User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Company notability

You wrote, "We're actually pretty good at catching corporations at NPP. AfD and PROD are the area where it gets tricky because like I said above, the GNG can be argued on either side for most English-speaking corporations."

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at List of Y Combinator startups. These folks have the art of review down to a science. They know not to include employee counts or VC dollars invested, at least not in the first few days. Then the article is supported by references from the likes of Techcrunch. Eventually it has a WP presence and the standards that would normally be applied at NPP are forgotten. Here is a great example: ReadyForZero. When you look under the covers it was a startup with a $260K investment in 2010. By 2016, a buyer had shut it down completely. I edited to change the voice to past tense. When looked at through the lens of today, it was a failed startup that cost its investors $5 million. Probably not notable at the time or in retrospect. I would lose my hand, though if I pushed it to the center of a deletion discussion.

A more recent example is UpCodes which passed review, and when prodded, whose author claimed that the Y Combinator website (its VC-incubator) was a reliable source. Just as bold, I think, was the claim that Curbed was a reliable source, when it, in turn, scraped its piece from TechCrunch.

In the absolute horseshit pile is Immunity Project which should be categorized as CRIME. It's not clear quite who these people are. It claims to be a non-profit, but it is relying on an existing charity's IRS registration. Forty one percent of its spending is on salaries. It took in $861K in 2015, while spending only $292K. It put a cool half million in the bank. Some charity. The article says the organization is doing HIV/AIDS research. The for-profit research company says it experimented on a hundred mice. To be clear, it was experimentation on adjuvants used with microsphere vaccine delivery, not work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine per se. Even if it were, to provide a free HIV vaccine will take another billion or so to carry it though human trials. We WP editors sure got suckered on this one, letting a SPA publish a promo piece for a charity that isn't very charitable. We shoulda known. The initial article described Phase 1 Clinical Trials.[1] That means tests on healthy test subjects. Rhadow (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, thanks for this message. As a general trend, Wikipedia's standards have been increasing over time and you've come along to Wikipedia where there is a lot of discussion in the community about this very subject and how we balance our priorities of aiming to be the sum of human knowledge while also not being an advertising platform. We have work to do in that realm, and I've advocated for a move towards using SNGs (subject notability guidelines) as a way to both include everything we should include, while excluding that which we shouldn't. Its a controversial position on both sides of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, but I think it is the best way forward if we want to work through these tensions as a project.

As for how to handle these cases now while we are seeing a surge in advertising on en.Wiki because of its prominence? There's no simple solution, part of it is discussing with the community how to handle it. Part of it is educating new page patrollers on notability standards and what promotion looks like. Part of it is working through old articles that are notable and bringing them up to current standards in terms of content. I do think NPP is doing a much better job at working through the feed and finding content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia than we were doing even a year ago, but there are certainly ways we can improve. I'd be interested if any talk page stalkers wanted to join the conversation as to if they had thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni -- We need to accept three things first, then we can solve the remainder of WP's challenges. (1) Most people would rather fight or complain than make whoopee or be productive. (2) Given that, crowdsourcing WP will always be inefficient, with people arguing over stuff then redoing it out of spite, and (3) Editors want every cricket player, dart thrower, and discovered galaxy in the book. Just accept all that. Then worry about making life better for the reader of the encyclopedia. More to follow ... eventually. Rhadow (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While reviewing I see many articles about award-winning online marketplaces, business process management solutions, proprietary frameworks and whatever else startups call themselves. They're invariably referenced to routine announcements in industry publications and given awards by connected industry groups. They're created by users who got autoconfirmed by making a few inconspicuous minor edits to a few random pages. Of course these are throwaway accounts from paid editors. They'll write something seemingly neutral and insert the real pitch later, once the article has passed review. The patterns of undisclosed paid editing are pretty easy to detect. It's not that we don't see them; we don't know how to stop them. What's missing is a comprehensive set of tools, policies and guidelines to deal with the abuse of Wikipedia as a PR tool. The WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are woefully inadequate, as is WP:G11. In fact, I suspect the GNG may be at the root of the problem. With an effective PR team, anyone and anything can get enough coverage in the mainstream media to pass the GNG. Avoiding G12 by not explicitly writing "buy my stuff" is a piece of cake. Only the most unsophisticated spammers can't do that. Writing a piece of neutral-sounding, verifiable advertising is very doable, and it's what PR professionals know how to do better than anyone. It's still advertising, and volunteer editors should not be coerced to fix it for the advertisers. My hope is that the discussions at AfD will gradually become more perceptive and less tolerant of advertising and that guidelines will develop from the emerging consensus at AfD. If I can't get toxic industrial waste deleted at Afd, then I haven't made a convincing case. It's up to me to do better. If people are interested in a few post-mortems on failed nominations for deletion to learn how to present our arguments better, I'd be up for that. Mduvekot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I started a discussion about raising standards at NCORP here that has kind of petered out but should be revived. I was waiting more more input from people of High Standing here who have argued against other efforts to deal with spammy editing by saying "Raise NCORP standards" before pushing forward, but none of them have chimed in, which is ... eyebrow raising for me. But we should pick that thread up and drive it home. There is actually a pretty clear path to get consensus there in my view. I am going to leave notes in a couple of places and then pick up that thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I actually think waiting to see how the current discussion at WT:PROF turns out would be ideal. PROF is generally agreed to be the gold standard of a good SNG, and if consensus at that page is that we can make SNGs better than the GNG or the less respected SNGs such as NSPORT or NMUSIC, it could be a starting point for future discussions on making a clearer and more objective notability system. I'm pinging DGG on this as well: he really is the intellectual heavyweight behind improving SNGs, and I value his thoughts here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I see very little chance of changing NPROF, ever; in my view the current RfC was doomed to fail and is failing now to gain consensus. In my view there are a bunch of academics in WP who want it to be very easy to create fake WP articles that are just proxies for a faculty webpage, and see no problem with that (!) and have even thrown in my face, my effort to fix NPROF in the past. It is typical academic arrogance and myopia but what can you do. However most everyone (including those academics) don't like the notion of a fake WP article that is a proxy for a company webpage so there is a good chance of raising NCORP.

