User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hi, Ad Orientem. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Wikipedia that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!

For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Wikipedia. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Wikipedia cheatsheet may come in handy.

Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP PRODs

Hello. Just to remind you that the BLPPROD process requires "that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography" (original bolding).

I've removed the BLPPRODs you placed on Frederik Møller and Marco Larsen, because at the time you tagged them, each had three live external links to sources supporting most or all of the article content, two of which, dbu.dk (the Danish football governing body's website) and fcm.dk (the players' current club website) are reliable sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ad Orientem. You have new messages at Knowledgekid87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of United States national rugby union team player statistics

Saw your note re proposed deletion. I have now added a reliable source for each of the four tables in the article. This should address your two related concerns that (1) there were no sources, and (2) without any sources the article's notability could not be established. As background information, these stats were broken out from the United States national rugby union team main page, which at the time was quite long at 75K bytes, so deleting the stats article and putting that info back into the main US rugby article would not be improving an article that is already lengthy and loaded with tables and stats.

Additionally, if you look at the various national rugby team pages, you will see that these tables/stats are common. If you think these stats should not be included in the US rugby page or any national rugby team page, you should probably take that to the WikiProject Rugby Union WP: RU talk page and see if you can achieve consensus. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStreet

Hi!

Thank you for your words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStreet. In response, I edited my nomination.

In response, I also edited your comment; I explained why in the edit summary. If this was not OK, feel free to revert.

Also, if you feel that my new words on that AfD page are still not ideal, feel free to edit them without asking me for permission.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I get sick of the spammers too and sometimes I just want to throttle someone. lol. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management was speedy deleted because of WP:A7. However educational institutions are exempted from A7. I also noticed the admin DGG, who deleted the page. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of GEM 1000

I pledge "no contest", please go ahead and delete GEM 1000, and while you are at it you can also delete Rabbit RX83. I have saved both articles to my sandbox, and plan to merge them with another almost identical (and more well known) computer. Mahjongg (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will tag both for speedy deletion per your request. Good luck with your new project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Egyptian man.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

i don't understand what is your problem?

I made the all football league 2 page and many teams by my one and made a huge search on newspapers and any possible greek site. you think that if the was more infotmations for a.o. peristeri f.c. i will not added!?! i keep update all the football league 2 page EVERY week and now you came to tell me what to do!! i think is everything ok. For the a.e. kifissia f.c. is football a team of football league 2 and the team site has more information for about the team i will put them. Until now all the other users such as DragonflySixtyseven, Admiral Caius, Cplakidas, Lgcsmasamiya who reviewed my pages it understand the difficulties and the luck of information for the teams of football league 2.and you are the only one with a problem!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante77782 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Regarding D. W. Cooper article

I'm not sure I understand fully what you think needs to be changed, but I have made some adjustments to the page. If you can explain further about Wikipedia's wishes I'd be happy to update the page accordingly. In the meantime I have deleted your insertions and added a comment to the talk page, as you suggested.

Regarding sources and verification: I did include an unusually large number of citations, by Wikipedia standards. A possible point of comparison is with the article on Leo Feist, a similar figure. However, I can provide additional verification for much of the information in the article; if you can be more specific about assertions that need to be buttressed I'm happy to insert additional citations.

Regarding notability: I see that for similar figures (for instance, John Ashton) there is a "Further reading" section and some external links. I will add similar material for D. W. Cooper; is this what is needed? The other evidence for "notability" is Cooper's appearance in trade journals of the time (Variety, The Billboard, The New York Clipper, Music Trade Review); but these are individual appearances, pervasive but scattered, and it seemed to me it would be distracting to include them on this page. Please advise if you feel differently. I could mention in passing that, in my opinion, far too much of the literature on popular music publishing in the United States has been limited to Tin Pan Alley, and that recent scholarship (not just my own!) is beginning to reflect more adequately the role of regional publishers in shaping American culture. Most of that work has been presented at conferences and on-line, however; it is only now finding its way to publication. My article on Cooper is part of an attempt to ensure that this more recent work is evidenced in Wikipedia entries.

Regarding style: I attempted to apply the style guidelines I followed when authoring articles for The New Grove Dictionary of American Music some years back (and which I have used since in, for instance, acting as editor for the publications of the Orpheus Institute). But I am very aware that house style does vary among publications, and if you can give me some indicative editorial suggestions I'd be happy to respond to them.

Wfbrooks (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Keki Tarapore (coach)

Thanks for the note. I don't have time to expand it at the moment but added just enough information to confirm his notability. As per the guidelines of WP:CRIC notability guidelines all first class cricketers are eligible for a wiki article. Tintin 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Be sure you hit the contest speedy delete button on the tag so the reviewing Admin knows this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Tintin 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion declined for Sex Drive (Dead or Alive song)

Hi. Just to let you know that musical recordings can only be deleted for notability under WP:CSD#A9 if there is no band article on Wikipedia. As Dead or Alive have an article page here, Sex Drive (Dead or Alive song) cannot be deleted by this method. If you still believe it should be deleted, I would suggest nominating it for WP:AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 07:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Same goes to Ao Vivo no Mosh by Smack (Brazilian band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous from the 21st century (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Keki Tarapore (coach)

Hello Ad Orientem. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Keki Tarapore (coach), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Played first class cricket, even if only once, is e reasonable assertion of importance enough to pass through CSD. Thank you. GedUK  12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for International Cruise Terminal Station

Hello. I have responded to the speedy deletion nomination at Talk:International Cruise Terminal Station, as the article seems notable enough. By the way, is there a reason why you picked this particular station out of all stations on Shanghai Metro Line 12? Epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am doing new page patrol WP:NPP and it was in my list of articles to check. Please be sure you establish notability in the article that meets Wikipedia guidelines and that any claims to notability are backed with sources. See WP:N and WP:GNG for a primer on notability and WP:RS for sources. You can also take a look at WP:42. A basic rule on Wikipedia is that to have an article, the subject has to be notable. And it's not enough to say I think it's notable. You have to demonstrate it in the article and back it up with sources. I didn't see any of that and that's why I nominated it for speedy delete. One sentence unsourced articles are pretty much a no no on here. If you move quickly and add some more info and sources though you may be able to avert its deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added two refs to the article. I am familiar with Wikipedia:RS, but when I wrote the article, the station was not sufficiently notable yet; even the Chinese-language article was a stub. (By the way, I don't know how that got past me. I'll add these refs to the rest of the articles later.) Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK sounds good. I will remove the no sources tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicole Scherzinger

Why do you say that she is a main contributor to the article? How do you know this? Gloss • talk 06:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I misread the name of one of the contributors. Immediately after reverting your edit I caught my mistake and have already removed the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Gloss • talk 06:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

COI?

Why do you think Switchmas involved any COI editing? I can see no connection between its creator User:Asdified and the film. What do you see that I don't? PamD 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi PamD. I just looked back at the edit log and to be frank I am not certain. I am going to take a guess that I saw the red link for the name of the director and misread it as the creator of the article (it was near the bottom). In any event after looking it over I agree with your edits and don't contest them. Good catch on the COI tag. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wolf Reik self-published tag

Hello, you recently added a couple of tags on the page related to Pr Wolf Reik. In particular there is a tag "self-published". Why is that? I created the page and I am not Wolf Reik (I know him). You also added a BLP tag. Which source did you have in mind? I put references to his some of his main publications and a couple of websites such as the Royal Society, that demonstrate notability. But I am happy to follow any advices. Nicolas Le Novère (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Nicoll

Hello, Ad Orientem. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Nicoll.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Little Trick

Hello, Ad Orientem. I found some sources for Dirty Little Trick. It is now sufficient? --Marek Koudelka (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marek Koudelka, I took a look at the sources and they don't seem to meet the standards set in WP:MOVIE. The coverage is short and they seem like capsule reviews. Also the sources are mostly movie sites of a nature similar to IMD which are expressly excluded as WP:RS sources for establishing film notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Marek Koudelka (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Asia Tech

Hello Ad Orientem, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Asia Tech, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Education of an editor

I'm still getting to know my way around the gears & switches of Wikipedia. I was glad of the opportunity to learn more about the PROD and Articles for Deletion process by working with you this week - thanks.

