He reverted all of that in one stroke with a foggy edit summary:″That is just replication mate.″
Just keep a note of all these things. This sort of arbitrary reversals are what makes me so against userspace. He can revert my contributions as many times with poxy rationales as he wants and I can do nothing about it, helpful? Mr T^(Talk?) 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will take you up on your offer to creation protect my user page. Should some time in the future I decide that i want to create such a page, I will be willing to take the extra step of requesting unprotection. Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done by pagewatcher me. KillerChihuahua 17:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know you were watching my talk page. Frankly I'm surprised that anyone does; nothing much interesting happens here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember why your page is on my watchlist, but it is. Doesn't mean I'll notice when you need help, please ping me if you ever do. :-) KillerChihuahua 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I also have no memory of why I added this page to my watchlist; but it is, and I sometimes even follow the link from my watchlist to read posts. No idea who the other 150 or so watchers are that have this page on their watchlist, but now you know two of us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Neither of you have edited this page before so you must have added it deliberately. For me, talk pages get on my watch list because I left a comment on them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now that is odd. That's how most pages get on my watchlist too, along with requests for more watchers on an article requested at ANI. Huh. KillerChihuahua 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It can be a little disturbing to find out exactly who watches over your conversations.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I supposedly have 296 watchers, but they're usually awfully quiet, so I guess they aren't watching too darn close. Or maybe my page is really, really boring. :-/ KillerChihuahua 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have time, would you be willing to look over this dispute I have filed at the Admin's Noticeboard? Don't worry, I'm not in trouble, I just have an issue that needs solving. I tried the Dispute Resolution board, and it was closed as "insufficient" before anything could come of it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I take that noticeboard off my watchlist and the same day I have to go look at it again!

Without posting your position on the article talk page, I can't say I'm surprised that the case was closed.

If your dispute is with one other editor, have you also considered Wikipedia:Third opinion? Before I became an admin I participated there extensively and found it a good venue for dispute resolution for disputes involving only two editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For christ's sake, can I not talk to anyone here without someone accusing me of causing an "incident"? Obviously I've done nothing wrong here. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Because you are under editing restrictions, be aware that your comments will be scrutinized closely through that lens. Technically it is a violation (and, as TransporterMan pointed out, even giving someone a compliment would also be a violation, technically). Personally I don't believe it rises to the level of what I and Bbb23 had in mind when we drafted those restrictions, but I think it would be wise to take NE_Ent's advice on your talk page and strike out the personal comment you left on Aussielegend's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Anachronist. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry about that at Puducherry Legislative Assembly. Someone had, in the meantime, moved Pondicherry (city) to Pondicherry, following the move of the union territory article from Pondicherry to Puducherry. In doing so, they had somehow managed to detach the Talk page, and the Talk page for the union territory had attached itself to city article. An administrator has now sorted out the mess and returned the city article to Pondicherry (city). It is not at all clear at this stage that the city's name has been changed, though the requested move process concluded that the union territory had definitely changed name.

The legislative assembly article relates to the union territory, and so it is appropriate to move it to Puducherry Legislative Assembly as part of the cleanup following the move of the union territory article. I have reinstated the request at Puducherry Legislative Assembly. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you got it sorted out. I have performed the requested move. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! How are you? Please visit Deletion review for Hiroyuki Tsuchida An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hiroyuki Tsuchida. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2013‎

You've expressed interest in incubation during the AfD; I can userfy or incubate the article if you want, just let me know. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to close the AFD, let's incubate. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Retrospec with history preserved. Cheers! Salvidrim! ✉ 07:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please repeat my removal of the supposed square war flag from the infobox on this article? I was reverted once without a source, so I removed it a second time and opened a discussion on the Talk Page as supposed to, including a request to be joined on the talk page in the edit summary of my second removal. I've been reverted again by Chrisieboy who has neither joined me on the talk page as requested, or posted a source in his edit summary. I have also posted a reply on his talk page. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, he posted a source, so I'll move on from the article. However I would appreciate some support on his talk page of the fact that one revision is not "edit warring". I reverted him once, I edited the article a total of 2 times, a far cry from the Wiki Policy definition "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". Fry1989 ^eh? 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The message at the top of my talk page says I'm generally unavailable on weekends.

I understand your interpretation, it's an interpretation that comes up fairly often but doesn't reflect community consensus. Your first edit would be considered a revert because it removed content that someone else added (reverting back to a previous state), even though you reverted Chrisieboy only once. Please be extra cautious during your probation. WP:BRD is good practice at all times and will always keep you out of trouble. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By that definition ANY edit on Wikipedia that removes (or returns) content, no matter how long after, could be considered a "revision". I edited the article a total of twice, that doesn't even break 3RR never mind branch out into the territory of edit warring. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You might be surprised how many people are hauled into WP:AE for just that: removing or restoring content, and then performing a revert. There are entire classes of articles subject to a community-wide 1RR restriction, and some editors get caught by the same interpretation you have. Articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are notorious for this.

Adding new content, or replacing content with something different, would be a valid edit that isn't considered a revert.

You're under a 1RR restriction. Some time ago I noticed this and [9], which are two reverts, but I let it go because it was apparent you didn't consider the first one a revert, and your opponent didn't make a point of it either. But now that you've brought it up again, for the purpose of preserving your unblocked state I feel obliged to tell you that you should modify your perspective on what qualifies as a revert. If your first edit removes or returns content, it's a revert, because you're revising the article to a prior state. If you add something new, or replace content with something new, it isn't a revert. I can't stress enough that following WP:BRD will keep you out of trouble. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've had a request over at WT:WHITELIST for almost two months now. Not the end of the world or anything but I'm wondering if you know if there's a way to report a backlog or something to get those approved (or denied). Since it's the first time I've used that page and it seems to be separate from the WP namespace I'm hesitant to bring it up at WP:AN. I saw you commenting over there and I figured I'd bug you :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN would be a place to report backlogs, but few admins are familiar with the operations of the blacklist and whitelist and regex coding. The ones that are do monitor that page, and yes, many requests don't get answered for a while, partly because disruptive activity constantly demands the attention of admins. That's why there's always a backlog at the whitelist, at WP:RM, and other places where admin inaction has no impact on disruption, and why there's seldom a backlog at the blacklist, at WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP, for example.

It would be nice if we could designate some non-admin users as trusted "clerks" to deny requests that need denying and endorse other requests for admins to review, similar to how WP:SPI works.

I will decline your request, by the way, and post my reasoning there. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I figured it was a longshot. I'll trim the article references accordingly. Thank you for looking at it! And if that 'clerk' thing ever materializes, let me know. If I qualify for whatever criteria that ends up requiring, I'll be glad to help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic,

Earlier today, JamesBWatson brought up Repeat loop for speedy deletion and I contested the CSD, as not satisfying the criteria needed, on the article's talk page. Now it looks like you (I think it was you, my apologies if I am confused here) converted the article to a redirect with no justification provided for the conversion. Perhaps you didn't see the contest on the talk page, or perhaps my arguments were incorrect? Either way, as a relatively new editor, I would like to understand the reasoning behind the redirect.

Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see your contested deletion, sorry. However, I did agree with JamesBWatson that the subject is covered sufficiently in control flow, and that the narrower subject didn't justify a separate article, and especially the laundry list of examples did not seem valuable (such lists tend to grow as people add their favorite examples and become unmanageable). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I interpreted WP:CSD A10 literally; if any significant content was added to the article, A10 did not apply. But if one can interpret A10 more broadly, as to whether the added content was significant in the opinion of the editor or administrator, then A10 becomes a much more powerful tool for deletion. Folks could in principle be able to completely bypass AfD for any articles that were break outs or forks of other articles. It seems a dangerous precedent to set. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning was this: If the parent article can be expanded reasonably, then it's reasonable to do that instead of create a whole new article. If the expansion is significant enough to warrant a fork, then that's fine too, unless it's a WP:POVFORK which isn't allowed. My issue with your article was that the actual content about repeat loops was fairly minimal and could have easily been incorporated in the control flow article. The bulk of repeat loop was taken up by examples in different languages, which seemed unnecessary for the topic. In this case (as with any speedy deletion) two people have to agree: the nominator, and the administrator. In this case, the nominator was another administrator too; he didn't delete the article unilaterally himself because admins have to go through the same process everyone else does.

I'm normally pretty sensitive to the problem of people using speedy deletion as a means to bypass AFD. I see it a lot. This is a frequent issue with WP:CSD#G6 nominations to move an article over an existing redirect without any WP:RM discussion. And note also that I didn't delete the article. All the history is still there. I simply declined the speedy deletion nomination by changing it to a redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your detailed reply. I understand better your reasoning now. It wasn't actually my article; User:Carrot Lord was the originator and main driver of the article. I made some very minor improvements to it, so was tracking it on my watchlist. I came to your talk page mostly because of an unexpected redirect with no explanation. Case closed as far as I am concerned, thanks. Mark viking (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	thanks Kikililly01 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you nominated this article for speedy deletion. I have not logged in for a few days but I will be restoring the article. It will easily meet WPN and GNG. I was interrupted by RL when I was finishing it up. Just an FYI Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please look at this article Adrian Visby / Cabalaza Records editor that seems to have COI is blocking all speedy attempts and I don't want to start an edit war. PhantomTech (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, left a note on the author's talk page, closed your AFD. As a biography, the article failed to demonstrate notability. However, an article on the record company might pass, since their roster includes some notable artists/bands who have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the main reason I was tagging it was because it had a bunch of ad links that I edited out after he removed the speedy PhantomTech (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic

You deleted WorldlyTown article due to this reason - 00:54, 30 January 2013 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page WorldlyTown (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): See WP:CORP for inclusion criteria)

I think there is much explanation about the subject (WorldlyTown) to make it significant. Could you please advice me how can I protect this page from deletion or I need to recreate this page. If it is necessary to recreate then provide me the guidelines.

Thanks Cxs107

The article as it stood contained no explanation of how WorldlyTown is significant or notable. Even if it did contain a claim of notability to ward off a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 criteria, it still wouldn't survive a deletion nomination because the company fails to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:CORP. That, as well as the general notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability are the guidelines you need to work from.

I suggest working on the article in your own sandbox. That way you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted, before moving it to main article space. Just be aware that if it doesn't comply with WP:CORP, it will be deleted again. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. User:Weinplus is currently appealing their username block. Their new username seems legit (and confirms that it's only a single user), and whilst their work is rather SPA-ish, it's actually productive and (since they aren't adding links, but only correcting pre-existing ones) not promotional. I'm happy to unblock and send to WP:CHU if you are. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to unblock that account and close the request. I agree the edits have been constructive; it's only the username that was a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool; I see you've sorted it. Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your edit and am wondering how else I can get my blacklist request for Movie Review Intelligence reviewed. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have declined your request there, and re-opened discussion on the blacklist page. I think this deserves some serious discussion. I don't yet have an opinion myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the blacklist is not frequented enough for there to be multiple editors weighing in. I am wondering how we can build toward a consensus beyond us three so far? DRN posting, RfC? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Be patient. That page gets a few edits per day, and I know a handful of admins who patrol it regularly. Me, I'm rarely on Wikipedia on weekends. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Others will chime in, be patient  ;)--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask, does WP:OR apply in any sense to the website Movie Review Intelligence? My understanding of WP:OR is that it applies to what editors may try to put in Wikipedia articles. I can understand the other concerns, but this one seems grossly misapplied. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:OR applies only to outside sources when those sources aren't considered reliable. Blogs and self-published sources are examples of external sources rife with their own original research, but we have other guidelines to keep them out. A more relevant example would be the user review aggregation published by Rotten Tomatoes. We don't cite those, because they consist of user-generated content (essentially self-published by many users). It's original research too, but that's secondary to the reliability of user review aggregations. In the case of Movie Review Intelligence, WP:RS would be most relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you're unaware of this thread and because I mentioned your name. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a notice on the creation page that in 2011 you deleted Osmosis (disambiguation). So I wanted to clear it with you before I re-created the page. I have something like this in mind. Are you okay with my re-creation of the page? – Paine (Climax!)  20:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The page I deleted wasn't useful because it contained only one disambiguation entry. What you suggest looks far more useful. I have no objection to re-creating it as you propose. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – Amatulić – Paine (Climax!)  21:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maxkudos on your improvements, btw! – Paine (Climax!)  13:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Amatulic

I need your feedback yet again, please don't ignore the request. Darkness Shines is again behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here; it won't take long just go through the discussion. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source.

He btw got out of a week-long block recently. I would have taken this to RSN or NOR but these topics relating to Kashmir and Human rights abuses have a knack of becoming pariah. Just tell me what to do. Mr T^(Talk?) 15:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Should I be concerned about this? What did I do to deserve this? I don't understand this. Mr T^(Talk?) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you should not be concerned. That was a courtesy message, reporting the fact that you had been notified of a particular arbcom decision that you need to be aware of if you want to participate on India-Pakistan pages. By being aware of those arbcom restrictions, you will less likely fall afoul of them.

If I were you, I'd take your dispute to WP:ORN. The edit warring between you both would warrant a block on both, given the arbcom ruling, but I don't believe that would solve anything.

I am overseas (Asia) at the moment and am on Wikipedia only every few days for a few minutes. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there; this user, with whom you have interracted within the last few months, has posted an unblock request. Would you be good enough to review the thread and to comment thereon? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have promised this editor that I will review his/her edits on a 24/7 basis for the next 2/12, if you agree to unblock on this basis. But I am waiting for you decision here; this user has been problematical in the past. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ello Amatulić,

Recently you moved page Cargobicycle to Freight bicycle over a redirect without leaving a redirect but forgot to check WhatLinksHere and due to that, 22 redirects to Cargobicycle were left broken. (I fixed them all :) In the future, please be sure to check! :) -- Cheers, Riley 02:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. In my haste I assumed, wrongly, that a recently created implausible redirect wouldn't have any inbound links. I guess the person who moved the article to Cargobicycle must have changed the links at the time of the move. Thanks for fixing. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. I believe your pushing your tools a bit too far here. It was not a re-creation of the deleted page. Blue is a major update to W8. I created that redirect as a genuine reader. Please restore that redirect and talkpage. It causes no harm and only helps direct more attention on the W8 article for expansion. Latest trusted source (18hrs old). Rehman 15:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Blue. The admin you need to ask is User:Sjakkalle, the closing admin for that AFD who determined that a redirect was not appropriate. If Sjakkalle agrees that a redirect is now appropriate, I have no objection either. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with the AFD, but as you can clearly see for yourself, the situation has clearly changed. With all due respect to the other admin, are you trying to say that just because an admin deleted a page, s/he owns that article? And we need his/her permission to recreate it when we clearly can create it now (at least a redirect)? That's fine if it's the same user recreating the page. But I had created that page as a third-party, genuinely looking up the term, and not finding anything, not at least a redirect. "Windows+Blue" 3.5 million Google results as of now. Please restore that redirect. Rehman 01:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's about half that. Half of those results refer to "windows blue screen of death". ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But it's less than half. And even if it is half, it's still a big number. Rehman 02:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that anyone owns the page. I am saying however, that you will find all admins on Wikipedia reluctant to revert the decision of another admin without first getting agreement from the admin who made the decision. I have posted a note on Sjakkalle's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the query. In the AFD I declined to make a redirect because there was no reference to "Windows Blue" in the suggested target article. That means that a reader following a redirect at "Windows Blue" will face confusion when the article he was directed to contains nothing about it. That does not mean that this result is set in stone; however I looked at the Microsoft Windows article and it still has no mention to Windows Blue. Per the points made by Rehman above, it is possible that mentioning Microsoft Blue in that article may be a good idea, and in that case a redirect may be appropriate as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But that still doesn't hold:

 • Having no redirect = Doesn't help the reader. Doesn't help the potential writer.

