User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hi, TonyBallioni, and welcome to WikiProject Bilateral relations! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wedcast renominated for deletion

Hi. I have renominated Wedcast for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedcast (2nd nomination). As you closed the original discussion I thought I should let you know. --Paddles ^T_C 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2406 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2406 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox

Hello, TonyBallioni! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2406 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2406 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2406 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Outline of crime

This was from a link on Portal:Contents/Outlines/Society_and_social_sciences so I have changed the red-ink [[Outline of crime|Crime] to Crime, which article did not really seem to cover the philosophy and sociology, but... Regards, Timpo (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Boris

Thanks...wow, it's been a couple years since I saw one of those fellows. I don't do as much these days, even of article rescuing - that one just happened to be on my watchlist. Cheers Chubbles (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, TonyBallioni, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 09:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, TonyBallioni! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your rejection of "Jonathan Hay (publicist)" article

Hi Tony,

Thank you for reviewing my article submission for "Jonathan Hay (publicist)". Would you please let me know why you rejected the article, and how it might be improved? Maybe you posted notes somewhere, but I don't know where to find them.

Thanks! Bbmusicman (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, TonyBallioni:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sharon Presley

Great idea, I think an RFC with input from non-involved editors is definitely the way to go, because the situation has clearly become so polarised that regardless of what happens one group is going to be outraged with the outcome. I expect we'll see the article at DRV before the day is out, and while I think that such things are borderline disruptive, I'm confident that the close will not be overturned. Then, once the spectre of deletion is removed, hopefully come constructive discussion can take place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. Your explanation of the close was spot on, by the way. Of the actively involved AfD editors, I consider myself to be the least involved content wise, because libertarianism is not something I get very involved with. I tried to mediate some of the issues with sources myself, but that didn't work, so I thought RFC the best way to go, since even though I am "uninvolved" with the actual editing of the article, I had enough involvement with the AfD that it could be contentious. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for helping to save the Gun Control in the Third Reich book article today and also for helping to find the proper home for the newborn article. At first I didn't know what you were doing, but your redirects and organization make the subject matter cleaner. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Just doing my bit to help! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Template:Marriage. Thank you.

Head of the church discussion

Thanks, btw, for your contributions to the discussion. I share your sense of proportion in considering the views of the large branches of Christendom generally, and welcome your comments about it here. It's in that general spirit that I have made proposals there. I'm heartened that this last one may be getting closer to something that will be found acceptable.

I think that "Catholic Church" (with two capital letters) conjures up for most people the branch that has the Pope at the top (in the earthly sense). Wikipedia reflects that. The article Latin Church identifies the largest "particular church" of Catholicism; Eastern Catholic Churches identifies the other particular churches; both articles identify their union with each other and the Pope in the Catholic Church. Being as aware as you are of the Eastern Catholics, the word "Roman" probably doesn't strike you the same way as it does most people, me included. You're thinking of "Latin Church", while most of us think "Catholic Church". Wikipedia reflects the commoner perception also: Roman Catholic Church redirects to Catholic Church, even though "Latin Church" might be the more logical or precise meaning.

I think it might be helpful if the Catholic Church article spelled out more explicitly that it is composed of all the particular churches, Latin and Eastern, (though that's a different topic). You might be just the person to initiate an edit of that kind.

Back to the Pope Linus article. You'll note that the Roman Catholic Church text links to the article, which then redirects to "Catholic Church", so it's clear what the WP interpretation of the displayed text is. It looks innocent enough to remove "Roman" from that text, or to change to a direct link to "Catholic Church", but there could also be some sensitive matter there I don't know about. The lead sentence (where that text is) was the subject of a discussion and consensus last spring in Project Catholicism. And now part of it is under discussion again. So while I'd normally recommend WP:BRD, here I'd suggest trying to confirm the idea before editing the article; open a discussion or poll a contact or two first.

