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!

User talk:67.168.135.45

Although I understand that you are trying to encourage using an account, and more effectively than I tried, I do consider this comment [1] to be a bit strong and factually incorrect - a single (aborted) error, not even using rollback. More importantly, is the lack of AGF. Encouraging need not come at the expense of others? Widefox (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider the comment factually incorrect, and I apologize if a lack of good faith on your part was implied; that was not intentional, and the message was meant for the benefit of someone else. I appreciate and thank you for your understanding, and your final point is well taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Not wishing to labour the technical point - and I'm sure you know this better than me - but to ensure we're all on the same page - no rollback right was used in error (it was Twinkle), but yes rollback was removed until I explained my error. (I did point-out the irony - however understandable - of removing rollback for a non-rollback error with the other admin). Widefox (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on User_talk:Tarc

Hi Amatuilic! I really appreciate your comments. It's really nice of you to look out for me.

You said:

As an admin myself, I appreciate your goal of being one. However, your account has been active only since January and you haven't even tallied up 1000 edits in main article space. I don't mean to disillusion you, but an WP:RFA for you would be highly premature, and dead on arrival, based on my experience with RFAs. That doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good admin, but you simply haven't yet established an extensive record of participation that the community can examine and trust. I suggest you wait at least until you have a few thousand main space edits under your belt, and try it.

I'll also add that being an admin is really like being a janitor. There is no "leadership" implied by the position. I am continually amazed that people seem to think so. It's a lot of drudge work. If you enjoy contributing to quality content here, you may find that adminship involves a lot of cleanup, housekeeping, preventing disruption, etc., and that takes time away from making quality contributions. Wikipedia needs more good editors more than anything else. I hope you stay. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This merits clarification. I don't have any "burning desire" to be an admin. Didn't plat to submit an RFA tomorrow. If we need more admins, I'd we willing to try, but if it seems like we have enough admins, I'm happy to sit back and just edit. I have no interest in blocking, banned, closing RFCs, or anything that controversial I have noticed that I _do_ need ViewDeleted to intelligently participate in XFD.

Everyone has to pay their dues. My need to "view delete" isn't urgnent or case-specific-- it's just something I thinK I can be trustedto do.

But-- I'm at a crossroads. I can't accept being "doomed' to second class because of my wik-political politcs. If WP doesn't weclome me, I could alsom move to a different platform. I think it's preferable to reach out to a coaliston of my fremies and ask what they think about my general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedia.

If Tarc and others like him want to "sink" my inclusion in to the community, he can-- immediately or a year from now. I won't presume to decide which is the best answer for Wikipedia--- but I want to know whether the communities consideres me 'Welcome' or not. No point in wasting a year just if I'm just going to be rejected-- there are other venues.

I believe in Wikipedia, I want to believe all good-faith editors are on-track to become "full fledged member". If that's no realistic, I'll can always branch outward and find other platform and t start a blog. But I 'want' to join the WP community, if my "political opponents" agree I have the moral character for the job. --HectorMoffet (talk)

You have some misconceptions still.

There isn't a "second class" except maybe for a technical distinction between autoconfirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors who don't yet have 10 edits. There are additional user rights you can have also without being an admin, and some are "administrative" rights. This is not a complete list:

• reviewer
• account creator
• IP block exempt
• rollbacker - this used to be an admin-only function
• autopatrolled
• file mover
• edit filter manager

Beyond that, there are no distinctions; your "class" is a continuum, a function of the respect you have gained from the community as a result of your participation. And that takes time.

Some of our most productive editors with the highest edit counts have chosen not to become administrators; they are hardly "doomed" to be second class.

The only valid reason to become an admin, in my opinion, is if you're interested in picking up the mop and helping out with backlogs. There is so much to do that there's no time left for productive editing. Once in a while I take a wikibreak (like I'm trying to do now, see the top of my page) and edit as an anonymous IP, without being concerned by the admin duties I'm taking a break from. It can be draining. There is no end of AfDs to close, no end of articles needing a decision about speedy deletion, no end to article protection requests, no end to usernames requiring attention, no end to preventing disruption from spammers and vandals, no end to reviewing unblock requests, no end to analyzing blacklist and whitelist requests, no end to sockpuppetry investigations, no end to ArbCom enforcement discussions, etc. Gaining access to a few additional tools comes with an unwanted burden that turns away experienced editors who are more interested in contributing good content.

Since I started six years ago, I have never needed to view deleted contributions to participate in any XFD discussion. Even as an admin, I don't need to view deleted contributions for XfD. The only thing I need it for are speedy-delete decisions. I can't see why anyone would need it for XfD. I suppose it's a convenience, and I recall it has been discussed in the community to grant this right to trusted editors, not just admins. I don't know the current status. This happened with rollback, which used to be an admin-only right, but now any trusted editor can have it by asking an admin to grant it.

Your general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedian is to uphold the five pillars as best you can. Be neutral, don't push a personal point of view, be civil and understanding to others, be bold and edit. Refrain from edit warring even if others don't. It's pretty simple, really. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think all those things you say were true of Wikipedia. Six years ago, it was No Big Deal. Everyone knew everyone else, rednames and IP editors got equal respect, etc.