Also, Patrick O'Brian rocks. :) You might also enjoy Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne. I'm not normally a huge fan of Native American non-fiction, but the feel of that book reminded me of the Aubrey & Maturin adventures. There's not a lot of axe-grinding in Empire, and the characters and action rival the best of O'Brian's novels. James Cage (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi James and thanks for the note. You certainly picked a fine article to cut your teeth on in editing. Not many AfD discussion are this, cough cough, interesting. OK, maybe bizarre would be the better term lol. I am still learning too and pick up things all the time. That's one reason why I am quick to ask for 2nd opinions whenever there is any real doubt. Thanks also for the book recommendation. I am currently waiting with baited breath for the imminent release of the latest Dewey Lambdin novel. Feel free to drop me aline anytime. Regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will, and I'll check out Dewey Lambdin. Take it easy - James Cage (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Smack (Brazilian band)'s deletion

I'm not too proud of that article anyway, do as you please because I don't care much

- V.I.T.R.I.O.L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous from the 21st century (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 February 2014‎ (UTC)

The Arsonist (Deadlock album)

Hello there,

The page for The Arsonist (Deadlock album) is actually still under construction. That's why it isn't finished yet. Unfortunately, I'm not a professional when it comes to making Wikipedia pages. Perhaps you know some wiki users to help me out in finishing it.

Thank you for your time. RuurdWoltring (talk), Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 (07:03 AM).

Hi RuurdWoltring. A good place to start is at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. I think you will find plenty of help there. I will hold off on any tags as you are making an effort to improve the article. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pawel Wrobel - organist

Hello Ad Orientem,

Thanks a lot for information but what should I do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi WrobelWiki. First if you are the subject of the article or have any sort of relationship with the subject you should ask another editor to make any changes in the article. Your user name suggests a possible connection and that is a no no here (see WP:COI). Beyond that I would encourage you to read WP:42 for a quick idea of what we are looking for in sourcing to establish notability. More detailed information can also be found in WP:N WP:GNG WP:BIO and WP:RS. If you need some direct help from an editor you can ask over at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Memory of the Garden at Etten (Ladies of Arles)

Hi Ad. Thanks for reviewing Memory of the Garden at Etten (Ladies of Arles) and for your pleasant comments. Appreciated. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oii-Chinese

Hi there Thanks for reviewing this page. In relation to your tagging the page on grounds of notability, there are currently 7 unique reference sources on the page, and 5 of those are notable sources, in the sense that they have pages on the English-language Wikipedia (Taipei Times, Gay Star News, Liberty Times, ILGA and Radio Taiwan International). A 6th source, Lihpao Daily, is a newspaper in Taiwan, founded in 1935 (see Cheng Shewo). I appreciate that it may be difficult in some cases to separate the founder of the organisation from the work of the organisation, but it's on this basis that I felt an article was warranted, and of the organisation rather than a WP:BLP. Nsw2042 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nsw2042. On closer examination I think the article passes WP:N and am removing the applicable tag. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Orientem! Nsw2042 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Darlene Nipper

Thank you for the heads-up about deletion nomination. I would obviously like it to stay, but I have a stated bias, so will refrain from commenting as I trust the consensus process.  :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

Hi Ad Orientem. Thanks for answer. Maybe you could help to me to make any changes in the article?? I tried to use all necessary links to this article. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at it when I get a little time and see what I can do. But you should be aware that there are three possible outcomes. One is that I will find some good sources and get the article up to speed. The second is that I will find very little in which case the tags are likely to remain in place pending better sources to firmly establish notability. The third is that I will find nothing and may be forced to conclude that the subject just doesn't meet WP:N. In the latter case the article would likely be nominated for deletion. You would of course have the opportunity to contest that if it happens. But I prefer not to see articles deleted if I can find a way to make them work. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oxford University Tape Recording Society

Hi Ad Orientem, thanks for reviewing this page! I have made two additions in response to your tags, and started a discussion on the article's talk page to which I'd like to invite your comment. Nettings (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mundeyan Ton Bachke Rahin page deletion

The sources used to create this article are from two credible newspapers, The Hindustan Times and The Tribune India. Both newspapers clearly mention that the film is being shot and the actors who are in it and the article in the Tribune clearly mentions it's one of the looked forward to films of 2014. Both the Tribune India and The Hindustan Times are leading english language newspapers in punjab, so why are their sources not considered valid for this article?

pawel wrobel-organist

Hello Ad Orientem,

Thank you for answer and help. It's my first article but I'm almost sure that I did all necessary links/sources. And I'm really not sure what does it mean better sources....so I'll grateful for help. I think the first or second possibility is ok "One is that I will find some good sources and get the article up to speed. The second is that I will find very little in which case the tags are likely to remain in place pending better sources to firmly establish notability". - of course depends of you. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find any mention or coverage of the subject in newspapers or the mainstream press/media, that would be helpful. It doesn't have to be in English, but it should not be an obscure language where I can't get a rough translation using Google translate. Also when commenting on a page or discussion you should try to remember to sign your posts. You do that by typing four tildes (squiggly looking lines) in succession. We have bots that will do it in case you forget. But it looks better when you do it yourself. Regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Asia Tech

Please stop flagging Asia_Tech by mistake. Certainly it meets minimum requirements. If you think it's not following rules, then why is this alike article still approved : Shahrad_Network. For the record, what you do is not right and it's based on your own faulty personal judgement. Asia tech is a well known nation wide company which does not need global attention. As you can see it has an approved page in Wikipedia Persian as well. Regards. Sa3er (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response on the deletion discussion page. Regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Curation tool

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that there are a number of articles that you curated where the tool put tags or deletion nominations on the article without actually marking it as reviewed. I assume it was a glitch in the program, but the result is that a number of the currently oldest unreviewed articles in the New Pages Feed have actually been reviewed. You may want to take a scan through and just mark as reviewed any of the pages there you recognize as having tagged. Cheers. Wieno (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

I'll try to find some new links. But can I add two links to one sentence?? Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can. Just put the source tags next to each other at the end of the sentence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

diamonds are forever (band)

Hi,

Sorry about the poor content of references, I am working on it. If I cannot verify the information, I will delete it myself. Please allow me the time to do that, it appears that someone else has edited the page.

thx --thre4t 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

Ok. I'll do it. but can I add links which includes posters from concerts, competitions or with only his artistic biography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Posters are not usually considered as reliable sources. Take a look at WP:RS WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC to get an idea of what we are looking for in sources and standards for notability. ALso you don't have to create a new section every time you want to drop me a line. Just edit in this section under the most recent text. You can use colons to indent your text so as to distinguish it from what was written above it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I found three sources but I'm not sure it. 1 include organ competition in Zurich but there is no his biography: http://www.musikinzueri.ch/cms7/of/?OrgelFest_2011:Orgelwettbewerb_2011

2 include information from concert (polish language)and his biography: http://www.rc.fm/kulturalne/final-forum-organowego.html

3 include information about organ competition in gdańsk (polish language); http://www.trojmiasto.pl/VI-Miedzynarodowy-Konkurs-Muzyki-Organowej-im-Jana-Pieterszoona-Sweelincka-imp80470.html

4 include information about his prize during competition in Poznan; http://www.polmic.pl/index.php?option=com_mwinstytucje&Itemid=22&id=345&view=konkurs&lang=pl

and the problem is I'm not sure which sources should I use, only these which includes his biography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Guy P. Harrison deletion

Hello. Thanks for notifying me about the proposed deletion of the Guy P. Harrison page. I believe that the article has several issues, namely the lack of information about the author, instead of his books and the fact that the article does sound like an advertisement. However, the author does seem, in my opinion, to have a certain degree of notability. Here are some more sources:

• Check out the Skeptic magazine, they mention him several times
• http://www.csicop.org/search?cx=partner-pub-7990294390318881%3Akq7omegpkyf&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=guy+harrison&sa=%C2%BB
• http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guy-P.-Harrison/e/B001JP2MJC

Maybe it would be a good idea to contact some other editors to discuss the issue further. Thanks!NHCLS (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management

Hi! The AFD discussion about HSC was relisted twice. After your vote, new comments in the AFD page were made and references were added to the article. Can you take a couple of minutes to go through the AFD page and reconsider your vote? Cheers! --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

City Montessori School

Hello! Could you please review the City Montessori School? It desperately needs a major review. Thanks!NHCLS (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That is one long advertisement. I will see what I can do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Prod notice

Hi, thanks for all your edits. I'm just registering polite disagreement with this prod. Existence of Chinese wp and Belarusian wp interwiki articles indicated a good chance of notability, and made worthwhile a quick search in Google books. Thanks for your work. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur which is why I did not refer the article to AfD when the PROD was removed. Thanks for adding the sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've left a message on Timmy's talk page giving a couple of tips. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

Sorry but I must to add it as new section

I found three sources but I'm not sure it. 1 include organ competition in Zurich but there is no his biography: http://www.musikinzueri.ch/cms7/of/?OrgelFest_2011:Orgelwettbewerb_2011 2 include information from concert (polish language)and his biography: http://www.rc.fm/kulturalne/final-forum-organowego.html 3 include information about organ competition in gdańsk (polish language); http://www.trojmiasto.pl/VI-Miedzynarodowy-Konkurs-Muzyki-Organowej-im-Jana-Pieterszoona-Sweelincka-imp80470.html 4 include information about his prize during competition in Poznan; http://www.polmic.pl/index.php?option=com_mwinstytucje&Itemid=22&id=345&view=konkurs&lang=pl and the problem is I'm not sure which sources should I use, only these which includes his biography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and list the new sources under a new section. You can title it "Additional Sources." Try not use bare URLs though. I am going to remove the notability tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jpop73 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC) thanks for letting me know

Bhupendra Chaubey

Not a problem, thanks for letting me know. GiantSnowman 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

wrobel-organist

Hello Ad Orientem

I already added all sources which we talked yesterday. Best WrobelWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrobelWiki (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Willy Monfret

An article that you either edited or previously proposed for deletion has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Monfret. Due to lack of discussion the article has now been relisted twice. If you have a chance could you please stop by and weigh in on the deletion debate. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

pawel wrobel-organist

Hello Ad Orientem,

I hope everything is fine with that article and sources which I added a few days ago but it has to stay, this information?? "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2014)"

Best regardsWrobelWiki (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)WrobelWiki

Thank you very much and best regards. WrobelWiki (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tirana Ekspres Comment Spelling/grammar correction

Dear Ad Orientem, The speedy deletion of the article "Tirana Ekspres" might been a speedy opinion. Though, it might seem to someone that the article is promotional (as you wrote), I would argue on behalf of re-establishing the article. If the mentioning of the National Theatre of Opera and Ballet or the National Gallery of Arts is all right then other cultural places/organisations have their place in Wikipedia, too. At the moment Tirana Ekspres is the only place that offers regular cultural events as concerts, exhibitions or theatre performances. In addition, they organise other activities and events, most of those related to culture and arts, other activities are connected to environmental protection and regional promotion. The number of activities and events is much higher than any other institution/organisation offers currently in Tirana - probably, it's higher than the total of all other's together, including the Opera, NGA and all the state run institutions. If you consider that the text was promotional, then help to make it neutral, objective, or whatever you think that was missing. My opinion is strong on that that such an initiative shall be mentioned on Wikipedia. Cheers! Geza.molnar (talk)

Hi Geza.molnar. The article was deleted for violating Wikipedia polices regarding neutrality and advertising. Please see WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV. I have to in all honesty say that I do not recall the details of the article in question as I review quite a few each day. Clearly a reviewing Admin agreed with the G11 nomination though. If you believe the article was unjustly deleted, you may ask an Administrator to restore it, or you may recreate the article from scratch. If it was previously deleted the latter course might be the better one so you can avoid any of the mistakes in the original. But if you are thinking about reviving or recreating the article please be sure that you explain clearly in the article why it has encyclopedic notability. That term is distinct from ordinary notability and there is a higher standard. Please refer to WP:N for further guidance on that subject. Also you must cite verifiable and reliable sources to prove anything written in the article. Again there are very specific standards and guidelines those sources must meet. They must be from reputable secondary and or tertiary sources and must have no direct or implied connection to the subject of the article that might call into question their neutrality. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for more information. You might also wish to read the short essayWikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Finally please be aware that articles are not speedily deleted lightly. If the article is undeleted or recreated from scratch, it is certain to be subject to some scrutiny. And if the article is perceived to still be promotional and or lacking in notability as understood in WP:N, it is very likely to be referred to WP:Articles for Deletion for review and discussion by other editors. This may result in it's being deleted again. I hope this helps. Please feel free to drop me a line if you have any more questions or concerns. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPACE_%28studios%29 Is this all right? What was the difference? (Speedy deletion - might be a necessary tool on WP, but far from a calm discussion.) Geza.molnar (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Worldviz page

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from WorldViz, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopherBot91 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Just took a look at the article after your revisions. I still think some of the sources are a bit dicey but there seems to be enough there to ring notability bell. Thanks for the FYI. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Europe topic

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Europe topic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Military history of the Acadians

Thanks for the feedback.--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Health Care in Karachi

Hello Ad Orientem,

I just wanted to let you know that I copy edited that entry per your suggestions and added some citations. I didn't take out the tag about the citations, but I deleted the tag for copy editing since it looks clean to me now. I am new to Wikipedia and this is one of the first entries I've tried my hand at. I do realize after doing some editing on this that I need to get better at using the standard legends in the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona06 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mimi (2014 TV series)

Hi! I do no agree about the article being not neutral. It simply states facts of which channel, when it airs and what the story is about. Nothing to be POV in there. As for notability, a program that airs on a major cable channel of national coverage is notable on its own. But just for credibility sake, I added sources unrelated to Mnet and took the templates off. There are four unrelated sources now (Korea JoongAng Daily, Tenasia, Korea Times and Chosun. I hope it suffices. Regards Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 11:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Teemeah. Thanks for adding the sources. Some of the sources you had originally mentioned the show only in passing and were more focused on the actors. Likewise the coverage needs to be in depth and from multiple verifiable and reliable sources that have no connection to the subject. For this reason entertainment oriented news sites and blogs are not usually accepted as good sourcss. Please WP:RS and WP:V if you have any questions. I am fine with your recent edits. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Teehee

[1]. Like. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Claudiu Teohari

Hey there. You've recently posted a delete vote on the Claudiu Teohari delete page. Your say in your user profile that you're a New-Yorker. Are you by any chance a Romanian speaker as well? Because every link posted on the page is in Romanian and I'm not sure how you could tell they were trivial. One of the articles is an profile done by Romanian satire publication Kamikaze and the others are interviews with prestigious Romanian press institutions such as Antena 3, Gandul or Adevărul. As a couple of my Romanian conationals have stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fără Cuvinte, Romanian press has come to be close to "non-existent" and wouldn't being featured in lengthy interviews in three of the four or five major outlets left qualify him as notable? Is there any chance you could take a look at my [[2]] with another user who chose to change his vote from delete to just a comment and then go back to the Claudiu Teohari delete page and look at the sources I've added since then? (Another interview with Adevarul describing him as one of Romania's most well-know comedians and one of the most successful comedians in the country). Thank you and sorry for maybe not being clear, I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, nor am I an english speaker.cutkiller (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I took another look at things based on your points and although I still have some doubts, I believe in erring on the side of retention when the case for deletion is less than solid. I have changed my vote to a weak keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

AFD

Thanks, and sorry if I came off as a bit of an ass - A&M has a huge problem in a lot of areas and I've been running around trying to douse fires and get content to GA and FL standards and I've got piles and piles of books and lots of information (almost no end it seems) to actually handle. The Legendz matter was less than 2 mins to find N and the rest was just cleaning up someone who cared about the wrong aspects of what an encyclopedia needs and should be. I been a bit tough as of late because I need another 80 GAs before the end of the year and I didn't get to go to the library today... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and no worries. We all have days where we are under pressure and sometimes the fuse gets a little short. In hindsight I probably should have queried you after the PROD was taken down to see if there were any plans to work on the article. In any case you did a great job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

what?