Hope this helps. Evensteven (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well. Now I see your reply at the noticeboard: cross-edits. No matter; cheers anyway! Evensteven (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. A quick reply here that might prevent the noticeboard discussion from getting too noisy: I agree that Roman Catholic generally speaking conjures up images of the entire Catholic Church (I think Vatican I may have included it in its documents, but I am unsure and at this time of day am too lazy to look it up.) At the same time, I don't really see why just using "Catholic Church" would be bad, since as you pointed out, Roman Catholic redirects to it, and most people would assume it anyway. Since it is more precise and I am unaware of any controversy that it might cause, I think not using the word "Roman" would be best in anything that is decided, so as to include the consensus of Eastern Catholics to those who are aware of the distinction. Thanks again for your work on this :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

move to close at NPOVN

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello TonyBallioni! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

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.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fulton J. Sheen page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello TonyBallioni:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pollution-Related Diseases page

Hi Tony. I do apologize if I am using this page incorrectly. I am new to wiki. I responded your redirection of the "Pollution-Related Diseases" page I created, but wasn't sure if you receive my note. So I am trying to reach you here instead. Here's the message: The Environmental diseases page include things like insect borne diseases, which are not always included in the scope of Pollution-Related Diseases. That is why I think we should have both stand alone pages that can link to each other. What do you think? Can you tell me how to get that PRD page back up so I can link it to the Environmental diseases page? That way people can find both. I can add definitions to clarity too. (Greenies100 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenies100 (talk • contribs) (Greenies100 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC))

Sure thing. I reverted my own edit to the page. I think your reasoning makes sense. The article as it stands now could use a bit of work to make it match the standard formatting here on Wikipedia. I am not as good at that myself, but you can find some guidance at WP:MOS. Best! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't do this

Please don't get me banned. I didn't mean to do that; I was angry. But I'll behave! Just please withdraw that SPI... Parsley Man (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I told you

I believe I told you to never talk to me again. Parsley Man (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: I was trying to wrap up the business related to those two articles when I was going through my watchlist, and didn't want to have to take it to WP:ANRFC. I thought the best way to handle it would be to ask if you would be fine closing it since you started the conversation. My intent was only to wrap up a discussion that had stalled, and not to further agitate. I'm sorry if it was perceived that way. I would really like to come to some conclusion on the merger and I thought approaching you directly would be a better first step than posting it at the noticeboard. Again, sorry for any perception of re-escalating an old dispute. The intent was actually the opposite. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't care. You made a bad impression on me so take it to WP:ANRFC. If anyone contests it, tell them I, the discussion opener, specifically called for it. PLEASE DO NOT TALK TO ME EVER AGAIN. Parsley Man (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Yeah I just saw it. He's a sockmaster using at least one known sock. Already made the SPI. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Saw your ANI post. I do my best to not get involved in nationalist disputes on wiki. Only commented on the AfD because the merge/redirect made a lot of sense, and there is no factual dispute that Kurdistan is not a nationstate, so accusing you of fascism on that point is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Probably not going to get involved beyond what I already have, but thanks for the update! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

12:04:20, 29 September 2016 review of submission by Ernani99

• Ernani99 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tamar Herzog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thanks for review and remarks. I have tried to limit superlatives and stick to the facts with sources. It is first submission and I followed some existing wiki pages of colleagues. In reference #8 ere is a fault that for the life of me I couldn't figure out - kindly advise if you can.

Thanks

@Ernani99: thanks for the message! The article looks a lot better. I still think it could be cleaned up a bit re: tone. The section on major works reads a lot like some academic short bios used for conferences (words like "challenges" and "reexamines" might be better written as "She focuses on..." or something similar. This could also just be my having read too many conference/CV bios, so take it for what it is worth. I'll let someone else re-review the updated submission. Like I said, I definitely think she merits an article, just trying to find the right tone now! TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is me trying to answer your last message - hoping this is the way to do it; While I read you loud and clear, and know not much about writing Wikipedia, I tend to disagree with your last remark. I know Prof. Herzog's work and MANY other works in the field. The uniqueness is in the "challenge" and if you will read the reviews on her books (more than 50 of them around in 5 languages only on the 3 major works - a unique phenomenon in itself), most concentrate on the challenge to previous concepts and methodology. removing this from the text will totally miss the point. Let me know if this makes it to you or that's the wrong way to communicate - sorry, I am a "first-timer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernani99 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ernani99: thats fine! I guess my other issue is that it tends to read like the back of a book cover which to me sounds like an advertisement. I'll let another reviewer look at the second submission so you can get a new opinion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thx

