User talk:Slakr/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Snarxiv

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I strongly disagree with the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SnarXiv and wish something had been said about it on Talk:ArXiv before the closure notice appeared there as an administrative demand to include this material in the arXiv article. It does not belong on arXiv as it does not have any significance or notability as an aspect of arXiv. Requesting that it be merged there is a mistake and the AfD does not have a clear consensus to do so (only two out of five opinions favored a merge). Please reconsider this bad decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then don't merge it; leave it as a redirect instead. As you know, AfDs aren't about bold vote counts, but about what people argue. The delete votes believed it had no independent notability, which aligns with the two merge votes, which then only oppose the singular "keep but don't merge." Of course, outside of that, any time there's a merge, if the people at the target article don't think various chunks of content (or even the vast majority and/or whole thing) are appropriate, then they're realistically under no obligation to integrate the content. People at AfD can frequently say "merge, because it so totally belongs at destination," and if the result is otherwise delete (which is the case in this instance), then consensus at destination still rules—especially considering merge targets are almost always uninformed of merge propositions beforehand and therefore rarely oppose on an AfD. As for my "bad decision," if you felt it was woefully incorrect, please consider WP:DRV to turn it into a flat-out delete ("no consensus" isn't exactly applicable, and it was already de facto relisted due to its 2-week open time). Since you're also an admin, consider helping to clear out AfD backlogs (this one, in particular, was nearly a week overdue) so that I and others feel less obligated to make these "bad decisions." --slakr^\ talk / 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm on this page because of concerns above re another close (here), but from what Slakr said to me (and I didn't even mention the !vote numbers -- so I'm not sure why) I expect he will tell you that it is not a question of counting !votes. But here it's the same issue I am concerned with -- and I wouldn't mind David if you would take a look as an outsider ... as I said there, and based on other comments Slakr made above ... I'm concerned that there is a bit of a super!vote approach in both these closes.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I should note, by the way, that I only close woefully old AfDs that no other admin has decided to close. I've noticed that this is usually because closing them as "no consensus" doesn't actually apply, especially if it comes down to a policy/guideline vs. numeric vote, and nobody else wants to deal with the fallout on their talk page (thanks, again, by the way :P). It's nice to think that the cabal is out to screw things up in "your" deletion discussion, but quite frankly, as I've said numerous times, please go to WP:DRV if you disagree with a close. I assure you that I really couldn't care less, won't even participate in the discussion, and you'll get independent review of the circumstances at hand. Not to mention, I'm the first to admit that I'm fallible and can make mistakes, and it can serve as a sounding board for that. At the very least, it takes it off my plate and helps to avoid the transference of backlog to my talk page. Your consideration in the future is much appreciated. --slakr^\ talk / 06:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion review for SnarXiv

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SnarXiv. 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Like --slakr^\ talk / 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Indiggo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indiggo. 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. Pburka (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm. 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. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm

Hi Slakr, I respectfully request that you reconsider your closing of the above discussion as delete. Only two editors participated in the discussion. One (me) proposed merging (i.e. keep) and the other (User:Soman) suggested that the articles might be notable. There was clearly no consensus to delete, and the discussion was leaning towards keep. Pburka (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a bit of trouble seeing just what, exactly, was merge-able, but it would totally apply; you're welcome to request undeletion, both if you need it undeleted for a merge of the material or if you otherwise feel that you can make the article meet our policies and guidelines. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Given the paucity of clarity as to editor views, it would IMHO have been appropriate to extend comment for seven more days. In addition -- as was the case with the two other deletions by you discussed on this page these past couple of days -- you again appear to be closing as a supervote. Rather than assessing the consensus of editor opinion Other than your own, that is appropriate. That's not appropriate. And is perhaps what is leading to the three editors questioning your closes (or failure to leave open for more comment) the past couple of days.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Epeefleche. As a general heads up, there's a difference between deletion review and requests for undeletion. The former is for overturning a decision that was made out-of-line with policy (which, in this instance doesn't apply); the latter restores the article on, among other things, low-turnout AfDs or when the closing administrator approves (both of which are obvious in this instance). If you believe that the article does need extended discussion (presumably so you can vote delete), I'd suggest you simply re-nominate it for deletion once it's undeleted. --slakr^\ talk / 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. My point is on the issue -- raised by others as well -- that you seem (by your own words) to be exercising supervotes. Rather than what I believe is the role of a closer -- to weigh and reflect the consensus of appropriate !votes (even if you have a different personal view). I think that's the underlying issue on all three AfDs being discussed here the last couple of days, some by seasoned editors who have participated in this process many times over the years.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And by calling good-faith actions as "supervote," you're actually accusing me of bad-faith intentions. In fact, if you want more fuel for your future battles, feel free to mention my "supervote" on this one as well (which also went against the numbers). I hate to break it to you, but there's a huge difference between "supervoting" and determining consensus via points brought up in a discussion, weighing them with existing policies and existing guidelines (i.e., existing consensus), and summarizing the result in a close statement. Because my work at AfD is primarily on overdue-for-close AfDs that are typically tougher closes, consider, for a moment, the possibility that what you might see as a "supervote" might actually be me neutrally applying policy in accordance with established deletion processes and policies. Or don't *shrug* ...totally your choice. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for being so random, but can you please create a script? Where a bot adds unsigned on an unsigned comment please for python? Its for my en.wikiquote.org bot... --Goldenburg111 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way I'll have time to transcode SineBot to python. --slakr^\ talk / 03:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Resilient barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For making a lot of difficult AfD closes that nobody else is game to touch. Also for dealing with off-base and often resentful criticism with good humour. Reyk YO! 01:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea how much this, above most barnstars, is genuinely appreciated. :) Thanks, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I made a cmt and !vote at 00:32.  The comment here is at 01:53 appears to be related.  What I stated in that comment was that I thought that you have treated me dismissively.  Did I get that wrong somehow?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  So according to your belief, not participating in AfDs makes me less able to close them neutrally? God help us if that logic ever applied to WP:AN3, because I can safely say that while I've never participated in an edit war (and, before I was an admin, reported only one or two), I can confidently say that I certainly know a lot about them without ever involving myself in those content disputes—so much so that I had to write a tool to help myself and others with reporting them. Of course, you're welcome to challenge my decisions on AN3 (or WP:RFPP, while we're at it), too, and claim that I'm "superEditWarring" or something, and you might even want to create Wikipedia:Edit warring review and Wikipedia:Page protection review. The sky's the limit. --slakr^\ talk / 04:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Yes, another close. this time, an article I nominated for AfD, and you closed as delete. (obviously, at least the two of us were agreed, but we may both have been somewhat hasty). The creator has taken the matter to the person who originally approved the AfC., at User talk:APerson. It's me that he seems angry at. It might be simpler to comment where the discussion has begun, at that user talk. You may want to comment. I would not oppose relisting, if that's what you decide, but I am going to suggest that a revised draft be written from the current one , which would be moved into his userspace.‎ DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I don't really care. I normally don't have an abundance of time on my hands, and because when I'm in an AfD mood I normally deal with older closes (i.e., to relieve a backlog), I end up having to default back to policies and guidelines more than the average close. So, if in whatever it is, you (or any other admin, involved or uninvolved at this point) feel there's sane reason for whatever action, go ahead and take it—my goal isn't to either keep, get rid of, or have the final say on stuff (and certainly not to step on people's toes in the process); it's really just to unclog pipes when nobody else is dealing with it. :P Maybe I need to make a userbox, FAQ entry, or something that says something along those lines, so I can avoid constantly Facepalm ing myself. :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but I didn't want to not notify you. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. re : Citizen150 block you made a few days ago. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones Merge

