User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Sockpupetry case

Hi Amatulic, I've been investigating a sockpuppetry case surrounding several users and I came across User:HCW33 who you blocked in December for abusing multiple accounts. Could you provide some more information regarding this i.e. whether there is an existing sockpuppetry investigation? Thanks. -SFK2 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no sockpuppetry investigation, to my knowledge. I blocked that account for seeming like a WP:DUCK, making promotional edits to substantially the same articles as another account created at about the same time, which was also creating promotional articles.

For further enlightenment, see the sections above, #User:HCW33 and #User:HCW33 (again). Those sections include links to other relevant pages documenting this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So it turns out that this is part of a university program? Something isn't quite right about the whole situation - what action can be taken? -SFK2 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. To me the "isn't quite right" is a group of editors who are unwilling to engage with the community, but instead embark on projects to create promotional pages about companies, and communicate by back-room channels via private email than via talk pages. According to the two sections I linked above, it may be a good-faith class project verified by private email conversation that didn't involve me. My only involvement was blocking one account as a sockpuppet, which introduced me to the bigger picture later. You may want to look at the pages of the people above who left comments in that section. They know more about the situation than I do. One of them has kept an extensive record of the activities of this group. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Openupashop

FYI, there's a chance that this was a sock of З000 ВАЅЅ (talk · contribs) who I blocked a few days ago. The pattern seemed similar to me, although slightly different. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It looked like a bot to me. It was re-creating articles as fast as I could delete them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I had that thought as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique

I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding speedy deletion of Klysman Henrique. While it is true that the Moldovan National Division is fully pro, he has yet actually play any games, which is what is required for notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. This is why an almost, if not entirely identical article was deleted just over a week ago. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I admit I don't follow football, so I am not familiar with teams or players. Is there a good chance he will participate in a match, or is it more likely that he won't? Do these teams maintain players who never actually play? I think what I mean is, it would not make sense to delete the article if tomorrow he he happens to play for the team. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He will almost certainly play senior level football at some point, but he's only eighteen so at this point it's hard to tell when and where that will be. There is very real chance that he'll wind up playing in the non-fully-pro second division, or that he'll leave Moldova altogether and wind up in a country without a fully pro top flight. If I had to guess, I'd say the odds are about fifty-fifty whether or not he'll meet WP:NFOOTBALL at some point. As for him playing a match tomorrow, that I can more or less rule out. Most professional football clubs have one or two young players who are nominally part of their squad, but whose purpose there is mainly to train with the senior team, not to actually play. I should also add that preemptive creations are generally frowned upon. In the roughly four years I've been involved in the deletion process at the WikiProject football, I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that the subject would meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the future, unless the article also already met WP:GNG, which is clearly not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The article is now deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's back, and he doesn't appear to be any more notable than 3 days ago. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-deleted and protected from re-creation, warning left on editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Gang Recording Studio

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... "Claude Puterflam founded the Gang Recording Studio in the heart of Paris" the studio is truly in the centre of Paris.

"the studio was specifically designed to have a relaxing feel to encourage the creativity of the artists" This is the case for any studio in the world, Studios NEED to HAVE a relaxing ambiance.

"remaining consistent with the requirements of professional recording environments." it seems obvious that professional studios focus on their work environment.

"which ensures perfect insulation" A perfect insulation has nothing promotional, it is the correct way to describe a physical behavior for wave propagation.

"high quality audio" It seems obvious for a studio.

Hopefully wikipedia will stop deleting this article, or at least explain in detail why or how this article is promotional. Please have a look at articles about notorious recording studios such as Electric Lady Studios or Ocean Way Recording and explain me why this one is so different.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologique (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Every one of those lines you quoted has a promotional tone, and none of them make the subject notable. That's primarily why the article was deleted. Because you evidently did not read or understand the multiple notices on your talk page, the article is now protected from recreation. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Furthermore, the article failed to meet the criteria for inclusion for companies, spelled out in WP:CORP.

It seems obvious that you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Please read and abide by WP:COI before proceeding further. Your best approach is to submit the article for review via WP:AFC rather than submit it directly to main article space as you have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Mellor

Hi Amatulic. I'm trying to create a biography for Jonathan Mellor, but it appears the page is locked down, due to non-notable articles being created. Your name is against the last deletion of this article. The Jonathan Mellor I wish to create is an athlete who competed at the 3000 metres event in Poland this month, therefore meeting WP:ATHLETE. I'd be greatful if you could allow the page to become unlocked so I can create the article (should be within 24hrs of posting this request). Any questions, please get back to me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The last version of that article was about a non-notable theatrical performer.

I suggest you create the article in your sandbox or a sub-page in your user space, and when it's ready, let me know and I'll move it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've created it here in my sandbox. Grateful if you could move it into the live world. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! ~Amatulić (talk)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

delete the review please from afa rapper Dr.afa (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

United States $2 bill

I noticed that you made an edit to the article on the United States $2 bill. In particular, I'm curious about why you reverted a change that I made to the date for the obverse design. The design was approved, and production of the notes began in 1928, so I'm wondering why you changed the date back to 1932. The 1928 date conforms to the information provided by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Almostfm (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In a single action reverted several recent edits that changed content without explaining why in the edit summary. I may have restored a version too far back. If yours was caught up in that and it was a correct edit, please change it back. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No sweat. I'll change the date back Almostfm (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dupe detector fail

As to the dupe detector fail, see, e.g., this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is weird. The duplication detector currently doesn't seem to be working at all, if you display the version of this page that has the speedy delete tag and click on the link.

