Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:52, 11 December 2011

Amatulić is busy on weekends and some weekdays due to real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

My reference links

ED and the spam blacklist

I know you've already added the ed.ch site link to the XLinkBot, so it is essentially already blacklisted because of that and this new info doesn't change anything in regards to that, but you might still want to read this section and comment that I made at the blacklist talk page section. Silverseren 07:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a comment on Meta. I'm likely to blacklist it on Misplaced Pages if it doesn't happen on Meta in the next few weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Should User:H644444 be blocked or what for creating the .ch article on me? I don't know what the rules are on this, since it's off-wiki activity. But he's still editing the page, it doesn't appear to be just a one-time thing he did. Silverseren 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's something you may want to ask on WP:ANI. Because blocks aren't meant to be punitive, but rather are intended to prevent disruption on Misplaced Pages, I think blocking would be justified only if he's attacking you on Misplaced Pages or engaging in other disruption. Other admins may have different views. It's worth asking. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Section is here, if you would like to contribute. Silverseren 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been long enough

It's been two months and nothing has been happening on Meta. The last reply to the Meta section was on May 14th and nothing has been done. There have been two attempts] in the past day to add a direct link to the .ch site. I fear that .ch users may be gearing up for another push on the article to include a direct link, now that we have enough reliable sources that it is feasible to say the existence of the fork in the article itself. What should be done here? Silverseren 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post the above over on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#New_info to expand the record there, and I will take action. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And done. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent deletion

When deleting redirects you declare "implqausible" please try and check "what links here" first. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right. I shouldn't be doing stuff on Misplaced Pages after three straight days with no sleep. Sorry about that. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Swiss supercentenarians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Swiss supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss supercentenarians 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Themr has resurfaced, back to same practice of adding insulting terms about other Muslim sects

Greetings, User:Themr tairq joined us around this February, and has done little but get repeatedly warned for putting insulting terms into articles about non-Barelvi Muslims. He'd been gone since March, popped back to do the same in May, and came back again today to do the exact same thing he's been warned of for months, and 72hr blocked previously.

Here's my current warning to him: User_talk:Themr_tairq#Addition_of_honorifics_and_insulting_language_at_List_of_modern-day_Muslim_scholars, and the diff, which also included adding lengthy honorifics to Barelvi scholars. Do we need to see more of a this-week pattern of POV-pushing and hate-speech, or can he be blocked for clear and consistent malicious intent? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The user is blocked indefinitely. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you can only warn a guy so many times... Awfully consistent editing philosophy he had. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Owl and the Pussycat musical settings

Please could I mention something about the musical settings of The Owl and the Pussycat? I tried to mention that Elton Hayes did not compose the tune on his recording, but used the setting by Victor Hely-Hutchinson. I mention this because you may have inadvertently deleted it when you were removing the vandalism on the article. I also think it should be OK to mention the Rutter and Humphrey Searle settings, except that the Searle version is spoken and not sung.

Also, if you have a look at the credits of the original Elton Hayes recording you'll see that it credits Victor Hely-Hutchinson as the composer. The other Elton Hayes recordings of Edward Lear also credit a composer of the musical settings that he recorded. Elton Hayes recorded the Dudley Glass settings of The Jumblies, The Quangle-Wangle's Hat, The Duck and the Kangaroo, The Table and the Chair and The Broom, the Shovel, the Poker and the Tongs.Yip1982 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the previous revert. Your edits look fine, although it would be better if you could reference some sources there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR

• Smilingfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Right after you've warned him, he did it again within 3 minutes. --Dave 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And then he removed the warnings from his talk page, which is fine, but if that removal turns out to be a false sign of acknowledgment, then I'll take appropriate action. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not when he is purposely and deliberately gaming the system, as stated in 3RR, even outside the 24 hours period is considered as a violation of 3RR. This thing has been going for over two weeks now and I still don't see any improvement on his part, because everytime he is here, he always does something (sneaky POV edits) that is sure to cause another round of edit warring with the other regular editors. --Dave 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You left a good comment on his talk page. I will act on his next disruptive move. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Amtulic, could you provide some sanity check on Talk:Singapore#Full page protection against persistent edit warring by Smilingfrog? IDK, am I being too sensitive? Because I got a feeling the jerk is trying to bait me. --Dave 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why I don't autoarchive my talk page

The pace at which I receive messages has tended to vary. A couple of years ago I was requiring an archive every few months. Now things have slowed down again.

And, basically, I just like to do it myself. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just mentioned it because the comment gave me the impression that you'd rather not have to do it yourself.

The pace on this page varies too. Since I became an admin I've had reduce the age of archivable items to six months. Used to be 1 year. If nothing happens for several months the archiver will leave a couple of threads on the page by default. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking of which (which I wasn't - just a wp:TPS!), 70+ sections here now ... :) Trafford09 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Currentware

The only edits were to the article BrowseControl, in which we read "BrowseControl is a program developed by CurrentWare". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek mythology - more splitting

Hiya. I know you've worked on the above article, so I thought I'd canvass your opinion

re Talk:Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Further_splitting_into_sub-articles.

If you'd care to add any views there, that'd be great. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

re 'Logo' article

I was just reading it for information, and made some grammatical changes for consistency. However, I wasn't able to understand the following non-sentence sufficiently to fix it confidence: "Currently, the usage of both images (ideograms) and the company name (logotype) to emphasize the name instead of the supporting graphic portion and making it unique, by it non-formulaic construction via the desiginal use of its letters, colors and any additional graphic elements." Since you've been a frequent editor of this entry, w'd you attend to it? Thanks. Alethe (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That makes no sense to me either. It wasn't something I added (most of my contributions to that article have consisted of removing linkspam). Let me look at the entire article again, maybe I can fix it based on context. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

About a block you made...