Hi,

I nominated Adverse Effects of Fluroquinolines for deletion, and the decision was made to merge. In my opinion, they are already merged, as I have taken some effort to make sure that all the salvagable material (properly sourced) was included in the Quinolones article. This was done before and during the deletion debate.

I don't know what I need to do next to close out the procedure. Please advise. Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can just turn it into a redirect. The idea there is that the page history will be preserved and any incoming links will forward to the right place. No worries if you think the content's already merged; you can still just turn the old page into a redirect, and if later someone thinks "wait, didn't we have that bit about (whatever)?" they can still retrieve it if needed. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency)

Porterwritewiki writing you. I am working with DGG to address the concerns that led to the deletion of the article mentioned above (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency). I looked in the deletion log but I could not go back to the Feb 23, the date it was delete. I am new to this process. I cannot find the original annotated version anywhere. Can please you tell me if I can retrieve that document and put it back in my Sandbox to work on? After getting advice from editor DGG I will repost in Article for Creation and see what happens. I have the text on my computer. It was the citation formatting I do not wish to recreate. Please, help if you can. Porterwritewiki (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)PortewritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on the realistic comment from the editor on my talk p., I have moved the deleted article to User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone Smolan Agency for improvement. (I moved it there, not back to AfC, to avoid confusion.) I will give the editor some further advice. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Brooklyn Weaver Page Deleted

Hi Slakr,

I believe the deletion for the page Brooklyn_Weaver was done in error. There seems to have been a deletion discussion regarding the page, but I made edits to the page that should have tamed that discussion. I was surprised, actually, to come across Brooklyn's page and notice it was under warning, which is why I decided to make the edits I did.

Is there a way to recreate the page or reopen the discussion, as the cause for debate was completely negated by the proper edits?

Cklr (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)cklr

Due to the low turnout on the AfD, if you believe it can be improved to meet our policies and guidelines (most specifically, notability for people or the general notability guidelines), then I have no problem with it being userfied. --slakr^\ talk / 05:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Lennon

[1] see this [2]. Dynamic IP, like we know now. OccultZone (Talk) 15:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

INVEA-TECH

Hi Slakr, could I ask you why have you deleted INVEA-TECH page when the discussion was clearly not finished and I was waiting for others to responde? Thank you. Idavac (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion /Natalia Babi

Dear Kurt,
I would like to send the request for undeletion of the article about Ukrainian-American artist Natalia Babi. I examined the reasoning for the deletion, but information that your representatives may not have been aware of how popular this artist is in several countries of former Soviet Union and US and how many people search for information about this artist. And it would be helpful to have information about her in Wikipedia. According to words of your representatives, yes, she maybe doesn’t have tons of publicity in the Internet like a superstar, but for several years she has had publicity in paper editions in three languages Russian, Ukrainian and English and she has had some Internet publicity in English as well and many in the Russian language, several videos which posted in YouTube, one of them (interview with artist) was shown on the Russian- American TV, and two others exist in two languages - Russian and English, and has shown on Ukrainian national TV - One is the biographical video and another is about well-known “Rosy Portrait” of queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty personally thanked the artist for that work. Recently her art piece "China Girl" was sold on eBay auction by Oz collectors for record price more then $100,000 and became the most expensive Item in the world sold on eBay by April 2013, is a clear proof of the artist's notability. Also, the National Museum of American History for the Oz exhibition of 2014 requested “China Girl” from the owner-collector. And there is more publicity about her major art project- “Wondrous Women of Fantasy and Reality”, portraits of legendary people and etc. Also your representatives accused the artist of self-publishing and self-promotion, which is not true. Being a big fan of this artist's talent, I posted this article a few years ago and yes, it is true that I used some excerpts from her personal site… Dear administrator, I am asking you for the possibility of returning the article about Natalia Babi and I will do my best to correct and rewrite it for a proper Wikipedia language. Thank you very much for the opportunity, and for your helpful site.

Sincerely Paul Fitz

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natalia_Babi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.182.110 (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Too quick!!

Editing WP is not always easy (lack of 'WYSIWYG'). Where I forget to sign, realise it and try to correct all too often SignBot is acting far too quickly and creating an 'edit conflict' and often signing only one of my edits. A short delay (seconds are enough) before SignBot operates would be very useful, it would nice if we could correct our own errors and do it better :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With your hard work running two bots and contributions to Wikipedia, you deserve to take a break and have a cup of tea TheQ Editor (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice.