In any case, thanks for pointing this out. I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed exactly the same thing. I've seen it fail in that manner from time to time (btw ... the article remains, with the copyvio).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Something must have distracted me. It's gone now. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Tx.Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai again

I've just blocked two editors for editwarring at the Soka Gakkai article. Since you were the last person to make a substantial edit to the page, other than those two editors, would you please take a look at it? Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember making any substantial edits to that page, other than to revert one of the many attempts by anons to add non-BLP-compliant promotional content for a self-published book. My involvement has been as an admin. After that I semi-protected the article, because it was clear that my previous pending change protection wasn't having an effect. Anyway, I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to fully-protect the page for an indefinite period until the participants can formulate a consensus-based editprotected request. I'm happy to monitor the progress. What do you think? An alternative is to ban the combatants altogether from editing in that subject area. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going by this edit; I'd forgotten you were an admin, although I would have approached you the same way if I'd remembered. Let's see what these two editors do after the blocks expire; they were 24-hour blocks, so it shouldn't be too long. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I had forgotten about that one. Anyway, thanks. We'll wait and see. There was some progress on the talk page before this edit war, although the participants seem fond of walls o' text, which is why I suspect their communication isn't as effective as they'd like. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#kavkazcentre.com

Please see the link above. It turns out you were the blocking admin too, I don't understand the logic behind the reason as no reason was stated for its abuse. Further the reporting editor was an IP with NO other edits. Please explain the reasons as there have been numerous others seeking to post the site.(Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).

Answered on that page. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Singapore

I noticed that you had earlier warned editor Ujongbakuto about edit warring on the Singapore page. Looks like that editor may be doing it again, recently reverting a significant copy edit that I had done to bring the article closer to WP:MOS. I re-reverted, but thought it worth bringing to your attention. Jaytwist (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Afterglow (a cappella)

I noticed that you deleted my article on this a cappella group from the University of California Davis, why was it deleted? What can I do to make sure it does not get deleted? Is it possible to retrieve the information that I posted? Thanks. Ucdafterglow 16:33, 22 March 2014 (PST)

I didn't delete the article. I deleted a redirect to the article. Administrator Alexf (talk · contribs) deleted the article. The article was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 because it failed to contain any assertion of why the group is significant, and it would have been deleted anyway for failing to demonstrate meeting any of the criteria described in WP:BAND.

You won't be able to reply here since your account is blocked. Follow the instructions in the block message on your talk page if you want to appeal your block. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warning

I saw the warning for the Syrian Civil war template sorry about that did not notice the hours passed between the two edits.I did do two reverts but in two different days so must have missed the hours passed won't happen again.Even tough I would like to suggest to keep a little bit of tolerance on that template as there are many editors who edit the map with no sources or sources that are unreliable and outdated and there are fewer editors like me who tend to correct the mistakes.This guys usually do up to 10 edits per day so it takes a lot of editors to get the map back in order.Daki122 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know you were editing in good faith, and I assumed you lost track of the time, which is why I didn't block you. But please be mindful of the 1RR rule, particularly in articles about Middle East conflicts. There are many hot heads who are quick to jump on the smallest infractions, and administrators who are fed up with the editing conflicts are quick to pull the trigger on blocks, to maintain order. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chessie (band)

Hi Amatulic. When I declined the speedy for this one a few years ago, I really should have added more than just the one reference! Would you have any objection to me restoring the article and adding more sources? I think there's a good chance it meets GNG. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No objection. Go right ahead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Studio 146

I don't think the speedy tag on Studio 146 was warranted. It had been on mainspace for two years and there were references provided in the article. If there were concerns over notability, it should have been taken to AfD, not speedied. In any case, I would appreciate if you can provide a copy of the deleted article at User:Mar4d/Studio 146 where I can refine it. Thank you, Mar4d (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the nomination was warranted. Before I deleted the article, I checked every single reference and found only trivial mentions on the subject. This is not significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Many articles about non-notable subjects simply aren't noticed for years, and then found and speedily deleted.

In any case, I have userfied the article to User:Mar4d/Studio 146 as you requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

May I bring it to your notice that the user seems to have made another inappropriate speedy nomination too [1]. Please restore my article to the mainspace or into my userspace link provided ASAP. Thanks again, Mar4d (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That nomination was inappropriate, but the situation there is quite different than for your article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

MasterMover

In order for me to amend this article I would like to know if there was anywhere I could take a copy of it from? I uploaded part of it from a Word file but the rest was created in Wikipedia. Newby error I guess.

If I can get a copy I can reassess and upload when it meets the correct criteria, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Karl (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the article to User:Russell Karl/MasterMover. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

CSD Alteration

Please take time to actually look at the userpage, talkpage of the article with the spi links or ask the tagging editor in this case myself before removing a G5 tag. It's somewhat disruptive although very much on the minor side of things for sure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I did. You should take more care to nominate speedy deletions properly. It was clearly not A7, and not G11, and G5 has not yet been proven. Nominate it for G5 after the SPI case closes.