DGG already gave a long "oppose" !vote at the NPROF RfC here.

But anyway I think we can actually get consensus to raise NCORP - it is there now, just waiting to be gathered up. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its going to fail and DGG and I have roughly the same position on it. The advantage I see to letting it play out before trying to raise NCORP is that if it plays out like we both suspect it will, it will show that the idea that the community has rejected SNGs as alternatives to the GNG is simply false. It is a case-by-case basis. My ping to DGG was more on getting his thoughts on the idea of reforming NCORP and how he thinks it should play out. I do think it'd be a good idea to work towards a draft of standards for what a new NCORP could like, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

in reality,decisions at WP:PROF are much more restrictive than in many other fields of endeavor--our tolerance for articles on minor figures in sport or entertainment is much greater. This essentially reflects the community interests. I and the others supporting the WP:PROF guideline interpret it rather strictly--the minor academics who get in do so because there is enough foolish publicity about their minor accomplishments, especially for young people who are not yet in any sense professional researchers-- and that, of course, is the fault of the GNG,which is designed to accept even a very low level of press coverage. There is less promotional activity in this area, though there is some, but it is only rarely from editing rings. If it is not outrageous and the notability is clear, I generally rewrite. It's actually a much easier field to work in, because it has a formal heretical structure of its own and clear internal standards. And there is little need for a person in this field to use WP to help their career.

WP:CORP is just the opposite in every respect. Decisions at AfD are erratic. It tends to be interpreted very loosely--even I did in my first few years here, but it has changed with the rise in promotionalism. There tends to be a great deal of unsubstantial press coverage, most of it not truly independent, so the GNG can be very permissive unless interpreted strictly. Community interest varies with the specific business. There is immense promotional activity in this area, and a fertile field for undeclared paid editors, because success as a business is very dependent upon advertising, and Google et al use WP results. There are few objective standards for importance, and possible numerical criteria need to vary by industry. It's a very unattractive field to work in -- except for paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to work with you on standards, but the most likely ones are for the GNG to become more restrictive about what counts as a RS for notability, and then for us to start using it to delete articles, against the expected opposition of those few but very determined editors who consider promotionalism irrelevant. If we do have a notability standard, it would have to be explicitly worded as an additional restriction on the GNG, which I think would be a good idea, but goes against recent trends. Unless it is worded as an explicit limitation and accepted as such, it will be useless, DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned there are some good proposals in the conversation there - I hope you check it out. They need to be gathered up and shaped at this point... Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your reply was to DGG or myself so I'm pinging him in case it was for him. I agree we need to move forward on this and collect them into a feasible proposal. Whatever happens, I hope it can truly be a consensus proposal so it gets broad support and not just the standard 66-70% supermajority that often defines "consensus" here. The proposals at WT:NCORP do have a lot of good ideas. Figuring out how to synthesize them into something people can get behind is the hard part, but I hope we can do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your Big Bag of Tools

Sorry, I'm crap at formatting so you may want to move it around. Or, indeed, get rid of it, and I apologise for touchig your page. — fortunavelut luna 09:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for putting it on there. Though it's one less reason to go to WP:FIM WP:THEOTHERFIM ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:142.160.131.202

Hi. On this IP's talk page you posted: "Make sure you've examined this IP's edits and edit summaries carefully before templating." Can you elaborate on this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sure. They're a good faith contributor with a static IP that contributes steadily to Christianity articles in a good faith manner. I copied the template from one NeilN posted on another one of our regular IPs talk pages. That IP had been getting mindless vandalism templates for good faith edits that actually improved Christian cleric articles a few months back to the point where I think they even received a "final warning" one. It was just a message to let the vandal patrollers know to look carefully. Are there currently any issues going on? I hadn't noticed them being active recently, but I'm also working less with clerics these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a serious issue, just a disagreement about formatting of reference sections, nothing that we can;t work out, I'm sure. I took a look at their contribs and they seemed good to me, so I was curious which way your notice was intended to be read. Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It was not a negative. Simply a reminder to think first before adding a template. I'll also leave them a note. I saw your disagreement and while I don't always agree with them on things, I think we have a decent working relationship. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You did such valuable work helping get ACTRIAL get off the ground. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll second this, Tony. Although late to the party, your work and persuasion were key factors in finally getting this thing launched after all these years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• For those following at home, from what I can tell, the last article created by a non-AC user before ACTRIAL was rolled out was Delhi Public School Numaligarh. It is a G12 piece. For some reason this does not surprise me. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And G11. Gone nearly as quickly as it arrived. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Very apt. On the nose, in fact! — fortunavelut luna 08:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Really appreciate all the leadership shown on ACTRIAL. A major step forward in ensuring this project is more reliable. Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A page that sneaked under the wire was The Line Madder and it was quickly tagged for COI, Notability, Copyvio investigation and sent to AfD. Ya, this will take a load off our NPP team. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