Hi User:Slakr: While updating the wikipage for "Russia" for the Olympics results, I noticed that one of the supporting pages for "2014 Ladies Olympics figure skating" was page protected by you due to suspected socks and possible disruptive editing from User:Heri. On looking closer to send a disruptive editing message to that User:Heri, I then noticed that User:Basalisk had already put that user on notice/probation for being blocked and offered that user an unblock in good faith. After that, previously blocked User:Heri took one day off after the good faith unblock, to then return with another large block of disruptive edits, which caused another User:Kirin several lost hours of edit time to at least start to clean-up the disruptive edits at least half way. Other users have also asked for help against User:Heri. Since you have already started the block process, I was not sure what to do next and thought to check with you if you did notice that the disruptive editing started all over again after User:Heri taking one day off following the good faith unblock. Below is posted one of the sequences of diffs for disruptive edits from After the good faith unblock for that user for your review. Could you glance at this.

(cur | prev) 00:26, 25 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,150 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (space removed) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:24, 25 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,151 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:27, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,146 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎Records) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:06, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,136 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Records) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:05, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,135 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (→‎Records) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:02, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,145 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:56, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,087 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Official responses) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:54, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,087 bytes) (+1,694)‎ . . (seperated into three sub sections) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:41, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,393 bytes) (+87)‎ . . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:36, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,306 bytes) (-1,103)‎ . . (NYTimes repeats the same result as the official ISU results) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:34, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (33,409 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Criticism of the results) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:32, 24 March 2014‎ Heri... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,397 bytes) (+510)‎ . . (Please read talk page for the reason of this recovery) (undo | thank)

FelixRosch (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Slakr,
I am writing about the Italians article: User Enok after his block started to revert again to his version: moreover, he went to the talk page, but there is still no consensus for his addition. The sources which he brought are, to say the least, not academic, or don't confirm what he says. His addition on this article has been reverted in the last months at least by 7 different users. There has been a discussion some months ago, and consensus was against him. What can be done to stop this mess? May I invoke again temporary full protection, altough now he is not breaching (yet) 3RR? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Him making one edit (that you reverted) is usually fine; it's part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle (i.e., he made the bold edit; you reverted; now it's time to discuss) and concordant with voluntarily adhering to a self-imposed "one-revert rule" (which is ideal if one's been blocked due to edit warring). Admittedly, it's probably not the best thing to push the change again directly after a block, but taking it to the talk page is the right thing for him to do after his edit was reverted. From there, if consensus ends up clearly against his change, further attempts to repeatedly push his version onto the page are when it becomes problematic again. --slakr^\ talk / 08:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And this is exactly what happened. Now he has been blocked for a week. Let's prepare for the next round... :-( This story lasts since almost one year, and no one can see the end yet. Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Some Untitled Comment

Dear Sir, Are you able to please check the refs. for 2 pages 1)Lupton family 2) Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.101.52 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am ... confused. What do you mean by "check refs"? Going through your contributions, it seems like you've left those messages everywhere. I would recommend that you add {{helpme}} and then your question below on your own talk page. K6ka (talk | contribs) 13:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd edits

I recently was at Talk:Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs and I noticed an odd thing - on September 23, 2011‎, SineBot signed for an editor, but added links to a different, nonexistent user! (See diffs Special:Diff/452063336 and Special:Diff/452065705) Sorry if this was already asked and answered. I fixed it, btw.--Auric talk 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The user was renamed ((del/undel) 13:18, 18 September 2012 MBisanz (talk | contribs | block) renamed user Sexmoron to Rantedia (32 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)) --slakr^\ talk / 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot weird edit

An anon posted a comment of '' on a talk page and the bot signed it. Probably does not happen too often, but it was odd. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews

I was doing a review on Talk:Obsessed (2009 film)/GA4 and SineBot likes to add my signature after I do a review. I had to block all bots from that page, but for less confusion in the future, can SineBot not edit GA reviews? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

SineBot down?

I noticed two unsigned comments on my user talk page today, and oh boy it IRRITATED ME TO THE POINT I WANTED TO SPIT OUT FIRE! Aside from a visit from the fire department, I assume you are aware that the bot is down and are working on the problem, seeing that you were on earlier today. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@K6ka: totally didn't see it, but back up now. It looks like it gave up trying to authenticate due to some temporary issue in MediaWiki (probably similar to the one that caused other bots to edit while signed out), as it was authenticating fine but the site wasn't actually reporting the bot as signed in when it went to make edits. Whatever was causing it seems to be fixed now. Thanks for the heads up =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears the bot is down again, as it hasn't edited in a few hours (as of this writing). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Swimming with Dolphins

Hello,

I have just read the deletion archive for this page related to the musical project and wanted to ask why it was deleted though. It was stated in the archive that Adam Young was the sole member of the project but that is not true, the project was created by Austin Tofte and Adam Young, but only Austin Tofte was left and the project is still ongoing.

It can be seen here that the project is still ongoing: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/swimming-with-dolphins-catharsis

An interview with Austin Tofte related to the new album: http://www.bluefreedomblog.org/2013/09/this-album-saves-dolphins-interview.html

Adyjay (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for barnstar - I have spruced up Viktor ... but he is still not a DYK. We have 5 days to make it so. Intriguing for me is that he lived in Vinohrady which I have have written several DYKs for because there are QRpedia codes there as part of Praguepedia. Thanks for the thanks Victuallers (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your experience of "Article Protection" Pages

Hi User:Slakr: During the last week I had noticed a large amount of reverting and disruptive editing taking place on the Barack Obama by a single user:TBS who is trying to blank out the "Legacy" section there. On looking closer to send a disruptive editing message to that User:TBS, I then noticed that his/her Talk page was already on edit warring notices from other editors. After that, I looked at the Obama Talk page and discovered that User:TBS had opened four (4) contentious new sections there to do the section blanking on the Obama "Legacy" section. Apparently this single User:TBS has little regard for the amount of other editors time which is being used up in this section blanking effort by User:TBS. Since you have more experience than most on wikipages that are already on "Article Protection" status, I thought you might glance at this. Below is posted the sequences of diffs for disruptive edits made by User:TBS from the Edit History page there. Finally, User:TBS found one editor over the weekend to agree and decided to call it a "Consensus", and then proceeded to blank out the section against the "Article Protection" status. Could you glance at this.