Thank you for editing Cmchugh001 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing Protopia

Hi Tony. Thank you for editing Protopia with me. There are still multiple issues with this article so I really like to invite you to fix those issues with me, if you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarSong (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @OscarSong: my concerns are around whether or not the article has enough in-depth coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish notability on Wikipedia or whether it is a neologism that wouldn't ordinarly be included. I did some searching last night and all I could find were blog articles. If I find any more reliable sources, I will be sure to include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bunny

Hey, Tony, thanks for your input about the Bunny article. If you have a chance, I tried to implement your recommendations. The fact is that no major publications/websites have reviewed the album. Better to delete the Reception section or to use valid reviews that are just not from major players? Also, for disambiguation purposes, the article really should be titled Bunny (Album). Can you tell me how to rename the article? Thanks again so much!VReese (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Frampton Scale

Not a big deal, but I think this is indeed an attack page, one aimed at Joe Frampton. I would certainly consider it an attack to have my name associated with a bogus measurement scale of tackiness. Meters (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I read it as some guy making up a tackiness scale and naming it after himself rather than someone saying he designed tacky buildings. On the off chance that they could actually produce reliable sources I changed it to A11 because I think the blanking might discourage me if I was a new editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be. I hadn't looked at ti that way. It's not going to be around long either way. Meters (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for leaving me a note! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

FELIXprinters page

Dear Toni,

First of all thank you for your feedback. My intention was to write a company story and not a promotional article - but if it seems that way there is definitely room for improvement. I am a bit confused though, as a reference I used the Wiki page of our competitor and their page is pretty much written in the same style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimaker

I am not looking for a promotional opportunity because there are many other ways to promote our products, what I want to do is to keep a wiki page up to date with recent releases and a 'timeline' from the beginning till now. I hope you see I am not trying to misuse Wikipedia and I will rewrite the article to make it more 'fact' based and more neutral than it is now. If you have any suggestions, please let me know

Kind regards,

Christiaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixprinters (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christiaan, while I understand your intent, the article was written in a way that seems promotional and where there was an apparent conflict of interest. Ideally an article should have independent third-party reliable sources and be created by someone who is not associated with the company. I didn't see sources that indicated notability in the article, and given the conflict of interest, I nominated it for deletion as an advertisement. @Beeblebrox: deleted the article a few minutes ago before I saw this, and they would be the first person to contact if you feel the article should be undeleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That article was a perfect example of why we strongly discourage users from writing about subjects they are connected to. It is often hard to write in a neutral tone about such subjects. That article went so far as to criticize a competing product. If the company is really that notable, some uninvolved, neutral editor will get to it eventually. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle for Mlg Island article Requested Deletion

Hello, I am a new user on here, and I just thought of this video series. A lot of people watch it and my first place to go when googling things, basically, is here. I think the article is a good idea but if you don't want it here, I understand. Thank you for reading, hope to hear back from you.

MEEM WEAVER (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC) MEEM WEAVER

Thanks for the note, Meem Weaver. The article you created does not assert that the subject is significant or notable. Notability is normally shown through providing reliable sources. I hope you continue to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ডাক্তার সুমী রায়হান

Please don't decline a speedy without actually looking at the content. This was clearly spam. It was not a place but an advert for a Facebook page. --Majora (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I checked the content, and noted that on the pages needing translation page. The formatting makes no sense with the machine translation which is why I declined and listed it there and left a note on the original nominators page explaining as much. Sorry for any confusion or disagreement here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The translated text was Doctor Sumi Raihan Facebook. The username was Sumiraihan. It was pretty clearly a spam attempt to advert the person's Facebook page. No need to apologize, just watch for that in the future. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Didn't put together the name with the translation. Makes sense now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm very stupid don't take this seriously Danecankle (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Danecankle: I just assume you're a vandal who is messing around. I'm not offended or taking it seriously, but if you vandalize another article I will report you to administrators which will likely result in a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I do like to have fun Danecankle (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So do I, but vandalizing wikipedia isn't something you should do for kicks. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Terry Shaughnessy - The Universal