Do I NEED to have a connection with the film to create the article Switchmas Asdified (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Back in January I misread the edit history and erroneously applied a COI tag. The issue was resolved very quickly. No need to worry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Living Person: Emi Fontana

Orientem -- As you can see I am a new user, and started my contribution to Wikipedia on a subject I was familiar and comfortable with which had no existing page. Unfortunately, my learning curve here has been a slow one. I have been trying to clear most of the concerns that have put the page up for possible deletion.

The one hurdle I am not certain I can effectively address is how "noteworthy" the subject is. However, that being said the particular profession of this individual (contemporary art curator) lends itself to a somewhat unclear nature, since in the art word they can have great notoriety they are of course not spoken of in the public at large as often as the artist they work with.

With all that said. I am still trying to make sure the page complies with all the guidelines required. Any further suggestions would be very much appreciated.

--5deadlydaisies (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Stubs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Stubs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi I noticed you were a member of the royalty project and I was wondering if you could help me with something. In English is the "d" in dynasty capitalized when used with one? For example which would be correct: Han Dynasty or Han dynasty? --Steverci (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where your mileage will vary. If you are using the word to denote a specific royal dynasty, i.e. the Tudor Dynasty, I would say yes, for the same reason we capitalize proper nouns. In the case of non-royal dynasties I'm not sure there is a consensus. If I were making an edit referencing a non royal but still aristocratic dynasty I think I might capitalize if it was a really important one. In the case of commoners, i.e. the Kennedy dynasty, I probably would not bother. Other editors may have different opinions though. Hope that helps. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! So does that mean you would be in favor of renaming the Tudor article? --Steverci (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a hill I am ready to die for. In the grand scheme of things it's a minor point where some editors might not be in agreement. But you could propose the name change on the talk page and put a notice up on the royalty project's talk page to let them know there is a discussion. In general I prefer to avoid name changes unless they are extremely unlikely to be controversial or they are backed by consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Gun politics in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment at Gun politics in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. This message is pursuant to the directions for publicizing an RFC. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Alden

I only removed it because it was a personal attack and not a beneficial addition to the discussion. At WP:PERSONAL, removal of text is warranted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of edits are normally a result of really over the top commentary that I could not quote here. And they are usually done by non-involved editors. It doesn't generally apply to the sometimes heated rhetoric that pops up in a spirited AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orientem

Is there a pm I can send you? I need to talk to you privately.

Juliesong:Juliesong

Sorry, that's not a feature on Wikipedia. Everything here is done above board and out in the open. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Breil

I improved Breil (company): is it a good stub? You can post in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breil (company). Good luck--Pagoprima (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry still insufficient RS sources to pass WP:CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nazi GC

Providing sources here, due to my pending topic ban, and to avoid cluttering the talk page further, but I believe there are a decent number of sources that have discussed the argument in a serious manner, both for and against. You of course are entitled to your own !vote on the RFC, and your own opinion as to if these sources satisfy whatever criteria you are using for yourself. In general, none of the sources below are making the argument that "modern gun control proponents are nazis", although some of the people have done so in other contexts, and the sources below are used as ammunition by those that do.

Halbrook is probably the most notable/academic of the arguments proponents. In addition to his book on the topic Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) he has published several papers on the topic in academic law journals (ungated free download links are available easily on google) [3][4]

But there many other sources as well Racist roots of gun control , Kansas Journal of Law and Justice v 14, 1994 Of Holocausts and gun Control. Polsby, Kates, 75 Wash. U. L. Q. 1237 (1997)

Harcourt, Spitzer, and others have argued to the contrary in various academic law journals as well.[5] (Plus the many popular media articles on the topic arguing against the argument, such as slate, mother jones, etc) [6] [7] [8] [9]

Although Harcourt and Spitzer certainly are strong opponents of the argument that the Nazi laws had a significant effect on the Holocaust, they both directly acknowledge that the Nazis did implement regulations prohibitng the Jews weapons, and did do confiscations, and contrary to Steeltrap's argument, describe these actions as gun control. (Quotes pulled out in link below)

I had put together an index of the sources for earlier rounds of this dispute, which can be seen here User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

One can find all sorts of psuedo history-science etc in support of fringe theories and conspiracies. Look at all the stuff that's been published supposedly proving that 9-11 was an inside job and the towers were blown up by... (fill in your favorite bogyman). Or take a look at the weird conspiracy theories asserted by gold bugs. I recently had to tag the article on GATA because it's once again been recreated and edited by the nut jobs citing sources that promote fringe conspiracy theories. My point is that just because something has a few impressive looking sources behind it doesn't make it non-fringe. It needs to be considered in context and weighed in the balance with all other views on the subject. And this sort of thing just doesn't fly. It is dismissed by pretty much all reputable historians and academia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

• RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor note regard The Squids

You declined PROD on the The Squids. Just a note that the previous AfD was never brought to a conclusion, because the previous incarnation of the article was speedily deleted under CSD A7. The PROD was thus actually valid. No problem, I have already taken it into AfD, but in the future, you may want check the previous AfD, to see if it was brought to a valid conclusion. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was unaware the previous AfD was short cut. I always thought CSD also preempted PROD but after looking at the guidelines again, I don't see it listed. That seems odd since both a previous PROD or an AfD prevents its use. Oh well. No one ever accused Wikipedia of logical consistency in its guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Margie Orford

What's your beef about the Margie Orford stub please? 1. She's very notable - an award winning crime novelist whose recent piece about the Pistorius trial has attracted widespread attention 2. The article is a stub and I used several sources for the start 3. As presently constituted the stub simply presents a series of facts easily verifiable. Are you suggesting there's a Conflict of Interest issue here? What nonsense. I'm editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius and came across her piece on the trial and thought her worth a BLP start.

What on earth can you be thinking of? I'm removing your tag directly and will take you to an ANI if it reappears without such justification as you can muster here. I might just take you to an ANI anyway. I'll see how it goes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours. I have just taken a second look at the article in question and find no substantive improvement with respect to the problems cited except that there is now a second source. Both however are publishing houses connected to the subject of the article and fail WP:RS. I concede the subject might well be notable, but this is not established in the article. Claims of notability must be backed by RS sources. As for your threat to take me to ANI I can only say that you are free to do what you feel is right. I am not sure what you will accuse me of though. I was doing NPP and the tags placed were I believe, correct and proper. I certainly have not presumed a lack of good faith, nor attempted to intimidate another editor by posting acidic comments and threats on their talk page. However since you disagree with my tags and I do sometimes miss things or make mistakes, I will ask an Admin for a second opinion before replacing the notability and third party tags. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know how Wikipeida judges WP:Notability. This secondary source alone is adequate [10] and then there's this [11], destined for the history books (already cited for example here) and concluding with "Margie Orford is an award-winning South African journalist and crime writer. Her new novel Water Music is out now, published by 'Head of Zeus'". Not notable? Hah.

As for "sources" you're confusing them with "citations". I'll remove that tag directly as well.

Please don't come back. Or at least read the sources first before you do. And if you do go for admin "eyes" perhaps you could do me the courtesy of telling me whose. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked DGG to take a look at it and will defer to his judgement in the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask administrator User:Bearian who reviewed the page some six hours before you and didn't feel there were multiple issues requiring tags beyond a need to expand the Biography section (the "minor" changes you describe to DGG that I added to the article)? That it had indeed been reviewed should have been evident in your NPP feed and certainly in the History when you came to make your tags. If you're on such matey nodding terms with admins, don't you think should have checked with him first, as a matter of courtesy?

