User talk:Anachronist

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watch list. Thanks!

Need your suggestion

Check this and this. I don't think that the right amount of people were notified and also those who voted understood the problem (since most of the voting took place before I finished my explanation). I, honestly, didn't expect that I would need to break it down to such a level.

That short referendum doesn't reflect the true consensus, IMO. I tried to explain every point that was and could have been raised, on that AfD page. In short, this article is about a Qur'anic verse. And that should have been the end of it.

Everything else will be people's personal opinion on the translation (probably predicated upon conflicted interest) and interpretation, making the state of its neutrality inherently an unfixable or insurmountable issue. Besides, why repeat same thing in two different articles? Why keep two articles more or less about the same topic? If you read my points carefully (which I hope you'd do) you'll find that it's nothing more than a coatrack article. The thing is, I would like to appeal again for deletion of that coatrack article, so could you tell me where to go from here? Or, could we just do something to draw more administrative attention to it? Please help me.  Brendon ishere 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The place to appeal an AfD closure decision is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Given that the article is extremely well referenced, I am skeptical that a consensus to overturn the 'keep' decision will happen, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I must try. Do you not think that it's a coatrack article? “extremely well referenced” - only cherry-picked poxy references. See, I know arabic to some extent. I know how clear that injunction is. Just read what I wrote on the AfD page. The article doesn't reflect the present consensus of Islamic jurists and theologians. These jurists presumably know better arabic than me. And they are devoted Muslims too. Why would they choose to lie about what they respect the most? Why would anyone ignore or overlook such an eminent fact? From Pickthall to Yusuf ali, from Arberry to Rodwell all of them could not be wrong. Ibn Kathir even acknowledges that it's permitted. Why would they have an intrinsic penchant for deceiving themselves and their followers about their own venerated religion?  Brendon ishere 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you just made an argument for improving the article rather than for deleting it, if reliable sources link those views to that verse. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic please, try to understand what I'm saying. I appreciate your efforts to lighten things up. Moreover, there is a proper way to beat own wife. Why should I present same content in two different articles when one is enough? Tell me that. You do know what a coatrack article is, right? I presented those links just to show that the article cherry-picks sources. Unfortunately, it's inevitable. For once, just go through my points and replies in that AfD page, please. (this page)  Brendon ishere 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to engage me in a debate on my talk page? As I said before, WP:DRV is the place to challenge a decision to keep the article. Not here. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to your points. Naturally, there is no reason to have the same content in two articles. That was my point: If you improved the encyclopedic content of article on the verse to include all the relevant issues surrounding it, you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging.

If you want me to look at, comment on, or copy-edit a draft of your DRV proposal before posting it, I'm happy to do so, but beyond that I have no idea what administrative action you expect me to take as a result of your initial post to my talk page. What I will not do is countermand an administrator decision that has already been made, without a wider community discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"That was my point" - wow! hahahaha!!!

"you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging." - I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit. I get it now. Take care. See you at the Muhammad page.

FYI, Could I contact you through your email? If you're not up for it then it's fine. Good..okay bye!  Brendon ishere 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information that would be lost to a related article? Care to explain that?

And I still don't know what you expected me to do in response to your initial post here. You do understand WP:INVOLVED, right?

You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view, but I prefer keeping Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria" - that's your opinion. I didn't say I “want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information”. You do understand what it means to refrain from putting words in others' mouth, right?
I just said, "I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit." What is so wrong in that? I don't like it.

"You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view" - Are you referring to the possibility of me sending you something obscene and redundant? If that's what you're concerned about, be informed that it won't happen.

The thing is, for some reason I just wanted to chat with you in private. I don't know if that in itself is inappropriate, or not.  Brendon ishere 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of the WP:GNG inclusion criteria does the article fail to meet? Again, WP:DRV is really the best place to hash this out.

I thought it would be obvious that "inappropriate for public view" meant personal in nature. Generally if someone contacts me and I feel that talk page communication would be more appropriate, I'll say so. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Usernames

Hello Amatulic. I've been having a conversation with User:Usnames, whom you unblocked recently, trying to convince them to choose a less problematic username than the one that was approved. Apart of letting you know so you are aware of the talks, I wanted to ask you about the precedents you mentioned on the unblock request. I'm not aware of any, so I was wondering if you could point me to some of them or any relevant discussion, I'd really appreciate it. Best regards — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to dig up the example I'm thinking about (I recall it was a pharmaceutical company executive who created a name like "PfizerJohn" or something similar) might take several days that I don't have. It would be easy if the discussion were archived on the WP:UAA talk page, but unfortunately I recall it was on the user's talk page, and it involved a few other admins who agreed that he should keep the name. I don't even recall if I participated or simply observed. I have in the past tried scanning my contribution history of user talk pages because I want to have a record myself, but didn't see anything (out of thousands of such contributions it's easy to miss though). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can find something on RFC/U or UAA. Thanks anyway — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out User:Mark at Alcoa. That may be the example I was thinking of. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor confusion your help needed

Take a look at the history of Islam and domestic violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Quotations from Sahih Hadiths which are subscribed to by a vast majority of the Muslim world, are not "reliable" if we are talking about Islam? If Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bhukhari are not reliable I don't know what is.  Brendon ishere 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think including quotes from Hadith is a great idea, but I have to agree with those who reverted you that (a) the Hadith are primary sources and (b) reliable secondary sources are needed to establish a context between any specific Hadith and the topic of domestic violence. I explain my reasoning more on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh it should not be a problem. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Islamic scholar and his father was a scholar too) in "al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah", vol. 1, pg. 90. Maktabah al-Furqan says, Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence. Sh. Gibril. F. Haddad says here that Sahih hadiths are fully authentic. And Sharia is Islamic law. See the connection?

Moreover, UAE court explicitly says beating is allowed

“According to Islamic law, a man has the "right to discipline" his wife and children, which can include beating them after he has exhausted two other options: admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife.”

— source

I had added it before it was reverted. So you might see beating wife isn't prohibited by Muhammad.  Brendon ishere 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted? We have authentic hadith, and we have Islamic law, but the article can't synthesize a connection between them without a reliable secondary source that makes that connection. It may be obvious to you and me, but the fact remains it's synthesis without the sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted" - I don't think we need that. It's obvious that they represent Islamic Court and Islamic law is based on Quran and Sahih Hadith (I already gave you sources for that).