"01:01, 6 August 2011 Amatulic (talk | contribs) blocked Avrailavairllavalava (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)" I understand the block, (in fact, I actually supported it) I just wish to ask if there was a good reason why you didn't enable auto-block. LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I did. I just re-blocked again to make sure. Auto-block doesn't show up in the automatically-generated description in the block log. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized it would say "Autoblock Disabled" instead of "Autoblock enabled". My bad. :D I guess I forgot that, even though I have my own wiki, (shameless plugging ftw) even if my own isn't really being used for much. LikeLakers2 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I saw your post on another talk page for a blocked user and was happy to see that person took your advice The.thanker (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Magic (band)

You turned down the speedy deletion on the above article, could you explain how or where it credibly indicated the importance or significance of the subject? Thanks Mo ainm~Talk 00:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no explicit indication in the article, but after looking around, it seemed to me that this band may be notable. The band is clearly prolific, has had some minor news coverage (as far as I can tell), it's possible that they're actually earning a living doing this, their productions are polished and professional, and they have a fan base. It almost seemed as if they have a publisher, although everything they do could be self-published. Because the notability status was not clear-cut to me, I declined to speedy-delete the article. I'd rather give the article a chance to flesh out, or have a larger audience look at it in an AfD debate, rather than one admin making a decision to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean you viewed the YouTube link that they had in the article, because I searched before I placed the speedy tag and couldn't find anything that would indicate any sort of notability, the rest or your rational is your opinion that is backed up by nothing except a hunch due to their productions being polished and professional, maybe they have a rich daddy. But suppose the community will decide at the AfD. Mo ainm~Talk 01:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fushing"

I appreciate your concern, and congratulate your vigilance, but I belive you were mistaken in deleting my page "Fushing". It is not a "blatant hoax", but a tongue-in-cheek description of a new idea which we are currently promoting; and of which all readers will get the joke. It is a genuine topic, one whose popularity is on a steady upward graph, and therefore merits a wikepedia page written by the creators while still in its infancy. The humourous tone within is befitting the overall tone of our project; not an attempt at pervading misinformation; and there are no factual lies in the description. If your concern was a lack of bibliographical support, the page was only a first draft, and was in line to be edited and contributed to by my collegues; a process obliterated by the haste of your "speedy delete". I will appreciate your correspondence on this issue, and will likewise be disappointed should this go ignored. Sincerely Englishbubble (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Robert@englishbubble.com

(please forgive if this communciation is in the wrong channel, I am new to Wikepedia and its intricacies)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Even if the topic of your article wasn't a hoax, Misplaced Pages is not a channel for promoting your new ideas, particularly ideas that fail to meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, in particular:

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary
• Misplaced Pages:No original research
• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, particularly Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion
• Misplaced Pages:Notability - general guideline of inclusion criteria for article topics

Constructive contributions are always welcome. I suggest, if you are new to Misplaced Pages and you want to write an article, don't write drafts in main article space. Create it as a sub-page on your userpage first (like User:Englishbubble/Draft article for example). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Deletion

Hi Amatulic,

I created an article at User:Forcrist and asked that it might be moved to a standalone article, Cindy Williamson, which an editor did (and for which I am thankful). However, you deleted the article with the note "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)"

The deletion seems unfair. I had a number of links showing articles and websites that referred to Cindy's work, at least one praised her, and others showed examples of her work for sale in prominent galleries. I followed the standards and guidelines as best I could.

Would you reconsider your action? Thanks ahead of time for any actions you take or advice you care to give. (I really do want to learn how to do this well.)

Warmly, Don Huntington (Forcrist (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't see your message because you stuck it at the top of my talk page, rather than the bottom, and then others put more messages at the bottom.

The person who moved your article also nominated that article for deletion. Apparently he viewed the subject as failing to meet the criteria for inclusion described in WP:ARTIST. After examining the article, I agreed. If you wish, I can restore it back to your user space for continued improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Islam, Moon and NASA.

Hello Amatulic. How are you?

I added to Splitting of the moon‎ page the following: NASA says about the Moon: "it is the result of two bodies colliding with one another!". .

Then you have removed it and wrote the following: "it is unclear what this has to do with the topic, although it's an interesting fact".

So, I came here to clear what this has to do with the topic.

According to Islam, the moon was cleft asunder and it became two parts. Islam dose not claim that this has lasted for ever which means that the moon now is the result of two bodies colliding with one another.

That was according to Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388: "The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts". .

English is not my 1st language, but I hope that I made it clear now. Have a nice day. شرف الذين (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize for my own lack of clarity in the edit summary. I removed your addition because it had nothing to do with the topic of the section you edited. If you look further down the article, there's another section that discusses the theories of how the moon formed. Your addition would have fit better in that section, although it would have been unnecessary because the text already in the article is sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You welcome. NP. If you look further on my edit above here, there's no theory in it. NASA was talking about a fact, not a theory. The Moon was the result of two bodies colliding with one another is a fact. But, There are theories about how and when that happened, and I did not talk about them in my edit at all. Have a nice day. شرف الذين (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that isn't established that the moon is made up of two bodies. That's just the prevailing view. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see edit warring, just vocal policy-based arguing of a point. Perhaps belaboring it a bit. I'm happy to let the debate go on until a consensus emerges and then close it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatles

Hey - nice work on the Beatles (album) close. That was a tough one, and I think you did a good job in your analysis. Dohn joe (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GAYOT.com

