern at AfD. See:User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#Orlando_Summer_of_Love_DRV_closure_Comment. Thoughts? Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Johnvr4, clearly there is no support for the arguments that you have put forward. However, I do see some helpful comments. These are: 1) to prepare a new article about the Summer of Love in draft space, I would suggest that you choose your three best sources and draft an article using these; do not include long quotes in the citations, summarise the content of those sources in your own words in the article; 2) include or expand prose about the Summer of Love in another article, Orlando, Florida#Culture has been mentioned, or 3) write a broader article into which prose about the Summer of Love can be incorporated, the music scene in Orlando, Florida has been mentioned. It’s time now, I think, to move on and follow one of those pathways. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
User talk:81.155.171.8
Please remove talk page access on User talk:81.155.171.8. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for protecting Daniel A. Dailey. I understand why you waited until now, and I was afraid the disruption would continue... James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I held off as it had gone quiet but put it on my watchlist and here we are... Perhaps they now will start talking about the edit they want on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5 It makes me wonder... Could there perhaps be socking imvolved? (The 2 IPs and the user all made the same disruptive edits.) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- It’s probably the same person but they’re just editing both logged in and logged out. Editing logged out is not against policy by itself (though it’s curious that the first IP is a proxy) and it only rises to the level of socking if, for example, they are evading a block or undermining consensus. Their editing has been disruptive though and they need to start talking on the article talk page about the changes they want to make and why (I am hoping they are reading this!). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5 It makes me wonder... Could there perhaps be socking imvolved? (The 2 IPs and the user all made the same disruptive edits.) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| For sorting out the mess with the Manpreet Singh disambig page. Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Bolivia = total disgrace
It's a total disgrace that you are taking part in propaganda war of Bolivia coup. Serek (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about, Serek. Have you mistaken me for someone else? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Alejandro Tabilo
Hey. Is there any way to get Alejandro Tabilo unprotected from admin protection? I believe he has finally become a notable tennis player, nearly 10 years later. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Adamtt9. One of the concerns was that people were creating a poor BLP of a child but he’s 22 now so that’s not a problem any longer. I’ll lift the protection for you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- O.K., it’s Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Repeated after you revdeled and protected. Longer protection probably needeed. Much appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Muhandes. I’ve upped protection to two weeks (from two days), if it happens again then we’ll look at protection of three months. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done Added a 24 hour block and a copyright violation template to the IP, who will hopefully read and understand it before hopping to another IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Please add...
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Enforcement_log, please add Jerusalem Academy of Music and Dance, Holyland Case, and Ohel Yitzchak Synagogue to the current Arbitration enforcement log. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- They are already there, Buffs? Added yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the pointy edits from 80.233.49.145 :) --Yamla (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. :) They were doing a similar thing at 89.101.111.76 which is where I picked up on it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Yamla:@Malcolmxl5:Thanks for cleaning up this mess. This started on the Rian Johnson article a few days ago. The user was making disruptive edits and was asked to move to talk page. After more disruptive edits the user was blocked by Ad Orientem. The disruptive user keeps coming back on another IP and is pasting some bizarre rant on various film director and attached my user name and Ad Orientem as well. Anyway, I guess the user will keep doing it until it gets boring. Thanks again! - Nemov (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the abuse
Thanks for the quick action in enacting the range block on Special:Contributions/2607:fea8:929f:ec10::/64. Thank you also for protecting Paw Patrol; sorry for removing my request from RFPP just as you were protecting the page. I think the protection and the range block together will be a huge help to prevent the ongoing abuse. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I hope so, Aoi (青い). I saw the request at RFPP, checked it out and decided to both rangeblock and protect the redirect because of the disruption. Do let us know if problems persists with these pages. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. Also schoolblocked 209.221.91.127 who is obviously the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
User talk:2607:FEA8:929F:EC10:E1B6:2C23:7F15:497F
User:2607:FEA8:929F:EC10:E1B6:2C23:7F15:497F is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done Talk page access withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. This is the IP user referred to in the section above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Mary Hays/Molly Pitcher
Hello Malcolm
I notice you re-arranged the PC protection on these pages. My apologies, I hadn't registered there was a protection issue here: I put a split proposal up a while ago, and no-one responded, so just went ahead. Should I have held back from the move? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Moonraker12, the move is OK. The protection went with the page move as is usual but as the original ‘Molly Pitcher’ page had a long history of vandalism, it seemed sensible to transfer the protection across to the new ‘Molly Pitcher’ page, particularly as it didn’t take long for a vandal to materialise! All is sorted, I think. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#John Nicolson
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#John Nicolson. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for revoking the talk page access of Special:Contributions/104.235.69.89 and for generally patrolling Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It looks as though I missed ticking a box but someone has done the deed so we are there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Music vandal
You blocked Special:Contributions/158.222.229.245 at AIV a bit ago. This new account seems to be the same person evading their block. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- @SpicyMilkBoy: Done Blocked! And edits rolled back. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- And another one blocked! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
There's an entry in the edit history of Online Blockchain that you closed the afd as delete but the article has not yet been deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Barkeep49, that’s an entry that I removed a link to a deleted article following the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADVFN rather than a closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Blockchain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5, whoops. I misread the history there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Easy to do. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Malcolmxl5, whoops. I misread the history there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Alert
David Sidoni: this page is too new for deletion! Band1301 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Band1301: What do you mean it’s too new for deletion? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It just hopelessly hasn't came along here for a whole while, let that article be new here so hard. Band1301 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ah. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Depression
David Sidoni: Please let this page come here! Band1301 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- There’s nothing to be depressed about, it’s only words on the internet! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry merry !