Also, the article is about "Islam and domestic violence". That article should state what it says in Islamic doctrine about Domestic violence. The article is not "connection between Islam and domestic violence". Hence, I don't understand you at all. If these are primary sources they are usable. What's the problem? I would like to know where does it say that Hadith is a primary source?  Brendon ishere 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So, can I restore my contributions now?  Brendon ishere 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I explained why hadith are primary sources on the article talk page. I also demonstrated that there are tons of preferable secondary sources available to make the same point you are trying to make with a collection of hadith quotations. Two other editors have disagreed that what you added to the article is appropriate, therefore you can't just restore a controversial contribution that has been reverted not once, but twice, without first coming to some agreement with the other participants. It is not obvious that a particular court decision was based on a particular hadith. If you want to make that connection, you need a secondary source that says it. If you don't understand me at all, I don't know what else to say. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I assume good faith mostly. And it should not be that hard to find a source, tell me is Ibn kathir a Secondary source? I, for one, think it is. So, is it?  Brendon ishere 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a secondary source! It takes into account Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 2127; Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 11, Number 2141 and 2142. The author holds a Ph.D. in linguistics and is a notable scholar of comparative theology. I hope this works.

Can this be used as a secondary source along with other interpretations of the verse 4:34?  Brendon ishere 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we include other verses using the same form of the verb (iḍ'rib)

Quran 7:160 and 2:60 :

iḍ'rib — “Strike”

Quran 2:73:

iḍ'ribūhu — “Strike him”

Quran 8:12 :

fa-iḍ'ribū-fawqa — “so strike above” and

wa-iḍ'ribū — “and strike”

Reference:

---

It's reasonable, right?  Brendon ishere 07:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"I also demonstrated that there are tons of preferable secondary sources available to make the same point you are trying to make with a collection of hadith quotations." - tons of preferable secondary sources available?? where? Why don't you send me the links and we can work something out. Yup! This is going to be good.

Just for the sake of clarification if you think I'm harassing you or pestering you, I'm ready to leave your talk page, just say so now. (I emphasize this because this question is more than reasonable after my Block. Help me with an honest answer.)  Brendon ishere 09:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Search scholar.google.com for the phrases "domestic violence" and "hadith" together.[1] There are many reliable sources there discussing the subject, but as I mentioned on the talk page, these academic journals don't provide the full text online unless you subscribe to them or access them from a university library. I found one full text article and I posted the link to it on the talk page.

A similar search on books.google.com yields different results, but you have to be more cautious about books because some may be self-published or published through vanity presses. But here is one example.

I don't feel harassed or pestered. If I came across as impatient earlier, it's because of time pressure on my end. I take short breaks on Wikipedia but if something pulls me in that demands more time than I can afford to give, I get frustrated. I don't know about your situation, but I know most folks on Wikipedia tend to be college-age or younger, without a career or family, and have plenty of time on their hands. Not me. I have a family and I'm struggling to get a business off the ground. So I may not be available for days at a time. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to reference the books I get on scholar.google.com. I am getting what you're saying but I just don't know how to reference them, can you help?

BTW, 'I don't feel harassed or pestered.' - thanks for clarifying this.  Brendon ishere 12:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hot Rod's BBQ & Grill and Hungry Harry's Famous Barbecue

Hi Amatulic. Here are two sources, the Orlando Sentinel and the St Pete Times, referring to Hot Rod's as a landmark. There are plenty of other articles about it and there are also plenty of articles about Hungry Harry's Famous Barbecue. I haven't even looked for book sources, but I am sure there are those as well.

Both owners are active in their communities and both businesses are involved in charitable activities and festivals. There is coverage for that as well. The owner of Hot Rod's was a commissioner candidate against former mayor of Tampa Pam Iorio, for example. There are plenty of sources on all of this, although many of them are behind paywalls. I tried to use sources that are available online. If there was something advertorial or inappropriate in either article please feel free to remove or alter that content. I wrote articles on these subjects because they are notable and significant eateries well worth including. They are indeed significant landmarks in their communities. Have a nice weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CORP. These establishments need more than local coverage to qualify for inclusion. I seriously doubt either of these articles would have survived an AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CORP states in the opening that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." These subjects have lots of coverage in reliable independent sources. The Orlando Sentinel and the Tampa Bay Times are major newspapers. Neither is the local community paper in those areas. Can you please restore the articles to mainspace and take them to AfD if you think that's necessary or move them to my userspace so I can work them up a bit more? If the articles covering them were just restaurant reviews or in local papers that would be one thing, but the extent of the coverage is very substantial and focuses on their significance and treats them as special, thereby establishing clear notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of WP:CORP an article must meet. There's more to that guideline that just the lead sentence. The sources you mention above do not constitute significant coverage from multiple sources. The Oralando Sentinel piece is a trivial mention.

Furthermore, the Hot Rod's article was deleted as being promotional — and it was.

Sorry, I won't restore them. You have not made a convincing case that a lengthy write-up in a single newspaper plus some trivial mentions elsewhere meet the intent of WP:CORP. You are welcome to solicit the opinion of another admin, or attempt to re-create the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Information

I have found it necessary to reinstate Class Avesta's block. This may not be a major concern for you, but I prefer to inform other admins when I intrude on one their actions. Tiderolls 19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I have restored User talk:ArchiveMay22, a page you deleted, and moved it into the user's own talk space, which is what they seem to have intended. User talk pages should not be deleted per WP:DELTALK. SpinningSpark 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. WP:DELTALK doesn't apply to talk pages of nonexistent user accounts, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not, but the page was moved from User talk:Londonberry and so does come under WP:DELTALK which covers "user talk pages and user talk archives created by page move" (my italics). The place they archived it to is unacceptable, but it needed moving again, not deleting. SpinningSpark 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

thestopbutton.com

C/E from my talk page: Hi. "Before you restore any more of those references, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#thestopbutton.com to understand what led me to remove them. As far as I've been able to tell, there's been an attempt to drive traffic to this site by spamming several articles, and this film critic is not notable by any stretch, especially in articles that mentioned him in the same breath with Roger Ebert or Rotten Tomatoes. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)"

I first noted that Turner Classic Movies lists this site in their "other reviews." TCM is a moderator-controlled site that is very different from fan sites such as IMDb, and even Rotten Tomatoes, which allows a wide variety of user contributions. When there are so few reviews of classic movies available, having Turner Classic vouch for this site by listing it. No one is driving traffic to this site, it is a bona fide entry at the Turner Classic Movies site. The number of mentions are few and selective, but when so few reviews are available for obscure films, the use of any valid source is appreciated. The few times I have referenced the site has always been in the context of providing a quote and only when the commentary is in line with other reviews. FWiQ, if you wish to document the particular concerns that you have characterized as blogspamming directed to whom, per say???, that would also be appreciated. Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Stevia name in Romanian