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your prompt response concerning our request for being removed from the blacklist. Your response was totally fair and well-founded, and thank you very much for taking the time to write us back. Thanks again for your help! --Sslater4 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Villyan Bijev

Hello. I believe you recommended a speedy deletion of the article I constructed yesterday on the Liverpool FC footballer Villyan Bijev. Appreciating that the word 'speedy' was clearly significant in this case, I contested the deletion as soon as I saw that it had been nominated. Despite this, however, it disappeared within minutes before I was fully able to understand the criteria that had been applied. I am a football writer, author and journalist and have been trying to ease my way into a role at Misplaced Pages, including joining the official football forums here. (I have noticed that this is a subject area in which there is a need for more authoritative and well-written material.) So I'd really like to understand what the issues were here. In my submission questioning the speedy deletion I explained that Bijev is worthy of a biographical page and that I had constructed it according to a standard template with a range of reputable sources. Was there some other issue in play here? I would really appreciate some help here. Many thanks. grj1958 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Villyan Bijev. The criteria are linked to in that discussion. Also Misplaced Pages has a policy of preventing re-creation of an article after an "articles for deletion" discussion determines it should be deleted.

I am not familiar with football, so if this individual has somehow managed to meet the inclusion criteria within a couple of weeks after that deletion discussion was closed, I will be happy to restore the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the speedy response. I just read the criteria cited when it was previously deleted. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villyan_Bijev Bijev's career has taken a quantum leap in the past few weeks and I certainly think he now meets the notability criteria. As I said in my note challenging the deletion, he signed yesterday for Liverpool FC, one of the biggest football clubs in the world and is the subject of considerable media coverage. Many thanks, grj1958 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I have restored the article and its talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Appreciate your response. grj1958 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:RyukuX. The user thinks that you made a mistake in the length of the block. Considering the circumstances it looks as though that may be true, in which case you may like to unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing is not allowed

The non-neutral manner in which you posted this notification constitutes canvassing. Please don't do it again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please read WP:CANVASSING. Particularly the very first paragraph.

The edit you reference was posted prior to the AfD, so your complaint has zero merit. If you notice, I did not remove the prod tag. I merely announced the article's existence to give it a wider view, as well as provide my my own thoughts. Note also that I agreed that the article topic is questionable. Commenting on another article is not canvassing by any stretch.

Nothing I wrote there attempts to influence the outcome. There was no "outcome" to influence, as there was no AfD. As it happened, someone else removed the prod tag because the prod had been misused.

I recommend you review the policies you have referenced, including WP:CANVASSING, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK. Also you might want to review WP:PROD. You should have been aware that prod tags are supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions, and this is clearly not uncontroversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. It has been pointed out to me that Roscelese has engaged in canvassing off-wiki. Looks like someone needs to brush up on the policies and guidelines mentioned previously. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I only just noticed that you posted this. The incident took place over a year ago and is mentioned on my user page. You don't think the fact that you had to get a cached version is evidence that I tried to remove this from the internet? Don't out people because you're annoyed at them. And now I have to seek revdel for three weeks' worth of material on your talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way - who, may I ask, "pointed out" this fact to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RyukuX

I believe RyukuX needs to be reblocked indefinitely. Please look at User talk:MuZemike#Special CU request. I asked MuzeMike to determine if the person who placed the "Heil Hitler" unblock request on RyukuX's talk page matches RyukuX via CU. MuzeMike concluded that it's "possible, bordering on likely". Furthermore, he found 3 more sock accounts that have the same likely connection to RyukuX. The one that very specifically catches my eye is User: Tavo214. If you look at Tavo214's deleted user page, you'll see that it is the same message "Destroyer Dynasty Incorporated" that one of the already confirmed socks of RyukuX added to WP (see the Deleted contributions for DestrpuerBDT). That edit by Tavo214 was on August 31; i.e., while RyukuX was still blocked. Either he's just been socking all along, or he is working closely with someone else to try to promote this website on Misplaced Pages by any means. I am unclear whether blocking myself would count as wheel-warring, so I'm not going to, but I seriously urge you to consider re-blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. Somehow I missed your RfA. Congratulations.

RyukuX claimed on his talk page that he was recently a member of an outside group of meatpuppets intent on disrupting Misplaced Pages, and that he has resigned from that group. If that's the case I am sure other accounts will turn up that look like socks. I'm not sure what to make of that, other than to observe RyukyX's behavior for a bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Zinfandel

Hi Amatulic I've added South Africa to Zinfandel, but it looks like the way references are added has changed a lot and I am not getting it right. I see you are a lead contrbutor on this article, so I am turning to you, but will also leave a note on the discussion page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam Carr

Hi, I see you declined the deletion of Adam Carr's re-direct because it didnt apply to that speedy deletion template. Can you tell me which one would be the right one to use? I have done it before but for some reason I can't remember which one it was. Thanks.--Yankees10 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see he isn't mentioned in the article it redirects to. WP:CSD#G8 would work. I'll delete it on that basis. Thanks for pointing it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Yankees10 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowe & Dunlevy

Hi! I would like to contest the deletion of the Crowe & Dunlevy page. The page contained at least 10 references to outside sources, included multiple external links verifying the notability of the firm and its accomplishments, had no "peacock" language whatsoever, and was completely factual and not biased. The use of words like "best" and "super" was only in reference to actual organizations/lists that presented awards to the firm. The firm has been in operation for more than 100 years, and there are similar law firms in Oklahoma with Misplaced Pages pages modeled exactly like this one that have not been deleted. Please let me know what I need to add to the page to ensure it will not be deleted in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gail.huneryager11 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of being factual and lacking in peackock terms, It was written like a company brochure, unambiguously promoting the company, with a style clearly suggesting a conflict of interest. This was not an encyclopedia article. See also the comments on your own talk page.