- and SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, your picture from the Alambric palace is beautiful. BTW, I'm FIM's missus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:101D:639:1:2:2964:B058 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

2A01:4C8:101D:639:1:2:2964:B058: Ah, lovely to meet you. He's quite a treat. It is actually from the Saint Petersburg Mosque. I found it randomly on Commons and thought it would be good to add some colour. I'm a huge fan of Islamic architecture, and this one was quite colourful and has a distinctly Russia flair to it, which I thought was nice. Anyway, hope you all enjoy your holiday. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hello TonyBallioni,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi I dream of horses, thanks for the work you do stub sorting. Like I said the last time we had this conversation, I will continue to use the default {{stub}} template placed by page curation if it is not obvious which of the stubs on this list it belongs to. If I understood PamD correctly at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#22._Adding_stub_tags, this is preferable to my guessing which semi-specific stub it would belong to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with PamD. (I won't ping her again since you did already.) It's probably better to use the semi-specific stub templates over {{stub}}. Even the semi-specific stub templates help Wikiprojects find articles they need to expand.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unverifiable claim in Jennifer Palmieri wiki page

Hey Tony,

I received your message concerning my removal of a portion of the Jennifer Palmieri wiki page: the questionable content I removed bolded below.

Palmieri attracted controversy when an email chain allegedly showing Clinton aides joking about Catholics and evangelicals in 2011 was released by Wikileaks[4] after individuals with connections to the Russian government conducted a spear-phishing attack against Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies later concluded,[5] as part of an operation to prevent Hillary Clinton[6] from winning the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[7]'Bold text'

No this was not a mistake. The spear phishing attack was investigated, and found that while phisher emails in fact existed, there is no evidence that one was opened, and a subsequent breach occurred (from opening a phishing email). On the contrary the intelligence group VIPS helped surface cyber forensic data which makes the claim of a remote hack virtually impossible (due to data transfer rates), and more importantly proved, the original hacked files did not contain Russian meta data, which was added weeks later before the release of the claimed source Guccifer 2.

Because of the frenzy of positions and news stories claiming all of the above and more, and the lack of any published evidence of Russia's involvement, I thought it in the better interest of the wiki, to remove the claims rather than add additional ones. Of course, if we do learn with certainty one way or the other, it would be sensible that those findings are added to the the page at that time.

Just keepin it real :)

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.211.112 (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, this seems to be in your realm of the wiki. Would you mind taking a look at that page. I reverted an unexplained removal of content by the above IP. Its on my watchlist because their was some particularly nasty BLP violations there during the election. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Tony. I checked out the article and you were right to restore this material. Its sourcing was weak (one reference was to a Wikipedia article) but I have added several references and it is now well sourced. I also rewrote the run-on sentence for clarity. There is a claim going around that "It wasn't really Russia", but the evidence that it was is still accepted by most Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Melanie. I have no idea what the current Russia consensus is on Wikipedia, but figured you would know. @71.232.211.112:, see MelanieN's note above in reference to your question here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mops

Now that ACTRIAL is up and running, do you fancy giving this a go? It would be good to see two RfAs running at the same time; it may motivate more to come forward. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've sent you an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello TonyBallioni, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Explanation

Hi Tony, Thank-you for the message you left on my user page regarding copyright issues on the St Peters Catholic College Wikipedia page. Whilst I'm new to Wikipedia I have taken the time to ensure that all of my article was produced and referenced correctly and without it being in breach of any copyright. Please can you be specific on what you feel was a copy right breach in my article? In addition to this you may like to also take a look at several other College's that could potentially have the same copy right issue. One in particular is Marist Brothers College that has very limited references under their Alumni but it has not been deleted. The history material is what is listed on their College website under history and again has not been deleted. Below is a link to this College. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parramatta_Marist_High_School I did follow the College Please be very specific in your response as to what you feel was copyrighted and how that differs to other Colleges who have created article's that have not been deleted yet created under the same Guidelines and in the same format. Thank-you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leathom (talk • contribs) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leathom, thanks for the note. Several sections of the article (I believe about the logo/motto/seal if I recall correctlly) were copied directly from this website which has a copyright symbol on the bottom, which means it is unambiguously not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know about the other article. I will have a look at it when I'm not on mobile. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Leathom, I did an automated and manual search of the page you linked to and could not find any copyright violations that were not Wikipedia mirrors. If you could provide a link for me to check it against, I could do a further check on that article. Regardless of the shape of other articles, however, the text that you introduced into Wikipedia was copyrighted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni Thank-you for your note, I will fix the issue with the logo however why did you delete the Alumni that were referenced correctly? Regarding the Marist Wikipedia page, please view the references that are citied that are no longer linked to referenced material including numbers 4 through to 7. Additionally their history is taken from their website http://www.parramarist.nsw.edu.au/faith-and-history/dsp-default.cfm?loadref=19 In addition to this most of their Alumni are not citied in any referenced material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethom (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Leathom, the link you provided from that website is not turning yo any material in the article according to this tool. I removed the alumni listing from your article because it was excessively long and not a summary. To be blunt: it was bad writing. If there are a few very notable alumni it might be appropriate to include them there. The list I removed is in the article's history, so you can go there to see them and add a few back if need be. Also, as an FYI, please sign your post with four tildes like this ~~~~ Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, Thanks for your feedback on my Talk page. I have similar issues when creating a new article. At least I have learned about one copyright tool, which will be useful. I have responded on my talk page. Ergateesuk (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Need your expertise