|
PrimeBOT (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Wikaviani. I trust all is well with you? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはMalcolmxl5たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanking you kindly, Miraclepine, and best wishes for the New Year. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year Malcolmxl5!
.jpg)
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Donner60, I hope you too will have a happy and enjoyable New Year. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
Arbitration
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
Miscellaneous
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Inspect this picture
Is the current revision of the image at File:Pokemon Stadium 2 battle.jpg too large? It is at 320x237, which is the native resolution of the Nintendo 64 game during gameplay. Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- @MatthewCenance: Hi, Matthew. It looks fine to me. 320×240 pixels is mentioned at WP:IMAGERES for videogames, among other things, so I reckon you’re good to go. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Please remove TPA per NOTHERE; they continue to spam this on their talk page and not talk about their block. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Enverus/Drillinginfo Page deletion
Hello Malcolm,
Could you please revive the deleted Enverus page? I see there was no counter argument given and that the page was deleted before any counter points could be made. I think some criticisems were fair but other comments in the deletion dicussion were not reasonable. Thank you again most appreciated De-Stavness (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has been totally rewritten and cleaned up taking in all the valid criticisms. The sources have been cleaned up as well, in taking a second look there were several sources that could be used that wern't listed and would have helped the other wikipedians feel at ease if they had seen them.
See some references here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/08/17/gilmer-we-should-view-the-permian-basin-as-a-permanent-resource/#498cefc156ff https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-22/drillinginfo-founder-changes-company-name-he-never-really-liked
Again please advise on next steps... When I saw the deleted article Wikipedia states to reach out directly to the Admin in charge. Thanks again
De-Stavness (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, De-Stavness, I have undone my closure of the discussion and relisted it so you can present your additional arguments. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enverus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Malcolm, I will adjust the Enverus article and provide updates and counter points. Thanks! De-Stavness (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Malcolm, Looks like someone deleted it before I could add in the adjustments & links - could you relist one more time? Last time i promise- I have been away with no access to the internet over the holiday... Anyways the folks who deleted the article did not look closely enough, they only looked at the rebrand name 'Enverus' and not 'Drillinginfo'. All anyone has to do is Google Drillinginfo and it would make more sense. The CEO just made the cover of Shalemag.com https://shalemag.com/allen-gilmer-a-guy-who-knows-how-to-get-things-done/
De-Stavness (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Again, so the article has been rewritten and I have many new credible links that will support the article along with Wikipedias guidelines. Would you be able to restore the article so that I may adjust it or should i ask the other Wikipedian who deleted the article to restore it? A third option would be for me to just recreate it and put it back up for review, but I want to make sure i follow the rules and have your blessing first. Thanks again De-Stavness (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Question
Hi there. I have a question about your edits here and here. The outcome of AfD's for both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NorthSideBenji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houdini (rapper) was "delete" (not "redirect"). Shortly after both AfD's closed, the article's creator re-created both NorthSideBenji and Houdini (rapper) as a re-directs. When I nominated both redirects for speedy delete under WP:G4, you did not support this. However, G4 exemptions do not apply to articles recreated "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy". This same editor also re-created Bvlly, which had been speedy deleted shortly before. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)