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If other inappropriate articles exist, they should be appropriately tagged as well.

You are employed by this law firm. Therefore, you have a conflict of interest. You should openly disclose it on your user page. Please review Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest carefully before taking any further action on this project.

I see you have created the article in your own user space first (User:Gail.huneryager11/Crowe & Dunlevy). Upon rewriting, you might propose that it be moved to main space at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. I don't recommend that you do this yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Einstein's gift

Einstein's Gift is a play by Canadian playwright Vern Thiessen.

Hi. I don't understand why this was deleted as A3. It reads as the perfect stub. Am I missing something here? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. The original CSD tag was A7... which doesn't qualify. I have restored the article, wikilinked the playwrite, and put a stub tag on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see this post. Thanks Viriditas, and thanks again Amatulic. The user who tagged it has a bit of a history of being trigger happy. I was scratching around in his contribs for exactly this. He'd probably be best sticking to inappropriate username work until he reads up a bit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's Gift

Thanks for the restore. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Xiaoyu of Yuxi

Hi, as you may have seen, User:Xiaoyu of Yuxi is now requesting an unblock. I'm inclined to grant it, but you placed the block, so I thought I'd let you have a say first. - Kingpin (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You Have Been Summoned To Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nuclear Time Unit. 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. Rancalred (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancalred (talk • contribs)

A cookie for you!

Hello Amatulic! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Angelbird

Why have you deleted wikipedia/angelbird ?

The article needed expanding, not deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbrian (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Angelbird was deleted because it met the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. If you believe the company meets the inclusion criteria described in WP:CORP, then evidence of notability, as described in that guideline, should be included in the article. Also, if you work on the article in your own user space (like User:Christopherbrian/Angelbird) and flesh it out there before moving it to main article space, it is less likely to be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean O'Boyle (composer) deletion

I can agree that there wasn't enough information to show the significance of this composer but felt that I should have been given time to correct this rather than have a speedy deletion placed on the page which can result in close to immediate deletion. I will re-create the page with more notability content but would rather see opportunity given to authors to fix the problem say within a week than have it deleted immediately. Splouge (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are other deletion mechanisms that last a week. Speedy deletion is for non-controversial deletions, as this one seemed to be. If you need time to work on an article, particularly a biography of a living person, I recommend starting the article in your user space (for example User:Splouge/Sean O'Boyle and tagging it with {{userspace draft}}. That way it won't be deleted until you're ready to move it into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew "the rod" Taylor

You missed the article's talk page. It's still cluttering up the place. Thanks. danno 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I could swear I deleted it. I know I clicked the "delete" link. I must have forgotten to push the "submit" button. Thanks, it's gone now. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Puffin/nowcommonsreview.js

Delete please, I can't tag it. Thanks. Puffin 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw a tag on it. Anyway, it's gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

180.191.52.203

This IP's edits are very much vandalism. They have changed communities of license, they have changed broadcast areas, they have added inaccurate or just plain incorrect information to numerous television station and radio station articles. That is the definition of vandalism. I ask that you look at this editors contribs again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Last two edits appear to be constructive changes in content, not vandalism. WP:AIV isn't the place to work out content disputes. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, two edits out of about 50 to 75. Plus, those are in the Philippines and being that both of us are from the States, I don't think either of us can say for certain those aren't vandalism either (hence why I didn't revert them). This is not a content dispute, it is pure and simple vandalism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at just the last few edits, which are the only ones relevant when examining a report. Edits made after receiving warnings, if they appear constructive, suggest that the warnings have been heeded. This report is now stale. No edits have been made for a while. And with the time between edits, there's no telling whether the person behind the IP address is the same. Re-report if vandalism resumes, but be aware that most other admins don't like seeing misguided yet good-faith edits characterized as vandalism. The key word here is blatant. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's stale because I had to wait for hours to get an admin to look at the AIV report (not your fault, but something that happens all the time at AIV) and had to wait for this conversation. No matter though, the vandal will return and more-than-likely on another IP.

As for blatant, take a look at this edit. I live in this particular area of Virginia and since radio and television stations are my area of expertise, I know what the vandal has posted to be to be false. But he didn't try this on just one page, he tried it on many, many, many, many, many, many others. If a block on just this IP isn't possible, a rangeblock would be better suited. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't blatant. That's addition of content, with a good edit summary (which you are not providing). You "know" something is false. Another editor believes something is true. An admin can't take your word for it, both of you need sources. That is the definition of a content dispute. This particular dispute appears to be about coverage areas, a rather murky field considering the cross-licensing of broadcasts going on these days. I looked at one example above, where you reverted a claim about KQ2 serving Kansas -- yet this is asserted in the article itself. You claim to have some expertise. Perhaps this editor believes he has expertise in the same area. Have you asked? I see no attempt at communication between either of you. This isn't blatant vandalism by any stretch. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I could provide you with sources, but you would be sifting all day though FCC documents and annoyances. You want 'em, I can get 'em for ya. Just more work for me, while the vandal keeps vandalizing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Me? I don't want 'em, I am not a party to your dispute. Sources are always good things to add to articles; if you have 'em, put 'em in, then there would be no question of the correctness of your reversions. Again, have you even tried to communicate with this person? Have you attempted to find out where he's getting his information from?