I changed the name of English Stevia with "iarba dulce" since Romanian "stevia" it is a totally different plant.And yes, the name that I put in the list is the real plant from "stevia rebaudiana". It's just a coincidence that the name in 2 different languages it's the same: the plant however are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Marianatiru (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving without leaving a redirect

Hi, if you move a page without leaving a redirect, as you did in January to Magic formula investing, please remember to check "What links here". Several articles did link to that name via the redirect at the original page name Magic Formula Investing. That redirect was later deleted by another user, making it even more difficult to find the page. It's usually best simply to leave a redirect; if you can be bothered, tag it with {{R from lowercase}} or similar. – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any at the time, although this was several months ago. "Magic Formula Investing" (all uppercase) was moved to a nonexistent redirect "Magic formula investing" (lowercase). When I moved it to its present title, I didn't notice any existing links to the all-lowercase title. I do usually check that. It is possible that the user who moved it originally also subsequently edited some articles to use his preferred title case; I don't know. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne is back at ANI

You knew this was coming. And it's here. Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for deleting my subpage that I had the speedy tag on. Much obliged :) Keresaspa (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCSO-524

Thanks for your recent message on my talk page. You will no doubt be interested in this edit. I had already decided to make this edit before I saw your recent message on my talk page, but your message confirms my intention. I don't have time now, but as soon as I do (probably in about 13 hours or so) I will re-assess the sources, and post an appropriate message to the AfD page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. If I were the closing admin, I'd probably throw up my hands in despair and decide "no consensus". Way too much poorly formatted walls o' text. If I get any time I may go through it and try to fix the indentations for clarity but today I'm pretty busy at my job. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If an admin decides "no consensus" I won't complain. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• You will no doubt be interested to see these edits: [2], [3], and [4]. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. While it bothers me to no end that a user with a strong COI created that article, I must admit he did a pretty good job even though the sourcing was initially sloppy in that no journal titles were given, and that he has been up front and honest about his COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your effort in the survival of the article "PCSO-524." What I really appreciate is the fact that your scientific background and seasoned mind could set aside the uneasiness created by the looming COI I presented and look at the facts - in spite of how sloppy, poorly formatted and incomplete they were. For someone who has made a living as a science writer in the health and fitness field for the last 25 years I'd say it was indeed a bit embarrassing. There is no doubt this article would never have survived had it not been for your efforts. I think this resource is amazing in not only its scope, but also its tight controls. While I did have a rough time in not only being blocked, but also going through the "AFD wringer" I learned quite a bit and have come to respect Wiki even more. It seems almost impossible that with the sheer enormity of this resource that both you and Mr. JamesBWatson put forth such effort and patience while I fumbled and bumbled my way through this first article. I can assure you the next one will be much smoother.

And therein lies a concern for with I would hope I could get some of your sage advise. I am very uneasy about touching the article ever again because of my potential COI and and anything I put forth being construed as "promotional." However there is a bit more science that could be added regarding the actual extraction and processing of PCSO-524 that could be added to the "history" section. The actual growing and harvesting of the mussels and the extraction process is quite fascinating and certainly unique (read "noteworthy") to this specific marine lipid extract that further goes to explain its content of 92 actual omega fractions (only 30 of with are mentioned). How could I present these added facts without jeopardizing a potential delete query?

Thank you once again for your heroic efforts on my behalf. I hope my future contributions will not tax the system so badly. --Romano Writes (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

how does one...

...go about getting a userpage deleted if it is specifically set up to look like an Wikipedia article? I see what appears to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE at User:Kasyfil yohan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I don't believe we have a policy that prohibits userpages from appearing as Wikipedia articles. You can try putting a {{db-person}} tag on it, but it may get declined because that's clearly his userpage and the information on it is about him. The content there now just basically shows biographical data rather than promotional content. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the self-promotional-seeming aspect of the format that he used in his setting it up to look like an unsourced WP:BLP that made me consider WP:FAKEARTICLE. But as User:Kasyfil yohan's page shows his age as 16, I'm willing enough to accept that as a newb, he is still trying to feel his way around and probably does not know there are perhaps better ways to tell us about himself. I've politely sent him to WP:PRIMER to help him in artcile contributions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Powershares

Well, there we go again... History2007 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PowerShares. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Would you please readd the "weasel words" template to the top of the article which had been edit warred away? There is currently an active discussion on the weasel word issue with the article on the talk page and that template would help attract more editors to the discussion. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It might. Often it doesn't. That template was part of the edit war. One version of that article was as contentious as another. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, revert warring over a problem template is one of the surest indicators that an article needs increased attention and surveillence. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, I think blocking revert warriors, especially established editors, is more helpful than protecting an article, because established editors should know better and locking an article prevents other interested editors from improving it. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why it was just for 3 days. That article is normally quite stable and often days go by without edits to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion query

Hi you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Cheese and deleted the main article but the second article nominated has not been deleted. Did you miss it? noq (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I missed that, but the two articles are distinct. The band may not be notable while the artist may be. Or vice versa. And the discussion seemed relevant more to Government Cheese than Tommy Womack. I just deleted the second one, but I would have preferred to see a separate AfD on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Disputedtag

Just so you know, unregistered and non-autocongirmed accounts may not move pages at all, so you placed a protection that doesn't actually do anything whatsoever. I've unprotected it, because a protection that doesn't change the status quo at all just clogs lists of protected pages. (Notice that Special:ListGroupRights gives the move right at "Autoconfirmed users") Feel free to protect it again with an effectual protection. Courcelles 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered about that while I was doing it. I figured IPs couldn't perform moves, but I wasn't sure about registered users. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 2

[5] I agree but didn't know how to resize. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the "upright" image thumbnail setting is useful for images taller their width, and occasionally go through a random article setting all the images appropriately. It automatically reduces the default size of the image by something like 20%. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resuming behavior after block

Please see User talk:74.56.169.34. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

By convention, the first offense edit warring almost always earns a 24 hour block regardless of whether it's an IP or registered account. Resuming edit warring immediately after, anything goes. 72 hours is OK but I'd have probably raised it to 5 days. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A Nobody

I saw your comment at User talk:Academic Editor and just wanted to point out that A Nobody is one of the few editors to achieve the distinction of being banned by Arbcom and by the community at the same time over different issues (see discussion). I'm not sure that even Arbcom could unblock him without community consultation.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew he was banned, but didn't know he got banned twice at the same time. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul Cloke