I grow increasingly skeptical if the ideology we shared is still an accurate reflection of how people actually treat each other on our project. The "admin-vandalfighters" seem to be getting distant from the mainstream of the Writer/Editor community.

Most of the admin tools are No Big Deal. But a few are a big deal. We give vastly more oversight to inter-admin disputes. Admins can view deleted, a huge huge advantage in some discussions. Admins have special "approved" venues for off-wiki collaboration.

If it's "no big deal" why are there so few new admins compared to the past? Six years ago, you could get adminship almost on a handshake, whereas now I understand very few potential admins ever make it through the process.

And I personally don't want to try, based on the fact that RFA is such reportedly such a negative experience. but I'm interested in whether my behavior to date is incompatible with future inclusion in the ranks.

I used to believe the theory you share: "Admins are separate group of editors, but all editors all are equal." Unfortunately, group dynamics trump fancy words-- in practice, separate gives rise to unequal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OotS

Well, I think that biographies of the antagonists of OotS should be included only in the article about the OotS characters, like in the case of the main characters. Mithoron (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Anachronist. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Leif Ericson

Hello Amatulic, I was reading the article on Leif Ericson and noticed that the Icelandic version of the name was missing at the beginning (currently only Old Norse and Norwegian).

As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I wanted to check with you, if it was ok that I (or you) added it?

In short, I'm proposing this addition:

Icelandic: Leifur Eiríksson;

Best regards from Iceland, Omnis

Omnis73 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection simply prevents anonymous IP addresses and newly-created accounts from editing the article. Semi-protection was necessary because that article seemed to attract vandals for some reason. Nothing prevents you from making any necessary changes. Go right ahead, be bold and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Android (operating system) > Marketing Section Edit

Hello Amatulic!

I am a new user and wanted to kindly ask your help to make a correction for Android (operating system) page, Marketing section. As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I still can't make edits to that :) I added Edit Request to the talk page, but I am not sure if anyone saw this yet. I was hoping you can help me edit the page, please.

In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team."

Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo (it spells Android). Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

--Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) --Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could use some admin advice

Hey Amatulic! I could really use some advice on how to deal with an issue that is unfortunately starting to spread to other Wikipedia pages. Essentially I want to know if I have cause to go to the WP:RM page and request the admins there to close what I feel is a premature (and slightly bad faith page move).
Here's the short and sweet: An editor at Talk:Champagne expressed a desire to change all reference to Champagne to lowercase. After he encountered some concern and opposition to his wishes, he still went ahead and unilaterally did what he wanted anyways (Kind of BRD turned into Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways :P). Thankfully, he just did this once and responded to the plea to let discussion continue so we could have some kind of real consensus emerge. While discussion has emerged and with one editor on his side, one a slight lean, two opposed and some anons/new users chiming in more or less opposed, it is still pretty mixed with no consensus. This would be fine except now this editor has decided to drag this secondary pages involving Champagne and has opened up a page move request for Talk:History of Champagne to lowercase the title. (Kinda odd since the article is also about the winemaking history of the Champenois in the region, but hey) This, again, seems a bit bad faith and a heavy handed way to try to "force" consensus back on the primary Champagne page by getting this page move to go through. So is this cause enough to go to the WP:RM page? What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you in opposition of the RM some weeks ago that promoted Champagne (wine) to the primary topic Champagne? I don't see how that matters to the present debate which involves the capitalization not of the article title, but of the word as used in the article body. A RM won't change the content, just the title, and the title is already capitalized according to Wikipedia convention. I have closed the RM proposal on History of Champagne on the grounds that a contentious disagreement should be resolved before renaming related articles, instead of spreading the disagreement to multiple fronts.

"No consensus" on Wikipedia means "maintain the status quo" but if you want an official "no consensus" result, you need to have a discussion that has an end point (that is, an admin can close it and judge whether there's a consensus or not). For that you need an RFC. Otherwise you can wait until an open-ended discussion shows a consensus emerging.

Another alternative would be to propose clarifications to MOS:CAPS, which is a flawed guideline that could use clarification, in my opinion, although attempting to change it isn't likely to be fruitful considering the pedantry I've seen in the past from the protectors of that guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I wasn't here to participate, I can't take too much qualm with the original Champagne (wine) move. In all honesty, I probably would have been a weak support since the French wine does seem like it is the primary topic but I can see a strong case for Champagne staying as a disambig page too. As for this current discussion involving capitalization, all I really wanted to see a good faith effort made towards continuing the discussion rather than trying to strong arm one POV on how things should with back door stuff like RMs on secondary pages. For the most part, it feels like the conversation has been pretty constructive (even if long-winded, my specialty :P). But there has been a diverse set of view points presented and some great contributions from editors like User:Encycloshave who have really taken this thing apart and looked at it from a variety of angles. Whether we'll come to a consensus or a "no consensus", I don't know but at least we'll let the Wikipedia process work its way out like it should. Thanks Amatulic for your time! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"History of Champagne" on ANI

Put the History of Champagne RM on ANI here. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good. I had just proposed you do that over on Talk:History of Champagne. Always good to get a second opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion Thanks