From where I sit, I can only look at the pattern of edits. Disparaging the subject? No. Addition of random information? No. Including deliberately misleading information? No. Misleading edit summaries? No. Blatant disruption? No. Any evidence of deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages? Hard to tell. Please stop characterizing this as "vandalism". It isn't, according to our policy Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. It could possibly qualify as "sneaky vandalism" but as the policy says, that's difficult to judge, especially without any attempt at communication. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really talk to many "vandals" (I'll put it in quotes since it is currently in question) since they don't normally respond, plus this one has been on several different IPs, which I don't have the where-with-all (due to a migraine) to look at moment and didn't respond on those, so I didn't see much of a chance on him responding on this one. I know that is breaking AGF, but being on Misplaced Pages for almost 5 years as made me quite cynical (that and being on this spinning rock for 30 years). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Migraine... I sympathize. Hard to get any work done. Anecdotal help: my former boss told me his migraines mostly went away when he got an operation to open his sinuses. And my sister's seemed to have been related to a sleep disorder.

As for being cynical, wait until you live on this spinning rock for 20 more years. You end up with an odd combination of curmudgeonly yet mellow cynicism. I try to be mindful of Misplaced Pages:Don't-give-a-fuckism too, after I realized there's no benefit from getting all bent out of shape over what goes on in Misplaced Pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Users Sven and HighKing

Hi There Amatulic, you recently commented on the case of Sven the Big Viking and I wonder if you would care to look at the underlying cause of what's happening here and maybe advise how I can take it forward. In my comments on the Sven talk page you'll see what I think of the matter, and this has been reinforced today by HighKing trying to speedy delete an article just because it has British Isles in it (maybe). It seems to me that this user is quite a disruptive force but no one seems to be able to take care of it effectively. While he's actually been topic banned this has not stopped the disruption, with his tactic now being to get others to remove cases of British Isles by requesting references all over the place. If you could have a look and tell me what you think I'd be grateful. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Amatulic,

One of my friend created on my behalf of my website www.funnyncrazy.com. I never told him to create the account. He also put some links of my websites on wiki. I found one and I removed it today. I do not want to promote my website here. He accidently put those links and created account on my behalf. I apologize. But, this has serious impact on my google ranking. I request you to please remove links of my website from wiki. and delete or unblock the user Funnyncrazy on wiki. I just don't want negative impact on my google ranking.

Quick response will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Funnyncrazy (talk ⋅ contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.131.71 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, post new conversations at the bottom of talk pages.

Please also read carefully the notice at User talk:Funnyncrazy. It explains how to appeal a block. One thing you should not do is what you just did, evade your block by posting as an IP address.

That said, I highly doubt you will be unblocked even if you post an unblock template on your talk page, because your username violates Misplaced Pages:Username policy. You would have to create a new account under a new user name if you wish to continue editing on Misplaced Pages. If your IP address is blocked from creating accounts, you will need to create the account from another location.

There are no links to the domain funnyncrazy.com anywhere on Misplaced Pages. See this page for verification. Your domain is also not listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist so there should be nothing affecting your page rank. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic

Thanks again for your help earlier. Sorry for doing the whole newbie thing on you, but just making sure I have things setup correctly. BTW - I like the reference links that you have on the top of your page. Went ahead and bookmarked that, hopefully it doesn't move too often. Zackron (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Stick

Hey, I'm done fixing tags and copy-edit changes on the Characters of the Order of the Stick page (for now), so you can go back and edit it if you want. Don't worry about the reference tags, though. I'll finish them up in a little while- I just have to get up and move around for a while before I go crazy. Thanks for helping me out on a page that needs all the help it can get. Sesamehoneytart 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

Any objections to the unblock request at Enomatic (talk · contribs)? Kuru (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection. I think the editor wants to be constructive. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay; I've processed the unblock. Will watch as well to see if I can help. Kuru (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I just lifted the IP autoblock on the account too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Mellen Press

I noticed belatedly that on Spartaz's talk page you cited a book by Edwin Mellen Press as evidence that "List of killings of Muhammad" should have been kept. EMP is recognized throughout academia as a vanity press, so I wouldn't be citing it to support my position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Before I presented that source I checked the Edwin Mellen Press article, which indicated that the source could be considered reliable. So I figured it was good to use. I did find plenty of other sources that looked self-published and I tried to be careful not to include those in my arguments. Seems that one slipped by. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not pay-to-publish, but the buzz is that they don't edit, fact-check etc. at all - printing expenses are covered by the exorbitant prices they charge buyers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(See, eg. , , , , etc. etc. - we wouldn't, of course, be able to use these as sources if we were writing about EMP, but it seems to be a pretty good indication that the publisher does not enjoy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Looks like an update to the Edwin Mellen Press article might be in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not sure what source we could use to do that. The only thing I can think of that isn't definitely out is the Lingua Franca article, but I don't know the RS status of Lingua Franca and in any case cannot access the article. Maaaaaybe the Miles paper? I don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Miles paper (which is 16 years old) would be OK for supporting a statement that there has been controversy in the past about EMP's reliability or reputation. It's hard to tell if their operations have changed since then, though. The recent forum postings indicate only that a bad reputation, once earned, is hard to shed. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - the recent postings are about recent dealings with EMP. Again, we couldn't cite them, but we'd have to avoid writing about it in such a way as to suggest that this is all in the past. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision visibility unavailable