(cur | prev) 19:14, 12 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (245,975 bytes) (-2,573)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term: Consensus achieved on the talk page for the removal of this section.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:59, 8 April 2014‎ Jerem... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,548 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603340629 by Tarc (talk) The user has been argumentative and intransigent on the talkpage; Tags were added after the user could not find the consensus they wanted, not to initially highlight) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:55, 8 April 2014‎ Ta... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,604 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (You don't need consensus to tag a section like this. Tags are for an editor to highlight a perceived problem, and then make a good-faith attempt on the talk page to explain those concerns. The procedure has been followed correctly here by this user.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:03, 8 April 2014‎ Nat... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,548 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603331681 by TBSchemer (talk) You've not demonstrated on Talk the need for these. Before adding them back please reach a consensus on the talk page there is a need for these.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:43, 8 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,604 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603330510 by DD2K (talk) Instead of removing the tags indicating a discussion, please discuss how to achieve NPOV on the talk page without resorting to personal attacks) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:34, 8 April 2014‎ DD...(talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,548 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (You've not demonstrated on Talk the need for these, only that you think anyone left of right-wing militants are POV) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:14, 8 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,604 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (→‎Economic policy: This section represents only one POV, selectively reporting praise while omitting critical analyses of the effects of these policies) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:11, 8 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,588 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (→‎Health care reform: This section is written in support of one point of view, selectively omitting many important historical facts.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:09, 8 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,572 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (Most of this article represents only one point of view. See the talk page for more information.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 16:48, 8 April 2014‎ Scj... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (248,548 bytes) (+2,573)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by TBSchemer (talk): Rm removal of content without consensus. using TW) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 16:41, 8 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (245,975 bytes) (-2,573)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term: Discussed on the talk page, and no specific objections were brought up) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 01:25, 7 April 2014‎ DD... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,548 bytes) (-535)‎ . . (Undid revision 603082221 by TBSchemer (talk) POV - Gain consensus on talk page for any attempt to add something like this.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:51, 7 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (249,083 bytes) (+535)‎ . . (Undid revision 603081323 by Tarc (talk) Restoring historical polling information.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:42, 7 April 2014‎ Ta... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,548 bytes) (-535)‎ . . (Undid revision 603080058 by TBSchemer (talk) - the minority party doesn't agree with the opposition party candidate? STOP THE PRESSES!) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:30, 7 April 2014‎ TBS... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (249,083 bytes) (+535)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term: Added several first-term polls from Gallup) (undo | thank)

FelixRosch (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Viktor's Dykish Award

	Viktor DYK Award
	I present you the Dyk of all DYKs, Viktor Dyk. You may have absolutely no idea who he is or what he did, but it's clear that he was a total Dyk. By the way, DYK that Dyk does have a DYK? With your help we can DYK the Dyk. :P Add an edit quickly Victuallers (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you proofread and copy edit the DYK article please Victuallers (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Global False positive

As I already unblocked on here, I'm still blocked on the other wiki. --180.183.46.166 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ProcseeBot doesn't make global blocks, so you'll need to get unblocked wherever the other block is. Drop them a link to your block log and/or this discussion to expedite the process; I also don't see any open proxies where there once was one on this IP, so you're good to go. --slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I want a deleted article

Can you give me the source for the article you deleted called "Pac In Time transcript"? I want to see it, and perhaps use it on my wiki for a script of a short film that I'm making. Also, I seen Cheerleader2's other vandalism, and it's pretty funny (to me). But still, she shouldn't put those stuff in. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Viktor Dyk

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rionne McAvoy

Hello,

A page you recently deleted, about a pro wrestler called Rionne McAvoy, was deleted by mistake I feel.

Rionne is an up and coming star in Japan, and is certainly notable at least in this country. For people who say he isnt notable, they don't know anything about the Japanese wrestling business to warrant an opinion.

Is it possible to have this decision reversed?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.151.158.96 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slakr,

This page was deleted by you.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Counterinsurgency,_Democracy_and_the_Politics_of_Identity_in_India&action=edit&redlink=1

This book is an academic book and has very insighful first person research from a prominent professor.

Could you please tell me when this book information was deleted?

Thanks Werner Pinkandwhite Werner (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Help required

I want maps for my school page --- New R. S. J. Public School. Can you create a one for me. Also, there is something wrong in my user page infobox. Can you correct it for me.--prathamprakash29 15:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

AfD

Since you participated in the 3rd AfD for John Schlossberg, just thought I'd say a 4th AfD has begun in case you're interested. You do not have to comment if you don't want, just thought I'd let you know. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD on Wikebreak

Hi Slakr, I'm LeBassRobespierre. JohnCD asked me to contact you regarding a new submission of a previously deleted entry. He is taking a Wikipedia break and will not be back until early June (No later we hope!). This is what went on:

Request starting a new entry for an article previously deleted

Hi JohnCD, I wanted to start a new entry for an academic medical journal, Surgical Neurology International, for which an entry was attempted in Wikipedia by another contributor several months ago (February 2014). Apparently a Wikipedia writer-editor believed the journal wasn't notable enough. Surgical Neurology International is an important neurosurgical and neuroscience journal founded in 2010 and is already one of the highest circulation journals in the world. I have been working on an entry and would like to submit it, but I'm requesting your permission to create this page. Interestingly, I have researched the contributions of the Wikipedia editor who contested the notability of this journal and found that several of his entries (contributions) consisted of medical journals much less notable than Surgical Neurology International. I was not a party to the previous entry, but I believe that my submission will be within the Wikipedia guidelines for a medical journal stub. Thank you for your consideration in this matter in advance. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@LeBassRobespierre: that article was not deleted just because one user thought it not notable - there was a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Surgical neurology international. You are welcome to create a new article, but since the previous one was deleted by consensus at AfD, you should start by making a draft, and then show it to user Slakr (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion, to let him assess whether you have overcome the reasons for deletion. I have set up a draft page for you at Draft:Surgical Neurology International. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles for general advice, read the AfD discussion to see what problems were found last time, and check out WP:Notability and WP:Notability (academic journals). JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As suggested I wrote both the draft which is pending: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Surgical_Neurology_International

Please evaluate. I also left an explanatory for both of you in the Talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft_talk:Surgical_Neurology_International

Please let me know if you need more data or explanations. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this matter. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hemu Aggarwal AfD