Do not restore the tags. Doing so is disruptive. Consider yourself warned. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing them and accusing an editor that they haven't gave any evidence, when they did and it's clear they did is disruptive in and of itself so please consider yourself also warned. Please also point me to any guideline that states at WP:G5 that states I must wait until a SPI was completed. I'm very interested for you to back up your actions here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:CSD#G5 more carefully yourself. And no, you gave no evidence in the edit summary or in the tag, and an incomplete SPI that isn't obviously a WP:DUCK is not "evidence". Waiting for the outcome of the SPI is an administrator's discretion, which I exercised. Bottom line, you misapplied the G5 tag (because the article already had substantial edits by others), as well as A7 (because it had adequate reliable sourcing) and G11 (because it was not unambiguously promotional). A multi-speedy-nomination like that, which is so obviously misapplied, constitutes disruptive behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ok I'm going to ANI because if you can't admit you fucked up even here maybe there you can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Be sure to mention how you've been adhering to WP:CIVIL while you're at it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• [[2]] Please by all means do something yourself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Luchetti photo

Amulatic: I have left this response on my own talk page, too. Still unclear how you are notified of edits to your responses on talk pages, so I'm duplicating here:

I just heard from the subject, it appears the photo is after all a selfie, so this is for Amatulic (I'll also post this on your talk page), can you tell us what to do so that the photo can be left alone as is? Here are Cathy's words:

"Brian,

I had the photo taken at Sears for 10.00. It was a photo booth, not a human photographer. Amazingly, it turned out. There is no way I can get permission for this, as I said: photo booth."

Bwisok (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert query

I'm curious why you reverted my CSD tag on this I don't mind but just can't figure why it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted, so in that sense your CSD tag was already "used up". Then someone requested restoration at WP:REFUND, which is perfectly legitimate in accordance with WP:CSD#G13, so I restored it. See the deletion log here.

However, I restored it with your CSD tag still in place, so I simply reverted the most recent edit to get rid of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a restore request, that makes sense! It will take a lot of effort to make it encyclopedic from its current state, so that's why I didn't understand. Thanks for your explanation! JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Interested in closing a move discussion on The Beatles (album)?

I noticed you closed the previous discussion back in August 2011, so I was curious if you would be willing to settle the current discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014 once the 7 days are over on April 7? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't really see any new arguments there. Or consensus. I'll watch it and see how it pans out, although I'm reluctant to close the same topic of discussion twice. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I'll wait until the seven days are out and see if an admin comes along to close the discussion. In lieu of closing, could I ask your opinion on the strength or relevance of the official title argument that underpins much of the opposition to the move? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, I may still close it.

What wasn't established in the previous discussion is that "White Album" is the common name used by reliable sources. When there is no consensus among sources (as was the case in the last debate that I closed), then the fallback would be to use the official name.

In my view, the burden on those who argue in favor of the official name is to prove that reliable sources have no consensus. The burden on those who argue in favor of "White Album" is to prove that reliable sources do show a consensus. I'd like to see the discussion focus on that, instead if bickering over personal opinions. You did bring that up with a reference to hits on Google Scholar, which is a fairly decent point. I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the explanation. Putting The White Album into Google ngram is easy enough, although I am having difficulty finding a way to just display results for The Beatles independent of the band. Do you know a way to make Google Ngram italics-sensitive? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why I added the caveat "if it's meaningful" to my last comment. I know ngram is case-sensitive, but I don't know of any way to make it detect italics. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, I have added this graph to the rationale (which works upon pressing search), while stressing the lack of italics-only search. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a "snow close" at the discussion on the basis that we're being dragged through another discussion about something that has already been fairly decided. Would you consider closing now? Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SNOW does not apply here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself from the closing, and from making any further comments on the current discussion. Is that a problem? Radiopathy •talk• 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have not participated in the discussion. I am simply responding to comments left on my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a Google ngram viewer analysis too if it's meaningful. - why? And how do you figure a snow close doesn't apply - at this point, this is a disruptive nom.Radiopathy •talk• 21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because it may be helpful data for a reviewing administrator to make a decision. Please also read WP:SNOW. It applies for snowball consensus, which isn't evident as far as I can tell. If you want it closed early, find another administrator. I for one am going to let it run its course to see if a consensus emerges, and even then I may not close it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not promotional?

Let me just quote it.

Beliefs drive consumer behavior and as marketers stop relying on demographics they have typically looked at, and begin to monitor belief instead, they will recognize the value of Faith-Based Marketing.

Marketers need to be cognizant of the influence of the faith-based consumer on discretionary spending, media choices, and leisure activities.

You don’t need to look far to see that faith as a core value in many Americans’ lives cannot be understated.

And the demand for Faith-Based entertainment has not slowed down.

Entertainment industry analysts expect the faith-based trend is only going to continue to gain momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Faith-Based_Marketing

Ging287 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. A few lines out of an entire article don't warrant speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. The article does not require a complete re-write, so it doesn't qualify for deletion under G11. Simply remove those lines. If you disagree, take it to WP:AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your extraordinary patience and unfailing civility at Talk:Muhammad/images, you are hereby awarded a green pointy thing with a cup in front. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...

WP:REFUND is not WP:DRV. We can't !vote for overturn/relist there ES&L 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Too little sleep, and I've been trying to advise someone on OTRS on this matter, repeatedly advised her to use DRV and when she wrote that she did it, I unthinkingly followed her link without noticing it was REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of TINO Methodology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TINO Methodology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TINO Methodology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch deletion

Dear Amatulić, I see you deleted the page "Amanda_Eliasch" for, I suppose, valid reason, since there are several people editing it, I wonder could it be given chance to be corrected first to meet Wikipedia guidelines instead deleting it at once? Is there any chance to bring it up and let me correct it, since I know there might be reasons for your deletion? I would really appreciate it! Greetings from Zagreb and in any case I do prefer Plavac in any form, whether it is Mali, Madirazza, Plenković or Bura. :-)

All best, Vice

The reason can be found in the deletion log, in this case unambiguous promotion of the subject. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Anway, I'm happy to restore it to your user space for you to improve, if you wish. Just let me know.