You have unauthorized the page stating it is a copyright infringement. We own www.terryshaughnessy.co.uk so it cannot be a copyright as it belongs to us. To simplify the matter we have removed the said copyright infringement. Where do we go from here with our one and only final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LG1973 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello TonyBallioni. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tiven2240. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 2B-Sure-2B-Sure Productions., and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Tiven gonsalves 10:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Tony, I'm not sure how to dig up reliable sources about my article since I actually retired from soccer 20 years ago. I was inspired to write an article on my career due to the fact they I have read many other articles about players that I actually played with. Can players who's articles are already approved on Wikipedia vouch for me? Otherwise I'm finding it difficult to dig up reliable sources from 20 years ago and beyond. Most of my career took place over 30 years ago.

Thank you, Gary DowneyGdowney55 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi TonyBallioni,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Declined speedy

Hi, TonyBallioni, I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for the stub article Matthews_real_estate_investment_services criteria for speedy deletion. The article is backed up by a reference from a nationally recognized industry publication that cites the firm as being a top brokerage firm in the United States. Can you please clarify your reason for speedy deletion? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Geejayen (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geejayen, unfortunately, you cannot decline a speedy deletion since you created the page. You have contested the deletion, and the reviewing admin will see your reasoning on the talk page of the article. My view is that being a large privately listed real estate holding company does not make an company significant, especially since it is ranked higher up on that list by a industry publication. Being the 38th largest private real estate firm does not necessarily convey significance or notability. Thanks for your note. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, thank you for the clarification. Geejayen (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TonyBallioni. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Interstellar (hamilton), a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion G1 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. It's not very well written, but it's not "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content" - the author is clearly trying to write something or other about a clock from a movie. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks!--McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thanks for the heads up. I still disagree here, the text at the beginning gives you an idea of what they are trying to do, but the further random listing of attributes is incoherent to the point of making the article essentially gibberish. I generally try to avoid that criteria since it very rarely is actually needed, but thought it fit. I'll tag it as a prod instead, however, since you declined it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you tag it as A10. Again, thanks for the heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I guess the "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." of G1 is subjective - it just read like a coherent (if boring) list of watch features, to me. --McGeddon (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, subjective criteria. I was reading it as a whole and couldn't make heads or tails of it except that it was about the movie somehow. Anyway, it'll be gone soon regardless. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Have just declined Scot whitlock, which you'd tagged as G11 ("serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic"), but it's just a bland overview of a writer - if it turns out he meets WP:BASIC, it's fine as written. It could be WP:A7, but I don't see that it's "unambiguous advertising". --McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, for the heads up @McGeddon: I placed the tag because it is pretty apparent that the article was written by the subject's wife and linked directly to the publishers website while reading like a dustjacket bio of the author, which to me suggests that it was a fundamentally promotional article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, these are all big red flags. But G11 explicitly requires that the article to be such promotional trash ("A N Other is an exciting new author, buy his new book now!", etc) that it would have to be "fundamentally rewritten" - the current Scot whitlock article is dust jacket stuff, but is as neutrally written as any author stub could be. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Like I said earlier, thanks for letting me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello TonyBallioni,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 821 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Need help with creating a biography page

Hi, Thank you for reviewing my first page biography for James Dargie. Can you give me some help in fixing the issues you had? I'm trying to do everything that's needed and it doesn't seems to make sense to me. Any help appreciated. Thank you! NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaWarrior99: thanks for contacting me. Wikipedia has notability guidelines that a subject should meet before they are included in Wikipedia (WP:GNG and WP:BIO are good places to start). When I was reviewing that article, I did not see any evidence in the sources that the subject had met those guidelines. Additionally, there were a lot of red links and some improperly formatted text in the body of the draft. Red links are not bad in themselves, but they can sometimes confuse people, especially when they are in the infobox. If you go to Wikipedia:Your first article it will give you more help on how to create an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarity on a biography

Hi Tony,

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I looked over the submission guidelines and saw two criteria my subject met. Under Biography in section 2 it states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Mr Dargie has certainly done that. With his work of hits like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Metroid, not to mention groundbreaking films like Final Fantasy (the first adult CG film) and the Matrix movies.