{{admin help}} I recall an errant mouse click while editing Splenda but this may not have been me. In any case, see this diff. I am able to view or change the visibility of any edit in the article history except for the two shown in that diff. What is going on? I just wanted to check if it was me who hid the edit summary by mistake, or someone else. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was oversighted, not just Rev-del'd, which means that "regular" admins like you and I can't see it. It looks like the username of the editor before you was removed--I would guess that the user revealed either their own personal information (real name, IP address, etc.); then, my guess is that your edit summary said something like "Revert X", where X also contained the personal info. I'll leave the admin help template active just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I recall it was an IP address and the edit summary simply described the edit. Strange. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it has been oversighted if it were not for the fact that the logs for the article contain no mention of oversighting. Oversight leaves a log entry. Also, if you did it then I would expect your admin log to show the change, but it doesn't. It looks to me like some sort of error by the software, but beyond that I have no idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would guess it was Oversighted as well. (Oversight does not leave a log - at least not one viewable to those without Oversight.) _ennasis @ 13:25, 6 Tishrei 5772 / 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what was found oversightable about what I remember about those edit summaries. Anyway, I guess it wasn't me who did it by mistake after all. I had never seen revisions that have non-functioning checkboxes before, and wondered how that happened. It seems odd that oversight logs aren't visible to admins, having that visibility would avoid the confusion I just experienced. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought that oversight was visible in the logs, but I have confirmed that it isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Would love a little advice.

Awhile back I made a (failed) attempt at a Slime wikipedia page. You had a thoughtful response, and I took a break from it to make sure I could write it without a conflict of interest (friend of a person in the company). I've recreated it on my personal page information and would love to have some eyes take a glance at it before I try to publish it. Is there any way I can show the preview - maybe in an email or copy/paste somewhere for someone to take a look? Thank you for any advice.Npwright1289 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Npwright1289

Replied on your talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Made a couple of new edits. Would love if you could take a second to glance at it again. Obviously, no rush :) http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Npwright1289/Slime_(brand) Thank you! Npwright1289 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Longevity, yet again

At your convenience, would you please review this talk page entry and the edit upon which it is based. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at my inability to help make these footnotes accurate. This is only one example, but it's absolutely representative of the editor's reversions of many of my edits. I think he's violating the ArbCom sanctions, by edit-warring. The view of someone less agitated than I am becoming would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It just gets weirder. David in DC (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page response, if one discounts for grudging sarcasm, seems to acknowledge the rules and assuming good faith and portend an end to edit-warring on this small topic. I complain when I'm frustrated, I figure I gotta acknowledge movement when it's sorta positive. David in DC (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Nick's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Silicom

Hi, a couple of days ago you deleted the article at Silicom citing WP:CSD#A7. Would it be possible for me to gain access to the article as it appeared prior to your deletion of it? While the article may not have satisfied the requirements at WP:CORP, the company itself's received more than enough third-party coverage to meet the notability criteria. Rather than recreate the article from scratch – which I'll do if need be – it'll save me time if some of what was on the old page could be salvaged and then incorporated into an improved article.—Biosketch (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Biosketch/Silicom. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll run the revised article by you before uploading back to mainspace.—Biosketch (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a bunch

Hopefully, my Muslim-using-a-Jesuit-school-account friend can't be bothered to register. Kauffner (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Jablonski

For what it's worth, what I see is an article that's sourced almost entirely to his profiles on commercial sites like iTunes or CDBaby or to his own website, with virtually no sources to real media that meet our reliable sourcing rules. It claims chart success but fails to mention what chart, it's written more or less in the style of an artist's press kit, and going by the username that created it I have to assume the editor in question was Scott Jablonski himself. Perhaps I could have chosen to speedy it as an advertisement instead — but it still seems very speediable to me under one criterion or the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for a biographical article have to be to real reliable media sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles about him. A page that just lists his name and doesn't contain any information about him, such as a directory listing of a radio playlist or a list of award nominees on the award's own website, does not constitute sufficient proof that he passes our notability criteria. They're okay as supplemental sources once notability has been demonstrated by references which actually count as reliable sources, but they're not okay as an article's principal sources. Further, I don't see how the HMM Awards qualify as a "major" award — and his name doesn't appear anywhere on the FMQB charts page, meaning that the source doesn't even support the claim in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one missing something: the very top of the guideline explicitly states that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. It then goes on to explain that the notability claim has to be supported by reliable sources: if those aren't present, then notability has not been demonstrated no matter how many of the WP:BAND criteria the article claims that the subject meets.

Again: what we have here is (a) a claim that he had a charting single, supported by a link to a chart that doesn't even have his single on it to prove that it charted; (b) a nomination for an award that isn't "major" enough to satisfy criterion #8; and (c) cursory proof that his song got played five times on one satellite radio channel. What we don't have is a single reliable source to demonstrate that he's gotten media coverage, talking about him as an artist, by which we can verify any of the article's content — and that's far more important than how many items a musician has met on a checklist of accomplishments. If an article cites a good selection of reliable sources, then a musician doesn't have to meet any of the followup criteria to qualify for an article — and conversely, a musician can meet all of the followup criteria and still not qualify for an article if he's somehow done it without garnering any actual media coverage.

What's important to realize is that artists try to use Misplaced Pages as an advertising venue all the time, inflating their image by claiming hit singles and music awards and other Big Proofs of Importance that don't actually exist and/or can't be verified at all. So it's not a question of whether he's accomplished WP:BAND #2, 8 and 11 or not — it's a question of whether we can verify, through the use of reliable sources, that he's garnered media attention for those accomplishments. And it's also important to realize that deletion does not mean that he can never have an article on Misplaced Pages; it just means he can't have that article. If someone comes along and writes a better version that cites real sources, then he'll get to keep that new article regardless of whether he meets any of the supplementary WP:BAND criteria or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

Amatulic, I previously created an article about Enomatic, that was deleted because of the username and the lack of reliable sources. Under my new username, I've created the article again and would like to have your feedback about it. It's still a draft, so no worries, it won't come online before you've checked it. Thanks ! User:Arseguet/Enomatic (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Arseguet