I was just about to decline the A7 on the above referenced article. I'm not the originating editor, but recognize that the article not only indicates importance and significance, but as the founding editor of an international academic journal published by Elsevier, it meets the topical notability guidelines for academics. See #8 of WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to request that you consider restoring the article. I'll do some cleanup and add some citations. Could you let me know who created the article? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Actually, could you restore it to my subpage here: User:Cindamuse/Paul Cloke. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stream TV move

I see you have declined the wrong speedy deletion and moved to a redirect the page Stream TV. I was working on it with also the pages Stream S.P.A. and Miro Allione (still on my sandbox). It's ok if the redirect remains there and i replace the wikilinks here with Stream S.P.A.? Thanks for the help anyway... --Allions (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I redirected both Stream TV and Stream S.P.A. to Sky Italia. Sure, you can replace those links. Either one will redirect to the same article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, why both redirect? Stream was for 10 years one of the most important televisions in Italy. At the end was merged into Sky Italia because being bought by news corporation, (Murdoch company). So it has also an international importance. I think is very notable. I also uploaded the company logo: here. --Allions (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither article had any substantive content; in fact, both were nearly identical, so it made sense to redirect them both to Sky Italia, which mentions both companies. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree to redirect one into the other, two were too much and were identical, but why redirect both? it was a stub and i was still working on it, with a little time it could became a normal article like the italian one: Stream TV and Stream SPA. Can you revert one of the two redirect (or allow me to) so i can keep working on it? --Allions (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert either one, preferably the one you feel is most notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll revert Stream TV (more notable, has many wikilinks into it) and i'll redirect the other one to it. Thanks for the help --Allions (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GameShampoo

Hello! I can close the AfD if you'd like. Let me know. On a side note, I'm always hesitant to dismiss a removal of a speedy deletion tag by a non-author. Obviously the account that removed it is an WP:SPA but my thought is that it's better to take the time that hastily mark articles for speedy deletion. Do you think there's a definable line for reverting non-author removals of speedy deletion templates? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw, damn. I am usually more careful than that. I simply did not notice the AfD tag. I saw the speedy tag, read the article, then I examined all the sources. Based on that, I deemed the A7 speedy tag valid, so I deleted it.

Had I noticed the AFD I would have reverted the speedy tag myself and let the AFD run its course. To me, that's the "definable line" you asked about: If an AFD has started, it's best to remove speedy delete tags unless the comments in the AFD suggest that speedy deletion is appropriate. Through my carelessness I broke my own rules.

I do think the article qualified for speedy deletion. After looking at the AFD, I find it disturbing how many SPAs have chimed in. What do you think? I'll restore the article if you want to let the AFD run. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I'm sort of concerned about their activity on other pages. My gut tells me they're different people collaborating off-wiki. I would guess that their intent is in good-faith but they could still cause a lot of trouble. 'm watching their talk pages for any sort of red flag that would signal the need for an SPI.

I don't really see that the article will ever survive AfD. It's probably a clerical issue at this point. Maybe letting the AfD run so its lack notability is clearly spelled out to new users would be the best plan. If it somehow invites a lot of ballot stuffers, that would definitely be a downside. It's up to you. Six one way, half dozen the other. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I doubt we'll have a problem with it being re-created. I took responsibility for the closure and closed it. Sorry for the mix-up. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was any better way to handle that. No worries on my end. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Whittaker

I was about to decline the speedy as it wasn't right - but is the player in fact notable? He appears to play for a university side, and I don't think they are in the leagues listed in WP:ATHLETE. I'm no expert on sport, and would like an opinion from someone who probably knows more than I do. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no sports expertise either. I didn't look at the Texas Longhorns article; I just assumed that was a professional team. Shows you what *I* know about it.

That said, WP:ATHLETE does have a section on college athletes, WP:NCOLLATH. The Dallas Morning News reference is significant coverage of Foswhitt Whittaker, and one could argue it has a national circulation sort of like the New York Times. Dallas isn't local to his team's home in Austin, either, so this would be at least regional coverage. The Sports Illustrated reference is just a table of stats so that doesn't count. With one valid reference, he probably doesn't qualify. However, I see lots of other sources online, like this one that names him one of the "best undrafted available players" of 2012.

I think this may qualify for deletion, but probably not speedy deletion. There may be more to this Whitaker guy than the current article indicates. But I don't really know. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly - but http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1144267-the-biggest-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-foswhitt-whittaker seems to think he's been erratic and may not be drafted (a process I still can't understand in American sport terms). Peridon (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maid

Why was this page deleted? It is not promotional in nature. The article is entirely encyclopedic, with objective information presented with accurately cited sources.

The article fits the Wikipedia definition as indicated below:

All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contenteditor291 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, which should be obvious to anyone without a conflict of interest. Several sentences contained unsubstantiated puffery, such as "All MOLLY MAID staff follow the same practical, functional cleaning system in every room of the house" and "stronger products are necessary to meet our high cleaning standards". That latter example, using the word "our", was obviously written by a company representative — you, perhaps? If you are associated with Molly Maid, please refer to WP:COI for further guidance. In a nutshell, the article read like a combination of company brochure and business plan. Therefore, it was deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI. I had James restore the page to my user page and I will work on it as part of the Article Rescue Squadron. It does not appear that bad of an article. Just needs to have the promotional content removed and notable citations added. Wish me luck! --Morning277 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wineries Breweries & Distilleries of NJ

I replied to you on the talk page regarding the New Jersey winery external links. I read through WP:ELNO, and although it's a bit vague, crtiterion 5 may prohibit these links. I will not restore them. NJ Wine (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know of any other NJ wineries that might be notable, that don't have a Wikipedia article? I find it difficult to believe there's only that one currently in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Travelling Salesman review request declined

Hello, I replied to your request denial on the whitelist page, but figured I'd write you here as well. Thanks: Thanks for reviewing the case. The third review MAY work. However, just for your information, links 1, 2, and 4 are not actually reviews of the film, but reactions to the trailer. Those reviewers have not seen the film yet and are just working off the trailer and synopsis. I think a review from someone who actually attended the premiere would be an important part of the article. Review #3 seems to be someone who saw some advanced clips, and is dated a month before the premiere. I hope you can reconsider. Thebaueroflove (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Unblock for good behaviour? He used his declared socks to edit after his block ... no way this could have ever been acceptable as an unblock. Please fix ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious.