Next under Creative Professionals in section 3 it states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Again, Mr Dargie has done this with the same titles mentioned.

He is a very helpful and friendly leader in the field and I want to start his bio page to share his works more with others who may not know.

How are his contributions different from say, someone who is credited for writing a book?

Maybe I am missing something. Any additional help would be appreciated... especially with the formatting ;)

Thank you! NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. All of these things need to be demonstrated by substantial coverage reliable sources that are placed in the article verifying these claims. The sources currently in the article in my opinion are either not reliable, or present trivial coverage. If you can find more coverage in sources that can be placed in the article to verify your claims to notability, then another reviewer can accept it when they are added and resubmitted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Truth in Muhammad

don't make language mistakes when you edit articles , in The Truth in Muhammad you wrote they view God as still.. !! still is verb .. be responsable when you edit , if not don't edit . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC) brother I used still as a verb not an adv ,with your editing you changed meaning futher article is about philosophy and theology so words must be precise , you have no right to change what I used as verb to an adv , understand what I mean first , if u want to keep ur edit remove still and write so before they view .

@Bilal philosopher: Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and while I won't further revert because I don't want to get into an edit war over copy editing, I stand by my edits. I have my degree in philosophy from a top university philosophy department, so I a very much understand the need for precision. That being said, the English prose that you wrote in this regard was very difficult to understand and was a run-on sentence that needed to be broken up. It was not precise. What are you trying to say in the sentence? I'll gladly help you edit it to make it better. That way it has a chance of surviving the deletion discussion that is ongoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean with prose english..  ??--Bilal philosopher (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC) my language was technically philisophical !! what's wrong ?? except if you don't understand philosophical terminololy that I use--Bilal philosopher (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bilal philosopher: Prose is normal written English. Like I'm writing now. The paragraph you wrote is one sentence without any punctuation that is difficult to comprehend. There was no punctuation so it was a run-on sentence, and even if the correct punctuation would have been added, there were so many ideas going on in the sentence that it would have been very difficult for a native speaker of English, even one with philosophical training, to comprehend it. Stylistically, it is often considered better and more precise to break up complex ideas into multiple sentences so that the reader can understand this. This is also true in academic philosophy. What is important is that the person reading your writing can understand it, and when you put so many ideas into one sentence like that, it is very difficult to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello TonyBallioni,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

American Iron Works

Hi good day,

I noticed you deleted the American Iron Works newly created page, I would like to correct what needs to be corrected but I am confused on what else was required.

American Iron works is this years Washington Business Congress 2017 Craftsmanship award winner for their Miscellaneous metals work on the National African American Museum. I cited the link there which was http://www.wbcnet.org/craftsmanship-awards/current-and-past-winners/2017-craftsmanship-awards-winners/

If you wanted to add more links, I could also include the 2016 award AIW Inc received for the structural steel they provided for the Inova Women’s Hospital and Inova Children’s Hospital in Falls Church, VA https://www.wbcnet.org/uploads/Apr-May16_WBC_Bulletin_final.pdf

Please let me know what else should be added. I wanted to make sure this page was created because its called out in other Wiki articles (See NMAAHC) but as the page never was created I cant link it.

Please let me know when you get a chance, I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.195.65 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks My apologies I would have thought primary sources would be ideal for this to confirm its accuracy. However as you asked I then added additional sources for the awards. Secondary and primary sources for each.