Hi, Tony...so here is what I've discoverd: M.U.R. has been in the NPP queue since July 2008. It should probably be merged along with another article into an existing main article. The other 2 involved articles are: Mouvements Unis de la Résistance and National Council of the Resistance, the latter being the obvious choice as the main article to merge everything. Then, when some enterprising editors decide to spin-off the other two from the main article, let's hope they'll take the time to expand them into real articles with citations to RS. Where I need help is knowing the best way and/or proper steps to making this 3 article merge happen. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I haven't had much time to look at the specifics, but the reason that article was put into the new pages feed today was because RA0808 redirected it to an existing article before reverting themselves. This triggered it to be marked as unreviewed. I'd suggest working with them to figure out what the best merge target would be if there is one, and what to include in it.

In terms of attribution, its pretty simple: you perform an edit summary attribution of the text and redirect the article to the new target. Placing Template:Copied on the talk page isn't required but would likely be wise in this instance to make sure someone in the future doesn't delete the redirects that contain the page history. The normal way for doing this attribution would be something like: Content copied from [[Foo]], see that page's history for attribution. . For more information you can see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:FMERGE. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all (pinging Atsme), just responding to the tag here. I originally came across the issue at Mouvements Unis de la Résistance and M.U.R. while beginning some cleanup for a newly translated article on French Resistance member Claude Rodier (its still early stages). When I searched Mouvements Unis de la Résistance (the WWII French Resistance group, which is linked from multiple resistance-related pages such as Women in the French Resistance) the page was entirely about M.U.R. (the 1990s Lebanese resistance group). This was because another user, Elias.nadim, had overwritten the previous content at Mouvements Unis de la Résistance by copying the M.U.R. article. I neglected to delve deeper into the page history at the time and initially thought this was a mistaken duplication by an editor who didn't know about the Page Move process... so I redirected to M.U.R. After noticing that Mouvements Unis de la Résistance was not linked from any Lebanese articles, I took a closer look at the page history and realized my mistake hence the self-revert.

It should also be noted that M.U.R. has no relation whatsoever to the French group besides having the same full name. The former was a WWII era French organization and the latter a 1990s anti-Syrian Lebanese militant group. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

RA0808, I've fixed the attribution for that page. Anthony Appleyard, this is an odd situation because it was only one or two edits with a revert. I'm pretty confident this is a parallel histories situation, but if you wouldn't mind confirming, I'd appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)@RA0808: just fixing the ping TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni, RA0808, and Atsme: The 3 stray Lebanese edits in Mouvements Unis de la Résistance (13:22, 4 November 2016‎ to 22:49, 19 September 2017) are parallel histories with M.U.R. (the Lebanese page), so can't be histmerged across. Best put a history note in its talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

3RR?

Hey, got your message. Did I miscount? It seems like I've restored tags twice and then made a compromise change. All my edits are backed by policy and t he relevant guidelines are far as I can tell. Let me know if you see something I don't. In the meantime I'm working on getting more eyes on the article. Thanks. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, you did full revert twice [2] [3]. You then partial reverted Nick-D with this edit, and restored part of your tagging [4]. WP:3RR includes partial reverts. That's 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. The warning just lets you know you've hit the line. I'd also caution you that while 3RR is a bright line, slow edit warring and gaming the 3RR by reverting just outside the 24 hour period are still considered edit warring. I don't have any intent to get involved with the content dispute on that page, but I wanted to let you know where you were. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Thanks ofr th ehead's up. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Tony, thank you for all your comments and kind words at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Long Time

Hi Tony, Just wanted to request you to review my unreviewed articles. And yes, can i apply for the NPP now? Just curios. Thanks !Jeromeenriquez (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, we typically request users wait 90 days before applying for the NPP right again. I'm a bit busy, but I'll try to review some of your articles in the next few days. I'm assuming they're primarily on South Asian bishops still? If they are, I should be able to review several pretty quickly when I get a chance. Hope you have a great Sunday. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Barnstar

Hi Tony, thanks for that Barnstar. Very nice surprise in the morning. Thanks Tony. scope_creep (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Magazine of Timepieces

Hey TonyBallioni, I answered on the talk page of Great Magazine of Timepieces about the proposed deletion of the article. Here is what I have written : I am the author of the article. Obviously I think that the article deserves inclusion ;) With the respect to the volume of sales of the magazine, it should be kept in mind that is is a french/english speaking magazine, mainly dedicated to the 20% of switzerland that speal French, this is more or less 2 million people. The current distribution is thus roughly similar (as a ratio) to a US based magazine that sells 3,200,000 copies. This is also one of the only watch magazine that can be found in french speaking press house.