I have responded at Misplaced Pages:Requests for feedback/2011 October 12. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on the article recently, tried to be objective and stay focused on the facts. It's now shorter and clearer, I guess. Please, let me know your thoughts, I'll make any change you require and hopefully will set it online in the coming days. Thanks.Arseguet (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A favor

Would you please review this edit. If so moved, would you please throw in your two cents? I would fully understand if you chose not to. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Darn. I let my hopes win out over my fears. This morning's drama is distressing. Thanks for opining. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking forward to his response to my comments. I guess that won't happen now. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

themoviedb.org whitelist

Re: this: I checked again (like I did before requesting a whitelist entry), themoviedb.org is not listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist . -- Ned Scott 05:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You better check again. The WikiMedia:Spam-blacklist contains the expression \bthemoviedb\.org\b. It's also in the blacklist log. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Seems the latest version of Safari has a bug in its find text feature. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't edit warring, it was vandalism

Please see this message for more details on the user you just blocked, it is a sockpuppet of an IP that was blocked yesterday. So he needs a permanent block, not a 24 hour one. • GunMetal Angel 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In my judgment, this is a content dispute, regardless of the IP address or account being edited from, and regardless of how you want to characterize the edits.

I have no objection if another admin chooses to extend the block. If no admin does this, I will leave it as is and watch it to see if disruption resumes after the block lifts. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the legal threat he posted on his talk page changes things. Another admin beat me to it. In cases like this, I prefer short blocks to see if the user will dig himself deeper and do something that really deserves indef. As happened here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply, new suggestion

Greetings,

I have made a new suggestion on my talk page to address your concerns and see if we can try a graduated approach. I welcome your response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryoung122#Longevity-Related_Issues

Sincerely,Ryoung122 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Inca Empire

Thanks so much for semi-protecting this article! -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

re Ring Cinema

Having blocked User:Ring Cinema for editwarring, could you undo the contested inclusion at UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying; I wouldn't like to offend against the 3RR rule in restoring the page as it was. Thanks Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you see, I have no opinion on the validity of either version. My objective in blocking was solely to prevent further disruption rather than involve myself in a dispute. For all I know Ring's version may be best (he has demonstrated that he can argue convincingly), but it's up to him to defend it. It would be different if I had protected the page, which would automatically favor one version, but then m:The Wrong Version would likely be protected, depending on one's point of view. I suggest you propose your preferred revision on the talk page and see if anyone bites. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

<Replied on my talk page.> Swarm 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

God, just when you think you've left Misplaced Pages, it sucks you back in. I would view Kevin's invite to "undo the contested inclusion" as attempting to induce someone into violating 3rr by proxy. It would be even more offensive than making the edit oneself, just sneakier. An edit war is still and edit war even if one tries to stealth the edits in under the radar. As always, A, good response. Cheers,

Abuse resulting fro you doing your job

First, I used to check and see if I'd erred in some way. If the abuse is confined to their talk page, at least they aren't causing other damage. Sometimes it's best to ignore venting on their talk page. If they're attention seeking, you don't want to feed the behavior. Generally, I just let them alone and hoped they would find a more productive way to use their time.

If the abuse becomes especially odious, another admin can be asked to look at it. I see the blockee in question has lost the ability to edit their talk page. It may be that the current admins are less tolerant of this sort of behavior then I would have been and more assertive about encouraging non productive individuals to move along. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave a couple of short-advice replies, which seemed to do nothing more than fan the flames. I decided to ignore him. Personally I didn't think it was so bad that his talk page access needed revoking, but I don't disagree with that call. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not have done so either. Sent you an email reply. Always enjoy reading your posts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

derailment?

poor choice of wording - I offered a valid approach for someone concerned about the issue of the images to pursue. not a huge issue, but still… --Ludwigs2 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The section was started by someone who wanted to propose an alternative image. It was not about the demographics of Misplaced Pages readers. It was not about a resolution's interpretation that doesn't appear to be shared by others. Yes, it was derailment of that section. But it's a good discussion and should continue; I admit I originally erred in collapsing that bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

eh, I was just sayin'. but it's all good, and no need to quibble about it further. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinnz

Regarding your response on WP:ANI, Chinnz received a copyright warning , which is a single-issue warning that most admins block after continued violation. Falcon8765 14:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV*.Falcon8765 14:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be repeat violations after that warning. The user uploaded different versions of the images, claiming they are his own work. Sorry, I don't see a blockable offense here. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Relaxing Terms in Gradual Stages

Greetings,

Now I have other people asking me for advice, yet I'm not able to answer them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ryoung122&action=edit&section=4

Are you saying I have to wait until February 2012? It is easy to re-block someone for a re-offense. Part of the problem now is that the "broadly interpreted" argument means that it covers too much.

Ryoung122 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

as an aside

This is not worth pursuing further in talk, but I wanted to point out that my wp:NPA objection was over this phrase: "we are having this discussion because Ludwigs2 wants to hold the images in this article to higher standards." Not a tremendously bad statement in itself, but one in an extended series of comments by multiple editors that try to reduce the problems on this article to "Ludwigs2 is being annoying". It may in fact be that I am being annoying - I'll leave that for others to judge in appropriate venues, if that becomes necessary - but I have raised credible points that ought to be considered (even if they are ultimately dismissed), and I am becoming tired of editors using ad hominem arguments of that sort to avoid discussing them. You are entitled to suggest that I am holding the images to a higher standard (though I'd appreciate it if you would stop ignoring me when I dispute the point, as I have several times). You are not entitled to declaim that I am the sole cause of the conflict. I trust you see the distinction.