 • Having a redirect = At least points the reader to a related article (instead of absolutely nothing). Encourages further expansion.

I have no big interest in needing that redirect up and running, I just want to make it clear that deleting such redirects just doesn't make sense. It's impossible for me to remember out of the blue, but there are already quite a significant number of such redirects which points at their related article with the target article not containing the subjects of the redirect. This is at least the case in the astronomy-related articles I frequently read. Redirecting Blue to Windows 8 at least gives the reader some fact the Blue is related W8. Something is better than nothing. Rehman 01:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see where Rehman is coming from, but I disagree with him that no redirect doesn't help the reader; it tells the reader that Wikipedia doesn't cover the topic he was looking for. The relevant guideline here is WP:R#PLA which says: "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes." Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best way to treat existing redirects, but has absolutely nothing to do with I am trying to put forward here. The page you're referring to doesn't say to abstain from creating redirects just because there isn't related content in the lead, does it? With all due respect, please stop spiralling into limbo and just restore the harmless redirect already. The rocketing Google results clearly shows that your original reason for deletion no longer holds. What this "modern Wikipedia" always forgets nowadays is that, this is a volunteer project; You build the road to the subject, and someone else will build the subject. Please restore the redirect and end this thread; we can dedicate our time in much more important venues than worrying about a simple redirect. Rehman 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with simply mentioning "Windows Blue" in the lead and creating the redirect? If there's a relationship, it should be mentioned and the redirect should exist. If not, then there's no reason to have the redirect anyway. We don't create redirects for topics that have no coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The deleted version was pretty speculative, and that it's official isn't grounds to restore that version, in my opinion, but rather, to create a whole new version based on the sources that have now appeared.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• What is wrong with simply mentioning "Windows Blue" in the lead and creating the redirect? Nothing. I just don't have the time myself to go into research/article writing right now. But this is Wikipedia, someone somewhere will have the time, if we can stop crushing the little paths leading to the opportunity. I have been telling this since the beginning!
• If not, then there's no reason to have the redirect anyway Being an admin, please tell me you're kidding. We're not some multi-billion dollar paid-encyclopedia. There were/are hundreds of thousands of redirects pointing to articles without related content. And then someone adds that information when they have time. That was, is, and always will be how Wikipedia works. Such redirects always plays a major role in site-wide expansion, encyclopedic or not. Bombing down such key paths to development just makes thing very user-unfriendly.
• We don't create redirects for topics that have no coverage. I would like to see some solid evidence on this.

Kindly please read through the whole thread, see what I am trying to ask for here, before you're next reply. --Rehman 02:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have time to write paragraphs on this talk page, yet you don't have the time to modify a single sentence in the lead? I say again, there is no reason to have a redirect to an article unrelated to that redirect. The fact that it happens is not a valid argument. I did read this thread. What I see here is an argument to create a new article, not to redirect a title to an unrelated topic.

Someone else nominated that redirect for deletion, because there was a valid reason to do so. It had been determined earlier that it should not exist, and I deleted it. I have no objection to restoring the redirect if the target mentions the topic, or creating a new article about a rumored "Windows Blue" (the rumor being notable due to its coverage). But the conditions necessary for having any content show up at all for "Windows Blue" have not been met, as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your whole last response if completely irrelevant. Could you kindly point out where have I said that I wanted to create an article? And could you clearly reply to the three points I made above please? Rehman 02:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It should have been obvious that my last response was a point by point response to your three points, as well as some additional commentary. I can separate it into bullets if you want, but I felt it unnecessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you disagree to point 2? If so, why? And what is your evidence to point 3? Rehman 03:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I explained why. My response to point 3 was based on WP:R.

In any case, the redirect now exists. Problem solved. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic

Thanks for attending to G4 on Windows Blue page. Unfortunately, it is recreated again, with a nonexistent redirect target. Perhaps the page should be salted?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look carefully, it redirects to an appropriate target. It isn't nonexistent. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Oh, I see it: It is a single sentence. Yeah, it was really hard to spot. I though it redirects to "Platform Support". Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus on changing all articles of personality in Islam form "Islamic view of X" → "X in Islam". See here and this title also need to be corrected so kindly move the page to the title "Adam in Islam". --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The move request referenced discussions on Talk:Abraham in Islam. The two closed move discussions there had no consensus for such a move. Therefore I declined the request. However, I see I missed a third discussion there in the middle. Anyway, someone else took care of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you have been dealing with the debris left by Jason Flom. I recognized the name Calabaza Republic immediately (and the picture used for the label as well) as similar to Calabaza Records, which led me to suspect Jason and the other editors of Calabaza as a new batch of puppets of Horizontal Law. I have reopened that SPI to include the new editors. It has already been dealt with. (That was quick!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hm. I blocked Jason Flom for promotional activities. Didn't know that account was a sock, or that the problem was so extensive. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic,

I require your feedback and valuable suggestions about my articles. The article which i have written with good reference links and citations is being entirely deleted by an anonymous user ( from IP address, not an wikipedia editor). Could you take look at that article and help me regarding the same. Here's my latest article- INSZoom

Thanks and Regards,

Writeindia (talk) 28 February 2013

I agree with the anonymous editor who is removing material. Your writing is promotional in tone, and the sources you are using (youtube etc.) to support the assertions are poor. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created the Page Steve Cyr and it had gotten deleted. I've included valid references and a format. Steve is a well known VIP host within Vegas and is a notable figure. WHat do i need to do to keep this page up? --96.26.154.133 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Steven Cyr, written by Stevencyr (talk · contribs) was deleted as being unambiguously promotional as well as containing copyright violations. Another article Steve Cyr, written by a sockpuppet account Vegashost (talk · contribs) apparently controlled by the original account Stevecyr (talk · contribs), was deleted as being substantially identical to the first article, and both Stevencyr and Vegashost accounts are now blocked (Stevecyr is still unblocked). Since you claim to have created the page Steve Cyr, that means you are the same person.

User:Stevecyr is also a copy of the same article, and also a copyright violation of http://stevecyr.com/team/about-steve/ so it will soon be deleted also.

As long you persist on writing the article with a promotional tone and copyright violation, the article will continue to be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the editor in question has release for the content in question. Probably good to give them a couple of days to take care of the process via OTRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Any random editor can claim to have permission to republish copyrighted content, and that doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia needs permission to re-post such content. There is no evidence that Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries has been filed.

Nevertheless, I looked at the source and the article, and they are probably different enough that a copyvio isn't the issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah just deleted it again while we wait for the paper work. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to delete the talk page too? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (if you write on my page I'll reply on my page, to keep the conversation consistent)

Can you please return me a copy of my "Box of Seals" article. As I was invited to comment, I stated on the Discussion Page how it was a Work in Progress - did you not read the notes? I would appreciate the return of the text for my archives. Please do not find my being short with you - merely unfamiliar with this system and the speed by which you decline my writing. Anthony Seldon (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article made me chuckle, particularly the image caption. I'll restore it to your user space. As it stood in main space, it strongly smelled of a hoax. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Give this too, my bog-o-meter is flashing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, that is just vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm glass

Might be of interest Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I de-PRODded this article because I think the journal is notable (although I absolutely agree with you that not each academic journal is inherently notable). Hepatitis Monthly is indexed in some very selective databases (Scopus and SCI-Expanded) and has a very respectable impact factor, so it meets WP:NJournals (just an essay, but generally followed in AfDs of journals). Hope you agree. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. After examining suspicious promotional activity of the author who has a clear COI, did a brief search and didn't see any evidence of notability, so I prodded it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic,

I have recently started working for a company that tried posting the below information on Wikipedia. I am trying to figure out what was the reason for the decline- if there was a specific reason in the content you can point out to me- and if you can direct me in a way to re-write this.

Thank you in advance for your help

Smangiapane (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(article copy-and-paste removed)

No need to paste the entire article here. I can see what was deleted at Information Technology Empowerment Center.

To answer your question, the article failed to make any assertion of significance (resulting in its speedy deletion) and it also failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

See WP:CSD#A7 for the reason why the article was speedy-deleted. To avoid speedy deletion, an article must assert why the topic is important. The fact that the organization exists and does good work, or even does unique work, is not sufficient. What's so special about ITEC that it should have a Wikipedia article?

Even if notability had been asserted to avoid speedy deletion, it would still be deleted by the WP:AFD process because the article failed to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for organizations. See WP:CORP to learn what criteria an organization must meet before it merits an article on Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope this is the correct place to write you back. Luckily, we do have reliable sources which include some newspaper articles but they have already been archived and charge individuals to view. We did however for our own purposes, saved them in a Dropbox folder as a PDF. How do we refer people to theses archived articles? Can we just post our PDF Dropbox file? Smangiapane (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources need not be available online to be used as references; however, the coverage must constitute more than trivial mentions, and the sources should have national, or at least regional distribution (not local community newspapers) according to WP:CORP.

Because you have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance), I recommend that you submit the article through WP:AFC rather than attempt to create it yourself in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see comments from Ring Cinema and myself at Talk:Francis Ford Coppola. Thanks. Winkelvi (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my VK4502(p) page? i don't go around and delete your stuff so please restore my page it was created by me and took a while to create so please put back don't go around and be rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comm1098 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a copyright violation. And it will likely get deleted again.

Also there is no "your stuff" or "my stuff" on Wikipedia. You'd best learn that real fast. See WP:OWN.

Especially, if you copy or only lightly paraphrase from another web site, it isn't "your" stuff or even Wikipedia's stuff, because Wikipedia has no permission to republish it. Continue in that vein and you risk being blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Amatulic. I noticed you deleted John Matthews Manly as a G12 copvio -- but it was listed as being copied from this source which has a CC-BY-SA license. (I saw it only because I happened to look at another of this editor's creations that was listed for G12 --William Romaine Newbold). I agree with your edit summary that it needs some work to bring it close to Wikipedia. But I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. You may wish to recreate it. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. Restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of working on this article. You deleted it before I could contest it or finish adding references. She is a prominent artist and she meets all the criteria. Can you please put the page back so I can finish. Thanks. ----Sue Maberry (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Restored. It's an unsourced biography, however, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so please add sources quickly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Have added many sources. And, I'll continue over the next few days. --Sue Maberry (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm involved in that many disputes at the moment with relatively new conributors that it is wearing me down. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am skeptical that your rationale for deletion will fly on Commons, since Commons pretty much requires everything to be original work. Based on my conversations with other admins there, Commons is pretty relaxed about what they'll allow as long as it isn't copyrighted. The usage of the maps on Wikipedia is a clearer issue, I believe. Wikipedias in other countries would likely have no problem with those maps, so Commons is the most logical repository for them.

Working in articles covered by ArbCom general sanctions can wear you down if such articles are your main area of work on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have seen ARBPIA deployed. And I'm not sure that it has any legs in this situation: skimming through stuff, nationalist bias is not something that seems to be a large part of the difficulties.

Commons has deleted such images nominated by me previously, although I can't name any off the top of my head. I agree that they are pretty relaxed by comparison with WP, though the number of instances of copyvio'd content is so high in my experience that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. I just look at stuff connected to things I do on WP. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The file was kept at Commons. However, so that a consolidated content discussion related to the Punjabi dialects map can occur in one place on English Wikipedia (instead of many different places), I have created the discussion page File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. Please continue discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting a "Saratoga Mall" in California? The only "Saratoga" mall I see in California was El Paseo de Saratoga, which ceased to be a mall in 1996. There is a mall on Saratoga in San Jose, but it's called Westgate Shopping Center. And as far as I can tell, the New York mall is the only "Saratoga Mall" in existence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, this image quite clearly shows an apostrophe in "80's Ladies". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Care to answer me? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? I have no problem with your analysis above, and the higher resolution image you found.

By the way, the locals here often refer to the Westagate as Saratoga Mall, which was the source of my confusion. That usage is likely due to the name of a theater and the major draw there (AMC Saratoga) influences what people call the whole shopping center. Or it could be that Westgate recently took it over and changed the name (there are multiple Westgate shopping malls in the area). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can find, Westgate was always called Westgate, as evidenced by this 1960s photo. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. There are a couple of Westfield malls around here, but you're right it isn't the same as Westgate. Must be the theater there that causes people to call it "Saratoga Mall". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the coding on that discussion page. I'm not a professional coder, and (as a result) I'm not good at remembering templates names and syntax. Accordingly, I often do a quick search for the sort of template I'm after, then use the first suitable one that presents itself. On that page, I used Template:Discussion-Closed-End and Template:Discussion-Closed-Start to delimit the old discussions, having found them at Category:Talk namespace templates. (I had never used them before, but they served the purpose.) I just now inserted a "see also" link in that category to point to Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates, which would have helped me if I had found it! No wonder Wikipedia is so bewildering to newbies... --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem! I saw what you did, then I remembered I had one of those nifty collapsing templates (Template:Hidden archive top) on my user page. I didn't want a hidden archive though, but the bottom of that template page has links to other archiving templates. The closed discussion ones weren't quite right because they included a warning message in big bold letters against modifying the discussion. Template:Collapse top seemed like the best and most flexible one, with lots of configuration options for heading messages, whether the default should be collapsed or expanded, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm not alone. I've used all of those templates at one time or another, but I couldn't remember what I was looking for. Glad you found it! --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The user has blanked her talk page. I reported her for her un-constructive behaviour and she was blocked for 24 hours, but now with an other image, which is for "Dialects of Punjabi", but she has put it witha size of 400px in these unwanted articles: The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed): Ahmadpur East Attock Attock District Bahawalnagar Bahawalnagar District Bahawalpur Bahawalpur District Bhakkar Bhakkar District Burewala Chakwal Chhachi dialect Chishtian Darya Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ghazi Khan District Derawali dialect Dhani dialect Dialects of the Punjab Doabi dialect Dogri language Faisalabad Faisalabad District Ghebi dialect Gujar Khan Gujranwala Gujranwala District Gujrat District Gujrat city Haroonabad, Bahawalnagar Hasilpur Jampur Jandali dialect Jauharabad Jhangvi dialect Jhelum Jhelum District Kalabagh Karor Lal Esan Kasur Kasur District Khanewal Khanewal District Khanpur Khushab Khushab District Kot Adu Lahnda (Western Punjabi) Lahore Lahore District Layyah Layyah District Liaqauatpur Lodhran Lodhran District Mailsi Malwi dialect Mianwali Mianwali District Multan Multan District Multani dialect Muzaffargarh Muzaffargarh District Nankana Sahib District Narowal Narowal District Punjab, Pakistan Punjabi language Pwadhi dialect Rahim Yar Khan Rahim Yar Khan District Rajanpur Rajanpur District Rawalpindi Rawalpindi District Riasti dialect Riyasati dialect Sadiqabad Sargodha Sargodha District Shah puri dialect Sheikhupura Sheikhupura District Sialkot Sialkot District Sohawa Thalochi dialect Vehari District

Please help! This image has also a problem of "original research" and is under discussion, but in these unrelated pages with a size of 400px is not justified! This is the image: File:Map_on_Dialects_Of_Punjabi_Language.jpg

You don't have to reproduce the whole list, I can see it myself on the image file.

Maria0333 is blocked. Note that the map may be appropriate in some of those articles. Where it clearly doesn't fit in, it should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The block was appropriate and easily justifiable IMO. We should really make some kind of intro editors to wikipedia. Does a video like this exist? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

Amatulic! She is back with IP:39.47.79.63! I have reported her, see her message on my talk here and its translation Faizan (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lowkeyvision: There is an intro, in the form of a welcome message with helpful links, and nearly all new editors get one. Welcoming new users isn't done by a bot, however, you have to volunteer to take part in the task.