Hi. I was just wondering why you decided to change your mind, after closing the debate as a "delete"... Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is because it was relisted already. The long answer is I was dumb and I didn't see the 1 in front of the '7' on joe's relist and had to fix the relisting anyway so the bot (and humans looking to close AfDs from that date) would see it as such too. :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know" for Kristīne Opolais

Thank you, Kurt, for this hint. I discovered it only today, given that I contribute mostly to the German and sometimes to the Latvian Wikipedia (and very occasionally only to the Spanish and to the English Wikipedia). Based on the Latvian Wikipedia article on Kristīne Opolais, I had written the German version in 2012 and was pleased to see that a few weeks ago an English one had also come up. Yours ----Michael Huhn (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Josh Woodward discography

I have no idea why you deleted Josh Woodward's discography. He's very well known as one of the most prominent creative commons musicians. His music is used in many youtube videos and his albums have been downloaded many times. He also has a decently large fan base as evidenced by patreon (http://www.patreon.com/joshwoodward) and Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joshwoodward/josh-woodwards-new-cd-the-beautiful-machine) support. You can't just delete an artist simply because you've never heard of them. Durand101 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't; another admin did. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Woodward for the discussion. I did, however, close an AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Wings, which corresponded to articles on albums by the artist. Please check out our deletion policy for more info on how this occurred and/or what you can do if you feel it's been done in error. --slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AGB Investigative Services, Inc. Deletion

Slakr,

I'm confused as to why the page AGB Investigative Services, Inc. was deleted. As far as I could tell, there were no violations of Wikipedia's policies. Please give me a detailed explanation of the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royce Strahan (talk • contribs)

JobServer page

I have receiving no feedback why there was no discussion regarding the JobServer page that was deleted. I addressed the initial concerns when the page was marked for deletion and started discussion requesting more feedback, but received none. I was expecting some open discussion on this. I kindly request instating the JobServer page or let me know what other issues remain with it.

Thanks, Sam Taha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsurda (talk • contribs)

Low Carbon Vehicle Event

Instead of taking this to DRV, can you restore and change to no consensus? I believe my argument overrides to the delete votes, this event had received coverage from RS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a soft-delete (low turnout, 3:1 arguing the same thing, but yeah, valid disagreement as you point out). So, you can either just go grab someone to WP:UNDELETE it or just re-create the article. Admittedly, I could have made the "(soft)" part of the close a little bolder but w/e... it was late. :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate going to UNDELETE, I hoping you could restore the article and give me 48 hours to work on it. I'll add the BBC citations I posted in the AfD, or if you prefer, userfy both article and talk page in my space. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Valoem: I stuck it at User:Valoem/Low Carbon Vehicle Event for you. Sorry for the delay; been busy IRL. :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can you also userfy the talk page? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything; just a {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} :P --slakr^\ talk / 18:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The discussion continues too long. There is a consensus for deletion of the article. Another user, who had not previously participated in the discussion, spoke in favor of delete. And those users, who had offered to keep the article, still did not respond to my and others counter arguments more than a week! After extending the period of discussion and setting "Relist", no one spoke in favor of keep the article. VolgaCamper (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SineBot down

Apparently, SineBot is down again. Got time in your hectic schedule to fix it? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Bot is back to making talk pages look like talk pages. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Camp Lambec

Camp Lambec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please review the closure of this deletion. I'm perplexed that no one bothered to tell me that it had been listed. I was the major author on the article. I am perplexed why it was relisted twice. Perhaps because they someone didn't get the strong response they wanted? It passed muster under Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Lambec - Lambec Lake. Sometimes articles need time to grow. This one was killed prematurely. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

speedy delete of school based family counseling

Confused by your decision to speedy delete the page, when the discussion STRONGLY favored keeping the page, with a great deal of information indicating that many of the admins were upset that the article was nominated in the first place. Please review and revisit. This page should not have been deleted. Nickmalik (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/School-based_family_counseling Nickmalik (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nickmalik: I actually ignored the discussion on that one, as severe copyright issues supersede normal deletion discussions and result in what we call "criteria for speedy deletion" (or "CSD"). The "G12" that I mention but I apparently forgot to link ( Facepalm ) is CSD criteria G12, which basically means "severe copyright problem requiring deletion without discussion." The good news is that because it was deleted via CSD and not by normal AFD closure, there's no prohibition against you or anyone else creating the article on that same topic again; just avoid using copyrighted text. Others are still, of course, free to start a new AfD discussion if they feel the new incarnation is still inappropriate in some other way. For more information on dealing with copyrighted stuff and our general policies on the matter, please see the our copyright policy as well as our policy on copyright violations. For more stuff related to speedy deletion, check out WP:CSD, or for more info on the deletion process as a whole, check out the deletion policy. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Slakr: Thank you Slakr for the excellent explanation. I dropped a note to the author of the article that was copied (verbatim!) to see if there was an intent to deliver their content into the public realm on Wikipedia but they have not responded. I can only assume that they did NOT intend for their content to become public domain. As such, your action was completely justified. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to a relative newbie. (Hey, I now know what a G12 is and how to look for the criteria for speedy deletion. There's always that :-). How would I go about getting hold of the content of the page at the point at which it was finally deleted? (I had already done quite a bit of editing, as did another editor, so it's got good "bones" for an actual article... don't want to lose that in starting over). Nickmalik (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting deleted page "Modern Future" w/ new references for notability.

Hello Slakr,

I'd like to reopen discussion of the page "Modern Future" - the production company has had a few more releases and 3rd-party-press listing their production work. Would adding these references be enough to establish notability?

New articles (both 3rd-party):

Credit of "Modern Future presents" on Bay Area music blog: http://bayareacompass.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-video-work-in-progress-by-philasifer.html

Credit (on the back of the album) of new release by DJ Ammbush: http://trueclothing.net/shop/index.php/blog/ammbush-digital-graffiti-ep

Credit of "Modern Future" under players on DJ Ammbush release (2nd Party): https://ammbush.bandcamp.com/album/digital-graffiti

Credit of "Modern Future presents" on Underground Hip Hop: http://undergroundhiphopblog.com/2014/06/09/philasifer-california-work-in-progress-official-video/

"Modern Future" Vocal Tag in Big Freedia track (Fuse's song of the day) - If you play the track the first thing you hear is the company name: http://www.fuse.tv/2014/06/big-freedia-turn-da-beat-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by PingreePark (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

PingreePark (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Elysian Shadows Delete

Hello,

I noticed today that you deleted the page, I think that was rather abrupt as I was actively working on that page adding secondary references. I had already added one reference from an approved list of secondary references.