By the way, I tasted a Serbian wine made from a grape called Granac and I swear it tasted just like Plavac Mali. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will try Granac if I stumble upon it! I tasted Californian Zinfandel / Grgich Hills which shares striking similarity to Plavac Mali.

Please restore the page if it's not a big deal, I'll refine it and make it factual, no idea whoever edited it what they did with it. The 'subject' is a friend of mine so I'll take care. Will edit next week when I get time, so if you can bring it up next week would be great! Thanks a lot!

All best, Vice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.157.77 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I need to know your username here (not your IP address), so that I can restore the page to your space for you to work on. I can't restore it to main article space. I have to "userfy" it. Alternately, if you do not wish to create an account, I can restore it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space for you to work on and submit for review when you think it's ready.

I was also wrong about the name of the wine grape. It's Vranac, not Granac. Sierra Ridge winery in Amador county grows and sells it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Registered, username: Sedamjedan. Oh yes, tasted Macedonian Vranac, I've been pleasantly surprised. If you didn't already, give it a try. A bit wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedamjedan (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I've tried it and I thought it tasted remarkably like Plavac Mali. At least the one sold at Sierra Ridge.

I have restored the article to your user space at User:Sedamjedan/Amanda Eliasch. Good luck with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

warnborough Edits

Dear Amatulic, I see you reverted a IP addressed change, this was to an irrelvant (website looking for links from Wikipedia) site. I wonder if you could review your changes, and help maintain that page in a true and proper form. thanks,

atb, Bob. BobLees (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your input regarding additional information on Stevia article

Hello, I noticed you were an essential contributor on the Stevia page and was hoping you might have some feedback on some information I would like to include on the Stevia wiki page. I wanted to include some information regarding a fermentation technology that produces a range of steviol glycosides, using sustainable, low-cost carbohydrate feedstocks, which can be sourced from virtually anywhere on the planet. Do you think this information is appropriate and if so, would I be able to fit this under History/Use, which should probably have more subsections (History, Use, Chemistry). Also, under "commercialization", do you think it would be appropriate to add some names of companies who produce biosynthetic Stevia (the actual plant). Thank you so much for your time!

173.58.72.206 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are reliable sources covering the topic, I'd say information about the production of steviol glycosides would be more appropriate in the steviol glycoside article, not so much the Stevia article, which is more about the plant itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Veron (software)

I think you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veron_%28software%29 article which in A7 criteria. Now i wrote an article on same topic in my sandbox for experiment User:FaisalNipun/sandbox. is this article appropriate for publishing in Wikipedia rule ? FaisalNipun (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you seem to have a conflict of interest regarding this subject (it's your software, correct?), please first read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit your article, which is the best approach for someone with a conflict of interest. There your article will be evaluated by a neutral reviewer and you will be given suggestions on how to improve it before publishing it to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Metronaut

Hi,

The PROD had already lapsed, so it makes little difference, practically speaking. The speedy deletion was at my own initiative, as the entire text of the article read "Metronaut is a Danish rock band from Copenhagen Denmark, formed in 2006. The band had their international radio debut on Radio Regen on April 15th 2014 at 22:41." I assume you believe that a international radio debut is an assertion of notability. I can respect that position, though I honestly disagree with it. I'm sure you understand that such a close question is a matter on which legitimate disagreement can exist. It was certainly not my intention to cause offense. I will amend the log. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Metronaut article had already been declined for speedy deletion twice before you deleted it.

The article, while short, nevertheless suggested to me that the band might meet WP:BAND criterion #12 (featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network). This would disqualify it from A7 because it's a credible claim of significance.

PROD vs A7 makes a difference procedurally: Articles deleted by PROD can be restored by request at WP:REFUND, but articles deleted by A7 cannot. I felt that the article deserved closer examination by the community.

Usually band articles are clearly deserving of A7 and I seem to delete them almost daily. This one was more ambiguous. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well-acquainted with the procedural difference between an A7 and a PROD. The reason I said (and I maintain) that there is little practical difference is very simple: I am quite liberal with userfications. Within the limits of policy (ie, excepting BLP issues, copyvio, Office Actions, personal attacks, etc.), I will gladly restore to userfy any speedy deleted content upon request, as I would have done for anyone who objected to Metronaut's deletion, speedy or otherwise.

If you sincerely believed that Metronaut deserved a wider hearing, you might have considered contesting the PROD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it had been prodded until I noticed it had been deleted, else I would have contested it. Anyway, userfication is an excellent alternative if you're agreeable. Let's wait and see if the author requests it. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding redirected username

Hello Amatulic. I have a question regarding the report related to the user named OGmuthafkkinDoc which apparently was redirected to OriginalDoc. Looking at the history of the pages this editor was editing shows the contributions were from the problematic username.[3][4] What would be the correct action for me to have taken under these circumstances? Thank you for taking time to consider this question.—John Cline (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and it is kind of confusing. The edits made by the problematic username were constructive, so WP:AIV wasn't really the place to report the username problem. Rather, WP:UAA is for reporting violations of Wikipedia:Username policy.

In this case, the user had already requested a username change. Administrator's can't rename accounts, only bureaucrats can do that. The bureaucrat Acalamari (if you look at the history of the redirect) is the person who renamed the account and redirected the old user pages to the new pages.

