April 2015 - May 2015

You recently closed this MfD, given that the page was speedily deleted per author's request. Shortly thereafter, author recreated the page, with substantially the same content (an apparent fiction or hoax). I believe that either the MfD should be restored, or the author's CSD honored again, and the page salted to prevent future shenanigans. If you are disinclined to take action on your own, could you recommend a venue for me to take this matter? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobbes Goodyear, this is an odd situation made stranger by the user having a whole load of draft articles about topics I can't find any evidence of existing, I've left the user a note here querying this, but otherwise it seems that WP:G3 will be the way to go for the obvious hoaxes (supposed but incorrect members of bands and a video game that doesn't exist for example), and MfD for the less obvious ones. But lets give them a day or two to respond first. Re-opening that MfD was sensible for now I think. Sam Walton (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate your attention here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask you to take a second look at the request to protect Ratodero there appear to be multiple ip and new editors adding unsourced claims, incorrect image links and self promotional information (going by their username) to this article. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amortias. I've just semi-protected it for a day. Do you know if the latest edits are correct, or worth undoing? Sam Walton (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No they wernt and i've undone them. They do appear to ahve quite a range of IP's available to them so i dont know if its worth extending the protection until they get bored. Amortias (T)(C) 15:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I defended you. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 03:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to block this ip also which apparently created it somehow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:1.23.213.83 (I don't know how a IP created the article) Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wgolf. I'll keep an eye on that IP. I'm assuming it shows as them creating the mainspace article because of all the various moves. They probably created it in userspace and it was later moved from the account. Sam Walton (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, please see below for online articles and reviews about Kristin McClement. Please can you advise whether they meet Wikipedia's notability standards if they were to be included on Kristin McClement's Wiki Page?

UK:

http://brightonmusicblog.co.uk/2015/01/26/kristin-mcclement-launches-the-wild-grips/ http://www.goldflakepaint.co.uk/kristin-mcclement-no-end-to-the-drum/ http://brightonsource.co.uk/features/kristin-mcclement-interview/ http://www.folkradio.co.uk/2015/03/kristin-mcclement-the-wild-grips/ http://www.forfolkssake.com/reviews/31176/album-kristin-mcclement-the-wild-grips http://higherplainmusic.com/2015/03/28/kristin-mcclement-the-wild-grips-review/

France:

http://www.gqmagazine.fr/pop-culture/musique/articles/quatre-filles-rock-dans-le-vent/24953 http://echosart.com/2015/03/13/the-wild-grips-kristin-mcclement http://addict-culture.com/kristin-mcclement/

Germany:

http://dasklienicum.blogspot.de/2015/02/neue-tone-1494-kristin-mcclement.html

New Zealand:

http://aboxofbirdz.blogspot.co.nz/

Netherlands:

http://www.johnnysgarden.nl/?q=content/kristin-mcclement-wild-grips

Italy:

http://www.storiadellamusica.it/cantautori/folk/kristin_mcclement-the_wild_grips%28willkommen_records-2015%29.html http://musicwontsaveyou.com/2015/02/23/kristin-mcclement-the-wild-grips/ http://themusicalblogs.blogspot.it/2015/03/kristin-mcclement-wild-grips.html http://tristesunset.com/2015/03/04/kristin-mcclement-the-wild-grips

Edith Larissa (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edith Larissa. Though I don't have the time to look through all these sources in detail, it seems like most of these sources are blogs (which aren't considered reliable) or local sources, which don't really show that the subject has a global importance. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Higgs boson. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Partha bhowmik (talk · contribs)
• Mahulband7 (talk · contribs). Babita arora 10:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babitaarora. Though it's possible this is the same user, it's not worth investigating since the accounts aren't being used at the same time; the first hasn't been used for over a year. The pages probably need deleting though, will take a look into that. Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do, later this afternoon. I hope you'll stop in and post. It's funny — I did look for but couldn't find the applicable policy/guideline about "child" pages related to a deleted parent page, though I've seen other editors refer to it without linking to it. Maybe there isn't one specifically about that? Any info would be of help with an AfD. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction — nearly 10 years here and there are still procedural subtleties I haven't figured out! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, no worries. It's possible that it's a good idea to include something like that in the G8 policy, perhaps generally about spin-off articles where content has got too large for the main article. I'll have a think and maybe propose that soon. Sam Walton (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And, wow, did that take a long time! It's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2011. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam

Ubiquity has made me aware that he did not actually delete the page that I made for nothing clothing company.

If you could kindly let me know the main reasons for deletion and supply a copy of the deleted page. I will be sure to amend this so that it meets your requirements.

In terms of why it deserves a space is simply the association it has with hundreds of credible charities, including many owned and operated by celebrities. I believe that I had made a start with crediting several of these in the links. I can remove the social media stuff if it was that causing concern.

Many thanks

Peter

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Samwalton9,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy wants to create the whole infobox and force others to accept his revisions as far as l can see in the history of the page. l reported him to you since you were involved in the discussion and familiar the issue. He should be at least warned i think.

Thanks again for making AbuseFilter/666], (designed to detect devilry. :) ) I am wondering, can you add other names to that which are unrelated to that particular user? I mean, why not add a bunch of these problematic sock/spammer names? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, sorry for the delay! There is a filter for general problematic socks (Special:AbuseFilter/16), but that can be rather restricting. In particular this user seems to write full articles in one go, which 16 wouldn't catch because of the relatively low edit_delta requirement. It definitely makes sense to combine multiple filters if they can share conditions though, did you have a particular user in mind? Sam Walton (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't remember if I asked, do you think it's worth switching 666 to disallow? The log would still flag the edit attempts so you could block the accounts and catch any stray edits, but it would save you a little time and perhaps disuade the user from trying. Sam Walton (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sam. Last question first. I wouldn't worry about the disallow. Notify is fine.

