Since 2005

Archive I (Feb-July 2005) • Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) • Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) • Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) • Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005) • Archive VI (12 September 2005 - 14 September 2006) • Archive VII (15 September 2006 - 1 March 2007) • Archive VIII (2 March 2007 - 12 May 2007) • Archive IX (12 May 2007 - 19 October 2007) • Archive X (19 October 2007 - 8 August 2016) • Archive XI (9 August 2016 - 7 May 2017) • Archive XII (10 May 2017 - 25 July 2017) • Archive XIII (25 July 2017 - 5 October 2017)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind editing it to remove any ambiguity - he isn't under a six-month ban, he is under an indefinite ban only appealable after six months - it doesn't expire at that point (the appeal may be declined). Resetting the counter just resets when he can appeal :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just caught my mistake and corrected myself over there. My apologies! A Train^talk 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault, most editors would not be a problem, however some wikilawyers would come back in 6 months time and say 'So and so said it was only for six months!'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Train, quick question. Is it OK to use company sources for straight-forward statements of fact (i.e. history of the company, major projects they were involved in, subdivisions of the company, employee count, etc.)? From my understanding, WP:PRIMARY allows it as long as editors exercise caution, but I was wondering if you knew a specific policy for companies. Big thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Found something at WP:ORG: "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." I guess this means "yes"? MX (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MX, yes, you've basically got it. Secondary sources are always preferred. But for truly mundane/uncontroversial stuff like the facts you're asking about, you can use the company's website. The relevant guidance is right over here. A Train^talk 16:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_E._Reynolds&diff=804034628&oldid=803915555 yes please. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Standby one. A Train^talk 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voila. Happy editing, Scratch. A Train^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the Afd for Skytap so it can be relisted it in a simpler and clearer way, as you requested in the discussion. If it is, you may want to comment again. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye out for it. Thanks, DGG. A Train^talk 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Train. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup.
Message added 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, A Train. I just noticed you have become a member of WiR. It's a great honour to have such a long-standing Wikipedia editor among us. Your help with Spanish will be useful. You'll find long lists of red links for virtually all the Spanish-speaking countries here. I see you haven't created many articles in the past; perhaps now's the time to start. If you need any help, let me know or keep us informed on the WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott, thanks for the kind welcome. That is a pretty nifty list you've got there. I think I will focus (at least initially) on Cuba and I will keep you appraised of my progress on the WikiProject talk page. Cheers! A Train^talk 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba would be a great start. I have recently written a number of biographies of Cuban women, for example Margarita Lecuona and Luisa Martínez Casado. But there are many more interesting names on the Wikidata redlink list. If you like, we can write some articles together. I also speak Spanish. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, I'm starting with User:A Train/Teté Puebla. Will crack on this weekend. A Train^talk 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teté Puebla is live. Picking a new subject in a few days. A Train^talk 10:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, just thought I'd let you know that Teté Puebla, which I created because of that list you pointed me to, will be on Did You Know at some point this week. I'll be tackling another one in November. Thanks again for running this great project. Cheers! A Train^talk 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've made good progress on Teté. We'll list her on our Showcase page when the article appears on DYK. Although I help with some of the back office stuff on WiR, the ones running the project are Rosiestep and Victuallers. Other active participants who help with running the project include Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. We all work closely together and are always keen to hear of any suggestions on how the project could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Hear hear (although Ipigott is too modest) Victuallers (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, A Train. Glad to meet you. Women in Red is a pretty flat project... we all run it together... so, happy to have you as part of the team. If you check out the talkpage, you'll see that we are quite "chatty" so drop by anytime with questions, comments, and so forth. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What they said A Train. If you ever need help, just ping me (2 u's no a). I speak Spanish, badly, but read it fairly well. I do lots of articles in the Caribbean and Latin America too, so it's nice to have someone who is interested in expanding our info on that area. SusunW (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any reference help, I'll do my best to find the sources. I can reach out to other librarians, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 Keep, 2 Redirect, 2 comment. How the result is redirect? --Joseph (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joseph, I explained further on the talk page. Let me know if that helps you understand or if you still have questions about it. A Train^talk 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helllo A Train,

I noticed the deletion of the Eugene Youth Symphony article when you removed links to it from the Eugene, Oregon article.

Would you be willing to put a copy of the article in my userspace as a draft? I found about 1 1/2 reliable sources (this) and this, and with a little digging at the city library and the University libraries I suspect there will be enough offline sources to develop it.