regards,

Boblaloutre (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Boblaloutre, I've removed the proposed deletion tag as a courtesy and sent it to be discussed for deletion by the Wikipedia community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Magazine of Timepieces. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mariano Gagnon

The article Mariano Gagnon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mariano Gagnon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading through this, it's a great testimony of a man who selfishly lived to serve others. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Doctorg, it was a pleasure to write. I actually found it in the new pages feed in prettt bad shape and worked with CaroleHenson (who is now on wikibreak) to build it. I bought a very cheap used copy of his memoirs on Amazon to round out some of the parts about the Shinning Path conflict, and it ended up being an autographed copy, which was pretty cool. Thanks again for the review. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Need Your Attention Urgent

Dear Toni, please intervene and suggest whether Akhu Chingangbam should be deleted. Some people with certain rights are trying to Vandalise on this article by either redirecting it or tagging it for deletion. Its not that i am trying to save my article but its something that is being done unethical. Please help. Thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, could you take a look at this and give Jerome some advice?

Jeromeenriquez, I'm not the best person to ask about music notability. I'm at a conference for work now so I can't look at the sourcing in depth to give you an opinion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jeromeenriquez: There tend not to be as many online sources available for subjects in India compared to those in the UK and US, so I will go easy on online coverage, but I did a quick new search and it seems likely I could write an article on him. The article should definitely not have been tagged for CSD A7 (see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 to see why) and if somebody is bold enough to turn it into a redirect, you are within your rights to revert and discuss. I have voiced my opinion at the deletion debate; for now I think it's best to just let that discussion run its course (which usually happens over 7 days) and then we'll see where we are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you for coming to my aid. Please look into it and expand the article or rewrite it. Actually most of the topics coming from India will surely have less notability online but we can look into the ways to expanding them and bringing them to the light. Thank you very much once again to you and to TonyBallioni, who has always stood by me as a brother and a guiding light at Wikipedia.Jeromeenriquez (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

In case it affects any ongoing checks, I'm just letting you know that user;Aguyintobooks has had their name changed to user:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks. I've mainly been slowly spot-checking for missed copyvios amongst their logs of AfC acceptances and NPP reviews. FWIW, the BLPs that are in mainspace now aren't in great shape, but also aren't speedyable. If you are considering restoring the NPR right, I would consult with @KrakatoaKatie, Primefac, and Alex Shih: first, however. From what it looks like, there have been some recent issues with rollback and other areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't be restoring the rights any time soon. There are new issues concerning this account suggesting that familiarity with policies and guidelines may not be adequate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that aren't quite adequate, but we're hopefully going to be able to show them how to edit properly (that, or we'll show them the door). Primefac (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

"All sound interesting. The last book I bought was Mariano Gagnon's on the Shinning Path conflict in Peru. Actually for the Wikipedia article because it was only $5 used on Amazon. Ended up being an autographed copy by the guy who I had helped write the biography on, which was pretty neat. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet beyond the bits needed for the article, but really should. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)"

It was autographed by Gagnon? Enigma^msg 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Enigmaman, yes. It was a standard book signing type note to whomever the original purchaser was, signed "F. Mariano". TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Shining. :) Enigma^msg 03:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Toni, Thank you for helping me with the articles.Jeromeenriquez (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, Jeromeenriquez. Going forward, to be safe, please do not copy any text into Wikipedia. Diannaa has made it clear that future copyright violations will result in a block for you, and no one wants that. Remember: don't copy anything into Wikipedia even if you plan to rewrite it later. Write it in your own words first, and then add it to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Will surely keep that in mind. Actually had pasted the material to rewrite but then it skipped my mind.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeenriquez (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)

You can't see deleted pages (yet), but this old chestnut has reared its ugly head again. As you were one of the the main people unraveling that awful sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer/Archive, could you please see the latest at User talk:Kudpung#Mark Gillespie Wiki Page. Perhaps the IP 206.121.154.134 should be blocked. Pinging Krakatoa Katie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just saying

Just saying... when you get a support from an IP in your RfA, you're bound to pass. Long overdue. DrStrauss talk 08:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss, yeah, 142 is a static IP I get along with well. The tl;dr version of it is that they make MOS adjustments on Christianity-related topics that for a while had inexperienced Huggle users reverting and autowarning them. I've stuck up for them a lot in those situations, which is probably why they wanted to note their support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Ex (target)

On 17 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Ex (target), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ex is a target practice mannequin that spouts blood when shot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Ex (target). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Ex (target)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Two things: The Ex (band) is really worth listening to (and they're just as much from Wormer as from Amsterdam!), and I deleted you on my birthday... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Like on TonyBallioni. Alex Shih^Talk 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Hmmm, Drmies, you'll have to pass the recommendedation on to There'sNoTime below. He's in charge of the music on this talk page. Luckily I'm in charge of the booze so I can offer you a belated drink for your birthday. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed payment tag on China Hongqiao Group

Hello Tony,

I recently created the China Hongqiao Group page as a translation from the German version into English. Now the page is tagged as being created for payment, and I'm highly confused as to what would've triggered these suspicions.