The confusing part is that there are still edits attributed to the old OGmuthafkinDoc name. I believe what happened is this: OGmuthafkinDoc had a long history of contributions. Acalamari moved those contributions to the new username, but the user was still logged in and making edits under the original username after Acalamari performed this move. He should have waited and logged in under his new account name. So we are left with some remnant contributions from the old account where there should be none; all should be attributed to the new account name. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful reply; kind too! I did make a mistake reporting the matter at AIV and I do know what spawned my error. I remain thankful that when at times I do err, the administrators I have observed at both UAA and AIV have consistently, without fail, set right the matter, while tactfully correcting the mistake in my premise. That being said, I wish to close my comment by speaking on two matters I have observed, as they relate to you. Foremost, thank you for all the fine things you have done as a contributor building this encyclopedia. And; the 3RR block atop this page is unequivocal BS! Without judging the person who placed the block, I judge the action logged as a manifestation of poor judgment. Also you handled it well – much better than I could have done. Bravo! Best regards—John Cline (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. Thanks. I've also asked Acalamari to look into it and see about getting those remaining edits re-attributed to the new account OroginalDoc. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Farhad shahnawaz

Hi, Just wanted to know the reason behind the deletion of the page i have created with new content. I am not able to figure it out fro the beginning. Please throw some light on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footfallexperts (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhad shahnawaz determined that the article should be deleted. Your attempts to recreate page in multiple places was considered disruptive, especially since a draft already existed at WP:AFC. Therefore, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farhad Shahnawaz for you to work on. Please get it into shape there and nowhere else, and submit it for review. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

More Albert Pyun vandalism

Albert Pyun has now created Cinema of Guam which needs to be deleted. He created the page using a sock aping various editors from Guam and another wiki editors. Page needs to be deleted. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson

By the time I saw your message, the page had already been deleted and the account has been blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

my account name

Hello, You wrote on my talk page: I must also mention that your account name implies shared use between two individuals. Is that the case? If not, you may want to mention that on your user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The name "Jack 'n Jill" was the name of my preschool. Auburn was the name of the town it was in.Jacknjillauburn (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

can you modify your protection to fall to auto confirmed after full protection falls off? There is and has been a long history of sockpuppetry by a banned user. half of the edit war is because the dob is an obsession. relevant info can be found at the SPI for User:Smauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, full and semi protections don't stack. One replaces the other, so I have to re-protect manually when it expires. Full/semi, create, and PCP all expire independently, but full and semi aren't independent of each other.

Notes to myself: article Shraddha Kapoor, full protection expires 19:53 12 May 2014 (UTC).

I set a reminder to myself on that date. Please ping me in case I forget. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection restored, set to expire in 1 year. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B11avm/sandbox

You declined the speedy here. I'd like to point out that this account has been used to promote a client [5] which was reverted [6], and created an article to promote the same client at Nyanza Autoparts which was deleted. That this auto parts company is a client can be verified by viewing the lower right of their website. The account is obviously being used to promote the business interests of BNP Digitalmedia. This sandbox article is nothing more than a vehicle intended to promote BNP Digitalmedia. There are no sources, no claim to notability/fame of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the sandbox article is straightforward and not unambiguously promotional, and there is no prohibition against anyone with a conflict of interest from editing. In fact, the sandbox article has a "Submit" link at the top for submitting it to WP:AFC, which is the recommended venue for anyone with a conflict of interest to submit articles.

Regardless of the user's history, the fact remains that if he wants to write an article about his client, starting it in the sandbox and submitting it to AFC is the correct approach. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

He's not writing about a client. He's writing about himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Even then, WP:AFC is the place to go to write an article about oneself or any other subject with which there's a conflict of interest. In a case like this it's best to give the user some WP:ROPE to do things right. If he hangs himself by trying to circumvent AFC, then a block may be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wilma.Franzese - About your conflict of interest

Dear Amatulic,

I would like to say that I am truly sad and sorry about what happened. I just wanted to save all the information to not to lose them. I didn't know that by clicking button´save´they will automatically appear on the Wikipedia page. Today I was supposed to make necessary changes (e.g. deleting dispensable links as to the Facebook page), but sadly I found out that my page had already been deleted. I can assure you that I am familiarized with all the relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. According to this situation, I would be extremely grateful if you could reconsider your decision and bring back my article, so I could reedit it (according to all the terms of using Wikipedia). However, if this is not possible, I would like to write it one more time, but without any errors or inaccuracies which could disturb Wikipedia policy.

Thanking you in advance. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Yours sincerely,

Wilma F.

I have restored the article User:Wilma.franzese/Schiano Bikes for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparent NLT vio at Right Sector talk

Apparent NLT vio by Darouet at Talk:Right Sector (13:37, 11 May 2014). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC:

? I see nothing resembling a legal threat in that edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never threatened anyone here or elsewhere, and I like Dervorguilla to boot. I think Dervorguilla is referring to my objection to labeling Anton Shekhovstov as a "self-style conspiracy theorist," but Dervorguilla correct me if I'm wrong. -Darouet (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

? I see the word "slander", which Darouet was doubtless using informally and which Dervorguilla finds it convenient to label a legal threat because it's also a term of law. As we know, Dervorguilla likes terms and forms of law a lot. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike. I see no legal threat anywhere. I see a short mention of an off-wiki legal threat against an off-wiki person (Shekhovtsov), but discussing a legal threat isn't anywhere near the same as actually making one on a talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood Darouet’s comment, Orange Mike (or Amatulić). Can you clear up a couple of points for me?
1. Which particular assertion does his comment identify as “slandering” somebody?
2. Who made that assertion? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My guesses:
1. The assertion that Anton Shekhovtsov is “a self-professed conspiracy theorist.”
2. A WP editor (in this case, Dervorguilla). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 05:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the basic issue–
Darouet’s comment begs the question of whether WP is slandering the named scholar. It then goes on to say that WP is slandering “the scholar who might be the most well-known researcher on this subject.”