You've put him (and DGG) in a false position and you've wasted my time. Can we look forward to an apology from you? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I only saw one issue: the biography section - that is, the details of her life - was missing or empty. I tagged it so, in the hope that someone would work on it. However, it's clear from when I reviewed it that she was notable. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I also trust DGG's opinion. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand "false position." both Berian and I are always glad to look at an article. I agree with Berian that she is notable, though the only way to ultimately determine that if challenged is at AfD. The notability is both as someone who has written of her experiences and had her book on them be the subject of a significant Guardian article, and more generally as an author, judging by her many books in worldcat, and their fairly wide holdings for a S. African crime fiction writer in a predominantly US list. (What it needs here to show that aspect under WP:AUTHOR is a complete list, and references to a few published reviews--not Amazon, not blogs).

As for the dispute: First, it is standard practice that we do not remove reasonable improvement tags until we make the improvement or after a talk p. discussion. The best response to a notability or sourcing tag that one thinks unjustified is to add sources to show notability further, even if you think it already shows it pretty well. But if the contributor removes them, the usual response is to either drop the matter or take it to AfD, rather than argue further. The single source tag was not unreasonable when placed--normally it's enough to place one sourcing tag--both is overkill. The notability tag would have been reasonable on the face of the article if one did not read the sources. If removed, an explanation should have been added to the talk p or the article expanded.

Nobody owes anyone an apology. When one submits an article here, just as when one publishes anything anywhere, one expects criticism, some of which may not be justified,and its not appropriate to get angry about it. If the author does get angry about it, the reviewer usually does better to not continue the quarrel. After an article is patrolled or an AfC accepted, it's perfectly normal and in fact highly desirable that other people look at it. I look at very many accepted AfCs, and I spot check some accepted articles at NPP. When I do, I often add (or remove) a tag; & I sometimes send it for Prod or AfD, or even Speedy. Initial reviewers at NPP are basically expected to screen out the really unsatisfactory stuff, not to certify the articles, tho its hoped they will catch other problems also. It's not an admin function, & whatever one does is easily challengeable. Great accuracy is not expected--except that when we place a deletion tag, we aim for at least 90%. I have never challenged the addition or removal of a problem tag I placed on an article unless the situation is serious, and I normally remove or add them as I think best on the basis of a look, not a detailed analysis, unless the matter is clearly controversial. And when one checks an article, one should not be a respecter of persons. I would not lightly challenge Bearian's view, but I sometimes have, and he has sometimes challenged mine. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I defer to your judgment which seems entirely correct and appreciate everyone's input in the mater. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a stub. I went to a lot of trouble doing it. Out of courtesy I emailed Margie Orford. She replied pleasantly, thanking me and saying that she had never considered doing her own BLP as it seemed so strange (pretty refreshing eh?) Of course I don't know her and of course there's no conflict of interest here. She's a household name in SA, and while I don't expect your average Brit necessarily to know her I do expect a reviewer actually to read the text taking the 10 seconds or so to assimilate prize-winning journalist, the five crime novels and so on. And Google has 47,000 hits for "Margie Orford". Nothing in my stub was hard to verify (verify a book title - come on ...). That first book I listed "Blood Rose" reviewed here at The Independent (first Google hit), listed here along with four others in the Clare Hart series all with Kindles at Amazon.uk (second Google hit). And there were several sources that went into preparing that stub. The kid just doesn't know a citation from a source. But this is a kid with admin eyes, no spotty teenage lamer I'm dissing here ...

There are other SA journalist covering Pistorius I would like to do BLP start-ups for, notably Sisonke Msimang and Rebecca Davis of The Daily Maverick. Am I encouraged? TFIA. Does Wikipedia benefit? TFID.

Thanks to Berian for reviewing constructively. With respect I'm pretty sure I'm owed an apology from at least one other party here.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. By the way, my nickname is "Bearian" - a portmonteau of "Bear" plus Brian. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Bearian. Just a typo there actually. I'm pretty incapable of writing a coherent sentence of English without a creative error of spelling or two to jolly it along. That would be more senior than lexic :(. Didn't know that about "bear". I love that kind of thing and will research it directly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours, of course you are being encouraged. Here you have 3 experienced people here all trying to improve the article and make sure the notability gets clearly shown. Putting on a tag questioning it and asking for additional evidence is the appropriate first step in the process of getting it improved. Where else could you post an incomplete article and get such attention? And remember we try to do this for every one of our half-million submissions a year. I personally look at about 10% of that. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In the templates I saw there was a very clear implication that there was a conflict of interest and that was annoying. But what was really irritating was the notability question, that Orford's notability was hard to confirm. That was nonsense. And I don't expect attention and it wasn't "half completed". It was a stub (did you do 'stubs' in admin school? that's when someone does the basic legwork for others to fill in, like it's a service). And why the images on my user page are reproduced above escapes me. Feel free not to bother informing me what that might imply/portend. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Re the last sentence: one of DGG's typos had turned an attempted "ping" into a dump of your user page into this talk page. Now fixed. PamD 20:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PamD. It didn't really bother me. I like art and my pages are a tad bare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@PamD:Right, confusing {{User:Coat of Many Colours}} with {{ping|Coat of Many Colours}}. Happens all the time even from experienced admins and a really unobtrusive typo in its effect. No wonder both he and User:Ad Orientem missed it.

So what would you call it Pam from somewhere close to me? I would call it an invasion of privacy myself, wouldn't you? Some sort of challenge perhaps? A gender thing possibly?

I can deal with it. I shall deal with it.

Thanks for fixing anyway. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours, I am sorry that somewhere along the way I seem to have caused you offense. In any event I thought the matter had been settled, but here we are again. I am not sure what more can be done. I have exercised great restraint in the face of your persistent lack of civility and abuse of AGF but really, your attack on DGG is simply over the top and completely out of line. If you still have issues with me I invite you to take the matter to ANI. Beyond which I must very respectfully ask that you desist in commenting on my talk page. I truly regret that we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I think this has gone on long enough. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum

See my comment on their talk page. I'm going to hold off on hauling them off to ANI for now, but we should keep an eye on what they're doing. And thank you again for spotting this and reporting it! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Thanks for your help. I am going to add all of the restored articles to my watchlist. Unfortunately I don't think I can do that with an editors contrib log. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but here's nothing wrong with loading a contributions page once or twice a day to see how we're doing, especially after this problem. I'll be keeping an eye out too. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm bookmarking the page. I really try very hard to give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to an editor when questionable edits are involved. But this is just too much. It's either bad faith or the worst case of fresh out of the door over enthusiastic editing I've ever seen. Charity compels me to hope it's the latter, but common sense and reason say otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I find myself going down the let's be nice road most of the time, although sometimes I do get burned. Let's hope this was a misunderstanding by the user on how things work around here and no further action will be necessary. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: OK I have gone back as far as I can on their contrib log which is 500 edits and am able to make a few observations. First, I don't think this is an anti-Islamic agenda. He/she has only made a little over 600 edits but all the way back through the last 500 there is a history of very aggressive editing on Islamic related topics. But the editing seems to be more indicative of an intra-religious - sectarian agenda. They demonstrate a substantial knowledge of at least some Islamic related topics and there is a lot of heavy deleting in the name of NPOV and lack of sources etc. Also I am extremely dubious about this editor's background. I have never seen a brand new editor with a little over 100 edits jumping into contentious debates on religiously oriented articles and making these kinds of edits while citing WP policy. Also this editor has actually commented on an SPI investigation fairly early in their editing career. Again not something I would expect from a new editor. The more I look, the more this looks like some sort of agenda driven account that seems to have a lot more experience on Wikipedia than their edit count would suggest. Hmmmm...-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, so it's more of a Sunni-vs-Shia thing? Hmm. Well, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that the account might be a sock of someone else, but we'd need to figure out which one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to the various sectarian conflicts within Islam I have to admit that I am completely out of my depth. Perhaps we should ask an Admin who is a member of the WP:ISLAM project for some help. Based on the admittedly circumstantial evidence, a sock puppet and/or a banned editor seems like a real possibility. But I wouldn't know where to begin looking on my own for a list of suspects who fit the M-O. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: I notice that our friend is once again engaging in some very bold editing, though no CSD tags. Just MHO but this looks like an agenda driven editor. Unfortunately as I noted above, I don't know enough about this topic to be able to express an opinion on the particulars of the edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: This is getting out of control. Have you seen his edits for today? I am seriously thinking about sending this to ANI for habitual disruptive editing. What is your take? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