Faizan: We don't identify IP address with user account, so such cases reported as WP:SPI will be summarily closed (as yours has been). As for Maria0333, all I have to say is, for someone who bills herself as a professional linguist, that's pretty immature. Either this IP is a poser or she has misrepresented herself. In any case, someone blocked the IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks Amatulić! Faizan (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What gives you the right man? I spent a few hours making that page what it is and you just delete all my work? What's the big idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totric (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia publishes topics that are notable, not stuff that's still in the future and may or may not happen.

The article was deleted as unambiguous promotion.

If you want, I can restore the article to your own user space to work on at your leisure without worrying about deletion. But in the state it was in, it wasn't acceptable for main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you do that then please?

Hi Amatulic,

Can u check this page INSZoom. Can you help removing AfD tag? The above page is about a notable firm in immigration industry and also have received lots of awards.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy114 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Once an article is tagged with AFD, it cannot be removed until adequate discussion has taken place, to determine consensus whether the article should be kept or deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience @ Talk:Antisemitism, but look at the snippet you left: it says "This shit shouldn't exist, it needs to be eliminated, and anyone who disagrees with that is a [well, that's the part you redacted]". Tell the guy to create an account and take it to AfD — 'cause that's what he wants. It'll be a speedy close. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't talk to someone whose IP address keeps changing. I left the snippet in with the hope that would be satisfactory and cause the anon to stop. Please continue on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone with the name of Maria0333 changed this map [10] on January 31, 2013 and did it very badly see here [11]. First there was no need to change. second it was changed badly. I protested and requested for deletion. It is good news she has been blocked but what about the havoc she has created ? It is requested to reverse her edits or particularly related to this map and the original should be restored. I already manage W. Punjabi WIkipedia, WP Wiktionary and WP WIkiquote and dont have enough time to fight these stupid edit wars. She poses she is a linguist, would she like to introduce herself ? --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on Commons, and have no more power or rights there than you. You may like to contact a commons administrator: there is a list of them on this page, under the heading "Administrators as of April 2013". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on Commons either. The account here has been closed as a sockpuppet of a fairly prolific sockmaster. If Commons has a policy prohibiting sockpuppetry, then perhaps it could be enforced there if that person is still causing disruption there -- provided Commons has such rules. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amatulic, in case you wondered, my message above was intended to be posted in answer to a similar message from Khalid Mahmood on my talk page. Evidently, having also looked at Khalid Mahmood's post here, I accidentally edited the wrong one. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete that page as a hoax? The BK Stunners were a professional basketball team in the Philippines. Here is an article about them - PBL: BK Stunners need OT to foil Bacchus’ bid for 2-0 start --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted an article called Burger King Stunners for the following reasons:

• The article had ZERO references to verifiable reliable sources.
• In the Wikipedia bios of the players listed, ZERO of those articles mention this team.
• Of the only two external links in the article, ZERO of them were relevant to the topic. One led to a "domain for sale" page, and the other was a personal page with the single word "hello", looking very much like the links in the article were masquerading as information.
• I found ZERO reliable source coverage for the team "Burger King Stunners" in a quick search of Google News; all I found were copies of this Wikipedia article that have spread around to other sites over the years.

All of this evidence pointed to a hoax. Evidently the nominator thought so too, else the article would not have been nominated. Therefore, I deleted the article as a hoax.

I'll grant that you might find better coverage, so I am open to reconsider the decision, but the article you link above doesn't mention Burger King; there's a similarity in initials. How do you know it's the same team? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was that page deleted?NHCLS (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons:

• WP:CSD#A7 - nothing explained why this band matters.
• WP:BAND - the band doesn't meet any of the inclusion criteria for bands.

In other words, there was no evidence, according to Wikipedia guidelines, that the band merits an article on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, they did get really good reviews everywhere I looked, and they have been in concert with Sepultura, a band which merits a pretty big article on Wikipedia. As for explaining why the band matters, it was stated that they were on of the few metal bands from Swansea. And anyway, why does the band have to be notable. I have seen plenty of un-notable subjects on Wikipedia. Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, I didn't see any evidence of notability. The sources appeared to be blogs and local coverage only, and I saw no evidence that this band meets any of the criteria described in WP:BAND. Being "one of the few" isn't a claim of notability.

The fact that Wikipedia contains other poor articles isn't an argument to keep or delete; see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

They may be on the verge of becoming notable if they release two albums under an established label. It seems clear that they are still in an "up and coming" state, and to have an article on Wikipedia, the band must have already "arrived".

Want me to restore the article to your user space for "incubation" until a more appropriate time? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kay'. That would be appreciated. Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done: It's at User:NHCLS/The Exiled. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, i dont know if you like that stuff, but, i recommend that band. Check them out on YouTube. NHCLS (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did! They're certainly virtuoso musicians. Pretty tight band, too, the way they stay synced so well at high speed. I gravitate toward the more "traditional" heavy metal bands like Guns 'n' Roses, Black Sabbath, Poison, etc. I'm not really into death metal. But yes, they are very good at what they do.

One informal criterion for inclusion is "are they making money?" If not, they're still a WP:GARAGE band. They may or may not be making money, although I believe WP:GARAGE wouldn't really apply to this band, because they have gotten some recognition and played with a big name band. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Even if I tend to prefer the experimental/progressive/symphonic/melodic type groups, its still hard to go without Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Dio, Ozzy,etc... Anyway, looking at the metal archives website, it show two bands from New Caledonia, neither of which are on Wikipedia. Would being one of the few metal groups from New Caledonia qualify as notable? NHCLS (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe "one of the few" qualifies as notable. WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND are really the over-riding factors. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Some revisions of Arachnoid mater need to be deleted as they are blatant copyright violations, from various sources, including [12] and [13].

The revisions that need to be deleted are: [14] [15] [16] [17] Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Of the two links you mention:

• nih.gov - Material on government websites is generally public domain
• the notice at the bottom of the second link (csuchico.edu) explicitly says the page is freely distributable

I don't see this as a sufficiently "blatant" violation to hide those page revisions as well as your reversion. It's enough that you revert the material and leave a warning for the editor, who is acting in good faith but not understanding the issues about copy-and-paste. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking at that one and was about to decline it. I'm not too worried because it may well not survive AfD, but you might want to reconsider after looking at the sources I found. It appears to be a real racehorse from about the 1870s, see [18] and this gbooks search. SpinningSpark 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection if you restore it. There was a sentence in the article that basically said the horse wasn't notable, so I agreed with the nominator and deleted it.

The same user also created an article about another horse, which I also deleted on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds because the article only described notability of that horse's descendants. You may restore that one too if you deem it appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Regarding the page Merrick Bank that you deleted, I had added a hangon tag to that one because the author wanted more time to find sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the tag, but the author's note on the talk page was more than three hours old. If they are not going to address it immediately, the only other real option is to userfy it.

On the horses, we are not really supposed to speedy delete articles on notability grounds. Something that is obviously going to fail at AfD might justify glossing over the rules little, but this one is not so obvious to my mind. SpinningSpark 23:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You deleted the page I created titled Catherine McGeoch (which was nominated for speedy deletion under section A7). In academic notability, the criteria (of which only one need be met, include:

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

McGeoch meets both of these criteria (and probably at least one other). She is a named chair at Amherst College, one of the most selective and "highest ranked" educational institutions in the US. (I hate academic rankings) In addition, she was the editor-in-chief of a major academic journal. Both these facts were in the article that was deleted.

It is quite possible that I did not make this clear enough on the Talk page when I contested the speedy deletion, or perhaps that I did not make it clear enough in the article itself.

I look for guidance in this matter.

Cheers

Jerager (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

After I hit the delete button, I went and looked again at WP:ACADEMIC but got pulled away from Wikipedia on other business. I had planned to return to the article to restore it, but you beat me to it with your comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Recordstraight83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Any thoughts on the edit patterns here? Most of this user's contributions consist of replacing the lede photo with a photo from this website, which has a bit of a POV focus. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. He hasn't disrupted past articles since receiving a warning from me, and his subsequent edits to Kabyle people didn't replace a lead image, so I see no reason to revert that. Another revert on Muhammad or Moses will trigger a block, which may get his attention enough to start collaborating with others.

The source of the images does have a POV focus, but the images themselves, if examined outside the context of that site, seem like they'd be acceptable for use in Wikipedia most cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What was your thinking behind the decision that "Spyro the Dragon" needs a (character) behind it after all? The series is called "Spyro (series)". There are no other characters named Spyro the Dragon. The first video game has a "(video game)" after it. Why should a page without parenthetical dab redirect to something that does? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first performed the move, I didn't know there was another article with a similar name. Because it was unlcear whether the character or the series is the primary topic, I reverted myself. One could make equally valid arguments for moving the game or the character to the "Spyro the Dragon" title. Therefore, WP:CSD#G6 was not a valid rationale for the proposed move, because such a move does not seem completely without controversy.

I suggest you start a WP:RM discussion to determine which article should get the primary topic name. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You recently fully-protected Template:AFC submission, which is highly visible to new editors submitting articles and to AFC reviewers but is all but absent in the main encyclopedia. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Protection levels for Afc submission templates about whether this template and its sub-templates (which are what the end user actually sees) should be fully- or semi-protected. Your input is welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I protected it only because someone at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion mentioned that new users were getting confused and posting their submissions into the template. Possibly I protected the wrong one. I'm happy to undo it if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody except myself and Mabdul is in the template's visible edit history since last August. I'm guessing you tagged the wrong file. Please change it back to semi-protection. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah that is not quite correct. The project requested ~a year ago (or was it two?) semi protection for all project templates as there were some misplaced edits. But what is more important: As you can see at Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages the template is already the 308th most used template at enwp (with 104735 transclusions) and thus editing this template or any sub template (cascade) the server has to do purge many pages. A few days ago we added a new cat, and sadly I was doing something wrong simply because I didn't tested enough with sandbox versions.

David: you saw how long it took the server to remove/add the pages to that cat. This kind of tasks are very slow!

The full protection (at least of the main template) is totally OK and good. We can simply request an edit by {{editprotected}} (or poking an admin in IRC) and luckily mostly all changes don't need any "consensus"... mabdul 05:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm happy to make any edits required. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I has been brought to my attention that you have knowledge on Islamic topics. I was wondering if you could help me out on my page "Civilization Jihad." A little background: I created this page back in November and it was flagged for deletion right away but saved and a couple weeks ago it was deleted without my knowing. So I reposted it and now there is a lot of activity around it. As of now it is in my sandbox-not the final version because I am trying to add more sources and fix the some of the sections. However, it keeps getting flagged as an attack page. The topic itself merits a page and that I believe, is not a question. I realize the page needs work especially a wider variety of sources, but every time I mess with it people freak out and I can't get anything done. I was hoping me defend the topic and that it isn't an attack page. Here is my sandbox where the current version is located. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GroundRisk/sandbox and here is the MFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox Thanks. GroundRisk (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, You deleted my page "sustainable fine jewelry" recently, stating that it is advertising. I'm very confused. There is no reference to a company of any kind, and the only links are to non-profits. I was not ready to publish it, so I am not sure how it was viewed in the first place. Anyway, if you could show me what you mean by advertising in my case, I would be much obliged. Sustainable fine jewelry is a relatively new trend in the jewelry industry, so maybe you thought it was an advertisement for actual jewelry? I'd like to resubmit, and it is seems fair. Please re-read the posting and respond. Thanks so much.VictoriaRuta (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The outline you used (with headings like "philosopy") made the article seem like a brochure of some sort, and the links to a slew of organizations that seemed non-notable looked spammy.

That said, the topic is probably worthy of a Wikipedia article. But the state it was in wasn't ready for main article space. I have restored the article to User:VictoriaRuta/Sustainable fine jewelry for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Anachronist/Archives/2013! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You suggest that a valid topic should remain independent of who created it. When the user who created it was banned, at least in part, for distorting sources and even making up interpretations at odds with what the cited authors actually said, I can't be certain that it is a valid encyclopedia topic. Do you know otherwise? Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, all the references are easily verifiable, because there are links to them. Did you check them? I did.

Valid encyclopedia topics exist independently of who created the article. I might have created a similar stub myself. The topic, as the earliest European settlement, is certainly notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When I checked the first reference (the one at Google Books) it just showed me a bunch of blank pages that were unavailable for copyright reasons. The second was a newsletter of a national society of the type that could either be reliable or nationalistic fringe. If the site is the earliest European settlement, then it would be notable if it has received significant coverage as such in unbiased sources. Given the User's track record of intentionally distorting and cherry-picking sources while ignoring mainstream counter-interpretations he disagrees with (again, this is partly why he was banned), I am not at all certain that this is, in fact, thought by the international scholarly consensus to be the oldest European settlement - if it was, one would think there would be a wider array of sources calling it that. Given this User's track record of citing Google books entries that he himself has not viewed (I once went through the laborious process of recovering a dozen pages of text from Google books snippets and search result text strings for a source he had cited only to discover that it had absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed), I cannot at all be certain that the seemingly unbiased first source actually says what is being claimed, and thus it is not obvious to me whether or not this is notable and/or a reliable representation of scholarly consensus. Valid encyclopedia topics exist independent of who created them but so do hoaxes, fringe distortions and outright nonsense, and when the user is known for more of the latter than the former, it is perhaps best to err on the side of exclusion - if it really is a valid topic someone else will recreate it anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I could see all the pages that contained "Yunatsite" in that book. The pages I saw confirm the first sentence in the article, that Yunatsite was an early urban settlement in Bulgaria.

The second source is the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Your characterization of that source is way off base. We have an article on it, go see for yourself. It is definitely a reliable source.