...and he came clean about those socks. He also feels the pain, and blocks are not punishment. I am convinced he understands the consequences of recidivism. I am convinced he wants to contribute. I also felt that the existing duration was excessive. Given those things, I reduced the duration. I plan to watch him like a hawk; any evidence of disruption and the block is restored, for a longer period. If you feel differently, you are welcome to restore the block, but I ask that you give him a chance to prove himself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because of the socking after the block, this was one of those situations where you're required to discuss with the blocking admin, as per policy. Unilateral reduction was very inappropriate. His belief that "see, the encyclopedia is falling apart without me" is further proof that he needed to remain blocked as that's his sole argument for unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the policy, and I do apologize. We are discussing it now. Are you truly convinced that a probationary reprieve is unwarranted here? I'd like to extend this editor an olive branch.

If you are adamant about it, I can restore the original duration or split the difference if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the original block length was overly generous, but based on escalation. His "rush" to get back at it shows he doesn't understand the reasoning behind his block whatsoever. It's still therefore not punitive, it's protection, which is of course the purpose of blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it seemed to me that the prior discussion about his block on his talk page showed that he understood and agreed with the reasoning for the block, and there was no need to rehash it in the recent unblock request. I took the entire talk page into account in my decision to reduce the length, including his demonstrated enthusiasm to work on articles in his own space while blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not the case as can be seen. I have, based on this discussion, not only re-implemented the original month, but removed his talkpage access for improper use of it during the block. Please note, after his block evasion, I had intended to increase the block length - but chose not to as part of WP:AGF. I'd be happy to extend it to 3 months, but I don't think that would be good for the editor or the project in the long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Gotta run an errand now, will post an apology when I return. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI (to both of you), after Bwilkins' block modification the user did this on the Simple English Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I blame him for his feelings in spite of the inappropriateness in venting them. He is understandably frustrated by getting caught between two conflicting admin decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, blame the admin instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions. Sheer brilliance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. But his reaction is like being let out of jail only to be dragged back in a few minutes later. Understandable. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He appears to have calmed down per this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NJ Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries

Please feel free to review some of the changes be debated at Talk:Wineries,_breweries_and_distilleries_of_New_Jersey#Reverted changes. NJ Wine (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for revising the page history for this article. I had improperly reverted the move of the page, resulting in the split page history. NJ Wine (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I had to do the same thing on the talk page. It's done. It wasn't as much of a problem as I expected, since there was zero to little overlap between the two pages. Merging histories can be a mess if each version of the page continues to be edited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I am not returning to work on the article/list. I don't need that kind of nonsense and petulance in my life. I have more important things to do than waste my time only to deal with someone acting territorial. Let him win for now, if he does it again, we'll act accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be back sooner than I thought, User:NJ Wine was blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. See his user page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment

Hello, Amatulic. You recently participated in this discussion; I'm leaving this message on your page to tell you that your input would once again be greatly valued. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan deletion

Hi! Would like to invite you to comment on Talk:Misha_Bryan as there is a discussion on why the page deserved deletion. You are listed as deleting the page. Thanks! --newzealander 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewzealanderA (talk • contribs)

The proper venue for your discussion is WP:DRV. I have deleted that talk page because it is associated with a nonexistent page, but I have restored its content to your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If you could restore the Misha Bryan deleted article to my user space to work on, that would be great. NewzealanderA (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! FYI - I have edited the Misha_Bryan_(singer) article and presented it to User:Sionk to review. Thanks for restoring it to my user page. Of interest, you might want to know that this same user has done the same type of deletions elsewhere using the same non-Wikipedia arguments. One is going on right now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_Devlin_(singer). The discussion there is very similar to the one had for Misha Bryan. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic - you are invited to offer your opinion at User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B#User_Consensus_Request regarding X Factor contestant Misha B - User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. Thank you for your time!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mourvedre Page

Hey Amatulic-First thanks for providing so much high quality information on wine and everything wine related. I recently wrote an article on Mouvedre for my company blog and thought it might warrant a mention on the page given the Dr Vino reference as well as others. It's found at http://www.uncorkedventures.com/blog/Mourvedre

Anyway, I thought it would be a "better" approach to contact someone I saw actively editing wine sections and ask for inclusion rather than add the link myself since that clearly looks like Spam.

If nothing else I hope this can be the beginning of a conversation. I am happy to help out in the wine section when possible- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAselstine (talk • contribs)

Hello Mark. Nice to meet you, and I like your blog article. Unfortunately, links to blog articles are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia (see WP:ELNO for guidance) unless the blog is written by a recognized authority on the topic. The Dr Vino link was not appropriate either (and even if it was, it didn't enhance the content already in the article). Someone else has already removed it.

Thanks also for not adding that link yourself; it speaks well of your integrity. Asking another editor or proposing a link on an article talk page is always the best course of action for someone with a conflict of interest.

External links are a convenience for an encyclopedia, not a necessity. All an encyclopedia really needs are references to reliable sources, and even those don't need to be online. The best contributions you can make to Wikipedia are content contributions, rather than links. My own family has a successful winery, for example, but I would never dare add a link to it anywhere or even mention its name; it just isn't relevant to this project. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:ShanaMarketing

I question whether this is a valid username block. She seems to be Shana[in]Marketing[for Inova]. I don't see how this is a username violation, since she's not marketing anything called Shana. It's a COI and spam problem, certainly; but not a username problem, regardless of how I feel about marketing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The account was engaged in promotional edits, and gave the appearance of a marketing company contracted by Inova, so I blocked accordingly. If this is a name like Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs) then you're absolutely correct the user name isn't a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Update (also responded on your talk page). The username is fine; I found what appears to be her LinkedIn profile. I will change the block and block message accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lado Kingdom

Hello Amatulic. I nominated the redirect "Lado Kingdom" for speedy deletion because there never was such a Kingdom. The article "Lado enclave" was renamed as such by a hoaxer. After this was corrected the redirect (and the adjoining talk page) remained somehow. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does seem to be an alternative name preferred by those with political allegiance to it, based on my Google searches. Therefore, I felt the redirect was reasonable. It certainly isn't an official name, but it's a name that some use. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will not contest this and I thank you for your time & effort. It just seemed to me that it was strange to have a redirect based on a hoax. But since the hoax exists..... some people might come looking for it I suppose. One remark however. Searching on Google will only redirect you to the original author of the Wiki article and two of his friends from Denmark.Greetings! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant references to "Lado Kingdom" I found were mostly forums and blogs (for example this one from 2007), but it wasn't clear that the authors of those postings were related to the author of the Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dischi Ricordi