Cheers! —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene, it's my pleasure. The article is live at User:Grand'mere Eugene/Eugene Youth Symphony. Let me know if I can help with anything else! A Train^talk 12:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your decision and explanation on this page. I respect the decision, but I want to do what I can to revive it properly, including what you mentioned of putting it in my drafts.

It is humorous and ironic that the artist was featured in an article TODAY (where they ARE the main subject) the day after you determined the deletion of the page. Stacked Like Pancakes was featured on Alternative Press. Here is the article. This is inarguably significant.

Is it possible that this, combined with the other credible information provided on the original page, could be a basis for reinstatement for the page? Even if it is broken down and fixed up even further than it was... this article feature on Alt Press is proof of what I mentioned in the discussion: the artist is growing quickly, and there will only be more press to come.

Thanks again. RisingDown360 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RisingDown360, my best advice is just to be patient. You've got one more source today than you had yesterday, so any argument for having the article is exactly one source stronger. Why not wait 6 or 9 months and come back with a bunch of really good references: profiles of the band (WP:DEPTH) from nationally-recognized sources (WP:RS).

My other advice for you is to edit some stuff that isn't about Stacked Like Pancakes. Wikipedia editors will always look askance at someone who only ever edits one article, and for good reason. If your entire Wikipedia editing experience is one article, you don't have any perspective on how the wider project works, and you're unlikely to be able to be neutral about the topic. If you get the thing that you really want, a Stacked Like Pancakes article permanently on Wikipedia, it's going to be there for anyone and everyone to edit, change, and improve. You need to be cool with that, and the best way to get there is to edit other stuff.

Good luck. A Train^talk 20:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've changed my !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrafile, as pings aren't working I thought I'd just drop a note by. DrStrauss talk 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the heads up, Doc! Glad to see there are good sources. I'm off to change my position. A Train^talk 20:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Lexers615 Lexers615 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, okay. Lexers615, please take some friendly advice and start making productive edits to the encyclopedia and stop wasting everyone's time with your various vendettas. A Train^talk 08:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you mind posting (on the AFD) the reason you closed the discussion as a keep on the AFD for Cassie Jaye? It was a pretty close discussion and I'd like to know your reading of the consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've done so over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cassie Jaye. A Train^talk 08:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|The Women in Red World Contest]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

On 23 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CD Rev, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Chinese government sponsors a gangsta rap group called CD Rev? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CD Rev. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, CD Rev), 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 00:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for much for your insight into AfDs, RfCs, and OmGs. Your insight always seems to be spot on, and it's great to have sanity in less than sane situations! Thanks again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you Drewmutt! A Train^talk 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am confused as to why you reached the decision of no consensus on the AfD for this article. The debate had one vote for redirect, two for delete, and two for keep. Even if I think that JClemens has no argument that it merits a redirect, at the very least, the decision should have been Redirect, as Delete votes imply also being okay with Redirection. However, the Redirect vote would have been the tie breaker that gave it consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zxcvbnm. I must beg to differ with you. Your interpretation is wrong in a couple of important ways. First off, AfD isn't a vote, it's a discussion with goal of achieving consensus. The idea that any one "vote" at AfD represents a "tie-breaker" is a complete and total misunderstanding of how AfD works; we don't close discussions by counting heads. If that's what the process was, we would just have a bot do it, not an admin. Read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, if you haven't already. Secondly, arguments to redirect are flat out not interchangeable with arguments to delete. I can discuss that further if you want but again, it's all in the Guide to deletion. A Train^talk 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that AfD is not a vote, however in this particular case, the arguments were essentially split along the lines of "this is notable" and "this isn't notable". So ultimately, I don't see what it would break down to if not simply counting heads. And while Delete votes are irrenconciliable with Redirect votes in certain AfDs, in this one I believe that it would be, since it is a sub article of the parent article Holography, so it goes to reason that a redirect would barely be any different than a delete. If it counts for anything, I am fine with redirection as an alternative to deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your desired outcome is redirection, then Articles for Deletion is not the place to have discussion, the article's talk page is. If you really think I messed this one up, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. A Train^talk 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this page^[1].

As I pointed out the previous admin who deleted it, this subject more than meets your notability criteria^[2].

They meet criteria #8: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."