2017 Craftsmanship Award – Miscellaneous Metal Fabrication National Museum of African American History and Culture, Washington, DC http://docplayer.net/7052400-Years-quality-construction.html http://www.wbcnet.org/craftsmanship-awards/current-and-past-winners/2017-craftsmanship-awards-winners/?zoom_highlight=%22american+iron+works%22

2016 Craftsmanship Award – Structural Steel Framing 601 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D.C Inova Women’s Hospital and Inova Children’s Hospital, Falls Church, Va https://www.aisc.org/modernsteel/news/2016/april/steel-companies-honored-in-washington-building-congress-craftsmanship-awards/#.WIKEF-QzUis http://www.wbcnet.org/craftsmanship-awards/current-and-past-winners/2016-craftsmanship-awards-winners/?zoom_highlight=%22american+iron+works%22

2014 Craftsmanship Awards – Structural Steel Framing Project: 1812 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA http://docplayer.net/17082361-Consulting-industry-report-2-inside-58-th-wbc-calendar-32.html http://www.wbcnet.org/craftsmanship-awards/current-and-past-winners/2014-craftsmanship-awards-winners/?zoom_highlight=%22american+iron+works%22

Please let me know if this now works and can be incorporated.

Thanks again.

Lifestyle sport

I don't understand why you declined my request. She specifically equates the terms extreme sport and lifestyle sport in the "What are lifestyle sports?" section at the middle of the page. Did you check the three-line paragraph at the bottom of the page? Or did you not look at the book itself? 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaving this reply on your talk page as well in case you don't see it here. Upon first reviewing, it appeared to me that the lifestyle sport term was broader than our article on extreme sport, and thus tthat "extreme" was a subcategory of "lifestyle". I have re-reviewed and created the redirect because upon further review, they do appear to be about the same concept. Sorry for any frustration. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I hope I didn't sound angry, because I was only confused. And thank you for leaving the note at my talk page, because I wouldn't have thought to look here. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Temple

The main reason to use the word temple is to use a synonym of place of worship .. I also use the words church, religious building etc but it is also valid to use temple because temple comes from the Latin word, templum .. (Catholic Encyclopedia) Jewish synagogues and Christian churches have also been called temples for centuries ... based on what the Bible says ... a historical Catholic and Christian example is the order of the Knights Templar, so baptized by the Temple of Solomon ... An example of the combination of both words is found in churches such as Temple Church in London which is now an Anglican church but which was a Catholic church built by the Crusaders. Another example is the "Templum Domini" (Temple of the Lord in latin) a church of the crusaders in jerusalem, and thus there are many other examples..--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion inquiry

Was wondering if you'd kindly be interested in assessing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heap_(company) (since you participated in the Mixpanel deletion discussion). It seems users DGG and SwisterTwister routinely vote for deletion together without offering analysis, so I wanted to get a third-party involved. I'm not fishing for a keep, but I am looking for a legitimate discussion if possible. Thanks for any consideration. GDWin (talk) GDWin —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

AFC Redirects -how ?

Just as an FYI, as a registered user, you can create redirects on your own. I went ahead and created the one you requested, but just wanted to let you know that you do not need to go through AFC. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for creating and, yes, would love to create my own: could you share a link about how? Gratefully - --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: Sure! You can find instructions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! - --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Farhad G. Mahani

Hi TonyBallioni, I recently proposed the article above for deletion as I thought it was unsourced and I did not realise external links count as citations. After removing the tag you told me to look at WP:N which says that articles must have third party sources, which this article does not have (I did try to find some). Should I make an AfD or could this article be deleted with an A7? Thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 23:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: A7 would probably be inappropriate because it requires no credible assertion of significance, and the awards the article asserts meet that lower bar than notability in my opinion. You actually didn't use the standard PROD process. You used WP:BLPPROD, which is only for articles with no sources at all. You could use a regular PROD or AfD on this article. I'm not familiar enough with the topic/don't have time to look for sources to express an opinion on it beyond agreeing with you that its in bad shape now (Christmas and all). If you do decide to PROD it or nominate it via AfD, remember to read WP:BEFORE, Hope that was helpful! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 04:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Joanna Gaines

No problem with you creating an article for her as long as you can demonstrated her notability as an individual. Deb (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)