Hi Amatulic! What does that mean? Of course I know that Dischi Ricordi was a subsidiary company of Casa Ricordi, but they're not the same thing and I don't see why so different things should be treated in the same article (Fiat and Chrysler are part of the same company, but we have two different articles). Apart from that, the article Casa Ricordi doesn't even mention what Dischi Ricordi is and why it's related to Casa Ricordi, so that redirect makes no sense: the reader searching for Dischi Ricordi does not get any information more than if the redirect didn't exist (on the contrary, the reader runs the risk of confusing Dischi Ricordi with Casa Ricordi, which are related but anyway different companies). If any information on Dischi Ricordi will be added on en.wiki, it should be put into a new article; in the meanwhile I think the link should be stay a red link. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable redirect, especially since the Ricordi Group's web site, linked in Casa Ricordi explains the connection. All that is needed is a sentence of explanation in the Casa Ricordi article. It is not unusual for topics on which articles do not yet exist to be redirected to a related topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your intervention with User:Fightingagainstlies on the Oktay Sinanoğlu article. I've been trying to communicate with him (via his talk page and the article talk page) and offered to help, but he didn't seem to want to collaborate. Thanks for stepping in and allowing him a chance to cool down about it.

P.S. I know you're busy on weekends, so don't need a reply, just wanted to say thanks. P.P.S. Really like the fractal user box you have on your user page. Vertium (talk to me) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of section I added to "Robert O. Young" from 67.91.184.187 at 21:57, on 7 July 2012‎

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

If you have objected to my system-generated "errors" in my use of weblinks, I have corrected those, and my writing now more closely follows Wikipedia's general style.

However, my use of sources which you acknowledge as "reliable" is reliable and honest.

If you find my writing to be "all very interesting", it is likely that others will also find it to be so.

However, kindly refrain from removing truth.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you will be blocked from editing if you continue your disruption. See WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not tolerated here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The facts I have included pertain directly to the core of Robert O. Young’s writings. I have carefully removed any evidence not based upon reliable sources. All my references directly support my statements of fact. I have footnoted nearly every sentence from sources that directly support those sentences. I fail to see how my writing doesn’t exceed any imposed WP:BURDEN.

I am quite certain that I have not synthesized in any way except that which only the most extreme interpreters of the term “synthesis” could accuse me of. If recognizing that Young’s “pH” for vinegar is so absurdly out of touch with reality as to be akin to stating that an automobile could travel faster than the cube of the speed of light, then I have done so {remember, the pH scale is logarithmic, and yes, that is what the numbers are}. If recognizing that one set of numbers neither coincides nor overlaps with another set of numbers, and stating that fact constitutes synthesis, then I have done it. However, in such an overly strict interpretation of the definition, any sentence construction varying from plagiarism {verbatim copying} would also be liable to the charge of “synthesis”; because any variation from the original author’s words could be argued to be “synthesis”. It seems to me that that is not what Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become: because Wikipedia says that authors should write in their own words, carefully rephrasing reputable sources’ information, so as not to plagiarize (WP:NOR). Nor do I believe that Wikipedia is, nor wishes to become, a hiding place for the incompetent (or fraudulent) to hide their incompetence (or fraud).

Furthermore, WP:CALC seems to allow precisely this sort of observation , and the “calculation” required is even more essential to the root of mathematical thought (a rudimentary determination of equivalence) than those mentioned there (arithmetic, adding numbers, converting units), because “the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.” See Equality_(mathematics)

If you still say that my writing is WP:SYN or fails to meet WP:BURDEN, please state precisely where or how my writing fails. Perhaps you could help?

As you can see, your repeated objections have encouraged me to further refine my writing. THANKS.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over that edit, and I don't see anything that would stretch much beyond a Chemistry 101 level of background knowledge. I'd suggest adding {{cn}} to anything that isn't obvious rather than reverting. It should not be difficult to source or rephrase.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it still isn't acceptable. It's basically a criticism written in Wikipedia's voice, using sources that don't criticize the book. It is pure WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Note the word "imply" there. I see someone else has removed the section, yet again. If you want a section describing how wrong Robert Young is, then find a reliable source that says it, but don't say it by combining information from unrelated sources that don't even mention the book.

To the anonymous IP address adding it: Start using the article talk page to discuss your changes, if you honestly cannot understand why your addition contravenes Wikipedia policy. You will not get this material added to the article by edit-warring. That will only lead to a block. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikitam331

I notice you unblocked User talk:Wikitam331. Now, that may have been fair enough, but when he says "It's not like I voted multiple times in the discussion", that is manifestly untrue. He accepts that 76.125.166.228 is his IP address, and clearly voted here, in support of the move request that he himself had proposed. Just thought you ought to know this. StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock of Wikitam331 [6], your summary said Editing while logged out does not appear to be an attempt to create the illusion of multiple participants -- did you look at Talk:Reformations? The account and the IPs all !voting in the move discussion. If it were a simple matter of forgetting to log in, I wouldn't have bothered. However, this user and the IPs are being a PITA in that ddiscussion. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked carefully at that page before making my decision. I saw multiple comments and one vote from the IP address. There is one IP address there, as explained by Wikitam331, the other one that appears isn't his, and I also addressed that in my unblock response. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can make the following statement with a straight face Assuming that 12.165.27.130 isn't you, your IP address edits don't give the appearance of trying to create the illusion of more participants than there were. Even granting that the other IP is not a sock,This vote, along with this comment do not seem so innocent. But if Wikitam331 behaves appropriately going forward, this is a moot point. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldie Harvey

Do you know what happened when I userfied that page? Check out my help desk request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird. I have re-userfied it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical move

Regarding your help, I confess I wasn't quite sure of what I was doing. Thanks for sorting out. Much appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed clear what you intended, so I just performed the move. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help at ANI

• Specifically it is this thread. Note that Miszabot was re-enabled and attempted to archive but there was a blacklisted link so it didn't write the page...unfortunately it can't be undone by a non-admin because of the link. We need help getting the threads back, Cheers,
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I had just figured out how a non-admin could do it after I asked you. By editing from this rev, taking care of the offending url and then copy/paste over ANI making sure to restore any subsequent comments. I'm trying to make sure I know what to do next time. Thank you for straightening that out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All I did was show the bot's diff, and then I clicked on "undo". The next screen said the edit could be undone, which means nothing added afterward would be disturbed, so I just 'cleaned' the URL and submitted the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am back