Some helpful background material, from Black’s Law Dictionary (2009):

slander per se. Slander for which [actual harm] need not be proved, because it imputes to the plaintiff any one of the following: … (3) conduct that would adversely affect one’s business or profession…

and from AP Stylebook (2013):

Potentially libelous stories.… Transmission of a corrective may itself have legal consequences because it formally acknowledges an error.… There is always a risk that the clarification or retraction, while well-meaning, would undermine your position in a libel lawsuit.

So the issue here may be whether Darouet’s well-meant comment could perhaps undermine WP’s position in a libel suit. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Some policy, at NLT (emphasis added):

What is not a legal threat

A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat.

Perceived legal threats

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia…. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are … "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue….

A user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies … and require assistance in dealing with such comments.

Would it make sense to for an administrator to assist one or both users in understanding what the term “slander” means? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m withdrawing my request, in the hope that no more assertions by editors about other editors’ “slandering” will be made unless actually warranted. Thanks for listening! :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwertylaw

Take a look at the deleted edit, and you will see spamming. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was promotional, but the username "QwertyLaw" is not the same as AstapovLawyers, the entity being promoted. The block is fine, but technically not a username policy violation. I'd change the block message to {{uw-adblock}} with an indef=yes parameter. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fix a page?

Hey, can you fix the revisions for File:Windows 2000.png? I tried to delete the versions that had been deleted prior, but messed up and I'm not sure how to repair things. I figure it's better to ask someone else to step in at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs to be done, because I don't know which versions should be visible.

It might be cleanest simply to delete the entire thing, then restore the selected revisions.

Remember with an image, there are two groups to delete/restore: the page revisions, and the uploaded files. You delete page revisions just like with any other Wikipedia page. You delete the uploaded files from the page itself (scroll to the bottom and you see a "delete" link next to every uploaded version).

From the logs, I'm guessing that anything dated after 20 May 2011 would be restored, and anything before that would remain deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair use image, so what needs to be done is to delete all of the image revisions except the latest one but restore all of the page revisions. (Sorry for butting in here, but I sort of started this whole mess, so...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the entire page, then restored it all except for the most recent image. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering what's going on with this file, since my watchlist is bursting with entries about it. At first, I thought maybe you guys just want to restore and instead hide past revisions (per new instructions) but now... alright, would it be alright if I asked what is going on?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic posted a request at WP:REFUND to undelete some deleted uploads for review, and then delete them again. Tokyogirl tried to comply but had some confusion with the admin tools, since this was her first time using them on an image. Then she asked me (above) to clean up. So I did. That's what happened. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

? about RFPC

Just wondering why you're not using the {{RFPC}} template for standard responses on Request for Permisisons/Confirmed the panda ₯’ 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Two possible reasons:

(a) Because it's easier to use generic templates when I'm in a hurry.

(b) Because the canned responses are not what I want to say.

I do this on WP:REFUND too, but at least the template collection there includes a generic "not done" response. This isn't the case with RFPC, and I don't know enough about creating templates to rectify this.

Why? Does this break anything?

There's something broken in the software, by the way. Unconfirmed users who try to upload images are being shown what seems to be a hard-coded, non-configurable error message that instructs them to post a plea to RFPC, but we reject reject requests for confirmation when the reason given is a desire to upload images. Fixing this bug would likely eliminate a lot of requests on that page. I have posted notices about this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Confirmed#Correction needed to error message as well as to MediaWiki_talk:Permissionserrors#Correction needed (which controls the anonymous IP error message but not the unconfirmed register user message). So far no one has responded.

What would you suggest is the next step? Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well, 2 of your responses today matched the template ... so I was surprised to see you hand-type them. I'm not sure where that error is coded ... WP:VPT is likely next the panda ₯’ 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I hand-type about 1/3 of my WP:REFUND responses too. I don't frequent the page enough to memorize the response codes, and often typing out "Please read the big box at the top" seems quicker than looking up the code trying to find the right one, until I find myself typing something longer than I intended, and I curse myself for not thinking ahead. :) My last two responses were also far more succinct than the canned response. I suspect that few people read the responses anyway. In some cases I have followed up to the user talk pages and got no reply there either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability Rules - Please Elaborate!!!

Amatulic,

We just submitted an article for review and was rejected by you. You cited the notability rules as the grounds for rejection. However, all the references are notable, and the references are verifiable. One is the corpcounsel.com website, which is a reliable third party website and the other one is the United States Patent and Trademark Office's website. Can you elaborate on this? We have looked at many examples of other articles such as BSTZ for which Wikipedia has allowed submission. What is the difference between our submission and this other page? Thanks.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshadf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the comment I added in the article you submitted, where I elaborated on the reason for rejection. You provided zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The company's own web site, trivial mentions in a list, and a list of self-written documents (patents), do not establish notability. See WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Golden Rule for more information.

Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments about what else might exist on Wikipedia are irrelevant. Each article stands or falls on its own merits, independent of anything else that might exist. BSTZ is a poor article and would likely not survive a deletion discussion if nominated for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A question

Hi Amatulic, you are the protecting admin for article Vulfpeck. It was created and deleted several times, deletion log. I have rewritten and expanded the article with new references. What is the process for recreating the article? Bammesk (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Put it in your sandbox or in a subpage of your user space such as User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. I'll give it a look. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in User:Bammesk/Vulfpeck. Bammesk (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although it seems to be a WP:ONEEVENT case of notability, which we generally avoid. But the mainstream coverage is good, so I have moved the page to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool :) Thank you for reviewing the article. Bammesk (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:24February2007Reeling.jpg

Informal review requested, this appears to be have been deleted for being orphan. The uploader notes a permission was obtained, Worth checking OTRS? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I found this in OTRS ticket 2010012010016701. In fact that ticket asserts GDFL (not CC-by-SA) permission from "Andrew Threipland" for the following images:

• File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg
• File:24February2007Reeling.jpg
• File:FingaskFolliesatRoyalMedicalSociety2007.jpg
• File:FingasFollies2007KateF.jpg
• File:GubanovaThreiplandGovorkov.jpg
• File:FingaskMural&LoftyBuchanan2008.jpg

Since OTRS permission was obtained, these could be moved to Commons. Want me to restore them? ~Amatulić (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please!!! Be sure to update the {{information}} before transfer though :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll restore them here and tag with Copy to Commons. Not sure how to transfer images to Commons (never done it before), but I understand any user can do that, it doesn't require administrators. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored and re-tagged. Please perform any additional clean-up or formatting that might be needed for copying to Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg

Informal review requested, in the linked discussion, the uploader claims permission WAS obtained. OTRS check suggested.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I was unable to find that one in OTRS. I searched for variations too. In fact the only hits on "Freyberg" were unrelated permission requests regarding the German Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the uploaders talk page. If the OTRS was sent, it might need to be sent again :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for permission

Master Amatulic, I want to thank you for having faith in me and granting me special tools and permissions to preserve and embetter Wikipedia! That was fantastic! I started doing three reviews on articles and it was great!

Respects and bowing: The Mad Hatter (talk)

You're welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(Deleted) Uploads from User:Rodolph

• User_talk:Rodolph#Please_could_these_deletions_be_reviewed.

These were some that the uploader specifically mentions as being either, their image, or for which permissions were obtained. As with previous 'informal reviewing' an OTRS check is recommended, Although in the case of some items which may be PD-art (i.e a 17th century painting), they could be restored fairly quickly.

I would of course like to thank you in advance for doing this reviewing, and would appreciate you contacting the uploader directly to assist them in 'recovering' the images appropriately.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph

Thank you for your assistance and views so far.

I've asked for some wider views at WP:ANI,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reviewing_image_uploads_by_User:Rodolph Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh

We seem to have a bit of a difference of opinion with Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#QualityUnit ... my opinion matches User_talk:Randykitty#QualityUnit_Page the panda ₯’ 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I know we have no time limit, but I have re-deleted as G11, and kept my closing statement that EC'd with yours @ WP:REFUND the panda ₯’ 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I userfied the article to User:La cate35/QualityUnit because it seemed quite far from "irredeemably promotional". It has problems that make it more appropriate for AFC than main space (too much product detail and poor sourcing) but it was neutrally written and looked like it could be fixed up. I wouldn't have userfied it otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just A Man (1969 debut album)‎‎

Hi. I'm not sure how you missed the sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this article, but check out the history of User:Maitlandplace and User:Maitlandsplace, and note that the latter was blocked expressly for abuse of multiple accounts after picking up the business of the former account in creating articles surrounding a small group of musicians. Perhaps it was just that in my G5 I named the sockpuppeteer instead of the actual sockpuppet who created the article. If so, I can only say that I figured it was the sockpuppeteer I was supposed to identify, since the sockpuppet who wrote the article is apparent from the article's history. Anyway, I've resubmitted the article for G5, but this time I named the account that created the article, the one that has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how you missed the fact that the article does not qualify for G5, because it was not created in violation of any block or ban as G5 requires. It was created in October 2013, well before any block on either account, and there was no block evasion happening at the time of creation. Had I seen you re-tag it I would have reverted you and left you a warning. Nevertheless, I will not restore the article because it likely wouldn't survive AFD anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check again. If you look at the current state of the deleted page, you'll see that the version that was created in October 2013 was deleted in November 2013, on account of being a copyright violation. The edition of the article I submitted for deletion was brand new, created after the user had been blocked. Indeed, Maitlandplace/Maitlandsplace left a note just yesterday at Requests for Undeletion reading "This is the new page about his first album i created ..." [emphasis mine]. (She's used Requests for Undeletion several times in the last few days to ask that an existing article she'd created not be deleted.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I stand corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Link Removal: Article Meditation

Please refrain from removing relevant links that do not violate Wikipedia's policies as you did with the article, Meditation. Thank You. 96.249.193.79 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your link violates WP:ELNO, and now you are blocked for edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Need your additional comments on declined article

Hi! Could you please check the external links in the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unison RTOS: all external links redirect to different reviews and articles from independent experts (except the second one - it links to official website). Also I need your help about your comment "the submission reads like a brochure, with too much unnecessary detail" - I tried to create this article as some alike (Unix) - so I just do not understand what I need to change. Thank you in advance for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide examples of sources that constitute reviews by independent experts, and show how they are referenced in the article. Honestly, I don't see any. The two inline sources currently in the article cite the inventor, so those sources are not independent and do not constitute coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources as required. The links you provided are simply product description pages, not coverage of the topic as required. The details about components and features are not useful information for a layperson wanting to learn about the subject and make the article appear like a product brochure aimed at industry insiders. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for comments!