This article is a translation from the German version, and I expanded/updated this translation as I went along. The reason why I decided to do this is because China Hongqiao pages existed in languages such as German and French, but not in English, which I thought was odd. I believed that adding an English version would contribute valuably to Wikipedia.

The fact that this has aroused suspicions makes wonder: (1) is this an issue with the translation itself? (2) which sections exactly are considered to be in violation of Wiki standards/considered promotional?

I created this page out of goodwill and on my own initiative. Could you please point me toward the next steps to be taken to resolve this issue?

Thanks! Mr Mike Wang (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The German page is highly suspicious (created by User:Chinabusiness, which is a confirmed sockpuppet), and should probably be tagged for deletion on German Wikipedia. Mr Mike Wang, sorry to question, but for an account that was created on 4 October, you appear to be incredibly familiar with Wikipedia (created user page, expanded an article significantly with proper citations, all within an hour); do you have any previous accounts, or were you simply editing/reading without an account previously? Alex Shih^Talk 08:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for your swift response. To answer your question: no, I did not have any previous accounts, but wanted to create one for a while. Regarding your other concerns, I'm not entirely sure if I see how that makes me automatically suspicious: creating a user page is not an exceedingly complicated task, especially considering that the instructions and guidance that Wiki provides are quite clear. Similarly, expanding an article with proper citations (particularly in visual mode) is relatively simple because of all the citation and editing tools. Since it is a largely automated process, one simply needs to fill in fields. Of course there's trial and error, but the errors can be eliminated by previewing the page edits before saving them, which is what I usually do. Wikipedia is not rocket science, and the fact that it is so easy to use accounts for a lot of its appeal. I hope this helps clearing up some of your doubts. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Mr Mike Wang (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've heard this kind of defence before. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty but we are allowed our forensics, thus I'm not projecting bad faith when I suggest that in this case a cross-Wiki CU would be justified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung and Alex Shih: cross-wiki CU likely wouldn't be helpful because of the presence of proxies and because the original BurritoSlayer family used a different set of VPNs and web hosts that are now blocked. I think if you look through the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer archive you'll find a lot of behavioral overlap, but I haven't had my coffee yet, and haven't had time to go through all the accounts in that archive to build the case through diffs. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung, Alex Shih, and TonyBallioni: I wasn't aware that the German page was created by a suspicious account; just felt it was odd no English page existed. But in any case, please let me know how we can resolve this issue or if there's anything I can do to make sure that the page fully complies with the Wiki guidelines.Mr Mike Wang (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd like to get the thoughts of @DGG and Doc James: in this situation of how to move forward. I value both of their judgements on these issues. The page in question is China Hongqiao Group. It was originally created on multiple language Wikipedias by this UPE family. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • As the prior version was written by a paid editor on DE Wikipedia
      • This article would also count as a paid article and thus should be tagged here.
      • Likely an SPI would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
        • There is an open SPI (linked above), but the CU was inconclusive. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Mr Mike Wang, after examining your statement above and the detailed history of the de and en articles, if you were merely translating the German article, how did you come to make the edit at [5]where you added a paragraph that refers to events subsequent to the last edit of the deWP article, and while of course it is not in the deWP article, is written in exactly the same style? DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Hi DGG--the paragraph I added is an expansion of the German article; as I have stated on the English page's talk page, I based my version on the German one while adding new information/updates. It was my understanding that the article should see several edits in order to avoid a copy and paste classification. Mr Mike Wang (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking generally, all articles on companies and their executives created in the last few years in the deWP can be assumed to be paid editing. Their rules and especially their practices are quite a bit less rigorous than ours, and they sometimes seem willing to accept more promotionalism than we do. This is a change to my general impression that anything with a page in the deWP is probably suitable for a page here also, because if most respects their notability requirements are stricter. (And their citing practices are different--they tend to use general references -- e.g. "for references, see a library catalog" that we would not accept, so sometimes considerable has to be done in adjusting the article) There has been some difficulty in the last few months convincing paid editors at the deWP that they cannot assume that simply translating their article will be acceptable here with respect to both sourcing and promotionalism. Some paid editor have used the same name on both wikis--I would not be surprised if some did not, especially now that they realize our requirements are different. (The German paid editors do seem to have reasonable standards in the jobs they accept, though I have direct personal knowledge, admitted to me on both sides, that at least one German PR firm refers the jobs they do not want to do to an enWP paid editing firm). DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:200

... and counting -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Humbling, really. I thought I'd be lucky to pass with a 'crat chat! @MusikAnimal and SoWhy: are the real people who should be congratulated. They were the ones who had to find nice things to say about me (a hard task to be sure)! TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, they just look in the Big Book of RfA Compliments^TM and pull some out at random. Oh wait, that's a red link -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 16:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the headers are in another castle

		The Original Barnstar
		For general awesomeness. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the sys-op corps!

Hi. Welcome to the corps :)
Even though I am not an admin, I am as much familiar about them as a non-admin can be. And I also have some good friends who are good admins, and some very good editors who are not admins. So if You have any problem, please feel free to ask... erm.. them. Ask them.