Judge each article on its merits, not by who wrote it. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My characterization of the Bulgarian Academy source was that it could be reliable or it could be nationalistic. That can hardly be way off, as it pretty much covers the full range (except for definitely unreliable). The WP page on the society doesn't help. Unfortunately, some of these national societies are prone to POV interpretations favoring their own country. I remember a situation about six months ago when a seemingly-respectable national organization in Iran was interpreting discoveries at an Iranian archaeological site in a manner claiming the first this and the first that, completely at odds with the interpretation in international publications. For this reason when seeing a 'first' claim, even from an otherwise respected national society, I will always view it with a grain of salt unless the claim is repeated in a reliable independent (out-of-country) source. If this really is the first settlement in Europe, someone in the international archaeological community outside of Bulgaria should have called it that. Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had exactly the same problem. I removed speedy-delete tags from around ten articles, which in my opinion, certainly have (sourced) claims to notability worth discussing. Agricolae responded to me, and the discussion is on-going (at least, I think). Dougweller (talk · contribs), however, chose to delete all of the articles without any regard for content, and in clear violation of this from WP:BAN: "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating accusation. Now who would accuse me of something I didn't do? Why the assumption it was me? And frankly, with a banned sock creating multiple socks and huge numbers of articles, case by case doesn't work unless there have been major edits by established editors. Bedson has stated that he is going to continue to sock and create articles unless he is unblocked. The proper response to that is to delete his articles. I left some redirects, red links, etc. But this targeting me as the Admin deleting all the articles is suspicious. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My particular focus was on your deletion of Exorcism of the Pentagon, to which I had added new material and categories and linked to the other articles, as well as posting on the article's talk page. And what do you mean accusing you of something you didn't do? Unless someone else was using your username to delete the articles...? 124.148.212.42 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to misunderstand "chose to delete all of the articles". Most of the articles in question I didn't touch. But you've accused me of deleting them all. And I'd still like to know how you came across a set of unrelated articles all by one sock puppet and edited them. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a story in itself. I was happily internet-ing when I stumbled across "Exorcism of the Pentagon", and I thought "gosh, this is quite an interesting article, what person has convinced themselves it is worthy of deletion?". From there, I proceeded to the article's history page, and thence to a list of Agricolae's contributions, subsequently proceeding to voice (and demonstrate) my opinions on the articles' perceived worthiness. I hope this explanation satisfies you. 124.148.212.42 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think the topic is valid, I would encourage you to pursue it - write an article on the subject and recommend its creation (or sign-in and create it yourself). Unfortunately, the banned user who created the original page has shown himself so completely devoid of scruples and scholarly rigor that he was kicked off the project by community consensus. Nothing he compiles can be trusted to be a verifiable and accurate representation of what the cited sources describe and the volume of his page creation practices makes it impracticable to research every article to determine which ones are verifiable and NPOV. As such, given that one never knows what among anything he has written is misinterpreted, distorted or outright made up, the project is better off if anything he has done is removed and any worthwhile page be started from scratch by another editor for whom good faith can still be assumed, such as yourself. (That is aside from the issue of encouraging the continued participation of the banned user by telling him, in effect, that the ban really doesn't apply as long as he writes about valid topics.) Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea that an article should be kept if it is considered acceptable, irrespective of whether it was created by a banned user, is a perfectly valid opinion. However, it has been discussed a number of times over the course of many years, and consensus is against it. When an editor is banned, that means that a decision has been reached that the damage done to the project caused by allowing that editor to remain outweighs any gains that may sometimes be made by doing so. There is a widespread view that, in such cases, allowing the editor to find that in practice they can simply get away with ignoring the ban and go on regardless is harmful. When a user has openly stated the intention of ignoring the ban and using sockpuppets to create articles, the need to convey the message "you will not get away with it" is even more pressing. Of course, any of us is free to hold a view contrary to accepted consensus and policy: I disagree with some of Wikipedia's policies. However, disagreeing is one thing, while deliberately acting against consensus because one disagrees with a policy is another. For an administrator to decline deletion requests on the basis of his or her personal opinions which are contrary to Wikipedia's policies is, in my opinion, unacceptable. As I have said, I disagree with some of Wikipedia's policies, but I never intentionally act in violation of policies or consensus, even when I disagree with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As for Yunatsite, this is another example of Bedson's misuse of sources. The article calls it a town, one of his sources[19] specifically calls it a prototown, not the same thing. [20], his other source, calls it a village. Neither source mentions this first European civilization. Anyway, there are two sources which could be used to recreate it - but please don't go beyond the sources. And 'first prototown' needs attribution. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then the appropriate response would be WP:SOFIXIT; that is, make the necessary minor corrections, not delete. I may just do this myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the correct response was to delete it. Banned users love to show that they can still edit with impunity, create articles, etc. The more we let them get away with it, the more they do it. You're welcome to recreate it. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The primary purpose here is to build a useful encyclopedia. Deleting worthwhile content conflicts with that goal.

It is trivially simple for an intelligent banned editor to create a new account and continue editing undetected; if the editor continues in a constructive way, there's no problem, and no reason to engage in witch-hunts and punishment. "The more we let them get away with it, the more they do it." So what? I'm all for it if the contributions are worthwhile. There is such a thing as redemption, after all. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: that is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but it is contrary to policy formed by consensus, and the task of an administrator is to administer policy as it is, not as he or she wishes it were. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And when policies conflict, one must exercise judgment about which one has precedence. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And this editor was blocked for in large part for misuse of sources, remember? A number of editors spent a lot of time fixing his articles he created or edited. If you want him to be allowed to continue to create articles with impunity, or to force editors to examine all his articles to check to make sure they adhere to policy and guidelines, you're going to have to raise this at AN or ANI. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not make disruptive editing. I just corrected it, that's all. What I meant to put is husband and wife. - Bil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.239.155 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know for certain that's what the cited source says? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do! It says that it is about men and women, so it is not only the women who have endured domestic violence, but the husbands, too! :-) -Bil

So now do you see what I mean? Nothing harmful, but just helping and contributing to the main page of Islam and Domestic Violence and article like that. Have a great day! -Bil

What is you're article of interest, Amatulic? -Bil

That's great. I wasn't able to verify it on Google Books (the cited page was hidden). Go ahead and make the change.

I apologize for the warning -- and thanks for taking the time to reach out to me and explain what you were trying to do. Remember to use the edit summary field to explain it to others. Often unexplained changes from anonymous IP addresses get reverted if no reason for the edit is given.

I have many articles of interest. You can see some of them on my user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, great job, Amatulic! I understand that you were just trying to correct me, that is honest. You're welcome, and thank you for warning me in case you thought that I was doing a mistake. I checked my sources very well. O.K., and thanks again for you're help! -Bil

P.S.: My favorite kinds of articles are about Kurdish culture. -Bil

I have submitted On the Rebound for MFD, your opinions are welcome here.--Launchballer 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, i see that The Midnight's Dances has been nominated for speedy deletion. If it is deleted, do you think you could resotre the article to my user space, like you did with the Exiled? Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion, it's been nominated for deletion. There's a big difference.

• A speedy deletion involves one person nominating the article and an admin agreeing, and deleting the article without further review.
• A WP:PROD, which is what this is, is a nomination by one person, but the nomination stays up until any other editor (including you) comes along and disagrees with it, and removes the tag. Whoever removes the tag ought to make some improvement to the article that addresses the issue raised in the nomination. If the tag stays up for 1 week, then an admin will come along and delete it.
• A WP:AFD is the formal deletion process that nominates the article for deletion, and deletion is subject to a 1-week discussion and community consensus, after which an admin will judge the consensus and take some action.

Personally, because that article is so short, I'd merge it with Night Wind and redirect The Midnight's Dances article there. I have no problem restoring it to your user space if it's deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that. I am just used to speedy deletion. Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please userfy "Once Upon Our Yesterdays" if no one has already done so? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - NVM, Mr. Stradivarius has already userfied this navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Amatulic, I was creating a page called "Anja" for a singer. I did not have much information on her so i just put one sentence while I looked around in the web for her info when i got my page deleted. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know if i did something wrong. Please respond. ShadowPM (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong.

If you're going to create a biography of a living person, it will get quickly deleted if it doesn't establish notability and it doesn't include any references to reliable sources. I highly recommend building the article in your sandbox (see the link at the top of the page, that's your sandbox), where you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about deletion. When you're satisfied, you can move it to main article space.

Also be aware of WP:MUSICBIO, which describes criteria a musician must meet before meriting an article on Wikipedia. If you need help with anything, let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see and that helps out a lot. Thanks for the help Amatulić. I really appreciate it. And thanks for offering your help if I ever need it in the future also, because I think I will. ShadowPM (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No Im not kidding. It was listed as a good article because the same accounts that created the article flooded the GA review with socks. Look closer. Which source shows notability? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You nominated the article as WP:CSD#G11. The sourcing is decent and the tone of the article is neutral. I saw no evidence of unambiguous promotion, therefore it did not qualify for speedy deletion. Take it to WP:AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Answered. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I'd suggest using indefinite protection less often; we should reserve indefinite protection for only the worst cases, not lightly-trafficked articles. Regards, m.o.p 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In most cases I set the protection duration as a function of how far back I see disruptive activity. If it appears to be an ongoing problem that a fixed duration won't solve, I set it to indef. In this case it was a nod to the speedy-delete nominator as an alternative to deletion, but as the ANI case indicates, my good intentions backfired. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may offer an outside view, I think I see the failure of communication. D.b.f.m. used the edit summary "...created by a bunch of sockpuppets and promotional accounts"; you denied the CSD (correctly) with an "Are you kidding..." edit summary and then -- here is the misunderstanding I believe -- protected it with the edit summary "Seems to attract unwanted attention from vandals". Had you used the edit summary of "Seems to attract unwanted attention from sockpuppets and promotional accounts" I believe the misunderstanding would have been avoided. The combination of "Are you kidding..." and the misuse of the term "vandals" made me think you were attacking D.b.f.m., too. Rgrds. --64.85.214.83 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back on it, putting myself in dbfm's shoes, I would have thought the same thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does long-standing and multiple editors give an article, like Séan Walsh (poet) notability? Uberaccount (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't give anything notability. It's just a strike against speedy deletion. A speedy deletion nomination basically involves one person deeming an article deletable, and an admin agreeing. Multiple contributors making more than minor edits is evidence that the community has deemed the article keepable. In that case it's best to take the article to AFD, because speedy deletions should be unambiguously non-controversial.

If the article had been about some contemporary pop culture figure, I'd have been more inclined to delete it, but what swayed me to decline the speedy nomination were the dates, suggesting a possible historical significance. In that context the article appeared to be a reasonable stub that would best be merged into the article about the painting. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay! I nominated it for AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberaccount (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Googling "No pants day" (with quotes) yields about 236,000 results

It really IS a legitimate article.

Try doing that before deciding a page has no importance, please

Google hits mean nothing. Find some reliable sources. The article didn't have any. In any case, due to its long history with many contributors, I restored the article and nominated it for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles about it from legitimate news sites.

Maybe they weren't cited in the page but it doesn't mean that it isn't a true sociological phenomenon. You had no reason to delete the page, instead you should have added the easily-findable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.178.45 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add them. Maybe you should have thought of that during the long period the article existed, before it got deleted. Only 11 hits come up in a search of Google News, and of those, only one could be considered significant coverage in a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not the author of the page and only visited it today because this is No Pants Day. I didn't know this day existed before today.

Seeing as how you deleted the page, I can not add any references.

Since you've admitted that there is at least one credible significant source for the article, I expect you will restore the page.

PS - Could you please paste the source link here, I promise I'll add it to the article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.178.45 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

?It was restored before you posted this comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for restoring the page. I added what I reasoned was a credible news source article. I hope that is correct. Please let me know if it should have been done differently or anything, thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.178.45 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs more than one source, but one is better than none. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Pants Day (2nd nomination). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya there, User:15joonp has once again created the article Sota Fujimori (third time). While he did add an infobox this time, I still feel it qualifies as CSD A7. This user kept removing speedy deletion templates in his previous attempts, saying the article is for a school project and should not be deleted. I'm not here to bit the newcomers but I don't think it being for a school project has any say against speedy deletion. I've contacted him before and told him what he needs to do, added maintenance templates as a guide, etc. I honestly feel bad for the guy. Should we just let it be for now? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You asked for answers to questions in relation to the Microgrid Solar page, here are my answers.

1. Who is "we"? That isn't a rhetorical question; please answer it. **We is my wife and myself** 2. You have not read, or you have not understood, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You clearly have one. ** I have read Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, and I wont pretend to fully understand the context of all the points but the issues it brings up do not apply to me and you are mistaken to think there is an apparent conflict of interst, I am neither paid, a direct employee or public pr agent, I am not writing about myself or close friends/family, I am not citing myself, I am not campaigning (if it reads promotional it is only due to the fact of listing interesting facts to establish notoriety with established sources), nor am I self-promoting. I am not looking to control the topic about this subject and honestly look forward to other who know more and have much more time then I do to duke it out over exactly what is the best way to present the organization in a balanced light. I am not a wikipedia pro needless to say and obviously but I do feel this is a organization that is notable where I live, done a great many things of note that is well documented with reliable sources and deserves to begin to be debated and listed on Wikipedia, either that or other companies who have done as much or less deserve to be removed, that I am not qualified to say but this organization has been all over the news and press in St. Louis, MO. They have added solar power to countless businesses (St. Louis Cardinals, Rams,Blues, Banks, Science Center and such) to Goverment Organizations (Army Bases, Offices, Schools) to many many residential homes. I am a fan of solar power and felt I could be the one to start this one page about solar power in St. Louis. I do not though meet the description of conflict of interest that page describes. 3. This organization is not notable in and of itself but has been covered by major news outlets, trade websites and journals, goverment organizations, municipal & corperate entities of major note. All of which I have begun listing and noting in as factual and fair way I can get across without placing filler as many pages do. 4. Again the statement that I have a conflict of interest is made and never stated exactly what of the many sub categories of conflict your asserting i have. I have a article of note that I am neither a close expert on to be of conflict but also not unknowledgeable about, I have an interest to start a page so others can help flesh out and I have more then and idea or just some sources, I have a number of sources, facts and media about the company that I am looking to put in place so that others can add without struggling through the plainly obvious work of establishing notoriety or lack of conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarbox (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This isn't a question about editing, but, since you mentioned you liked Balck Sabbath, i would like to know if you know if Ozzy used autotune back in the 70s & 80s? It's driving me nuts. Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the thing described in our Auto-Tune article, then it's likely Ozzy didn't use it back then. According to the article, the first commercial recording made with Auto-Tune was in 1998. Does that help? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I left my comments in the Talk section of this article. I would appreciate you help to improve that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hghlight (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I left my comments in the Talk section of this article. I would appreciate you help to improve that article.

I have undid all my editions (on my opinion improvements). I could b a professional in technical analysis and technical indicators (15 years in professional research, several inventions, several articles in "Stock $ Commodities" and several articles in "Technical Analyst / London"), yet as I understand I new in Wikipedia editing. So, I appreciate you stopped me and most likely I will not do any editing for now. Still, the the "MACD" and "Breadth of market" articles are in quite bad condition. I left my comments on the "Talk" section of these articles. I would appreciate you take a look at it and correct these articles if you consider they should be corrected.

I do not want to take a lot of your time, just 2 additional points:

1. Technical analysis is not a sign and it does not guarantee future security price. Technical analysis is based on the assumptions which are based on the historical observations. According to the "Security Exchange Commission" and on my personal opinion there is should not be solicitation that any technical indicator guarantees future trend direction. Furthermore, anyone who write an article, make editing on technical analysis and technical indicators, on my opinion, should be very careful in using such words as "Buy", "Sell", "indicate security go up", "most popular", "most used" and etc. Especially, writers should be very careful in solicitation of any particular indicator's settings as those who read it and follow it may lose real money on the market. I saw those mistakes (on my opinion) numerous times in Wikipedia articles.

2. Most of the articles related to technical indicators are very specific in Wikipedia. I understand that they are based on the reliable sources published in 19th century. However, on my opinion everyone who write an article related to this topic should bear in mind that at that time, when computing technology was only in the beginning of its development, most of the technical indicators were calculated on the paper and based on daily data. Now we have different situation. I'm not telling that whatever was invented 50 years ago is incorrect please, understand me correctly. But it should not be narrowed to the conditions of 19th century and to what it was applied in the first place. Many statements I met, on my opinion, should be general in their nature as they could be applied to many things and not just to NYSE Exchange and not just to daily data and not just to stocks (there are other securities and commodities). I many cases on my opinion is is not enough to have 50 years old reliable sources on subjects which are used today and which are based on modern possibilities.

Please understand me correctly, I'm not trying to give you a lesson in technical analysis as I think you should be professional in it. I'm just hoping that when you edit articles related to technical analysis you pay more attention to the specifics and make corrections in the articles itself as well.

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that others know who authored your comment.

I also have extensive experience in technical analysis, for 20+ years doing consultation for professionals who trade for a living, inventing proprietary indicators for them and for myself, and actively trading futures, stocks, and options in all time frames.

I have no problem with the improvements you made to the articles, and I wholeheartedly support the idea of improving MACD and rewriting the breadth article. You did not have to revert yourself those last couple of times.