Hey mate, block is over now. It was horrible. Just want to thank you again for your help and for replying to my posts last month. Kept me in check and now I want to start off with a clean slate. Anyway I have one question, what will happen to my other 2 accounts. The 3rd one I made was for evading but the other 2 have been along for a year now (I think) and I dont want to sign in to one of the other 2 accounts and than log back on to my account (this one) and see that my IP Address is blocked. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to FootballinIndiaWiki, IndianFootballPlayersWiki, and RedBullNewYork2012, those are already blocked, so there is no danger of you getting blocked again for logging in to them. If you have others, let me know and I can block them too without blocking the IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying is I can log onto them and then log off them and still edit with my IP Address and this username. I dont mind if that is the case as I only use FootballinIndiaWiki and IndianFootballPlayersWiki for the watchlist (basically in order to keep things organized I made those two) so I can stay logged on Google Chrome and use Safari for the other two accounts. I am hoping to delete RedBullNewYork2012 completely. I dont have any others. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism

I note that you removed links to a blog I referenced in the Sherry article. That blog (or column or online magazine) is the only English language source of the new Sherry legislation. But note that you did not remove references to two other blogs in the External Links section. Feel free to act consistently by deleting these other blogs and tidying up the content as necessary.--GinaKendal (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My purpose was to clean up a specific links you added. Thank you for pointing out the others; they are now gone. Be aware that English sources are not necessary. Particularly if official sources exist, as they did in the articles to which you added those links, the official sources should be cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

a thought about references

Hello Amatulic.

I am writing to you not about my wife Lena Pessoa (yes, she is my wife, and I agree with the fact COI is important for the american wikipedia's community) but about this affair generally speaking.

About that article, before you arrive there with a cool attitude, I had been agressed by 2 censors, I forget their name and you destroy Lena's page, including the "talk" part of it. I just noticed about them, 1 was a Indian from Dehli, signing Eagle something, and watching him, I notice he was not "cultural" at all. The second one, beside being a God Freak, was angry because in certain references I talked about, Lena Pessoa was only referenced in "One" page ! This is the heart or my feeling of today.

If you are a musician, you can use as references a record. Anybody in the world is able to have 1 record printed, you have major companies or louzzy one, you can pay for the publishing of the record, blah blah blah.

If you are a writer, the same constatation apply.

If you are a Scientist, like you, you may have citations in Scientists Newspapers (very important, this is one of the propagation system for Sciences), books with you name, if you are famous ... I would not say that you may have books and be a crook, for instance in France we have these brothers Xxxxxxff ...

And if you are a designer, architect, then you need to proove your work with Books under your name ! a book talking about the more luxuous store in the world where you have 1 page, not even mentioned on the cover, is not good. You cannot reference something like 3 stores in New York, 1 in Miami, 4 in Los Angeles, 1 in Dallas, just to mention Usa, even if you can show pictures on differents internet sites ... Yes, Designers are suppose to be "social", go everywhere to piple a lot, they cannot be quietely in their house, reading books, traveling, waiting for their clients to come to them !!!

So voila my feelings,

A bientôt :-)

Mouzaia (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Previously I recommended you create the article in your own userspace first. I think I may have moved it there. Unfortunately, another admin deleted it as a copyright violation of http://pt-br.facebook.com/DeuxL?sk=info -- Wikipedia can not re-publish content that already exists elsewhere. I recommend you try again, create User:Mouzaia/Lena Pessoa in your own words, and I am sure there will be no problem.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) explains how a person can merit an article on Wikipedia. The criteria are not negotiable. The subject must have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Without such references, an article can still avoid speedy deletion if it explains explain why the person is notable. But still it may not survive WP:AFD without adequate sources.

As I wrote to you on your talk page, I am happy to review the article when you have added sufficient reliable sources to it, prior to moving it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying my own work ? because the text on Facebook is my text ...

Also 'Not negotiable', OK I am not going to negociate anyway.

But in fact, in that French Paper called Le Monde, there was a very good article about Wikimania published yesterday, I am so sad to read Wikipedia is sick, now I know more why.

Thanks again for your help.

Mouzaia (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have permission to copy text published elsewhere. Just because a Wikipedia account claims "it is my text" or says "I give permission" does not mean it is true. Wikipedia needs some sort of official permission from the copyright owner, with proof that the owner is who he claims to be. See WP:CONSENT to learn about how to accomplish this. However, I think it is easier simply to re-write the text in different words.

I would like to read that article you linked to, but apparently it is unavailable to non-subscribers. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You ask for it ? you got it ! but in french :-(

Mouzaia (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I can't download the file. Oh well. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Computers :-( here is a dropbox url ! hope it is better ! Mouzaia (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Google Translate worked very well. I have seen similar articles in English. Improving editor diversity is a good thing, and a visual editing interface may help. But I disagree that a visual editing interface will solve the problem of declining contributors. As Wikipedia has grown, so have the policies and guidelines grown in number and complexity. As you have observed yourself, it is difficult for a new editor on the English Wikipedia to be familiar with all the rules. I believe this difficulty in learning the rules is a reason for the decline in contributors. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

difficult to understand difficult rules :-) à bientôt Mouzaia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

A user you blocked seems to be evading an indefinite block by using this account to recreate this article. The article has been marked for speedy deletion and I have marked their userpage for G11 deletion. Think we need to start an SPI? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend starting an SPI just to establish a record, because I suspect this isn't the last sockpuppet we'll see from this person. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:New Jersey wine

I proposed a format for this article on the talk page and would like your suggestions (my intended project for upcoming two weeks after I finish up my two current ones). On another topic: Where did all the deletionists come from regarding the list? I'm inclined to split the list into its components (wineries and breweries) and look forward to an NJ beer article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested format sounds fine to me.