There are some long terms socks that the following search strings would find. I regularly search for them:

• Phines West
• NPK Twice
• Abhay Gupta cricket
• Fils Tunechi

If those were added and matches found, I'd know what to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, those strings are everywhere as block sock names. Could they be searched for only if not on blocked userpages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, this is a reeeeal long shot, but the new (and newly indeffed) user BoomBaluga has some similarities to Maelbros. The user made a bunch of unsourced changes to infobox stuff (countries, production companies, etc) like [1][2][3]. I tried to vet this edit where he changes |company= from "Spümcø, Cambium Film & Television Productions" to "Spümcø / CinéGroupe / FOXTEL / Sony Wonder, but it doesn't jibe with these closing credits which support Spümcø and Cambium. (21:23), so that looks like clear infobox vandalism, which is one of Mael's MOs. And since I noticed a few edits at the French Wikipedia, I thought maaaaaybe it's Maelbros. The user also created a bunch of hoax articles, which I don't really think is Mael's kinda thing. Anyhow. Just keeping you in my mental loop. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyphoidbomb. Not sure, definitely possible though. I'm thinking of starting an LTA page at some point by the way, do you think that's a good idea? Sam Walton (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there's any benefit to the community. They've been a pain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; I didn't see the tag as it was buried between the references and box template and the article was such an obvious copypaste job. I've now restored the article. --PresN 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Good Thinking Society.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today your filter number 663 disallowed a handful of edits from our friend the long-term disruptor from Greece. (See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece.) He also got away with three edits. I would like to know whether the filter can email me a notice of activity so that I can manually check the work of the IP? Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: From a first glance I'm actually not sure why the filter didn't catch those edits, perhaps MusikAnimal can take a closer look. Unfortunately I don't know of any way to get email notifications, but I did not too long ago propose that we be able to set up RSS feeds for them. Whether that will happen I have no idea though. Sam Walton (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: I can try to tweak the filter, but a little busy at the moment. I don't think there's a way to automate an email digest of filter activity, but that doesn't sound like a bad idea for a bot. I believe it can be done, and MusikBot may be willing to do it, if I teach him how. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dragons flight - any idea if an RSS feed would be hard to implement to the AbuseLog pages? I'm thinking of the same way that watchlists, histories, and contribs have one enabled currently. Sam Walton (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be that hard, but I've definitely never tried doing anything with the RSS feeds. Dragons flight (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for inviting me The Tea house. :) JrolesGuy (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samwalton9. Please add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks. I do not see a consensus to delete. The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard. My rationale is that there was a consensus to delete the article; imposing my own views on whether the sources were up to scratch would be a supervote, I merely assessed the consensus, which was to delete. Sorry, Sam Walton (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most-produced aircraft. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sam. You may want to clarify your AfD closing statement to include specific mention of redirects for each of the merged articles. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: That the merged articles should be redirects to the merge target? I assume that will be obvious to the users carrying out the merges. Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sir. For each of Dandes, Eurybus, Oebotus and Philinus, I have requested that supporters of stand-alone articles copy and paste the relevant excerpts from the cited hard-copy sources to the article talk page to help in determining notability and suitability fo those subjects for stand-alone articles. Having taken the time to familiarize yourself with the AfD discussion and the issues presented, I would be grateful if you would keep an eye on the individual article talk page discussions -- it would be better to have you close those discussions, when they have run their course, since you are already familiar with the circumstances. Thanks, Sam. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: I'll keep an eye on them and close if necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You were the admin that closed the deletion discussion for MADE 2015 World Tour 11 days ago and as the article is back up already I wasn't sure what to do. So I decided to ask you if in this situation I should submit for second deletion request or is it the first because the last one had the page deleted so it starts over? I'm not real sure which it is, and I know I should talk with the editors on the page about it but I get the sense that we have an unsolvable disagreement on what type of articles prove notability since most of the page is copied from the last version. Peachywink (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peachywink. Since it's identical to the last page it qualified for speedy deletion under criteria G4, so you can nominate recreated articles for that in the future :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know!Peachywink (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first time the article was deleted is the lack of information, and the tour did not have an impact. But now it has, there are many records have been broken and the tour only just begin, the editors told me that when is there is more information the article could comeback. So i don't know why you delete it while it's a worthy article. CeserLeto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CesarLeto (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in the future. I actually looked at it for 5 minutes (checking the source given and reading it carefully (I speed read ) to make sure that it actually referenced what it claimed to). It didn't, and per WP:BLP it had to be removed. I see the section was altogether removed as trivia later, I didn't consider it trivia, but that's ok, I removed the section that violated BLP per WP:BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: Honestly I find it even harder to assume good faith if you really spent 5 minutes looking at the edit, this is a revert you made, from the correct wording (Bell, wife) to incorrect (Bellend, mum), which you preceded to edit war in. Sam Walton (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, what I reverted was a quote attributed to Mr. Bell where he claimed he said he was a fuck up, the reference given never said that. Do we agree on that so far ? (and yes, I read what you wrote, I will go back over my own revert and see if he was being referred to as "Bellend". I didn't see that on the revert I made to be honest. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Addendum Just finished taking a look, and it looks like three users saw two different things. I saw the "fuck up" and reverted that but didn't see the "bellend" and "mum" from the previous revert, so looks like three users were reverting vandalism.[reply]

No problem. Self trouting (myself only ) applied ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's not a huge deal, I'm guessing you meant to revert this edit but reverted this instead. Double checking what it is you're reverting in the future would avoid edit warring the wrong thing, you preceded to revert that edit 3 times without realising. Sam Walton (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]