If you do a simple google search you would find several websites mention the upcoming game.

Please reconsider.--Cube b3 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth did you block me?! 220.255.1.18 (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can not, can the page please be moved to my sandbox so that I may continue to add references and move it back when the time is right?--Cube b3 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious

page protection
Thank you, recent changes patroller not known for taking yourself too seriously, for helpful bots, for dealing with vandalism, page protections and articles for deletion, for good closes, and for your belief that WP "embodies free speech at its finest, ... filtering fact from fiction" - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Enquiry/help

Hi ,if I wanted to make a complaint about an administrator where should i do it, thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot problem

See this talk page thread for details.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Outcomes

Hi Slaker. Just a general comment ... I agree w/your !vote where you discussed Outcomes. But wanted to mention here that it states: "While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." Furthermore, if you look at how Outcomes is routinely for years now referred to at School AfDs (such as the current ones today), you will see it consistently given more weight than your comment would suggest ... it is often referred to, especially by admins, as the reason for their !vote. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice Requested

Hi Kurt, I found this message in my Sandbox: "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

   00:13, 7 June 2014 Slakr (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Gerrardb/sandbox (G8: Redirect to deleted page "School-based family counseling")"

I believe what happened here is that I inadvertently quoted myself from a published article (without sending Wikipedia a publisher permission). I can easily rewrite the "quoted text" so that it doesn't violate copyright (or get publisher permission, as I had the publisher review my Wikipedia draft before it was accepted. That is, the publisher knew and approved of the Wikipedia article- however I wasn't aware at the time I was quoting myself so did not seek permission. Given what I now understand to be proper Wikipedia procedure I agree with your delete decision. I would like to do a rewrite that does not violate copyright. I am contacting you as recommended above. Can you please advise me as to next steps? Kindest regards, Gerrardb (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Elysian Shadows

Hello @Slakr, I had requested earlier for you to send me the transcript of Elysian Shadows, I never heard back from you. My request now appears to have been moved to archives therefore I am requesting again. If you use Wikipedia's custom search for approved secondary sources you will find more then enough references for Elysian Shadows. It would save me a lot of time and energy if I could get the original page instead of recreating from scratch. Best Regards B3--Cube b3 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My signature and Sinebot

Hi, I'm editing as Origamian, a legitimate alternate account of Origamite. I link my signature back to Origamite's user and user talk pages, not those of Origamian. Should I link them to the Origamian page or simply opt out of Sinebot? Origamite^{is out right now} 03:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamian (talk • contribs)

Resolved

Sorry for contacting you. Origamite^{is out right now} 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reported your wrongdoings per your request

haai Slakr.

I hereby inform you about my reporting of your wrongdoings thereat as instructed by guidelines therefore writen and your request thereof via irc long~long ago in topics dealing with erronious afd closures resulting from your semi-understandable occupation with afd backlogs. (if not real world activities)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_11

You don't have to do anything, I fully understand editors who don't dare poke the cold fusion article with a 6 foot pole(1828.8 mm) in order to protect the guilty. This is just here in order to fulfill involved technical requirements of such in order to make me look professional.

Have a nice day.

bye

84.106.11.117 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you truly feel that my close was incorrect in this instance, you'll want to either register an account or sign in to your main account, then create a new DRV request. That one appears to have been summarily closed by another admin due to some apparent pre-existing drama/sanctions related to cold fusion topics as a whole. If you were accidentally editing while logged out, oversight might be able to help clean things up, though. --slakr^\ talk / 22:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey hello again!

Article splitting works like this:

• WP:Split: The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.

• WP:POVFORK: POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view.

It is perfectly neutral to say the Pons and Fleischmann experiment is a sub topic of Cold Fusion.

It seems perfectly obvious to me but maybe you have questions? What makes this so complex that it has to take this much effort? Why couldn't anyone address the topic properly? WP:I don't like it is not a valid excuse. We have notability guidelines for that kind of thing. A skeptic consensus wont do. All of the long lists of comments that do not address the topic are examples of disruptive editing. If they would be constructive non-debunker editors they could be instantly banned for that. But that wont happen of course. I'm the bad guy for proposing something entirely sensible. Because I copied the exact text, that magically became a pov fork many months before. Read it again: I copy the exact text? This is now a pov fork? I'm not going to do anything in mainspace. I'm absolutely terrified by all this wikilawyering.

No way I could do anything right. Right?

No offense.

bye

84.106.11.117 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

SineBot at Bengali Wikipedia

I've seen SineBot working so well in this wiki. So I was wondering that if you can make SineBot work in Bengali Wikipedia too? --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Preceding unsigned comment added by"

When Signbot adds a signature, why does it insert the text "Preceding unsigned comment added by"? It's unnecessary. Why should Signbot signatures look any different to manual signatures? If you believe signatures are useful, it's a shame to introduce noise.