A final final final note (yes I know that is pathetic) I have left a new section on the Alkaline Diet Talk page about the blatant bias there. I had presented the text of the holy secondary source they all love to champion, showing that the source confuses blood pH and body pH. One of the people who have been attacking me there then attacked MY use of the term blood pH, not realizing that I was quoting their favorite secondary source. They actually made a good case why anyone using that term has no idea what they are talking about. They did this to discredit ME, when they actually discredited the very source they have been aggressively defending. It is obvious they are biased. There is a team of them. I am done there. I hope that you know the process to take this further and have them restrained. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to do that, and I also don't care enough to fight that battle. Since you did get involved maybe you want to do something about that. In the end it is clear they are unfamiliar with the diet, yet happy to attack something they don't understand, as evidenced by their questions about the diet. I read three books on the diet. I don't follow it and I'm not promoting it. I just happened to pass by the page and saw something written there that was completely inconsistent with the details of the three books I read. 2 days later and I now understand why that page is so incorrect. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PS on a personal note I have been to over 50 countries, many of the same ones you have, and I can say there is some good stuff south of the equator, and I hope you get there some day. I am born in Australia so I guess I am biased... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A final final note (sorry), I seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia. If a primary source cannot be used as evidence of itself, but a secondary source, which is attacking and criticizing that primary source, in contradiction of the facts of the primary source, is used to define the primary source, what is the point of Wikipedia? Someone said that if 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl, then Wikipedia would say that he is a girl, despite the primary source showing he is a boy. Is that the way this thing really works? If so then it seems pretty nuts to me. Maybe the fault is in the setup of the system, not the people using the system? I don't know. As a moderator I assume you understand these things. Perhaps I just totally missed the point of Wikipedia. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, thank you for your third opinion on the Alkaline Diet Talk page. As someone new to Wikipedia editing I am also sadly leaving it. I have done my best to provide some logic and reason to the situation there and I have found none forthcoming. I appreciate your attempts to be involved. I don't understand the Wiki system and I have lost patience trying. Below is my last post on this talk page and probably my last on any talk page. I don't know the technical term for it in "Wiki Language" so I will just say that these people seem to want to own that page and anything that does not agree with their negative view of the diet is rejected. I am not the first person to form that opinion on the talk page. I wish you the best in your Wiki adventures. Take care and thanks. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol, it is good to see that you are asking me for sources and not providing them yourself. It is good to see that you have demanded them of me in the same sentence that you say that you are not obliged to provide them. It is good to see that you say no one is obliged to prove anything to me while you require me to prove my statements to you. I will do as Ronz does and quote a Wiki page about my viewpoint of this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard. I also note that while Ronz was happy to make his comments, when he was asked for sources he went silent. I have learned that Wikipedia is not about facts, it is about consensus. The consensus I have seen on this talk page is that this article is biased. I have enjoyed seeing that people who have no knowledge of the details of a diet are able to pass judgement on that diet. I have enjoyed my time as a Wikipedia editor, and like others before me here I leave you now with your precious Alkaline Diet page which you clearly believe you own. In a sense you do own it between the four of you as you block any opinion here other than your own. You all know how to play the Wiki game to get your own way here. I am fortunate that I do not know how to play these Wiki games. I will now go back to my life... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, can you please warn this editor of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and log the warning in the appropriate place? His editing is starting to cross into WP:TE and he's apparently got a bit of wax in his ears. Thanks. SÆdon^talk 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, that goes both ways. You are both making valid points but not trying to understand the other's point of view. The anon's opponents seem to be unaware of the distinction between secondary sources and secondhand information, as well as when primary sources are appropriate to use. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I did anything out of line on that page so I'm not sure what you would warn me about, especially in regards to discretionary sanctions; at the most you could say that there was a slight misunderstanding between you and I over the proper use of sources, and that's fine. I now understand your point and I don't disagree. However, I'm not willing to wade through 10,000 kilobyte walls of text replete with accusations of bias and bad faith to find the two sentences in his post that actually address the topic.

I will eventually go in and fix the problems with the page, but one of the problems is not that the Harvard source is a straw man. The nit-picking between the words "alter" and "affect" came off to me as a simple case of semantics, where the main point is that the sense of the words is to refer to "change," which is what the diet purports to do and what the Harvard source says the diet can't do. So what's the option then, to say something like "While Dr. so and so has said blood pH will barely change and only for a short time, proponents of the diet posit that the diet doesn't claim to change blood pH, just to affect it." What the difference is between "changing" and "affecting" is beyond me, but the Harvard source says the blood pH can't be significantly changed by the diet and the diet site says the diet affects blood pH explicitly. Sounds to me like standard fringe POV pushing using a semantics argument to discredit a source that criticizes a POV that is obviously dear to this person. SÆdon^talk 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page, since you copied your second paragraph there. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. You are one of the good guys. I've left a long comment (yes another wall of text) on the Alkaline Diet page and now I am done with Wikipedia. Success in your life. Maximus 86.93.139.223 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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.[2] 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)

TalkBack

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.

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: [3], [4], and [5]. 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)

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

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

[6] 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)