What can advise about this article: http://www.m2mevolution.com/ - that is independent review by rather respected person.
Or this one: http://enewschannels.com/ - it is also the riview by independent author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The M2M article is OK, but still marginal, because it's reporting on the company's own press release rather than engaging in independent coverage.

As for the other one on enewschannels, you gotta be kidding. That's a press release that was given to the author to publish. It is not independent. Verbatim identical press releases can be found on press release sites such as this one. Press releases are not acceptable, even if they are parroted by an "independent" author.

To be independent, a source must have no connection to the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

KEN Greenbook

With regards to your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KEN_Greenbook#Page_moved ... the changes have been made. Kindly approve. Thank you.KEN Greenbook (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. The article still has serious problems and cannot be approved until corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

DPT Laboratories

Hi Amatulic. Per your comment at Requests for undeletion, I'm requesting a move of DPT Laboratories. to draft namespace at Draft:DPT Laboratories or to userspace at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Laboratories1. The company is notable per the sources, and I'd like to examine the article in hopes to improve it. I have notified User:INeverCry on their talk page and it was archived. I reposted it, and it was archived again. I believe this article may have been deleted due to an error in which assertion of significance regarding the company was mistaken as advertising or promotional. Please respond at your convenience. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored it to Draft space. There was no point restoring the talk page as it contained only one Wikiproject template, no discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response to this request. Sincerely, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Afusat Saliu

I wish to request that you re-examine the speedy deletion of Afusat Saliu. This was originally proposed under A7, no assertion of significance, but you invoked WP:BLP1E, famous for only one thing, which may or may not apply in this case, but is not grounds for speedy deletion, and is not the same as A7. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't invoke BLP1E as a reason for speedily deleting it, I mentioned it in the rationale for the purpose of saying "see this also, Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on people famous for only one thing."

I deleted the article because there was no assertion of significance. Many people face deportation. That is not significant. Many girls in Nigeria are subjected to genital mutilation. The fact that two girls face this prospect is unfortunate, but also not significant. The fact that many people signed a petition is also not significant; this happens every day on petition web sites.

Given those facts, and the fact that the only coverage of the person is in relation to a single event, the article would likely not survive WP:AFD if nominated for deletion due to WP:BLP1E. Therefore I deemed the speedy deletion of the article to be uncontroversial and in accordance with WP:CSD#A7.

I offer you three options:

• If you wish to have it restored to main article space, you may open a case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, citing this section on my talk page.
• I can restore the article to your user space for you to improve further at your leisure, bearing in mind that a biography article based on a single event will be nominated for AFD when moved back to main space and likely not survive.
• It may turn out that the notable topic is not the person, but the controversy, in which case the article should not be written as a biography, in which case you should either re-write it as an article about the controversy, or expand our existing article on female genital mutilation.

~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish to open a case at deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Afusat Saliu

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afusat Saliu. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy-restored the article's history to facilitate discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

Just a heads-up, I've nominated this for deletion as a copyvio of http://www.commoncause.in/nl/july-sep12/6.html which was modified "Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM" according to my web browser. It is very likely that the text on the commoncause web page was written before July 2012.

On January 15, 2013 you deleted a version as a BLPPROD. If the deleted version is basically another copy of what is there now and what is on the commoncause page, AND if that page was added to Wikipedia before "January 02, 2013 11:19:42 PM," then the copyright-violation is no longer clear.

If the version you deleted is completely different and not an obvious non-starter, then consider restoring it and adding the sources listed in the copyvio version to the talk page as possible sources and re-start the BLPPROD clock. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed this to a suspected copyright violation per the above and per the comments on the contested deletion, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 31. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the correct way to go about it. If there's no response in a week, remind me and I'll delete the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you check the dates and content of the deleted version? If the dates are early enough and the content is nearly identical, the current version may not be a copyvio. If the content is not the same, it may be a useful replacement for the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The most recently deleted version is from 14 January, and has just one paragraph consisting of 3 sentences that are nearly identical to the most recent lead 3 sentences currently replaced by the copyvio tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Telerik

Hi,

I want to thank you for not deleting the Telerik page outright. I've reworked the page and submitted it for review. I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's likely to pass muster? I'd hate to go through a three week process and have to go back to step one.

Thanks, MaximZero (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it still comes across as somewhat promotional overall. If it is rejected, you don't have to go back to step 1, you just have to revise it until it's acceptable.

Some advice that may help: the lead section of any encyclopedia article should serve only as an overview summary of the rest of the article. It should not cover topics that aren't covered in more detail later (for example, Telerik Platform and the pledge to create an education platform aren't mentioned anywhere else). You should just have a briefer sentence about each and provide more detail in the article body. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

You reverted my edits to this article without understanding what is going on. If every First and Biggest is to be included in that article, then that article will become too big and probably an encyclopedia onto itself. The history of talkpage of that article clarifies the situation. For example I deleted the entry of "First to leave Gold standard" and the "Tallest building". If we have to include every first, eg. First car, First Republic, First paper currency, First diaper, First tap water, Tallest tree, Tallest antenna, Tallest ....

You know where it will go. It will be only a matter of time before that article will be flooded by people wanting to include their tallest, biggest and firstest. And then it will be the end of that article.

Anyways, why I am giving a damn? To hell with it.--103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what is going on: you were edit-warring. The article has clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which you evidently did not bother to read, and have resorted to edit-warring.

Similar arguments to yours have been made for other list articles such as List of common misconceptions, in spite of the well-defined criteria for inclusion that have evolved by community consensus.

If you want to change the criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. Edit warring will not resolve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic, I am in the process of working on this page with Wikipedia help team. Thanks.