To be sure, I think Sinebot is great, but it would be less intrusive if it added signatures quietly, without drawing attention to itself. That distracts from the actual content of the message being signed. Imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

SineBot on sister projects

Hi Slakr, I was wondering if it would be possible at all to create and run a version of this project's SineBot on the Manx language Wikipedia. The appropriate text would read as follows: "Va'n çhaghteraght gyn ennym roish shoh screeuit ec USER_ID". I understand you may have time constraints, but I would really appreciate it if this could be done. Thanking you in advance. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is listed at Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed but the bot does not appear to be signing things. For example this wasn't signed. The only reason I noticed was that it was the second day in a row. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 09:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Signbot has also been reported as dead at WP:AN#SineBot dead. Monty₈₄₅ 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

some thing is wrong with my account or sinebot Comment

I think sine bot and my account both need to go for a checkup because, whenever i sign something, about 5 to 10 minuets later sine bot tells me i forgot to sign something. I always use my four tildes. whats happening.? Doorknob747 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Doorknob747 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Doorknob747 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Doorknob747 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Doorknob747 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

SineBot again dead

Per WP:AN#SineBot_is_dead_again, it looks like SineBot is again down. Last edit was at 13:56 UTC, approx. seven hours ago. Posting this because it seems no one has as of yet alerted you (unless they have off-wiki). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please consider the following supplemental information related to the deletion of Neuronetrix Wiki page. Base claim for deletion was lack of notability. Consider the following:

Independent news media interview and article on company -

Independent news media interview and article on company -

Company was invited to international conference on Alzheimer's disease (2013) to present new and novel data - (page 36)

Independent news media coverage of company -

Company was invited to second international conference on Alzheimer's disease (2014) to present new and novel clinical data - (search "cecchi")

Neuronetrix has developed a diagnostic system for Alzheimer's disease. Their clinical trial is complete. FDA 510(k) has been submitted. To date, there are very limited methods to diagnose Alzheimer's.

Due to independent media coverage, completion of study, and magnitude of need for AD diagnostics, this company is notable. Shamulobsterpa (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Shamulobsterpa (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Slakr. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your revert on 2013–14 LFL Australia season

But I thought that the LFL Australia page needed to seperated like the LFL Canada and LFL USA Rugby Sevens are coming 01:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daichi Shibata (footballer)

You deleted Daichi Shibata (footballer) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daichi Shibata (footballer). Now that he made a fully professional start last weekend for Kataller Toyama against Montedio Yamagata in the J. League Division 2 as per [3] can you now undelete it? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: this was requested at WP:UND#Daichi Shibata (footballer), and I have restored the article after checking that he does indeed now meet WP:NFOOTY. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SignBot stopped working

I'm sorry to bother you but could you tell me why SignBot stopped making edits as of several days ago? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Same here, Sinebot didn't sign this either. Is it down for maintenance?  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sinebot isn't working. Please fix it. It is a very useful bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, poor Dismas has to sign everything by hand (and we appreciate it). I also did a few.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Back up. I was sick + it looks like there was some temporary mediawiki thing going on. --slakr^\ talk / 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dismas, please see my updated response. I had meant to say that too. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us what to do if it happens again and you're not around.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

2000 A.D.D.

Howdy, I went to DRV about a close to an AfD you did earlier this year. I did so before notifying you, I had intended to notify you as it went to DRV. Please accept my sincere apologies, I must have forgotten to post here on your talk page. Again, sorry about that. The discussion is taking place here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 11. I thought the DRV route would be the simplest route, since the close was a simple delete. I would still like your input on it though, I would've likely made the same decision you made in closing it largely based on the lack of participation in the AfD. But, I think that overturning that as of now, and maybe re-listing for AfD if need be. I'm honestly unsure what to think about that AfD, so your input would be appreciated. Smile Lee (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Smile Lee: Lol, no prob. In fact, on AfDs where there's no input like that, you can typically assume a "delete" means "soft delete," which means you can just ask someone at WP:UNDELETE (or really available and willing admin) to restore the article for you and you don't even have to deal with the hassle/delay of DRV. Normally I try to stick a "(soft)" on the end of a close like that for extra emphasis, but it must have slipped my mind on that one. On a related note, I've gone ahead and restored the full page history for you if you wanna get started on any changes. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Slakr: haha :D Its all good partner, I figured you intended a soft delete. I can't believe I forgot to message you at the outset of the DRV. <badJoke>Honestly, I think that album title got to us, ADD.</badJoke> Smile Lee (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brides in the Bath

With the nom's withdrawal and (now) keep vote, do you really believe a relisting was better than a close as keep? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, no-consensus could have been an appropriate close in my opinion, but not keep. Seeing as AfD was backlogged and there was continuing activity on the discussion, it made sense to relist to get some post-changes/post-sourcing feedback for a more clear result (hopefully "keep" in this instance). If you'd like to help with the backlog, please see WP:OLD. -slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DELETION OF ARTICLE SANT JAGJIT SINGH HARKHOWAL IS NOT RIGHT

I am a high rank officer back in India and i request you to not delete this article as it is regarding a person of very high repute and name in India . Thanku — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchasoorma (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I marked it as a soft deletion, meaning it can be undeleted by any admin that agrees with you or recreated, hopefully addressing the concerns that people raised in the AfD to avoid someone re-nominating it. --slakr^\ talk / 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in deletion

You have recently deleted The Canadian Business Journal. You should have probably edited the page instead of deleting it. Among others, I had also edited the page. It had some errors that should have been corrected, but I don't think deleting it makes much sense. So, how do we undo this. If you are going to apply the rules across wikipedia in this overzealous way, then not only you should find the time to delete half the articles here, but you also become another big brother just like Google, dictating to others what you think is notable or not. Being notable does not and should not mean that unless you are a big, powerful, and rich media organization, you will not be considered notable. The Canadian Business Journal page was up since 2009 and it mainly consisted of a brief description of the publication. A six years old publication that has interviewed Premiers, celebrities, and Big business CEOs is a notable entity despite of what you may think.

More details http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Stesmo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.55.170 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 

I wasn't the most recent deleter which prompted you to come here; another admin agreed with the fundamental problems in tone. Follow that link, read the applicable policies and guidelines (e.g., neutral point of view, advertising, conflicts of interest, and notability of corporations), then proceed to create an incarnation of the page that agrees with them (if possible). Check out our business FAQ for several frequently asked questions, as well as your first article for information on creating articles. --slakr^\ talk / 08:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, a frequent tip I give to people in this situation is to pretend you truly hate whatever you're writing about but are forced to write an article about it anyway. It'll put you in the mindset to write with a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. --slakr^\ talk / 08:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

---

   You have not addressed a simple question. 

Is this considered a reliable third party reference. The CBJ was the first all-digital Canadian publication to qualify and be audited by BPA Worldwide. In my opinion, this was a good start. You have to give a small organization a chance to grow.

http://www.bpaww.com/Bpaww_com/HTML/about_bpa/industry_news/2009/Canadian%20Business%20Journal%20first%20digital%20only%20BPA%20Member.html

   Is a big corporation somehow more notable than a small publication.