Where I have a problem is that the single source you appear to favor (marketvolume) suggests a conflict of interest. The statements you cited from that website were recycled from more original or authoritative sources, which suggests that we should cite those sources instead. An academic publication, or a book by someone well-known in the field, are generally more acceptable as sources than a web page written by an anonymous author. Blogs, forums, other wikis, and press releases are generally the least acceptable. In most cases where you cited marketvolume, one can find something better, and I replaced them in some cases.

I agree also that the articles on technical analysis are generally a mess. I wrote a couple of them myself (listed on my user page).

However, there isn't really a problem with terminology (buy, sell, etc.) as long as we follow WP:NOTHOWTO (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide). Also, we can use those terms and phrases (security will go up, etc.) as long as we don't use them in Wikipedia's voice. That is, a Wikipedia article should never declare authoritatively how a market responds based on some indicator, but rather should describe the popular view, what others believe, the view of the indicator's creator, how experts use it, etc., all with proper attribution, so that Wikipedia is not in the position of giving advice or recommendations. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry did not signed - a little bit new in wiki tags

At nowadays website could be the only source of original info. We may have different opinion about that but you may try to find who first mentioned and who first applied McClellan Oscillator formula to Advance-Decline Volume data. I agree it is obvious thing to do, but still who is the first who did it? ~Hghlight (talk) 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "nowadays website could be the only source of original info" -- see our policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the part that says Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. A tidbit of information published on one website and nowhere else is unlikely to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article. An exception might be if the source that mentions it is regarded as reliable and authoritative, but even then, the failure of other sources to mention it suggests that Wikipedia need not mention it, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Amatulic! I forgot about adding this article to the list of grape articles that needed their capitalization fix (mostly because I was focusing on the noir and blanc varieties). Since "Meunier" is not a color descriptor it should be capitalized. Is this something that you can take care of or do I need to put in an RM? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. There's a lot of cleanup to do, between 50-100 redirects to the old lowercase name. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I planning on chipping away at that. My summer project is to get our grape articles up to snuff and consistent in titling and format. That includes fixing redirects as well as creating all missing articles for grape varieties that have a color descriptor in their name so they are consistent before someone accidentally creates it under the wrong name. It's a chore but I'll get there. Thanks again! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My user page is once again the center of controversy. It has been blanked repeatedly, as you can see here and here. Anything you can recommend? Kauffner (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what can be done short of fully-protecting your page, which would prevent you from editing it. (The only fully-protected user page I know of is User:TheRedPenOfDoom because he wants it to be redlinked.) I've always firmly believed that semi-protection should be the default for all user pages, but that wouldn't help in your case either.

I don't view what you wrote is an attack page as characterized by the blankers. However, at the same time I can't help noting that your page is in conflict with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (it isn't a place to be writing personal blog articles or editorials, which is basically what you've done), as well as violating the spirit of WP:UPNO.

I suggest you keep essays in sub-pages and use your user page as a general page of information about your activities and interests on Wikipedia, and include a directory of links to your essays. That would prevent getting people riled up over policy violations while allowing you to write essays. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline says, "personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace." Kauffner (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They are, but not necessarily on your user page. I don't personally object to that essay, but I can see how others might interpret the policies I linked in that way. My compromise suggestion above, I believe, will allow you to maintain essays like these in your own name space, without inviting the vandalismblanking you've experienced as a result of posting them directly on your user page. Your user page can link to them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Amatulic, you should know better than to call it "vandalism". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Sometimes what appears as vandalism is done in good faith, as is the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• This issue is at BLP now. I created a subpage, per the advise above, but that's been deleted. I am hoping this goes all the way to Arbcom, or where ever this sort of thing goes. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire mon ami! Whenever I get around to finally writing Sulfur compounds in wine, that will likely be the hook I go with. It seems like it may be good fodder for an April Fool's Day hook. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There's been some discussion at ANI about this page, which you protected.[21] Some new information has emerged there about the material's veracity and it seems that there is some fair bit of consensus that the disputed section should be removed pending confirmation and consensus, especially as it is a BLP. Would you like to comment or act on it yourself? If we don't hear from you soon, and given it is a BLP, I will probably take it out myself.--Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that I ended up removing the section.--Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that action, and I don't see the BLP violation, but I won't restore the text either. The text was fairly well sourced, and the objections to it appeared to be based on one editor's personal perception of what was implied by the phrasing of the text, plus seemingly personal recollections of the event that aren't sourced anywhere, combined with a personal grudge (accompanied by personal attacks) against another editor. Now that it's gone, there is no incentive to propose modifications or improvements while the protection is active. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The text was not "fairly well sourced". Have a close look at the source: it isn't even clear that it was Goldblum they called a "PLO supporter" (in that instance there is reference only to a "prominent peace activist"). There was an obvious lack of consensus for the addition, and in consideration of BLP and WP:PREFER the article should have been protected only in conjunction with removal of the contentious material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

hi editors in question - it seems that there is much going on 'behind the backs' of editors (or least not being very open, honest and transparent). here is a message i left on slp1's talk page as well:

i left a note on the goldblum talk expressing my concerns on your removal of information from the goldblum article. right after i did that, user:Nomoskedasticity (i have put him in wikilinks so he will know this is being written) told me to 'look further down', but i was clueless as to what he meant, so i asked him. he explained that at the ani board, there was indeed discussion of the edit in question.

i found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=555452124#Please_remove_defamatory_content_from_a_BLP_currently_under_full_protection

of course, Nomoskedasticity is the one who brought it there, but alas, neglected to inform the editor who placed the edit in question in the first place (me) and neglected to inform other editors who are involved in that edit's history. i am pretty sure that ani rules say you must inform them, no? so how can a decision be made without input from relevant parties? and lastly, is this sanctionable? user Nomoskedasticity is constantly being rude, using foul language and threatening. i read npa carefully, but it doesn't seem sanctionable, either. what to do? Soosim (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention any other editor and didn't ask for sanctions against an editor; the only concern was content of a protected page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being agreeable about this, Amatulic. I want to assure you, I didn't do remove it lightly, but the new information given at ANI cast some doubt on the veracity of the whole story and seemed to tip it over the balance for a couple of other editors and administrators as well as myself. BTW, I actually have a completely different experience to you about the motivation to find a consensus. I usually find that it is higher with the material out of the article. As you say, it is a reliable source, so it can't really be argued that it can't be included in any form, but those who want it included are motivated to respond to specific reservations to get consensus about the exact form. And I can already see that Soosim has made some great strides in this direction, which is fantastic.Slp1 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that the burden is on the person who wants to add material to support its addition. I certainly hope it works out as your experience suggests. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I just wanted to draw your attention to WT:UP#WP:BLANKING, again, since I just posted a comment which mentioned your name in relation to a prior edit of yours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This has come up again? Thanks, I posted a comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You said it was Undid unexplained elevation of "controversies", but the editor posted a very clear explanation on the talkpage. I don't have an opinion about that editorial choice, but could you please either refute the talkpage comment or undo your undoing (or at least give a better rationale:)? DMacks (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw a fairly major change that had no explanation in the edit summary, so I reverted it. I didn't notice the talk page explanation. I have reverted my revert; thanks for the heads-up. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there something wrong about my username? What is it? Does it look familiar to something? How can I change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGPHD (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It may just be me, but their full username (VideoGamePhenomHD) that was on their user page before it was blanked was a little too close to the blocked user User:VideoGamePhenom for my liking, especially considering they both edit sports (primarily baseball) articles and more concerningly have made similar edits adding unsourced retired jersey numbers to infoboxes. (VideoGamePhenom: [22], [23] and [24]. VGPHD: [25], [26] and [27]) There are enough seemingly good faith edits that made me hold off doing anything further (checkuser) since I noticed the connection a couple of days ago. Perhaps you could give a second opinion? --Michael Greiner 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's the same per WP:DUCK, and because he disclosed it on his now-blank user page. No need for checkuser.

In any case, I don't see the problem with abandoning an account blocked for disruptive edits and starting fresh, as long as the behavior changes, as it appears to be doing. If he refrains from mentioning his youtube channel and continues to learn how to be productive, there's no problem.

Unsourced edits are common for new users, a problem that can be addressed with appropriate notices on his talk page. Otherwise, it seems he'll turn into a positive contributor. I prefer not to block at this time, but watch and wait to see if sufficient warnings are generated on his talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know about more recent activity, since you're the last admin to speak with him. Despite multiple past warnings, including one which prompted him to comment to my talk page asking me what the problem was and acknowledging my answer, VGPHD/PrivateMasterHD has begun messing with page protection templates again, such as here and here. I'm not sure how to deal with this behavior, as pointed out already he has been making good faith edits. But the fact that he's been connected to a blocked user (something I found out just now when I came to this talk page) bothers me. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know he was previously blocked either until notified in this section.

I don't understand how adding protection templates is disruptive when the pages are indeed protected as templated. Those two examples don't look like "messing with" to me, they look like good faith edits. I have often neglected to place a template on a page I've protected. Usually Tbhotch (talk · contribs) or another editor comes along and mops up after me. It's wiki-gnome work. If VGPHD wants to do that, I don't see the harm. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. My bad, then. Thanks for letting me know! TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

hey there, I hope I"m not crossing any lines by updating your page to answer the question you send to me on my page stated here, I"m not quite sure on how the response goes, cause most people I try to respond to never respond back. If you want more time to work on the articles you requested be deleted, I can restore them to sub-pages in your user space for you to work on at your leisure, if you think the articles are worth keeping in draft form. Please let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would please, that will be great, so I can get more additional information added so I can update the official page. MusicMayhem1993 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You can reply there or here. Your page is on my watch list. I'll restore the articles to your user space and leave you a note. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, See this section:

Views of different Madhhabs [edit]

Sufi views [edit]

Sufis believe that Muhammad is alive with the power of invisibility; his spirit pervades the world and can be reached by true seekers.[147][148]

Sunni beliefs [edit]

This section requires expansion. (July 2010)

Sunni beliefs is missing. But when you look at the main text of the article, indeed they rely on Sunni hadith books and describe it as "Muhammad in Islamic thought" (for example see "Hadith narrates that Muhammad will also intercede for the believers who for their sins have been taken to Hell, Muhammad’s intercession will be granted and a lot of believers will come out of hell." [source:Bukhari]). I assume Shia accept similar beliefs to those hadith but use different sources for it. Kavas (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think it might be best to post this on the article talk page, perhaps with a proposal for expansion or rearranging. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I want you to take part in this updated discussion page MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Galatta.com ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you deleted at the moment that I moved, so what you deleted was probably just a redirect page. If you still think G.R. Patil College is worthy of deletion, you should probably delete it at its new location. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What I deleted looked exactly like what you moved, so you must have moved it while I was filling out the deletion form. It was originally nominated as A1 but I deleted it as A3. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I thought you might like to delete the moved version as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you moved it, you must have thought it should be kept, thereby casting some doubt on the deletion decision. What do you think? Is it a reasonable stub, or too empty to keep? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that if the author chooses to fill in anything but the infobox, it might pass muster (schools seem to be somewhat immune to deletion). I moved it in anticipation of the original author providing more information. That doesn't seem to be forthcoming, though. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't doing any harm there. I'll watch it for a few days and delete it if no new information appears. I have deleted the author's autobiography twice now, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

About the recent change in Muhammad article by a certain user, you only fixed the font-related damage. But you know the other changes made at that time were not constructive as they are not consistent with talk-page discussion. You should have undid the entire edit. I have noticed that when any edit that goes in favor of Islam in some way are most quickly reverted, when any edit is made that is in some way derogatory to Islam, the administrators (I'm not sure if you are a administrator) remain silent. We expect more responsible behavior from those who regularly patrol the pages. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. I am not a party to the dispute you reference, I have no opinion, and I find neither version any more derogatory than the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. How do you know that "The prior deleted TechExcel has no resemblance to this article"? TechExcel was salted following repeated re-creation after AFD. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

By looking at the deleted versions, of course. How else? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful if you added an admin category to your user page, so editors know when an admin is declining deletion. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to be viewed as an equal. When collaborating on article content with others, having an obvious 'admin' status tends to tilt the playing field in the minds of others, so being known as an admin (especially with new editors) can be a detriment.

Until our small altercation just now, this hasn't caused any confusion. Usually the capacity in which I'm acting (admin vs editor) is clear enough to anyone involved. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not wanting to throw your weight around is an admirable trait for any Wikipedian. But I would have backed off the first time you declined it, had I known you could see the deleted versions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No harm done, and perfectly understandable considering that I don't display a category. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

User:Vrghs jacob is back and is again using multiple socks to:

1. Broadcast his personal opinion using Wikipedia.

2. With some accounts he's violating copyrights, with some putting up notable articles for deletion, putting irrelevant tags to articles, making unconstructive edits, plagiarising, reverting constructive edits by others, swearing and calling them vandals while he's the one who's vandalising Wiki.

3. He's using multiple accounts and uses them to interact with his other accounts as if they're used by different persons, a pretence he's been using ever since he was caught for the first time.

4. He loves to edit pages from the Government of India particularly Indian Revenue Service.

5. He claims to have an MBA from IIM Calcutta and PhD from Nanyang and on the top of it, has cleared Civil Services Exam with an All India Rank of 67 and joined CRPF (no one in his stable mind would do that, if he gets that high rank, since CRPF officers are stationed at extremely remote places fighting naxals and terrorists). No scholar or admininistrator/bureaucrat has so much time to sit all day on Wiki.

6. The made up name of his doesn't show up in google results.

KSince you've been dealing with this sick, demented mind, I thought to inform you. I tried to open an SPI case before this, but he got away with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uncletomwood/Archive

I know he's the one, I can smell him from a mile. I shall continue to blow his cover until he's gone for good.

Please have a look at Indian Ordnance Factories Service. He's saying that IOFS officers are trained at National Academy of Direct Taxes! Why would they learn taxation? Thay have NOTHING to do with taxation. I added citations from the official website of the President of India, LBS National Academy of Administration, IISc Bangalore, Times of India, Metal & Steel Factory, IIMs (Indian Institutes of Managements) at Ahmedabad and Indore which he reverted. How can revert citations from these sources? Instead, he should be putting references to back his claims about NADT which he has not! On the other hand he has accused me of being a sock and a vandal and has semi protected the article.

Notice plagiarism at [[28]] which he totally copied from [[29]], It was his previous sock.

Please take time to lead the investigation thoroughly since edits made by editors like him take time to be rectified and until then many readers get misinformed. Please don't let him know about the investigation until a check user is complete as he would try to evade like he did before. Hoping that the truth shall prevail. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.228.177 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, what...? I have no idea what you're talking about. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

never mind. I'll try somewhere else. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.227.43 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a user talk page. To file a report for a sockpuppet investigation, go thataway →→→→ WP:SPI. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you have deleted my article NANO Antivirus due the follow reasons: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Also WP:CSD#A7: Not notable). I need your help. How need I rewrite the article to avoid any reproach that it is adv and also which proofs I need to add to confirm notability of software. Thank you Miss.hunter (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please post new sections at the bottom of talk pages.

As I recall, the list of "features" made the article appear promotional, more like a product brochure than an encyclopedia article.

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything explains succinctly what you need to ensure that the topic is notable. Be sure to read the definitions of "significant coverage", "reliable", and "independent" in that essay.

If you want, I can restore the article to your user space for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your redirecting of that article, but I am willing to discuss it with you, and maybe we could come to some agreement or comprise (not right now tough, I'm about to go to sleep). We should probably discuss it at Talk:Old Bourbon. On a related note, I made this post at the Notability Noticeboard about Old Bourbon. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The redirect was a compromise. The alternative was to speedy-delete the article under WP:CSD#A10. Take your pick. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You suppressed the link that I added but have you been on the wiki linked?