SS Espagne

Hello Ad Orientem. I've seen that you are experienced with ships and with new pages. I would like to draw your attention to SS Espagne (1909). Over on the Dutch wikipedia its equivalent is in the AFD dept, it's by the same author, no sources or references. We first thought en-wiki was the source, but I think a Dutch wreckdivers website is the original (no copyright violations, though). If you would try Google, beware of the French SS Espagne of 1910. I've briefly looked at AFD, but that's way more complicated than over here. What do you think should be done? Thanks in advance, Sander1453 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sander1453: I will take a look and see what I can figure out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a tough one, but I have serious doubts about the notability of the ship. The first ten pages or so of a Google search failed to yield anything that really rings the notability bell. Named warships, ocean liners and cruise ships I believe have gained a de facto acceptance of notability from the community provided there is reliable evidence of their existence. But I don't think this extends to smaller ships. A freighter or tanker would need to have some independent claim to notability and I can't find much at all to support it. I have tagged the article for notability and am seriously considering AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I hadn't considered notability yet. Sander1453 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New Editor

Thanks for letting me know our discussions were in the wrong place. You answered me there so I answered you. Wish I was told from the start.

I have said this several times before, but once more: I came to WP to completely rewrite 3 pages. I assumed WP had high standards for science pages, equal to text books, scientific papers. I have found that not be be the case in the majority of pages I have visited. I am now focusing entirely on the links from the 3 pages I am rewriting. I have yet to find a single one that meets minimum standards for scientific publication. Not sophistication - organization, wording, accuracy,

I am not going to take everyone's advice to "do it yourself". I would be spending most of my time flagging , learning WP policies, procedures on the 3 kinds of tags, what's not polite to say, explaining what's wrong on talk page, having people rebut what I say ("this article is not so bad" is my favorite). And jokes are not OK in my opinion in an alleged science article on Bleeding time. Maybe for Cosmo. Not for WP.

I'm glad you brought me to this page - I read at the top you are not an Administrator, and I assumed you were when you took on the task of flagging. I still appreciate what you have done.

So none of this is your responsibility - I am just ventilating on you and leading up to my oft repeated central question : isn't there SOMEBODY at WP or SOMEWHERE at WP where a simple message can be placed that I BELIEVE THIS SCIENCE SITE IS SUBPAR and have a science guy look at it on his schedule and decide whether it is or not without being given a reason? I have tried this question at WP/help/chat, and several administrators. You are the only one who did anything other than ignore my "that's not why I'm at WP" speech and given me the "here's how you do it" speech.

So I knpw you are in the same boat as I am - you've got better things to do than report bad science writing. But I also know you care or you wouldn't have reported the one you did.

So I have my final question for you: is there any administrator of anybody at WP who might be receptive to my message? If so . forward this to them or tell me who they are and I'll keep trying. If not, I'll ignore bad science writing when I come upon it so I have time for editing.

Ironically, even as you were writing to me I was finishing up editing another page of bad science writing: Onyalai. Spent an hour deleting incorrect statements, creating new sections, merging redundancies rewriting bad sentences. Then I got to the end and looked at the references: all 20 of the references were from 2 sources: a 22 y/o textbook, and a series of journal articles all with the same author. I pulled one of these papers -and the lead for this page was copied word for word from that paper! I suspect the entire article was copied from the 1992 text, but no access to that. This is a 100% copyright violation until proven otherwise. So would it be easier for you to flag it as such, or teach me hoe to do it? I'm not going to walk away from this one, but I'll walk away from now on for the reasons I've given.

Looking forward to a response -

Regards,

IiKkEe (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

IiKkEe, I surmise that you are where I was when I discovered that Wikipedia has serious imperfections. Most of these are simply in the nature of an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. The standards in some areas are infuriatingly low, but thems the rules until they aint. I try to make the best of what I believe to be on balance, a very good project, warts notwithstanding. There is a reason why Wikipedia says very clearly and upfront that it is not a reliable source for academic purposes. But enough of that. As to the particulars of your questions, the best place to post concerns are on the talk pages of the articles and specific projects. The preceding link will provide you with links to lists of the various projects on Wikipedia. There are thousands. I suggest posting on a number of them to get the best results. On a side note I hope you will reconsider future participation and stick around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So just so I know I've got this straight: you're suggesting I post my concern on as many Project talk pages as I can get to? That's an OK answer since there is no single clearing house for Bad Science - just want to be clear.

I'm definitely sticking around - hovering over the 3 sites I've completely rewritten - in attack mode in case anybody dares to try to edit away my good stuff. Just no flagging of bad stuff until WP comes up with a more effective, less time consuming way to flag: one flag that says BAD SCIENCE WRITING ALERT.

I think I'll write that on Onyalai just to see what happens.

One short response re did I get it right and we can go our own ways.

Regards -

IiKkEe (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm lost : I can't find my first post on this page and your response. It's not on this talk page' Do you know where it is? I need to copy it.

IiKkEe (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's the gist of my advice. Post your objections or concerns about defective articles on the talk page and as many related projects as you can find. Don't worry about your lost post. You accidentally deleted my entire talk page... lol. But that's one of the great things about Wikipedia. It's almost indestructible. A couple quick clicks and everything is fixed again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By all means keep an eye on any pages you work on or that interest you. But be careful about asserting ownership. Once it's on here it belongs to Wikipedia which means it's community property. Major editing conflicts are addressed as far as humanly possible by consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

• News and notes: New system of discretionary sanctions; Buchenwald; is Pirelli 'Cracking Wikipedia'?

• Traffic report: TMZedia

• In focus: Foundation announces long-awaited new executive director

• WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three

• In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne

• WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision

• Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline I am not sufficiently familiar with the editor in question to express any informed opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of ocean liners may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting

that our friend removed my question about former accounts. Obviously knows something about tags. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect sock puppetry, but am more concerned with the unsourced edits and the subtle attempts to introduce a bias into the article. Any further nonsense from that quarter will be reported on the appropriate notice board unless you choose to deal with it directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Better to report it and get someone independent, Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

• Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity

• WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico

• News and notes: 'Ask a librarian'—connecting Wikimedians with the National Library of Australia

• Featured content: On the rocks

• Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and 5 May

• Technology report: Technology report needs editor, Media Viewer offers a new look

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember Newsameword?

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aldota - one of over 20 socks and sleepers. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. This guy gets around. There a lot of times I run into other editors who should be new based on their edit counts but who are obviously very experienced, and aggressively editing specific subject articles. Of course I suspect sock puppetry but I haven't been around long enough to really have a clue who the master is so I am not able to send in a report. Sometimes I feel like Wikipedia needs a full time SPI unit where we can just drop in an account name and have them run a check. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Besides privacy issues, after 3 months it isn't technically possible. We need more volunteers at SPI of course. I can recognise a few but only in very limited areas. I hadn't a clue about this one. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelle Roos

Thanks for the heads-up, I've tagged as G4. GiantSnowman 07:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your comments on the Vince Molinaro AfD. BTW, I did a little background reading on EEng. I started to see a pattern of behavior after I read this and this. Interesting reading. Anyhow, I'm fed up with his like so I'm done with Wikipedia. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you won't let one obnoxious editor drive you off the project. Most of the time you are just better off ignoring them or refuting them civilly and moving on. What people like EEng don't grasp is that being rude and condescending towards others in what is supposed to be a collegial discussion, is almost always counterproductive. It offends others and is likely to damage whatever position they are trying to advance. If the facts are on your side then state your case clearly and let the community and reviewing admins weigh everything. I can't imagine anyone reading the conversation between the two of you and not coming to the conclusion that EEng was being a jerk. But those kinds of people exist everywhere. Sometimes in life you just have to learn to deal with rude people. Anyway, I hope you stick around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, 95% of the people on Wikipedia are nice, but I just don't feel like taking the grief from the minority any more. In real life, rude people are much easier to face down. It's the anonymity of Wikipedia that exacerbates it. It doesn't happen on social networks that use real names. Woz2 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

• News and notes: The English Wikipedia's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video

• Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon

• Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats

• Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ad Orientem. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

• Special report: IEG funding for women's stories: a new approach to the gender gap

• News and notes: Two new affiliate-selected trustees

• Op-ed: "Hospitality, jerks, and what I learned"—the amazing keynote at WikiConference USA

• Featured content: Ye stately homes of England

• In the media: Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Autumn in summer

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

It's good to see I'm not alone in finding some people a bit trigger-happy with putting articles up for deletion, even if it does turn out that the song Scalliwag never becomes notable!