The key words in criteria #8 are "such as". A major music award is not exclusive to the awards listed. There are numerous major music awards all over the planet that are not Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis awards that would qualify a subject within criteria #8. This is something the previous admin who deleted the page failed to understand. That's why I'm pointing it out here.

The subject in question just won a SOCAN^[3] Award. Here is a link^[4] to prove it. They won the International Song Award, bottom of page 2. They are listed under their legal names, Yannick Rastogi and Zacharie Raymond. They are the first two songwriters listed. That's not a coincidence. They are the primary songwriters and sole producers of the song.

They also meet criteria #2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

And criteria #3: "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country."

The SOCAN Award they won was for Olly Murs' "Kiss Me"^[5] which charted^[6] in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Scotland and the UK and was certified gold in the UK^[7].

Please put the page back up. I'm happy to generate out a more robust Wiki page for this subject myself with sources that conform to Wikipedia's best practices. Thanks.

sifr4 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Sifr4. You're right that I deleted that page, but I didn't do it unilaterally, just because I felt like it. I deleted it because there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BANX & RANX among other editors to do so. If I just recreated the page, I would be disregarding that consensus.

What I could do is re-create the article as a draft in your userspace, though what I actually recommend (because you're somewhat new) is to head over to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and work with the great folks over there. They might be able to help you work up an article on your subject of choice. Cheers, A Train^talk 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest you did it unilaterally. And your consensus was wrong. I have provided proof that the subject meets three of the criteria, listed above. Three of the criteria. Three. It only needs to meet one of these criteria to qualify as notable. So the subject is actually three times as notable as what your consensus failed to grasp. Please recreate the article in my userspace so I at least a draft to work from. Thanks. sifr4 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am curious why you deleted this article. Could you please share the reasoning (I have not found it elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmordie (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Mcmordie. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maladaptive daydreaming. Your message seems to have been your first edit to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know, but you may want to look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy as well. A Train^talk 20:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make was that the Christianity Today review was stating the movie itself wasn't notable by only giving it 2-stars out of 4. "Trying to rebut arguments with stuff like"... implied that there were multiple instances of my not understanding WP:NFILM Anything else you feel necessary to share? Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way, Shearonink, that wasn't my intent. But to be honest, even your defense here is yet another misunderstanding of WP:N and WP:NFILM. A film reviewer judging a film to be a 2 out of 4 is in no way, shape, or form, a suggestion that the film is not encyclopedically notable for Wikipedia's purposes. This is so self-evident that I'm not even sure how to go about refuting it. Many of your other arguments at that AfD were wildly beside the point. Just for starters:

• This movie is not the first about Aimee Semple McPherson...: not remotely relevant for notability. GoldenEye isn't the first film about James Bond, ergo not notable per your argument.
• Netflix....only available on DVD, not available for streaming. The relevance of this cannot be measured with an electron microscope.

Again, I apologize if I got your back up. But you should definitely consider not bringing stuff to AfD based on this sort of argumentation. A Train^talk 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "first film" - Did you notice that I was responding to ProfessorClaudele's (or that IP's - can't remember which) claims when they said that one of their claims for notability was based upon the fact that the film was the first biographical film about a major Pentecostal figure. I was responding to their statement.

As to Netflix - Again. I was responding to one of the two proponents' claims for notability stating the the film was widely-distributed, stating something to the effect "that it was available on Netflix" which most people would take to mean available on Netflix's streaming platform. But it is not, it is only available as a DVD. So I then looked at the available DVD sales on Amazon where the film is at #155,829 in Movies & TV in terms of sales.

But ok. Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but can you please explain what is it about Half Marriage's long term significance makes it the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over Half Marriage (TV series)? I pointed out how about 90% of readers going to the 1929 film page are almost certainly looking for the Indian TV series, so the primary topic criteria satisfied by the film can't be primacy in terms of what readers want. Is there any evidence that the film has significant enduring notability? I only did a cursory search for sources about the film, but wasn't able to find anything besides namedrops, and nothing in-depth besides the original 1929 NYT review. [1] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teté Puebla, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cuban parliamentarian Teté Puebla is the first female general in the nation's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teté Puebla. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teté Puebla), 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) 00:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I do my level best to be responsible with the admin tools"

Thank you for quality articles, some translated from Spanish, such as Teté Puebla and Dennis Muren, for admin service from 2005, for connecting articles and dealing with deletions, for welcoming new users, personally: "You're off to a flying start!", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]