The structure of the web site is a wiki but all the content of that wiki is controlled and everything on the site is justified by reliable islamic sources. The wiki is stable and can be a good secondary information source to understand the point of view of those who criticize Islam.

You point the rule WP:ELNO #12 which says that externals wikis SHOULD be avoided. But the site is stable since 2005 and the rule WP:ELYES #3 say that a link to an accurate and containing a huge ammount of details website is relevant which is the case of wikiislam. The only point is that wikiislam is not neutral but we are on the page criticism of Islam not on the page Islam so the lack of neutrality is not a problem given the subject of the article.

So if you don't answer my comment I'm gonna put that link again on the page.--Sertimini54 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the link only after I visited the site, which says plainly up front that "anyone can edit". For the same reason we don't link to other Wikipedia projects.

Best place to discuss this would be WP:ELN. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mobile Phones SAR List. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This one is somewhat tricky, so I'd like you to weigh in. I'm not really arguing for its recreation, just more for it to be reviewed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You made some serious claims in reply to my comment about including a lineage:

1.The lineage of the Prophet is based on religious belief.

My response: Why do you automatically assume this? It has nothing to with the Muslim beliefs about Revelation. Do you have any other reason to reject it other than the fact it is transmitted by Muslims?

If not, why don't you reject Algebra?

Additionally, if you reject the tree given by the Muslims, then what would you suggest as the alternative and what proof would you bring forth that's stronger than the Muslims'?

Those are not rhetorical questions.

2. That different languages have different rules.

My response: My comment on it being the best was referring to the fact that the Arabic version of the article reached featured status and the English one did not. What your suggesting is that simply by being in a different language, something can become bias that wasn't in another. If you could quote me the reference in Arabic Wikipedia's rules that allows for "religious perspectives" or a section that says different languages are allowed to have "religious bias", I would be satisfied.

Yster76(talk) 00:30, 21 June 2013(UTC)

I'm pressed for time, won't be around all weekend, so all I can say is: Please read the prior discussions. It is clear you haven't done so. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've skimmed the previous discussions, and you seemed to have objected to the lack of scholarly sources supporting the tree given.

These sources can be seen in the reference section of Family tree of Muhammad

Yster76(talk) 1:07, 22 June 2013(UTC)

That article has two trees, It is not clear to which you are referring.

The first, large detailed tree in the Family tree of Muhammad shows the nearest preceeding and succeeding generations, and it was not the subject of the archived discussions on Talk:Muhammad. In any case, a tree of such detail is not appropriate for the Muhammad biography, which is already too large, although it would be appropriate for the biography to link to it. You are welcome to propose its inclusion on Talk:Muhammad if you feel it should be included, because it has not been previously discussed.

The second, smaller tree that was the subject of prior archive discussions, linking Muhammad to other prophets, represents religious tradition (some of which pre-dates Islam). It does not represent facts established or accepted by actual historians, and furthermore the article cites zero scholarly sources to support it. As a product of religious belief, the overwhelming consensus from past discussions is that this tree has no place in the biography. It is more appropriate in articles about Islamic tradition. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I believe that the page The Reformation (band) was mistakenly deleted. There were credible sources cited noting the band's significance. Can you please restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitam331 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see how this band met any criteria spelled out in WP:BAND, and the sources did not appear to constitute significant coverage. A couple of very brief, non-notable reviews, almost trivial mentions, and a page selling CD tracks doesn't quite meet WP:SIGCOV. The article was deleted twice before for the same reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources listed was an album review in a newspaper article the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is an independent, reliable, non self-published source. An album review is not "trivial coverage" per the definition in WP:BAND. That is significant enough to meet at least one of the criteria spelled out in WP:BAND. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a trivial, three-sentence review in a local-interest paper, hardly regional or national coverage. I stand by my decision. If you disagree, you may request a deletion review at WP:DRV. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the original page to my sandbox. Wikitam331 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Reformation (band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I saw that you offered to use the tools to move the dab page so that an article could be installed there. Can I ask you not to do that without further discussion?

I'm concerned that the ideas of a couple of celebrity writers are going to be promoted under the guise of that general phrase – I'm basing this on the edits I've seen the same editor make elsewhere – and that it will end up being a POV fork. We already have several articles on plant-based diets. I'd therefore like to see a consensus form before the dab page is replaced, and that would probably require seeing roughly what kind of article is going to be suggested in its place, and how it would be different from what already exists. See my recent comment on Talk:Plant-based diet. [30] Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was also going to leave a note based on the topic mentioned above. I would like to ask that we follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have been an editor with the Wikipedia for over Seven years and am aware of all of the rules including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. For the record, as I have stated in other discussions, I do not know these individuals nor do I work for organizations connected to them. I have mentioned on other discussions that yes I have read public forums on topics related to the film "Forks Over Knives" and to works by T. Colin Campbell, Rip Esselstyn, and Caldwell Esselstyn. I am not trying to promote their or anyone else's interests. But I am interested in the term "Plant-based" which I've seen used in numerous articles, particularly the one by Kaiser which I posted on the DAB page. I am also very busy in RL so I can only come to the WP periodically. That being said, I would like to work with the community to build an article on this subject out of pure interest. I will check in tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My view is, I think an overview article covering the various plant-based diets would be far more useful than the current disambiguation page, but I also agree that it would be good to see the proposed new article first. Build it in your sandbox or at User:Classicfilms/Plant-based diet and propose it for community review. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I realized I won't have time to edit tomorrow so I was going to leave a note to that effect here. @Amatulic - absolutely, I agree with you 100%. I will certainly build a draft in the link you created above for community discussion. It is far too big of a topic, anyway, for one person to build an article alone - one reason I created the space on the talk page to add WP:RS. Again, though, it will be awhile before I can start building - and will most likely for right now, just add links and I hope other editors will as well. Ok, I'll be back on the WP in a few days. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This section has been moved to Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Move review discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing -- I saw the opening paragraph on your userpage. I have often thought of that same scene and its application to real life, and the difficulty of defining one's self without resorting to labels, or the ways in which others see one. Omnedon (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You delected at least two references to the Oregon Cemetery Desecration, stating that the book referenced was fictional, obscure, and not notable. This incident was widely covered in local and regional press when it occurred. The book is extensively referenced, and contains both photographic and documentary sources for the incident. Two people did a year in jail over the incident, and local press has been covering the release of the book. Here is an example of one article: http://www.paxtonrecord.net/news/arts-and-entertainment/books/2013-05-30/ex-cop-writes-book-about-bizarre-incident-late-1990s.ht It is neither fictional, obscure, nor not notable. Remember that Dix Township has 600 people, and Paxton has 4,000. Please revert the damage.166.147.104.166 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided does not work.

No, I will not revert, for multiple reasons:

• The book is obscure and non notable. It has received no reviews at all except for some user reviews, one of which says it's pure fiction ([www.lulu.com/shop/michael-hari/the-grave-robbers/paperback/product-21047731.html here]). The reliability of the book has been questioned in public, therefore Wikipedia cannot decide that it is appropriate as a source.
• The Wikimedia foundation ticket response team volunteers have received complaints about citing this book in articles, also saying the work is fictional and possibly includes libelous content. Therefore it is best to avoid involving Wikipedia in possible legal issues.
• Fictional works, or original research where the author makes speculations or conclusions, can be well-referenced and based on reliable sources. Just because a book cites reliable sources doens't mean the book itself is a reliable source. Referencing the actual sources the book uses (such as court records) is far more preferable than referencing a book that includes reliable sources, regardless of whether or not the book is fictional.
• If you want to get a community judgment on the reliability of this source, take it to WP:RSN, but be sure to reference this conversation.

Finally, your activity on Wikipedia appears to be devoted to increasing visibility of this book, suggesting you are the author. Your more recent attempts to include it have been reverted by others. You should never cite your own work, but rather suggest it on the talk page of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and abide by it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fictional books cannot be libelous. In any case, Wikipedia bears no liability for good faith references. Your hostility to all mention of the book in any article suggests a conflict of interest of your own.198.229.216.210 (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't fiction, then it may be libelous, and is not appropriate for use as a source, but may be OK for documenting claims made in the book, but not documenting as fact.

If it's fiction, then it can't be used as a source.

You can't have it both ways. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that as you contributed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals, there is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal transportation which you may be interested in. Thank you! Seal Boxer (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić,I saw your closure for Hilary Clinton and thanks for helping out! However, you had improperly closed it with the template for RM closures as opposed to MRV closures. The instructions are here. Again, thanks for helping! jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the first time I ever closed a move review, and used the RM template out of habit. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do better next time. --B2C 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't resist heading off without a snarky parting shot, eh? Stay classy, B2C. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever helps improve the encyclopedia. --B2C 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we must all do what we can. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic. How do I show it is a manufacturer/designer? 141.218.36.45 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:141.218.36.45. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic,

I am a college student working on a Wikipedia page called Medio. I was editing and formatting the page on my userpage Winvite when it was speedily deleted.

I have spent much time on this article and every thing I have wrote is directly from the sources cited. I read the guidelines for advertisement and I do not see how it violates those as the information is cited directly from the sources. I was not done writing the page, at the time of deletion I was emailing wiki help to have it reviewed and acquire help to improve the article. That is why I was editing it on my userpage.

If you could un-delete the page I would like to have it reviewed and reworked to further improve the article.

Thanks for your help, Billy Winvite (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Displayed right up there on your user page, it was an advertisement. That's the way it looks. Your user page is intended to serve as an introduction of yourself to other users. You gave every appearance that you were introducing yourself as a company called "Medio".

Draft articles should be developed in your sandbox or in sub-pages of your user space. I have restored the article to a sub-page in your space: User:Winvite/Medio. It should be safe from deletion there while you develop it further. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, could you explain the deletion of the page about the YouSign.org website and point out where exactly there is advertising taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanadragos (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? With phrases like "remarkable development" and "flagship campaign" what else would it be?

I also didn't see evidence of notability. Some campaigns got media coverage, but not the company itself. Notability is not inherited.

If you like, I can restore the article to your user space for you to work on at your leisure. It wasn't ready for main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you have delete Laravel (framework)? This framework is one of the most popular PHP frameworks. --Kirov Airship (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:CSD#G4. I have restored the article to your user space. See your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"When you think it is ready, you may move it back to main article space" - Well thanks, no. The page was online for weeks, then I start adding more content, and it gets deleted immediatly? Well, not my problem, I won't continue waste any more time with this. Why invest more time and then the page won't be allowed to exist again? FuelPHP's reference list is a joke but it may continue to exist? It has tons of links to Github, the project itself and to some random blogs. If this is what it takes, no problem, I can add 20 links to useless references without any problems. But sorry, its not the kind of "fun" I enjoy. Siconize (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Suit yourself. If you see other articles that merit deletion, then by all means propose them. Wikipedia has millions of articles. Some have been online for years before being speedily deleted.

Instead of deleting the article, I offered you a way to continue working on it without it being deleted. When you can prove the topic is notable according to the guidelines I mentioned on your talk page, then that will pretty much guarantee that the article won't be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies, I moved the article to the wrong place. It's at User:Siconize/Laravel (framework) instead of to your user space. That's what I meant when I wrote "see your talk page", I was referring to Siconize's talk page User talk:Siconize. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Omnicom Group, WPP Group plc, Publicis, Interpublic Group of Companies, Havas and tons of others that are the same. Shuford Technology is a reputable advertising agency in the state of Kentucky, the third largest in the state. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.137.16 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If they merit deletion too, then propose them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a valid point to make. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of other articles. And being "reputable" is not a claim of notability in accordance with WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair regarding my article on personality Jeff Joseph Dandurand. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning what is considered notable and how to put together a decent article on a subject. What I was not prepared for was being called names and watching other editor's tear down my article and it's subjects credibility- without suggesting what is needed to make it acceptable? I even put together a note naming a particular editor and his unusual pre-occupation with the subject being notable or not. While I respect Wikipedia's final decision in the subject's notability, I wanted to thank you for giving it a chance and not just deleted it. Obviously you took a moment to see that the article I wrote was nothing close to the mess that had appeared previously about the performer. Again this is in no way a ploy to save my article I created, but a thank you for at least giving it a chance regardless of the outcome. Thanks again! Seargentgommer (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I declined the speedy deletion nominations because I judged them invalid, therefore an AFD discussion was the only place to make a determination about deletion.

Don't be bothered by the behavior of others. They acted in good faith even though it may have seemed retributive or unreasonable. If you know the history of that article, the persistent spammy nature of it, and the persistent sockpuppets that have appeared in the past to restore it, you would understand how other editors might react angrily at seeing it again. We have no respect or mercy on people who use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and the appearance of this article subject yet again brought out the reaction. If you are not a sockpuppet of the original creator of this article, then you unknowingly walked into a hornet's nest by creating it again. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the Mi'kmaq redirects and disambiguation. It is appreciated! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hi. Two things about your resurrection of this as a redirect:

• Although it was an established re-direct before the recent deletion, there is, in fact, no mention of Arnold Reisman in the Judith Reisman article, so I can't see why there should be a redirect from the one to the other.

• You protected the article as "admin only", but the edit notice says that it is only semi-protected, so that needs to be fixed.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your first point is easily corrected with one sentence.

As to the edit notice, it looks fine to me. Perhaps someone fixed it? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

{{ygm}}. LFaraone 02:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Not sure what that means. The page was deleted way back in 2010, and has existed as a redirect for years. The email implies that the redirection was a recent thing; it wasn't. Only today, someone replaced the redirect with unsourced content, which you deleted, and has since been userfied to User:Technical 13/Drafts/Arnold Reisman.

It appeared to me that the original redirect was forgotten during the deletion and userfication, so I simply restored it. I also noticed the deleted page had been protected from recreation (I assumed this was because the userfying admin wasn't aware of the article's prior existence as a redirect), so after restoring the redirect I protected it from editing.

The email you forwarded demands that the content be restored, but you deleted the content, so I am curious why you forwarded that message to me. If you believe it's best that the subject be a redlink, I have no objection to deleting the redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My intention was to delete the redirect, which is what the article's contents were when I deleted it. The objection in the referenced email was primarily to the confusingredirect, if you read the ticket further. I think the redirect isn't really helpful now; if the userified article is later deemed suitable that would be fine, otherwise I think it might be best if the redirect was deleted. LFaraone 04:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My take on that email was that the objection was to the content removal.

In any case, the redirect is now gone and protected from recreation, as it was before I came bumbling along. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, I see you declined my speedy tag on this article. I tagged it rather than deleting outright because I was especially unsure whether a speedy was appropriate in this case and wanted more eyes, so I'd appreciate if you could clarify your decline rationale for me so I know whether my initial thought process when I analyzed the article was right - do you feel that the article asserts adequate importance to pass A7, or do you feel that it does not, but that because it has a long history, a speedy is nevertheless inappropriate? Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I declined it primarily because there were some good sources cited in the references, as well as at least one more in the external links. According to WP:CSD#A7 the mere assertion of importance is a low standard of notability, distinct from verifiable and reliable sources, therefore if sources are present, the assertion need not be.