WIth respect to your position: You may not be active as a sysop on this page, but you are a sysop - that bit is s symbol of community trust given to you on the assumption that you have experience and knowledge that normal users do not have. Whether you are active or not, you are still held to a higher standard, just the way that cops and politicians and judges are held to higher standards in the real world. You may think that's unfair, and it probably is, but by accepting that bit you committed yourself to setting an example of behavior for the project. Maybe when the project was first starting a sysop could get away with the "hey, I'm just another guy" approach, but the project is too big for that now. --Ludwigs2 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are seeing personal attacks where none exist. But for what it's worth, I apologize if it came across that way; and I guess I can see how it would. If our positions were reversed I wouldn't be bothered in the least (I tend to tolerate personal attacks against me, it goes with the territory). It is undeniable that the current dispute was initiated by you. In that sense, you are the sole cause of the conflict. Nothing wrong with that, disputes must be started by someone, after all. Nowhere did I imply that you are being annoying. Perhaps persistent in the face of disagreement, that's all.

If you have a problem with my ethics or behavior, please take it up on WP:ANI, keeping in mind that experienced editors in a dispute are simply experienced editors in a dispute, regardless of any toggles that are set on their account. The same standards are applicable to new users, editors with rollback rights, editors with oversight, editors with reviewer rights, and editors who have rights to protect pages and block vandals. Being a sysop simply means the community trusts you with the tools, and trusts you not to abuse them. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to have been resolved now. I'm fine either way. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic: to be continued

I also think it makes more sense to focus on the Wine Dispenser Innovation. Here is a try, let me know what you think of it. Thank you so much for your time. Arseguet (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, I've asked other people opinion, hope to publish it by the end of the day. Let me know if there is anything wrong. I'll do the changes. Cheers. Arseguet (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted refspam

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! jcgoble3 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was doing that as I was removing blacklisted links from various articles. Looks like I missed one. Thanks for catching it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ID

Pls. explain your edit summary "Revert - doesn't belong in lead because not expanded in article, Dawkins quote seems out of context, and second source cited appears self-published" Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I posted my fuller explanation on Talk:Intelligent Design#New atheism. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"This is cited later"

Pls. identify where it is cited that "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." Thanx in advacne.--Stephfo (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. That sentence is a summary, as appropriate for a lead section, of the entire section called "theistic science". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have not managed to find the source of given claim, isn't it just synthesis WP:SYNTH of various sources and WP:OR if none of sources is identified to make such claim? --Stephfo (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again I must ask you to read the section on theistic science in the ID article. The sources are in the first sentence. Also, read the article on theistic science. The claim you are questioning is not considered controversial by anyone, as far as I know. ID supporters claim that this is what they are trying to do, scientists agree this is what they are trying to do, and this was a finding also in the Kitzmiller trial.

Please also review WP:LEAD. The purpose of the lead section is to provide a brief overview of the remainder of the article. The sentence you are questioning does exactly that, for one section. If you can come up with a more succinct or accurate statement summarizing the theistic science section, feel free to propose it on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Question RE CSD

Hi Amatulic. Thanks for looking over the CSD of Wilhelm Busch (priest). You declined CSD A7 as "article makes a claim of notability". For my own information, what was the claim of notability? The only one I could see is ""Jesus Our Destiny"... is the most well known of his works", but even that doesn't claim the work is actually well known, or that he's well known for it. Is there another claim in the article that indicates asserted notability that I've missed? I took the article to AfD instead, but I'd just like to know for future reference. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Even a weak claim of notability is sufficient to kill CSD A7. In this case, it wasn't just that small item that convinced me to decline, but the fact that the subject appears to have coverage in multiple sources provided in the bibliography. That is also a claim of notability, possibly meeting WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so generally speaking, minimal or indirect claims, such as if a bio claims that one of the subject's works is "more well known" than another, or if a bio contains a bibliography which may discuss the subject, are sufficient to fail A7. Got it. Thanks! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding User:Stephfo

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection of retired user talk pages

In re to User talk:YellowMonkey, I do not see that there was activity on the page such that full protection would be warranted (see Misplaced Pages:PP#Retired users). The full protection has prevented the proper application of the WP:INACTIVITY process decided in June (since the bot was unable to notify the inactive administrator). –xeno 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember the details that led to that, maybe YellowMonkey requested it by email (I don't recall), or maybe I meant to do semi-protection. In any case, it's semi now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice regarding DJ Food

Hi there, Thanks for reinstating the page. I was merely trying to flesh it out a bit and its been there for years so I don't know why it was deleted. Will it be removed from the 'swift deletion' list?

Many thanks, (Colorfulthrowup (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

It is not currently up for speedy deletion. It is listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Food, where the discussion will last for 7 days. If nobody contributes to the discussion, it will get re-listed to generate more discussion. Then consensus will determine whether it should be kept or deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:77.79.7.63

This banned user has been messing around like that for a long time. It's not worth answering the unblock requests ().Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Videolog.tv

Why the article Videolog.tv was deleted? There is a portuguese mirror as you can see here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/Videolog.tv And the article itself complies with all Misplaced Pages:Notability guidelines. Can you revert this? Perene (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Please continue this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Videolog.tv I have explained more thoroughly why this should be kept in the Misplaced Pages. Perene (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded there, as did another administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just added more sources (links to large portals/websites from the major media companies in Brazil) that validate the claim I made in that area. I have posted sources citing this Videolog portal, most of them well-recognized in the country (UOL, Globo, iG), nationwide. I have told you/the other admins that if the article is moved to my userspace (it would help me since I don't remember some words I used in it to write again), I can edit the rest of it and add this quick note about the "Samba Tech" deal. I think that was the only thing left from qualifying the article to be posted here, besides the R7 partnership. Perene (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)