Longwayround (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I love pets. Especially the ones I don't have to feed... ;-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request, Samuel Kalimahana Miller

I have to agree with you. There are other sources but as far as being notable for a specific reason, the answers all seem to fall back to one person. I have been contemplating moving all the content to another related article ad requesting deletion. Been off and on Wikipedia, but since you spotted this I should go ahead and do it now to speed things up.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I should still be seen as the only substantial contributor, so I have blanked the page and added the G7 tag for page blanking/author requested deletion. The subject may be more natable, but at the moment I think his other family achieved more and a note on other articles to save the information and sources is best.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

• News and notes: PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia

• Traffic report: The week the wired went weird

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler

• Special report: Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees

• Featured content: Politics, ships, art, and cyclones

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

• News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use

• Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture

• Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh: a chapter's five-year journey

• Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones

• WikiProject report: Visiting the city

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Chelseajenny90 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I see you have deleted the entry for Jonathan Power even though over the last 2 weeks I have gone to some trouble to amend it to meet the criticism you and Clive Power have made. ( I wonder if Clive Power is related to Jonathon Power whose entry is next to Jonathan Power?- Is there some competition here?!) (By the way the name Jonathan is spelt with an o not an a in the squash player,s case. May be they shouldn't be on the same page!)

As you must know by now Jonathan Power is one of the most well-known and respected journalists working. For years he has resisted going on Wickipedia as he doesn't like to see publicity other than his bi-line. But I and a few other people who know his work persuaded him to let us try and make a site. It is certainly not an auto biography. It just talks about his accomplishments.

As to particular things you and Clive Power have challenged I have tried to clarify the points made about the Venice silver medal film "It's Ours Whatever They Say". This was won jointly by Jonathan and Jenny Barraclough. Jonathan was the reporter and producer and Jenny was the director. With the BBC and London and Edinburgh Film Festivals it was Jonathan who got first mention among the credits. In Venice it was, as their tradition, the other way round. Jenny Barraclough says she would be only too happy to confirm this with you. Her email is: jenny.barraclough gmail.com. You can also check with the UK government's British Council who selected this film as the UK entry.

I Have not finished doing the footnotes for every article and interview as it is a laborious process. But be assured this will be done as soon as I have the green light from you.

Regards, Jenny Eklund.

Hmmm. I didn't delete any article. I'm not an Admin so I don't have that button. Oddly though I can't find it and I do remember adding a note on the talk page. It seems to have fallen off my contrib log as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I found the answer. It has in fact been deleted. From the deletion log... 18:13, 22 June 2014 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted page Jonathan Power (G4, also copyvio concerns raised) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dianne van Giersbergen

if you can compose the article by Dianne van Giersbergen do, but don´t be rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanRSsenite (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

IvanRSsenite, I am unsure as to what you are referring. I placed a PROD Notice on the article which I believe was worded in a fair and matter of fact manner. If you have a more specific issue please let me know. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

• News and notes: US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan

• Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?

• Exclusive: "We need to be true to who we are": Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost

• Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags

• Featured content: Showing our Wörth

• WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true

• Recent research: Power users and diversity in WikiProjects

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs

Due to the fact that I wasn't able to response to your vote. Here we go: "I have been lurking on this AfD since it first appeared and have been deeply conflicted. For the most part I was leaning towards deleting it on the legalistic grounds generally cited by those who want to get rid of it. But the above comments have changed my mind. In addition to the excellent points made by Roy, I will add another observation. Members of royal families, with a few admitted exceptions, should be notable. That's not to say that they should be given a pass the way we have with colleges and high schools. But rather that members of royal families almost always will have enough sources around somewhere to ring the notability bell." — I am not arguing for deletion because I believe Georgian royals to non-notable. I created List of Georgian consorts and helped clean up many articles about Georgian kings and queens. My argument is the list of mothers is trivial and not up to Wikipedia standard. We don't have any such list anywhere else in Western monarchies. If there was a distinct title documented in sources such as Queens mother or Valide Sultan that would be different, we have had articles like this, but no this is a list of people who didn't have a distinct title. It is just a trivial list."
"Which brings us to the bias problem mentioned by Roy. It's not just recentism, but also Western and Anglophone bias. If the subject of the list was the mothers of the Kings and Queens of England we would not be here right now." — Don't be too sure. I would vote for such lists' deletions as strongly. The fact is we don't have such an article. Examples such as English queens dowager actually documents a title which existed in sources. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Decline If I am not technologically illiterate then I am very close it. I am not competent to express an opinion on this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

• In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms

• Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.

• News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award

• Featured content: Ship-shape

• WikiProject report: Indigenous Peoples of North America

• Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

• Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?

• Wikicup: Wikicup's third round sees money, space, battleships and more

• Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis

• Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!

• News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative

• Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hi, re this ANI notification: please add a link to the relevant thread. Primarily this is for the benefit of the IP concerned, but also for people like me who have been watching the IP's talk page for some weeks, but can't work out which ANI thread is the one pertaining to 94.193.131.253. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The ANI thread is here. I think it was briefly (by accident) deleted by another editor. It has been restored. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

• Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel

• Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it

• News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier

• Forum: Did you know?—good idea, needs reform

• Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For consistent and careful application of our notability criteria in AfD discussions. RomanSpa (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That was very kind and I tip my hat to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome - I've noticed your name in quite a few discussions, and it's always nice to see someone who debates with a high level of care and attention. Have a great day! RomanSpa (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and terrorism

I could not agree more with your comment on the Talk page. I am one of only two people who are trying to get some sensible wording in about ISIS being terrorists. I have even put some wording on the Talk page that passes Wikipedia’s “rules” (which incidentally I have only just discovered are not meant to be hard and fast), but after the first flurry no-one seems interested any more. It is very frustrating. There is supposed to be consensus before the next edit on this, but if the silence continues, I will go ahead and make it. It is utter madness for Wikipedia not to acknowledge loud and clear that ISIS are terrorists, when everyone else in the West is screaming it. Stephen Glover in the “Daily Mail” today calls ISIS “psychopathic”. How right he is. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. This is a classic case of what I talked about repeatedly on my Talk page. WP can no longer be credible if the "terrorists" most barbaric in the world are still not called terrorists by WP. Yes, it violates WP:COMMONSENSE and a bunch of other WP rules. Worldedixor (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For consistent and careful application of our notability criteria in AfD discussions. RomanSpa (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That was very kind and I tip my hat to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome - I've noticed your name in quite a few discussions, and it's always nice to see someone who debates with a high level of care and attention. Have a great day! RomanSpa (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and terrorism

I could not agree more with your comment on the Talk page. I am one of only two people who are trying to get some sensible wording in about ISIS being terrorists. I have even put some wording on the Talk page that passes Wikipedia’s “rules” (which incidentally I have only just discovered are not meant to be hard and fast), but after the first flurry no-one seems interested any more. It is very frustrating. There is supposed to be consensus before the next edit on this, but if the silence continues, I will go ahead and make it. It is utter madness for Wikipedia not to acknowledge loud and clear that ISIS are terrorists, when everyone else in the West is screaming it. Stephen Glover in the “Daily Mail” today calls ISIS “psychopathic”. How right he is. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. This is a classic case of what I talked about repeatedly on my Talk page. WP can no longer be credible if the "terrorists" most barbaric in the world are still not called terrorists by WP. Yes, it violates WP:COMMONSENSE and a bunch of other WP rules. Worldedixor (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

• Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

• Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

• News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find?

• Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

• Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

• Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Translated article got Speedy deletion

Hello Ad Orientem,

I created a new article of ATEN International Co., Ltd yesterday which I directly translated from the wiki of Traditional Chinese, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%8F%E6%AD%A3%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80. I think it is OK to do the translation as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeRangeFrog#article_translation .

I just translated the article from Traditional Chinese to English without modification and I have included all the references and sources. May I know why you would put this article for Speedy deletion ?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisclock (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have dropped a note on your talk page letting you know that I removed the CSD tags shortly after putting them up. The article is highly promotional, indeed it may qualify for a speedy delete on that basis alone. But after looking carefully I think there is a marginal claim for notability and where possible I prefer to err on the side of retention. I have tagged it as an advertisement and strongly suggest some editing to tone it down. In particular the awards list is ridiculous and most are non-notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. I am sorry that this translated article may look promotional. May I know what are non-notable in the awards list please ? Chrisclock (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

• Technology report: A technologist's Wikimania preview

• Traffic report: Ebola

• Featured content: Bottoms, asses, and the fairies that love them

• Wikimedia in education: Leading universities educate with Wikipedia in Mexico

• News and notes: "History is a human right"—first-ever transparency report released as Europe begins hiding Wikipedia in search results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rising Star Casino Resort

Article you PRODed - restored as contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Was just wondering what happened there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you interfering on my articles???

Now please do understand u mr. reverter,Harati or Hariti is a goddess who is not so popular but carries huge importance for her devotees & followers! Many people even don't know her so,how could you expect that a detailed information may be on a reference site???? Just listen to me,Harati Maa is my goddess & I know well about her! So let me just write about my goddess! if u r still not convinced ,google harati maa and visit each & every websites then u will get my points .now could u please .stop obstructing my articles????? -_- I dont know about ur religion but you'd possibly don't like being interfered in religious matters and about your god! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintu.Awal789 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mintu.Awal789. Thanks for your message. A couple of quick points; I have no issue whatsoever with your religious beliefs, or anyone else's. This is not about religion, it's about the standards of an encyclopedia. This article has been on here for a decade or so if I recall my edit history check correctly and in that entire time I haven't seen any sources. Wikipedia is not here to promote or disparage any religion. It is here to serve as an encyclopedia and that requires uniform standards. Those standards can be found in a number of different places but I would encourage you to read the following pages so you understand what needs to be included in any article on Wikipedia... WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BURDEN. Also original research or personal knowledge is not admissible as a source for any article or content added to one. Please see WP:OR. I would respectfully ask that you refrain from editing the article until you have read those pages and are prepared to cite sources for any content that is added. Finally you also need to understand that once an article is posted on Wikipedia it belongs to the community. No one "owns" any articles here. See WP:OWN. In closing be assured that I am not trying to annoy you, nor am I hostile to your religious beliefs. This is not personal. It's just an encyclopedia with standards that everybody has to adhere to. Feel free to drop me a line here if you have any more questions or concerns. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

• Special report: Twitter bots catalogue government edits to Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Disease, decimation and distraction

• Wikimedia in education: Global Education: WMF's Perspective

• Wikimania: Promised the moon, settled for the stars

• News and notes: Media Viewer controversy spreads to German Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia

• In the media: Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes

• Featured content: Cambridge got a lot of attention this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Hindu possible expert

I am sure you have found that it is possible to break down communication barriers before, as have I. I truly do not feel that a ban on creating new articles is the way to go. 99% of the time we can get through people's defences if the attempt is done solidly and loudly enough, hence my shot on their talk page. IT requires immense patience and determination.

Against that, even if they create 1,000 inappropriate articles in the intervening period, Wikipedia is a computer system. 1,000 articles may, if necessary, be deleted quite simply. Nothing is ever as urgent as it appears. It;s important to get them to talk, certainly, but it is not urgent. It just feels urgent even though it is not. Any editing actions, even a huge number, may be undone with remarkable ease. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia hypocrisy and double standards

your reasoning behind wanting to keep demet muftuoglu's page is that you got a lot of hits on google search. if that is the basis of wanting to keep and putting an article about someone on wiki, why was AMANDA ELIASCH deleted who is actually very well known in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not just the number of hits, it's the quality of the hits. The subject demet muftuoglu is extensively covered in multiple reliable secondary sources establishing encyclopedic notability. A quick glance at the deletion log shows that AMANDA ELIASCH has been repeatedly deleted for reasons mostly involving blatant advertising or copyright violations. If you need some pointers in how to write a good article drop me a line, and I will try to help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

but that is exactly my point. both articles were written in exactly the same fashion and style. you choose to save demet muftuoglu but remove amanda eliasch. however, amanda eliasch is far more notable than muftuoglu and has been extensively covered in multiple reliable secondary sources from leading world renowned publications to top magazines and newspapers and also featured on TV. please do a google search on eliasch and you will see the quality of hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I didn't do anything with any of the various amanda eliasch articles as far as I recall. But if you want, I suggest creating an account here and then writing up an article with proper sources in your sandbox. I will be happy to look at it and let you know if I see any problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

sure will start shortly writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

demet - trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

eliasch page

appreciate it if you could help with this page. wrote it up as per your advice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amanda_Eliasch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

• Interview: Improving the visibility of digital archival assets using Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

• WikiProject report: Bats and gloves

• Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia

• Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

muftuoglu

it seems muftuoglu is organiser of the event not founder

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

• In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news

• News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster

• Traffic report: Viral

• Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Ad Orientem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you. A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheSandDoctor (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you and a blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome & thank you . Still the 24th here for 4 more hours. All the best to you in the new year from the great white north! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Ad Orientem: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you and a blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sending message, feel free to delete after viewing

Hi, its great to hear from you! Please check out this article Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Carmen Bueno that I have expanded with more information, sources, and categries. I am proud of it and would like to share it with you even though you are no longer an administrator. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well damn

I returned after three years, so I'll leave a candle in the window. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, I agree with you on this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AN: CheatCodes4ever requesting an unblock

Hi Ad Orientem, there is an unblock request at WP:AN#CheatCodes4ever's unblock request that may be interesting as your username appears in their block log.

It makes me sad to see the retirement notice. I'll add this notification anyway, as perhaps you may like to have a look. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree. I reviewed their request and dropped a cmnt at the discussion. Thanks for the message. I hope you and yours are well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries – yup, fortunately we haven't been personally affected by the 2021 European floods. The same to you and yours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I was so pleased to see your edit at WP:AN. I've always remembered you for the lovely username, which caught my eye when I joined in 2016, and then the nature of your sensible comments. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I, too, was very pleased to see your usual good sense at AN. I understand (at least in part) your reasons for leaving, but I hope that some day you will decide to return. Dorothy Kilgallen needs your insights, as do many other articles. Think about it, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Watchlists

My watchlist is ridiculous - it's over 22,000 articles now, and still growing despite the 'temporary watchlist' feature they added recently. I've considered just emptying it and starting again, so I can actually monitor only those pages I'm personally interested in. One of the reasons I haven't done that is because every now and again I notice something on a random article I wouldn't be monitoring that makes me smile, such as an edit by a highly respected colleague who isn't around much any more, and who is sorely missed. Hope you and yours are keeping well. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope you will return someday. I have come close to leaving for similar reasons, but have decided against it just to own the few people who don't like me. It has been over a year now since I saw your user page suddenly disappear. The day you come back will be the day my opinion of this website permanently rebounds. I hope you are doing well in the real world. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)