That, plus the fact that it's been around for some years with a number of contributors, led me to conclude that the topic, if not notable, is at least borderline, so a speedy deletion wouldn't be uncontroversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to put [31] at User talk:Qing zhang123, not at User talk:Qing zhang123/University of Regina Computer Science Department. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Best, Spencer^T♦C 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not have caught that for a while. Fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In the RM discussion there was no consensus to perform any move, it was suggested to be moved where it is now, but the idea was not performed by the closing admin. An independent and new RM should be open to discuss this, rather than perform a move that can be controversial. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Wine and Spirit Competition, there's a discussion about what to do with the International Wine and Spirit Competition article. You voted "keep" per User:Northamerica1000's argument. But Northamerica1000 just read my recent comment there, then changed his/her vote to "merge". I wonder if you might please consider also changing your vote to "merge". (You need not reply to me. If you do, it would be much appreciated if you'd please move the entire conversation to my talk page. If I reply, I can move it back.) Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I and other users have been interacting with this user at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Shade_of_blue_used_to_show_marriage. They want to change one of the shades of blue on the map, and there is no consensus to do their bidding. I feel like the civility of their comments towards a User:Rrius is questionable (who has warned Fry to stop being combative). Because you and User:Bbb23 set some restrictions on them at User:Fry1989/Unblock_conditions, I was wondering if their behavior there could be reviewed. Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL does not prohibit heated argument. I don't see anything that would be considered a personal attack, which is really what the unblock conditions imposed on Fry1989 are aimed at preventing. Fry1989 hasn't gotten personal here, other than to use the word "you" a few times, in a situation where I see it couldn't be helped. Disagreement is not the same thing as combative.

Actually as far as I can tell, the person who first became combative is you, with your comment "if you recolor without discussion and consensus, it will be reverted." Rrius then made things more personal with phrases like "don't lecture me ... it's your own fault ... since you've decided this is the time to give each other advice..."

I'll leave a reminder to Fry1989, but I advise you and Rrius to take care not to escalate this. I won't take administrative action against Fry1989 if he is goaded by others into being incivil. Because one editor has behavior restrictions is not a license for other editors to demonstrate they don't have such restrictions. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping this here rather than responding on my talk page, I agree with Amatulic. In my view, the "worst" comment Fry1989 made in the discussion was directed at Rius: "What utter nonsense." And that was after being truly goaded by Rius, and, even so, Fry's comment was mild. I'll assume good faith here, but I certainly hope that Thegreyanomaly and Rius aren't taking advantage of Fry's restrictions to push him into a violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about his restrictions until yesterday night (the 4th night my time, 5th around 2AM Wikipedia time), and to my knowledge Rrius does not know about them. I made the "Keep in mind, if you recolor without discussion and consensus, it will be reverted. People (myself included) spent a lot of time working out these colors" because (as I noted on the page) last March he made an even more drastic recoloring of the map with out any discussion and without updating any legends all while he was blocked from Wikipedia. I wanted to be clear with him, so he does not repeat that. He does not seem to understand that he has started a debate about preferences and not policies, and he doesn't like it that not enough people prefer his coloration over the current coloration. I've told him to "[e]ither start an RfC on the matter or end this discussion." Anyways, I won't be responding to that discussion anymore unless he starts an RfC. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

[32] [33] This user went ahead and made the edit even though he had no consensus and was told to go to DRN. I have reverted his edits and I am reminding him to seek consensus before making edits he knows are controversial. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with changing a legend to match the color on a map? Your revert actually creates a mismatch. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 has initiated an edit war on my revert of his change. After the discussion on the file's talk page, there was never any consensus for him to make any changes. He not only changed the legend, he changed the map. There was no consensus for changing either. Also see, User_talk:Bbb23#User:Fry1989 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. I changed a map on Commons, and updated the related legend for the map here on Wikipedia. That was over a week ago and it has been accepted since then. Only today has Thegreyanomaly reverted me. I have only reverted him once, to protect a week-long accepted edit. That is fully within my revision restrictions. I can not be sanctioned for an edit on Commons, and all I've done on Wikipedia is one revert of another user. In fact, this is my first revision of another user (excluding IPs) for some time. I have completely obeyed and stayed within my restrictions. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Except you made edits you KNEW that consensus did not support then when activity on the page died down you made the edit when no one would catch it. There is no consensus for the colors you want, until you have a consensus you cannot change the colors. User:Bbb23 told you "if you can't obtain a consensus for your change on the talk page, there are other methods for seeking input from other editors.", but you did not listen. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys: Keep it to one talk page (preferably the article's). We all know how to use watch lists. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Other methods" was a friendly suggestion, not an imperative instruction. I can not be sanctioned on Wikipedia for an edit I made on Commons, and changing the map is a Commons edit. All I have done on Wikipedia is change a map template legend and that edit stood for 8 days. I have reverted you once after you changed it today. One revert is fully within my restrictions, it is not edit warring and it is not sanctionable. Amatulic knows this and will not punish me where I have done nothing wrong to break my restrictions. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why does this feel like deja blue? @Thegreyanomaly, I agree with Amatulic, you have to stop initiating these conversations on two talk pages. Do it on the article talk page or some place central, and then, if you wish, use talkbacks to alert those you think are involved. I want to clarify something here. As far as I know, the only restriction Fry is under at the moment is a civility restriction. He is no longer subject to WP:1RR. Therefore, unless you have a civility complaint - and I don't see one - there's no reason to handle this dispute any differently than you would with any other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi i just wanted to know. how long does an article for deletion page stay opened before voting is closed?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

7 days, unless too few people responded, in which case it's re-listed for another 7 days.

They can also stay open longer if a debate is raging and the closing admin wants to give a chance for consensus to emerge. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's OK< I know what I'm doing. I've been an admin for 7 or 8 years, and the Bircham article and I go way back. The text I removed was added by a sockpuppet of the long-since-banned owner of the company, it's unambiguous promotion. Check the history and you'll see the account that added it. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter about the identity of who added the content. If it's reasonable and encyclopedically relevant, it should stay, with appropriate revisions. The information about Bircham and IACTE is no longer true, but it was true once, and historical information is still relevant. I came to the Bircham International University article due to an OTRS complaint from the university about vandalism. Sorry, but I'm seeing too much emphasis in the edit history of who contributed content rather than what the content actually is. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SysFailure0x5a. You deleted my entry at Intense Vibes. It was flagged for speedy deletion and I contested the deletion before it was removed. It did not go against section G11 as stated by the one who flagged it. Did you read my contest? The article did not promote a product or brand, but was a description of the company. It followed a very similar structure of history and company philosophy just like other companies in it's category. It linked to various other Wikipedia pages such as wholesale, sex shop, sex toy, and even competing company Wikipedia pages such as Babeland that were similar in nature. It had no external links and was not spammy or promotional in nature. Why was this deleted? If there is a specific reason you should provide constructive feedback to correct whatever was wrong.

Sysfailure0x5a (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

An explanation was given in the deletion notice. It appeared to be a promotional piece in the way the text was written, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The fact that you attempted to link to this company's web site from another article speaks volumes about your promotional intent.

Also, it is irrelevant what other articles may or may not exist. If they don't qualify for inclusion, they should be deleted too. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. You seem overly concerned with the presence of "competing" companies; be aware that Wikipedia is not a means to generate promotion or publicity, and that every article about a company must satisfy the inclusion criteria given in WP:CORP. Even if yours wasn't advertising, there was still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello . a few month ago I created an article on Wikipedia named Farshid Haidari and that had been deleted because there were no sources ! then I recreated it and add sources as well and now it's been deleted again ! what should I do ? . . . Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMTheAdrenaline (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted again for two reasons:

• The community decided that it should be deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farshid Haidari.
• The article was re-created (by you) as substantially similar to the deleted version, qualifying it for deletion under WP:CSD#G4.

I suggest working on it in your sandbox or user space (like User:IMTheAdrenaline/Farshid Haidari), and ask others to review it first, before publishing it in main article space. Or use WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've created that on my sandbox and about aforementioned issue " Review " Who's to do that ? I'd appreciate it if you clear it up for . — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMTheAdrenaline (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I put a tag at the top of [[User:IMTheAdrenaline/Farshid Haidari that has a link to submit for review.

However, the content is identical to the deleted article. The only difference is a few additional references, which, as far as I can tell, do not cover the subject in depth. Trivial mentions don't count toward notability. The lack of significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV and WP:42) in independent reliable sources is the reason the article was deleted in the first place. We need significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw that YOU deleted MY ARTICLE called Red Brick Productions. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!! FIX IT NOW!!!!! NOW I TELL YOU, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Donutman12345678 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No. You might want to look at WP:CORP, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:COI before you do anything else. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have been asked to write profile for Robbert Arrts. I work at the PR company which looks after Fintage House who have asked me to create this page on their behalf. The page I previously created was deleted and was taken up with the email system i was directed to and received this response which explained that Wiki will "welcome my contribution".

"Hello, Genevievejay. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible."

I was wondering why I now have to take up with you why my page was deleted, or what I can now do as I still have to create this profile. I now have sources to justify the text if that was the problem before, yet I am concerned I will experience yet another page deletion or a block from creating another page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievejay (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you have a conflict of interest, you or any other PR firm should not be contributing articles to Wikipedia at all. I am continually amazed that PR firms persist in such attempts, mainly because PR firms seem incapable of writing from a neutral point of view as required by Wikipedia policy.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, though. I suggest you use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to submit your article for review prior to publishing. Even then, there is still no guarantee that the article will be kept. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, I'm talking about one of your edits here and I think it would be fair to let you know about it. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in principle this looks a notable subject. Please userfy the deleted page to me so that I can see if anything can be salvaged. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Userfied to User:The Whispering Wind/Culture and Science City. Good luck with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this prompt response. There is a link with 6th of October City that I am trying to fathom (might even be the same place) but my lack of Arabic is proving a bit of a handicap at the moment! The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well. It seems that the page I userfied to your space is a copyvio. It is a near verbatim copy of the Google Translate output of http://www.csi.edu.eg

The two articles are related. The "about" page at http://www.csi.edu.eg/AboutCity.html?rm=1&FacultyID=0 says: The city of Culture and Science in the heart of Sixth of October City, an area of ​​38,000 square meters, a distance of about 25 km from the capital, is the Sixth of October City closest cities to the heart of the capital, where away from the center of Cairo about thirty-five minutes, and connecting the city 6 October in Cairo several ways and fast axes, making it easily accessible to the city ...

I'd say, based on that, the one I userfied is a smaller topic contained within 6th of October City. In that case, merging the two would probably be the best course of action. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Interrelated is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher Institute of Engineering, which WW believes should be kept.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sure that you are right about the merge. 'Culture & Science City', which is the accepted name formation, is certainly the quarter where all the Universities are based (most of them refer to it in their locations). I'm tied up in a real life project (on English football!!) for the next 24 hours or so but after that I'll sort out a brief merge and redirect. Note to Bbb23; I'll clean up the Institute page after then too.:-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to Jlgorman24. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Please dont be so quick to accuse editors of being a 'single purpose account' as you did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearmund Cellars, if you'd taken a moment to look at that editor's talk page you would have seen communications concerning that article's review status as an AFC article. Sure this is a new editor but dont you think you are being a bit "bitey"? This is a new editor that is actually trying to do the right thing. Let's guide them, not run them off. RadioFan (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing bitey about calling an account that edits only in one topic a single purpose account. That's simply what it is. The fact that a SPA goes through AFC doesn't make the account any less an SPA. There is nothing denigrating about the label, it simply says the account edits in one topic. Tagging comments from such accounts in an AFD discussion is helpful for the closing admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you deleted Authr this past weekend with a reference to a banned user. Can you reinstate the Authr page so that I can update it. Verticalanswer (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The article was deleted not just because it was created by a banned user, but also because it was unambiguous promotion that would require a major rewrite, not just updating. Your own history of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes doesn't fill me with confidence that reinstating the page will benefit the Wikipedia project. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that I have reverted the autoblock on user:backinthebox. Further examination would have revealed that the editor is Wikimania2014 Technical director, and had not made a single edit to the encyclopedia: Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it…In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. (7.1 Preliminary: Education and warnings). Probably not entirely your fault because the CSD tagger of the user page should have had more clue. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I should have caught that - thanks for fixing. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to Kudpung กุดผึ้ง for helping me round with this. Just for transparency sake i have re-registered with this username, appologies for not entirely getting a handle on the situation before signing up but jetlag and the Wikimnia excitemnt and all that. All the best to you both --Patt8748 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up, I undid your CSD nominations on this article as I didn't think A7 applies to radio shows, and the article is not totally blatant advertising to qualify as G11. I have, however, tagged it as being over-enthusiastic and chopped out large amounts of the article that were copyvios. If you wish to send it to AfD, I certainly won't be complaining. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope you can fix it. The author has a history of creating promotional articles; gives the impression of being a paid editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down to this - a borderline AfDable stub. It seems the modus operandi of the creator was to create a puff piece, do a google search for the show, and shotgun sources in at random places - although the sources were okay, none of them matched with the text at all. What a train wreck. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, could you explain the deletion of the page about the aferry.co.uk website and point out where exactly there is advertising taking place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenClockCar (talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As you were notified about it several times on your talk page, it seems clear that your intention was to use Wikipedia as a publicity medium, violating a core policy; see WP:NOTPROMOTION. The website also fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB, and could easily have been deleted on that basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

professors at the Sorbonne are almost always notable, & it is certainly a claim to importance. I removed your A7 speedy. The article needs some considerable work and a check for copyvio, but it's not an A7. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. A professor is not "almost always notable" just because he graduated from, or works at, a particular institution. Sorbonne is huge, and employs many people. It's like saying that teaching at Harvard is a claim to importance. It most certainly is not. This is a clear A7, and also seems a definite AFD candidate since there is no evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This school's location is a topic for discussion at Talk:NationsUniversity (where I posted earlier). In any event, it was a user apparently affiliated with the school who created the article and described it as being incorporated in Louisiana, but with offices in Brentwood, Tennessee.[34] Furthermore, the page you cited (which I cited in the article) gives Brentwood, Tennessee, as the address for their "Board of Regents" and New Orleans only as "mailing address". The most recent student newsletter mentions Brentwood twice and Louisiana never. The address in New Orleans is some sort of mail drop, probably the address of the law firm that incorporated them in Louisiana. (See search results for other entities associated with the same street address and suite number.) --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you on the basis of a detailed email sent from NationsUniversity to OTRS. There's no whitewashing being attempted here, only correcting information. They claim they have physically moved their offices to the address shown. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, I'm uncomfortable using an undocumented email to OTRS as an encyclopedic source, and I'm skeptical about this particular information. The school's published materials (including the current university catalog) continue to indicate a location in Tennessee. Also, that address in Louisiana is either their law firm or a rent-by-the-hour office suite. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no argument with you. My revert was an attempt to appease a very irate person who insists their location has moved, but my reply that included helpful advice on conducting oneself with a conflict of interest just generated more anger and threats. I have invited this representative (twice) to participate on the talk page.