Welcome again. :)
Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiran. Sorry I didn't respond to the earlier message. It wasn't creepy, I just didn't want to respond since my RfA isn't over yet. I very much appreciate your support and kind words here, and also your effort at NPP and throughout Wikipedia. We need more editors like you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding posting questions in Wikipedia

Well, I will post the questions to Wikipedia's reference desk. Regarding any disagreement, I can post to Wikipedia's administrator noticeboard. I was waiting for administrator's response in the article's talk page. I will now send reminder messages in the talk pages of the administrators.

Abir Babu (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Abir Babu, the best place to ask for assistance would be the Wikipedia:Teahouse. The admin noticeboard is not normally a place to post these messages. I see Oshwah has already started answering them. I'd recommend that you let him try his hand at answering them first before you post elsewhere. I gave you the caution template because you'd placed the exact same list of questions on the talk pages of 15 experienced users. This is bordering on disruptive, even if done in good faith. I'm glad to see that you are interested in working on Wikipedia, and I hope you stay and that Oshwah and others are able to satisfactorily answer any questions you may have. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia:Reference desk. Can you let me know what's the difference between Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse? About Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I meant I will post topics there if there's any disagreement between users. About posting reminder message in personal talk page of admin, I meant posting reminder message in the admin's talk page asking him to reply to the last question posted in the article's talk page.

Abir Babu (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Abir Babu, the reference desk is for asking questions about real world topics. The Wikipedia:Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia. There is no need to go to a noticeboard: I simply gave you a note letting you know that posting the same exact question across 15 users talk pages could be considered disruptive. You've stopped and people are now starting to answer your questions. We don't need to request input at a noticeboard. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

It is awesome to see you promoted to an admin status, and enjoy the mop! :D Have a wonderful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations! Respice post te! Hominem te esse memento! Memento mori! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thank you! FWIW, I was recently expressing to other Wikipedians off-wiki that Memento mori is the best advice that anyone will ever get. Seems to be fitting today :D TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to be a stick in the mud, but Tony isn't an admin yet - although the RfA has run the full week with an obvious (IMHO) consensus to support, it requires formal closure by a 'crat who will grant the admin bit, which will be logged here. Just hold your party poppers for a minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ritchie, completely accurate. Thanks for pointing it out. 'twas getting a bit awkward to get congrats without the bit but also want to thank. Ad-- I still really appreciate the Memento mori bit though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Some advice of a more practical nature... "Fear no insult, ask for no crown, receive with indifference both flattery and slander, and do not argue with a fool." (Aleksandr Pushkin) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Or my favourite, "Never argue with an idiot - they will just bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll one up you: "Why can't you just say shit like everyone else?"--Pope John XXIII TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni

— xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship

Let me be one of the first to congratulate you (after the RfA was actually closed!). Well done, sir. Here's your T-shirt, official membership badge and mop - now get to work!!! Regards SoWhy 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats, Tony. The exclusive admins' lounge is right over here. ;) A Train^talk 14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I just hope you are going to take the opposes into careful acccount... — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well done! NPP now has what it needs - an admin as it's coordinator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations!A well-deserved mop:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Tony! Thoroughly deserved and well-earned. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for your kind words and support. It really means a lot :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to test the block button on my account in order to make sure that it works. Just... remember to unblock me after you've tested it... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There actually is an account which exists only for admins to test blocking - User:ThisIsaTest - and lots of other similar test pages which you can find at WP:Admin school. But I admit it would be a lot more fun to block Oshwah... BTW if you ever accidentally start to block yourself you get a big screaming warning asking if that's really what you want to do. Good to know. (Don't ask how I know.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations! WP:200 and some. Take it slow -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats my friend! :D That went pretty smoothly, just as I knew it would! You also amassed over three times as much support as I got in my RfA. And you'll probably be three times as great of an administrator :) Some quick advice -- it's probably good to figure out how to do things the hard way, but at some point you should check out WP:ADMINGUIDE/TOOLS. Lotta good stuff in there. If you need help with anything you know how to find me :) Cheers! 🍺🍺🍺 — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • By that metric, Tony, you'll be a better admin than I by about 9.3%. Congratulations - I wish you the best of luck, and hope to keep seeing you around SPI. GAB^gab 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • GAB, that's almost a whole letter grade :P TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations and best wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations!!! Well deserved and I look forward to your continued contributions! -- Dane ^talk 20:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats! Bobherry Talk Edits 22:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Another pleasant RfA for a change, nice. Congratulations on the successful run. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats! Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Belated congratulations. Mkdw ^talk 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Continuing my successful record of eliciting groans throughout Wikidom, it's your turn to hear what the puppy told me after my RFA passed – ten long, sordid, where-the-frak-did-ten-frakking-years-go years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'd be shocked if you haven't done it already.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 15:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. Or worse. Nobody cares. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks, KrakatoaKatie, much appreciated. I think I did okay for myself, but it might have worked out better if I waited until the next week ;-) Thanks for your support and encouragement :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats Tony! Alex Shih^Talk 16:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome to the admin team, TonyBallioni! And do forgive me, but whenever I see your username I think of baloney... anyways, here at the admin corps, we train soldiers to wield mops like rifles: we call this ancient technique "mop-fu", and it requires extensive training to use! Misuse of the mop can result in skyscrapers coming crashing to the ground, monkeys falling from the sky, and even the dreaded big fiery ball visible from outer space! An inattentive admin is a BAD ADMIN! So watch what you're doing, be very careful not to blow the website to smithereens, and drink plenty of fluids... especially coffee. Coffee keeps you alert and attentive. Now, Mr. Baloney... er, Ballioni! Time for your training to begin! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Seen one Tony with an Italian-sounding name, seen 'em all

Thank you very much k6ka, I'm actually about to put a pot on right now. Also, you are correct in your pronunciation. I couldn't spell in high school, hence the username. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats and general rejoicing here, Tony. But as I kept trying to tell you... [6] --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

	The Last Word
	Welcome to always having the Last Word, my friend. Or to always needing one :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

I was ill, so I didn't realize until today that you had stood for admin, or I would have voted for you. Congratulations! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BMK. It means a lot. I hope you are feeling better now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats!