On Talk:List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey, I have no idea where the sudden deletionist attention comes from (and note in a section above on my talk page as well as my WP:RFA that I've been accused of being deletionist too, but that's a common misconception about m:precisionists). I note that Agne has chimed in with some comments. Given her professional knowledge and being the Wikipedia Wine Project's greatest contributor, if she voices misgivings about an article's existence, I consider her view to merit special attention. I do agree with her that the list could be more encyclopedically useful than a collection of red links, which essentially is all it is at the moment. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad link

This is in regards to your rv. As I stated in my original edit summary I recalled hearing about a policy that links mentioning a Wikipedia page need to be done as ELs since mirrors and such would convert normal internal links to links on their site- rather than to the Wikipedia page which is the true destination. Unfortunately I can't seem to remember where this was, are you aware of some policy I'm not? Thanks, OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I reverted you, I also started a discussion on the talk page, so please continue this discussion there. I'm interested to see your argument about why you think one particular wikilink on Wikipedia merits singling out as an external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see the thread there. Missed it in my watchlist. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne RMs

Hi, greetings. I'm not sure what to make of this but there is some odd activity from a Ho Chi Minh City IP in the archive resets to Talk:History of Champagne. As closing admin perhaps you might wish to have a look at it. I'm not quite the purpose is or what influence, if any, it was meant to have on past or possible future RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case the IP edit seems to be related perhaps to a possible planned future RM which hasn't happened yet. Wheras in cases like Talk:Praha_hlavní_nádraží it relates to making previous contrary/failed RMs invisible by setting up bot archiving. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be reading too much into it. The edit simply sets up auto-archiving for that talk page. It looks like a proper edit to me. The 60 day age for archiving may be a bit short considering the average activity on that page, so I changed it to 365. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, yesterday I might have been, hence the cautious tone. But today it's now a cluster of a dozen IPs all working to the same modus operandi. Naturally not all the archiving of previous RMs has clicked in yet, and Talk:History of Champagne is among those that hasn't archived the old RM yet. I have only listed the ones that have actually potentially affected already closed RMs here. 60 days is typical of the forward looking resets of the IPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were two RMs on Talk:History of Champagne about a month apart, and the first one appears to have been archived. It's no big deal, archiving talk pages is not a bad idea, so I'm hesitant to categorize this activity as disruptive. If a talk page is normally not active, then you can remove the template or extend the archive age trigger. 1 or 2 years is fine for a low-rate talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, done when logged in archiving is good. FYI the IP which reset Talk:History of Champagne archive has just been listed among the IP cluster in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Though it is not among the planned RMs at User:Kauffner/RM incubator. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

Hi...a NPOV has been pinned to the Misha B page. I believe its unfair as though I am a fan, I have honestly tried to be neutral. Apart from a brief period a few years ago I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning as I go. (I am not good with stress) Your wise comments would be appreciated. Just for your information and hoping for your comments

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==

Hello. Just to let you know ...This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard The thread is "Misha B, Talk:Misha B". Thank you....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 in "Haute tension"

There is some ambiguity in Wikipedia's policy on what uncontroversial maintenance actually means, hence I cannot allege that there was some mistake on your side. In any case, I reverted the unexplained move to "Haute tension" by LF (talk · contribs), not discussed or announced nowhere in the acceptable form. Unfortunately, I cannot restore suppressed edit histories, including a quite fine redirect, properly sorted with {{R from other capitalization}}. Also, your deletions largely concealed (from non-sysops) LF's actions and his attempts to provide a substantiation for the page move which is now reverted. I hope, you are willing to restore edit histories of the redirect and its talk page – just go to [7] and [8] and follow restore … deleted edits links. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Looks like you repaired the moves, and I have restored the histories. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Sweet, thanks. Now I can go marauding with impunity! :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. You still aren't exempt from being blocked directly, though. Happy marauding! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh...um, I'll just slink away then. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Theosulwebmaster

I'm sorry — until just a moment ago, I overlooked the fact that you weren't ready to unblock this user, so I unblocked him half an hour ago in order to enable a WP:CHU request. I don't think it would be right to reblock when he's made no more edits, but please note that I've given him a strict no-more-spamming warning with a reminder that more spamming will result in an indefinite block that's likely to be permanent. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, actually I was prepared to unblock him as soon as he could assure me that he understood the guidelines, but your warning is assurance enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy projects

I would ask you to explain (and possibly amend) your closing statement in regards of article's sources: upon reading CBSNews' item I had impression that it lacks depth of coverage, as the article doesn't discuss the features and workflow of this piece of software. To make it clear, I propose an imaginary test: would you be able to identify the subject of this article if all "Easy Projects.NET" occurrences were replaced with "XXX"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is borderline, and spent a while waffling back and forth in my closing decision. In the end, I determined that nothing in WP:SIGCOV requires "depth of coverage". The CBS source constitutes an article written by a seemingly notable author writing for a major national news organization, both independent of the product, devoting an entire article (albeit short) exclusively to reviewing the product. This is far more than a trivial mention. The fact that it isn't a detailed review doesn't invalidate the coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG.

As I stated in my closing statement, I invite anyone who feels the closure was improper to open a WP:DRV issue to overturn it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I filed the deletion review request. Hope you don't get offended. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs

Wikipedia:COMPROMISED#Compromised_accounts - Here it says I can request the unblock if I can demonstrate I have control of my old account, which I do. The thing is, nobody know my password and can't enter my account neither my e-mail, but I do use the "remember me" while loging in. My account isn't compromised. Nobody can't access it except me. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well User:Wustenfuchs is blocked indefinitely. For your new account User:FuchsWusten, you might also consider implementing Wikipedia:Committed identity as a further means of proving that you are who you say you are if you're ever blocked in the future due to a compromised account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer all of my edits to the new account? And why is so impossible to unblock the old one as I proved It's still under my control. Also, another problem. I never said my account was compromised, and because of misunderstanding I have all of these problems now. I have control over my old account, and the thing with other people using my account was just hypothetical. --FuchsWusten (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A goof?

Did you block a template? [9]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked a user, then clicked on the last section on the user's talk page, intending to add the block message to the end, but I failed to notice that the last section was a transclusion of a template (she had tried to write an article on her talk page and that template was at the end for some reason). So the block message ended up on the transcluded template instead.

A dumber goof I once made was blocking myself by accident instead of someone else, thereby destroying my perfectly clean block log. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vu TelePresence

You speedy deleted Talk:Vu TelePresence just after I contested the deletion. I think it should be restored because a newbie editor requested help ther and may not have had time to see the response. BYTE and all that. Cheers. --agr (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for restoring just the talk page of a deleted article. If you want to communicate help to someone, wouldn't it be best use the talk page of the editor who needs the help? I often answer contested deletion comments on user talk pages because I know the user won't see the response on the deleted talk page. You have the ability to extract content from the deleted talk page; please consider doing that.

Also I note that the author of the original article has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, apparently used multiple accounts to edit that article, and is fully capable of using WP:AFC or working on it in his or her own user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hamari Boli = Hindi-Urdu Reinvented!

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com . Bohat Bohat Shukria! edge.walker (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GWR TEAM

This is Guinness World Record Team by the way. I must check some of their other edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was a username policy violation. I think the account is trying to be constructive but doesn't know how yet. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Chris Cross article was evidently written by the subject or their agent. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Ashwell

Why did you delete the article Mark Ashwell. There was nothing wrong with it. Can you please sort this out for me as its your problem not mine, thanks.