It is not obvious that the person I'm corresponding with is the same one who's been making those edits to change the location, but it's a safe assumption. Please invite that editor to participate on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The WP:SPAs involved with that article are well-acquainted with the article talk page (check the history there), and it is sufficient to say that they aren't fond of the various Wikipedia regulars who have edited that article. I have made an overture to the registered user who most recently edited the article, but not to the IP who edited it before that new user registered. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. I'm not so sure that this one met criteria for speedy deletion. Production by Sean Price, a collaboration with Heltah Skeltah, an album release on Duck Down Records – none of those would be enough to argue to "keep" the article at AfD, but I think any of them is enough to escape a speedy. (I sometimes refer to User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes as a guide.) With this particular artist, there is even some third-party coverage [35], two album reviews on Allmusic [36] [37]. Might you be willing to restore, or allow me to restore it? I'd be willing to add some sources. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go right ahead. When I deleted it, I noticed those elements you mentioned, but overall I didn't think any of those things were a credible claim to notability, particularly with just one album. It's analogous to considering something notable by virtue of numerous trivial mentions in sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

	You are nominated for The Most Careless Admin on Earth Award!
	For your most un-admirable performance in Requests for undeletion, this award is to signify that: No hard feelings; I actually had fun You have room for improvements; a lot of room too Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, can't I get a WP:TROUT instead? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, I wanted to request an undeletion for the Sam Hendriks article which was deleted last month. Sam Hendriks is currently playing in the Jupiler League for Jong Ajax, being the 2nd tier of professional football in the Netherlands, these caps qualify him for an article. He had actually made his debut last season while playing for De Graafschap, before suffering an injury. His article was deleted none the less, he has now accumulated more caps as a professional footballer in now his second season as a professional, and I would like to improve on the recently deleted article, instead of writing it all from scratch again. If you could please undelete the previous article, which I believe was removed in error during a big cleanup, I would appreciate the help. Thank you in advance. ~Subzzee (talk) 2:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I think that the Pankaj Kalita could use some reviewing. Could you please look it over? Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced assertion of notability is enough to disqualify it from speedy deletion. I removed the speedy tag, but it should probably go to AFD. I did some minor cosmetic changes. Maybe wait and see how the author develops it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Few questions

• Have I reached 10 edits yet? and when will my account be fully confirmed for me to be able to submit my article?
• Now I've submitted my article for review in the sandbox section what's the next procedure going forward? do I now wait or do I also submit it in another section?
• How do I upload a picture it is to go with the article?
• I accidently posted 2 articles in the sandbox area for review however it is only the most recent 1 that I want to keep, how do I get rid of the others? could you delete for me please
• Also the article once reviewed and active on Wikipedia id like called nicky slimting walker, so when you type it in google it comes up.

Look forward hear from you

username amellondon--Amellondon (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What you think?

Yes, you're confirmed.

The article you submitted lacks evidence that the subject is notable, so it was declined. See WP:42 for a brief description of what is required to merit an article. This is absolutely necessary to address before it can be accepted.

See Wikipedia:Files for upload for instructions on uploading pictures.

The sandbox looks like it has been cleaned up. I noticed you changed your username, but the article draft is still in your old name's sandbox.

Once an article is approved, it can be renamed, to whatever is the most common name used for the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

GITS is a complex mess of DRN and discussions. I am not dealing with Ryulong outside of a mediator for dispute resolution now. Also, it is not between the two of us, over a dozen editors have commented on this throughout its course. You have two diametrically opposed sides here that will change the way the entire Anime & Manga Wikiproject works. Basic policies are the core of the issue, and of the 200+ pages of discussion about this matter nothing of purpose has been done, it took Only in Death's actions to revert to the "status quo" of the pre-dispute pages. Something I asked for 5 months. Our mediator went quiet last week and other editors continue to back my stance, but they not on 24/7. The matter should have been resolved long ago, but until someone takes an active role and brings the core issue to a binding resolution at the table - it won't really end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw you were the last person to delete Cars 3. Can you unsalt it so I can move Cars 3 (film) (unrelated to the Pixar films) there? Thanks. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, would you consider restoring the semi-protection to Chelsea Manning that was there before your full protection was added (which has now expired)? It had previously been semi-protected until 22 September. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Expired already? I thought I had set it to expire later. Anyway, seems like re-semi-protection was already done by Timrollpickering. You could have done it too. I am only sporadically near the computer on weekends. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I couldn't do it myself because I've edited the article a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Given Wikipedia's distinct nature, I believe no such thing will happen, and it might be that the issue is not serious all at. I just wanted to be surer. I contacted one of them, and they said they can still..., and there is no way to knock them out.--AsceticRosé 05:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request. It was so enormous that it was split onto a separate page. I'm surprised you missed it.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm dealing with an OTRS ticket that suggested decision making was happening in a back room, and needed this information to answer appropriately, confirming that all such decisions result from public discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate on your answer, though. BOZ, BD4212, and myself did have some e-mail discussions over the details of the close.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I answered that the discussion was so complex that the closing admin felt it was necessary to confer with other admins regarding closing according to public consensus in the context of policies and guidelines, which is the admin's function after all. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have been mentioned in an ANI discussion, here. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make the page, but that page did seem to be informative enough...

Wikipedia is a wiki meant to have ALL information written by us, and we just missed that page!

Can someone else re-make it or something?

Pikachu4170 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is "meant to have" doesn't include articles posted for publicity reasons. That is a core policy; see WP:NOT. And who is this "us" you refer to? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

All I'm asking is to restore the page... And by Us, I mean everyone... Also, i can't understand what you are saying about "core policies" or somethings like that...

Pikachu4170 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted according to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTPROMOTION and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. If you want to contest the deletion, WP:REFUND is the place to ask. When you do, please reference this conversation here. I will not restore deleted articles that were created for publicity purposes. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. I saw your post at WP:N/N. It inspired me to AfD the Darren Bartlett article. The AfD is here. Thank you. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A page was created for musician Devyn Rose last year and I was asked to provide/establish notability. Her single "Want It All" is in rotation on the following commercial radio stations in the US via reliable tracking source Mediabase

• WRVZ-FM
• WOCQ-FM
• KHTT-FM
• WZMX-FM
• KPAT-FM
• KAGM-FM
• KWYL-FM

Please advise as I would like to recreate the wiki and add this information.

PinkStaircase (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's probably sufficient for notability. However, given the prior versions of this article, I am reluctant to remove create-protection from it. I recommend instead that you build it in your sandbox or a sub-page for review (either ask me or submit to WP:AFC) prior to moving it to main article space. Let me know if you need the original restored to your userspace, or if you want to create it as a clean restart. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, yes, if you can please restore the last updated version to my userspace and I will make changes and notify you for review? PinkStaircase (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I was able to edit it - Mark_Arsten placed it in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Devyn_Rose // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PinkStaircase/Devyn_Rose. Please review when you have a moment. Thank you PinkStaircase (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

plan to correct typos etc soon on User:Abigail48/Clive Matson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.76.238 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My day job has kept me away from Wikipedia over the past few weeks. I look in on the article every once in a while. I still does need work complying with inclusion criteria, which are summarized most succinctly in the document WP:42.

~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

abigail48 added some numbers corresponding to items in text & a couple of web sites```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.76.238 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Abigail48. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

Hello,

It seems like the rule to blacklist .onion domains incorrectly matches domains, see for example Onion Routing:

List of blacklisted links:

http://www.onion-router.net/Publications.html

Triggered by \b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.onion\b on the local blacklist

http://www.onion-router.net/Publications/tor-design.pdf

Triggered by \b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.onion\b on the local blacklist

May want to whitelist \b[-.\w]onion[-.\w]\b to allow it. I can't figure out a regex to exclude *.onion while allowing *onion*. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I need to put a full protection to this page, can you help me please? Many thanks!!! --Limbagio (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw your request on WP:RFPP. Sorry, pages are not protected pre-emptively. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you just removed my request at the whitelist board. Someone at the blacklist board similarly did not want to touch this and told me to come to the whitelist board, as I noted in my message. Can you tell me where this problem goes? I am facing the blacklist blocker and I want to discuss having this block removed in the right forum. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hasty, and I apologize. I restored your whitelist request to the proper section on the page and declined it, suggesting an alternative. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it not have been better to refactor the misplaced, but possibly useful first part of the IPs edit down to the bottom of the talk page, rather than just destroying it? Rather bitey, yes? Hope your day improves... Shenme (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not bitey. Bitey would have involved scolding the user. It was an unconstructive comment, placed disruptively in the middle of a conversation, and compounded by further edit to add disruptive formatting. You are welcome to restore it if you disagree. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you said you were going to try removing it from the blacklist. Did you try? It still is on the list (or is on the list again). Rmhermen (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Wine for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC) abigail48 added a publication to the Clive Matson article208.64.74.176 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it's Laura again. As you can see from the "history" of our page, there are people that try to make damage to our page... AGAIN!!! Now can we have a FULL PROTECTION as required? Or a protection for a month, as you did in August? please, it's important for us to prevent our page to the crazy people spreading false word! Thanks for your help! --Limbagio (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you need to be aware of some things:

• It is not "your" page. You have no claim on it. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and read it carefully. This is a policy on Wikipedia, not just a guideline.
• Requests for protection are to be made at WP:RFPP. In this case, a request for protection would be declined because it does not qualify. There's a distant chance that it could qualify for semi protection.
• However, there has been no disruptive activity recently. None. All I see are people attempting to add material in good faith. You might want to read the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith also.

If you have disagreements with others, you discuss those disagreements with them, either on the article talk page or on their own user talk page. That's what talk pages are for. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits were made prior to this speedy deletion, but that article has been around for quite a while and the book should pass notability. If it needs some parts re-worded, that should be addressed in the article. I'd like to see if you'll restore the article and the nominator, whoever that was, can go the regular AFD route and I can look to see what needs improved or corrected. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been around for a while without ever establishing any evidence of notability. You're right though, it should go to AFD. Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems, you have deleted a page on actress Keki Adhikari. She is one of the prominent actress featured in lead roles in half a dozen movies. She is also a leading model in Nepal. She has more than 70,000 likes in Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/officialkekiadhikari) and almost 4000 followers in Twitter (https://twitter.com/KekiAdhikari). More info on the actress is also available in Keki.info, nepaliactress.com/. Thanks.

The article described her as an "upcoming actress", and offered no evidence of notability (Facebook likes and Twitter followers don't count). You can't have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You deleted an article recently of a well known progressive metal band "Pagan's Mind". They have notability - being they've release 5 studio albums, and are signed to Limp Music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_Music). Their original article had a biography section which didn't belong on wikipedia, but the rest of the article should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efess (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please bring this page back. Pagan's Mind is a band that has made a significant contribution to metal and progressive rock genres. I was just visiting this page yesterday looking for information on the guitar player, and find it today to be deleted for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.208.180 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who nominated the page for deletion evidently did not see any assertion of notability, or evidence of notability. I agreed that it qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Exactly which criteria in WP:BAND are met by this band? I saw no evidence of any.

Releasing 5 studio albums from their own studio or their own label isn't a claim to notability. Being signed to Limb Music isn't a claim to notability unless they have released at least two albums under that label, but there was no indication of that in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"..from their own studio or their own label isn't a claim to notability" - this is incorrect, they've released albums under that label and steamhammer records (a subsidiary of SPV Records), which gives them plenty of notability. Like I said, the article needed cleaning up, and to be clearer on their notability - but not deletion.

There are also wiki pages for the various albums this band put out which don't have a link back to the artist.

And the person who nominated the page for deletion was actually a buddy of mine who I showed the page to who thought the band was a local no-name band. Efess (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

They released four albums on Limb Music, Celestial Entrance, Infinity Divine (remastered), Enigmatic Calling and God's Equation. They are currently signed to SPV/Steamhammer GmbH like you said, a record label which released albums for bands like Kamelot, Helloween and other well known metal bands. In the metal world there aren't many major record labels and you should know that. Pagan's Mind is no exception in the progressive metal world. They play mainstage on festivals and next year even have a headliner of a 2,5 hour set in America, even though they are from Norway. They will play the album Celestial Entrance in its entirety there, which is seen as a milestone. They have been in the charts multiple times. A certified gold record in Sweden. The drummer has played in a band called Firewind, featuring the guitarist of Ozzy Osbourne. Jorn Viggo Lofstad used to be part of JORN and Beautiful Sin, also notable metal bands. They have performed their song Search For Life on national television. Is this enough evidence for you that they are notable and deserve their wikipedia page? Because if not, then at least 50% of all metal bands wikipedia pages should be deleted. I agree the biography was not good, and needed changing, the rest should have stayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagansmind (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, then indeed the band meets WP:BAND criteria. I'll undelete.

I do agree that over 50% of metal band articles on Wikipedia are vanity pages / fan pages that should be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic - I wanted to let you know that I have changed the protection on the David Hallam article from PC-2 to semi-protection. I did make sure to review the OTRS ticket before doing so. PC-2 is not supposed to be used according to our protection policy (WP:PCPP), and it will still permit editing by unregistered or newly registered editors, which will remain in the history. If you review the editing history since that point, the main editor of the article is a newly registered account that added a lot of what appears to be quite promotional material; it was accepted by the reviewer per policy as it was not a BLP violation nor was it vandalism. I hope this makes sense; please feel free to respond here, or email me if you feel it more appropriate, if I've not provided you with sufficient information on my rationale.

And while I am here: Thank you very much for all your work on OTRS. It really does make a difference. Best, Risker (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I am ambivalent about PC protection anyway, and much prefer semi. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We are a mobile phone manufacturer based out of Miami, FL. We develop AWS devices for all of the prepaid carriers in the USA. Our devices can be found in over 20,000 retail stores across the country. Many people do not manufacture AWS devices so we want it known that our device is 3G on AWS bands. Currently, the device is available through T Mobile, Go Smart, Ultra Mobile, Ready Sim channels just to name a few. I have a spec sheet highlighting the AWS frequency and other features of the device to help with your review. Please let me know if I can provide you with any more information to help have our device approved. Thank you Samsocial (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely WP:CORP. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a publicity medium and should never be used for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, can you please undo the deletion of the Dân Bắc Kỳ article temporairily please, because many of the diffs and edits on that article's edit history is associated with a group of sockpuppets, under the user Jspeed1310, which i need to complete the SPI report i'm currently filing. I just need the article back up for a short time until the SPI completes, after which it'll be free to be deleted permanently. Thank you! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the article to your user space: User:Nguyễn Quốc Việt/Dân Bắc Kỳ. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the comments. Most people in his situation have the sense to call attention to themselves. I think enough has been said--anything further would just encourage them-- and the community will decide on the items up for deletion at CSD and AfD, and DelRev if it comes to that. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but it's always a good thing when paid editors call attention to themselves. They invite close scrutiny, and either they mend their ways or end up blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djdevious regarding this user. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a comment there. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

fyi: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonita Platinum DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. This editor appears to be one of about two dozen editors collaborating with each other to create or improve business-related article. Unfortunately, their understanding of what "improving" an article or what a suitable new article is does not (yet) line up with reality. Ditto their understanding of what companies do and do not qualify for articles.

The ideal outcome is that all 24-or-so editors accept our help and channel their interest and effort into creating quality articles about notable topics and adding quality improvements to existing articles. This will take time and effort on their part and our part.

The short-term goal, well, my short term goal, is to let them know that we want them to continue editing, but that for now they need to take a step back and stop editing business-related articles until they better understand what is and is not appropriate to have in such articles.

Towards that end, I have asked for help at WT:WikiProject Business.

Doctree and Kudpung (Kupung is an administrator) are both already participating in the discussion. Your input would be valuable.

If he appeals his block denying he is a sockpuppet, consider unblocking him. If you have opened any SPI, ANI, or related discussions, could you cross-advertise those discussions to/from User talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua, so that the discussions can all be moved to one place? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the account because both HCW33 and Helen1023 identify as being a PhD candidate in Information Systems at the same university, the first initial is the same, and there is a high intersection of the same articles in the contribution history. This did not look like a collaboration to me. It looked like a WP:DUCK sock. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit, this is one of those cases where, until there is an up-close investigation, this group (24+ accounts so far) look/quack both like collaborative editors cribbing off of and assisting each other and a bad-faith sock/meat farm. In fact, my initial reaction when I discovered the first few was to open an SPI. It was only after realizing that a few said they were students and the idea of a collaboration was plausible did I resume assuming good faith. Also, FYI, 220 of Borg opened a parallel discussion going on at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents/Archive 2#Group of New/Newish Editors Creating/Editing pages about companies about a day after I created User:Davidwr/Tsinghua. It looks like a significant a number of experienced editors are watching these new editors very closely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)