	The Papal Hipster
	I'll be honest, I have no idea what a "papal conclave" is, but they're lucky to have ya makin' it cool! Congrats! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Heh that's pretty cool. The Innocent III of Wikipedia. — fortunavelut luna 15:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

FIM, drewmutt was actually suggesting that I should be like Leo XI and get desysoped in 26 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Or an Anti-admin, perhaps: RfA held in Pisa :) — fortunavelut luna 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

One could even start a rump ArbCom at Basel! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

The community has expressed its opinion quite clearly. Welcome to the administrator's team. Enjoy it for a couple of days, and then get to work. I would offer my help but suspect that you are better prepared than I was three months ago. Congratulations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Let's celebrate with beer, coffee and biscuits.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you so much! Your kind words are very generous.

Amakuru, thank you as well. I feel you're the most likely person to appreciate my reflexive edit summary in the page history at this RM 😅. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

He he, yes, I think I may have fallen into that trap shortly after gaining the bit as well. Typing out {{rmnac}} after an RM closure was so automatic it had become like muscle memory, and I had to remind myself not to do it any more  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA

I didn't vote, but I have never voted when I saw my vote wasn't needed, when I saw that a good editor was making a "clean sweep" at RfA. That's just me avoiding the issue when possible. Good to see you with mop and bucket in hand!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't vote because I have been uncharacteristically absent from editing for two weeks (out of town part of the time). I am sorry I did not get to support your RfA but I am glad that the outcome was a well-deserved success. Belated congratulations and good luck. I am sure you will do a great job. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Move of Edward Albert Palmer Memorial Chapel and Autry House

Thanks for taking care of the requested move of "James L. Autry House" to Edward Albert Palmer Memorial Chapel and Autry House. At first, I looked at everything pretty casually, but now I have noticed that you set up a redirect page, James L. Autry House. I had planned to set up a disambiguation page for James L. Autry House because there are two buildings in Houston that go by the same name, neither one of which is primary. Is it ok for me to delete the redirect page, James L. Autry House? cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe, redirects can be converted into articles or disambiguation pages at any time, which is why I did not suppress the redirect during the move. You are free to convert it to a disambiguation page boldly or to seek consensus to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I asked a dumb question and attempted to strikethrough it, but you beat me to the question. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Two things....

First CONGRATULATIONS!. It was a given as far as I was concerned. WP is lucky to have had two exceptional candidates in you & Megalibrarygirl, back to back.
Second - Ukrainian Hockey League is in the NPR queue. What I discovered is that the first related article began as Ukrainian Hockey Championship which is about the award before a team was formally organized & named. The first organized team was named Ukrainian Hockey Extra League but recently changed their name to Ukrainian Hockey League which is the one in the queue. We don't need 3 separate articles for the same thing. I'm thinking the main article should be Ukrainian Hockey League with an explanatory history section, and the others made into redirects or dabs, but I'm not versed enough in move-swap-merge-redirect-delete to properly handle this. Will you please look into it, and let me know what actions you take so I'll know how to do it in the future? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme! I'd post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey asking their thoughts on this before doing anything. They'll likely have the best idea how to proceed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Abir Babu

I think that we have a difficult editor. You warned him about posting a long list of questions. I tried to caution him, including that it isn't useful for a new editor to start out by asking how to report abusive admins. He has cleaned his talk page. He is continuing to edit aggressively, and seems to have a particular cause. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I warned them yesterday when they were spamming their questions on user talk pages. Oshwah blocked as a sock yesterday and then undid his block. Huon also G10'd a sandbox of theirs. I'll ask both of them to weigh in. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The block I applied to this account was based significantly off of my discovery of the page that Huon deleted as a G10. It was making very explicit personal attacks towards certain editors in the same context and explicit nature that LTAs try and smear through as any pages with before they're caught and sock blocked. However, I gave the user's edits as a whole another review and analysis and decided to remove my block (at least until I could get a second pair of eyes from another administrator or two). While that attack page gave me (almost) complete pause, their other contributions haven't seemed to reflect a typical LTA. Given their edits as a whole, I determined (at least at that moment in time) - that I did not have enough evidence to assert that this user is/was a sock puppet, and I left my decision keep the account umblocked as my final one at that time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's obvious that they feel strongly about the topic of circumcision, particularly when children are circumcised. I remember another disruptive editor being focused on that topic quite recently, but the behavioural evidence doesn't match closely enough to make me conclude sockpuppetry. Given the attack page, however, this at best bears close watching. If someone feels this strongly about a subject, problems will very likely occur. Huon (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)