If you go by these guidelines you've mentioned, neutral point of view, advertising, conflicts of interest, and notability of corporations. There is only one section here that applies to Lending Tree's article which is notability by the way of their advertising on TV.

As of the time of this posting, I see still the same old reference links on their Wikipedia page LendingTree. As I pointed out to your earlier, one is a paid writer, the other two consist of the companies own website and a press release issued by them. All I have been trying to point out there is that whatever the guidelines are, they have to applied in a fair way. Fairness is important!

The magazine article link is still active on the Canadian Magazines page. While the CBJ page is in the process of being relisted, I think it should be removed from List of Canadian magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.55.170 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I'm not sure if I ever left you wikilove for SineBot, but I've been receiving a lot of messages from new users lately. Needless to say, SineBot has been busy on my talk page! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove page protection

Hello. I am writing to ask that you remove page protection from Jashodaben Chimanlal, as you are the next named administrator in line with a stake in this. You closed an AfD in June at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jashodaben. Since that time, I rewrote the biography on this person and would like to recreate something at that article space. I argue why I should be able to do this at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Article_on_Modi.27s_wife.2C_Jashodaben_Chimanlal. I would be completely happy if someone AfD'd my work immediately, but I would like to be given the chance to allow my new draft to go to AfD without being speedy deleted or dismissed without discussion.

Administrator Nick protected the page and sent me to deletion review where Administrator Sandstein closed the discussion saying that I could recreate the page. After this, Nick agreed that I could recreate the page, but to do so I would need to get some other admin to remove page protection because he wanted away from this issue. Since you are the original closing admin, I am asking you to remove the page protection. If you are not available to be involved then I will ask someone else. There are people who object to my recreating this page so soon after that June discussion, and the biggest part of my request is getting to a 4th Afd for this article space.

It is not my intent to draw you deeper into this, because I recognize that no one wants to be involved in odd controversy. I hope that you would help me just removing page protection based on the results of the deletion review and Nick's saying that nothing else prevents this, then not feeling obligation to do anything more. Thank you for your consideration, and thanks for the valid close in the 3rd AfD discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add page protection nor deem it necessary, which usually negates me wanting to remove it (as I try to avoid wheel warring). Check the page's log to find out which admin added the protection and contact them to request it be removed and/or request unprotection @ WP:RFPP. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am only here to avoid wheel warring also. I appreciate your help and need nothing more beyond your confirmation that you do not wish to be involved. I mentioned you on the admin board to confirm that you are not involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Two possible improvements to SineBot

Hi, I wonder if SineBot couldn't be improved in two small ways.

Firstly, the way that it signs talk pages is quite verbose; why can't almost all of it be hidden in comments, so the signature looks essentially normal? The message that is sent is 99% to other people, who do not benefit from it.

Secondly, why not place a message about how to sign on the relevant user's talk page? They need to know one simple thing (assuming they didn't simply forget), which is "write ~~~~ at the end of every talk message" - not something one could say was intuitive. Forgetful editors may of course also benefit from a reminder; they can already opt out so there isn't an issue there.

With these changes, the bot would be doing an appreciably better job. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Check out the actions it takes and the templates it uses on its user page. Those are the underlying templates that you'll want to propose changing on the respective template talk pages. --slakr^\ talk / 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with SineBot

Take a look here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I need diffs and some sort of hint as to expected behavior versus observed behavior. Keep in mind the bot isn't perfect and tries to fail safe (i.e., not take action rather than taking action). --slakr^\ talk / 10:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For the first one, the problem is more serious than I thought as SineBot wasn't the one that signed wrong. The incorrect time was added manually after several posts weren't signed, so we can't easily say what happened. I'm glad you told me to look at diffs and I guess I need to take the time to do that from now on. I also had the opportunity to enjoy some vandalism I wouldn't have seen.

For the second one, this is another manually signed post. Two unsigned posts were made quickly and one was signed by SineBot while the other wasn't. Only you can figure out what happened, I suppose, if there's something peculiar about the post in question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Camp Lambec

Camp Lambec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please review the closure of this deletion. I'm perplexed that no one bothered to tell me that it had been listed. I was the major author on the article. I am perplexed why it was relisted twice. Perhaps because they someone didn't get the strong response they wanted? It passed muster under Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Lambec - Lambec Lake. Sometimes articles need time to grow. This one was killed prematurely. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine

I don't see a consensus to delete here, soft or not, refundable or not.  Rather I see an AfD with a true consensus of all three editors involved.

This is related to your close at WP:Articles for deletion/Crown Hill, Indianapolis, which IMO also had a consensus to incubate, and was discussed here.  Your comment there twice stated that incubate is "asking for delete"...no, incubate means incubate, not delete.  Your comment argued that incubation wasn't needed because editors could have improved the article while it was at AfD...no, AfD is not cleanup, while incubation provides a place for cleanup outside of mainspace.  Your comment argued that incubation "keep[s] things that are unqualified for mainspace around indefinitely"...no, the life of an article in the incubator is shorter than the life of a userfied article.  Some userfied userspace articles are now eight years old.  Your comment argued that userfy is preferred to incubate, but the policy at WP:Deletion policy#Incubation states, "Incubation provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space."  Twice your comments did not reply to the question, "Do you agree that incubation is a process to improve the encyclopedia?".

Please explain your close.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So I'm guessing you're requesting that this be undeleted, so I've gone ahead and put it at Draft:Rock Revolt Magazine for you. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 03:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since you've moved the article to draftspace, can you please change the close to "incubate" now?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Slakr:  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protip: you're not gonna get people to give you their honest opinions on a topic if you become known for making it a habit of re-quoting things they've said in the past to try to snipe them with it in the future. Believe it or not, surrounding yourself with friends that don't feel obligated to watch their every word around you tends to be more advantageous than merely having acquaintances that will only ever give you political responses; the former nets you people who'll bend over backwards to keep you happy, while the latter simply will never care. That's sound advice both here and in real life, fwiw. --slakr^\ talk / 09:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 and WP:ANRFC

Hi Slakr. Thank you for your detailed closing rationale at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 in response to my closure request at WP:ANRFC. I've noticed that you are a prolific AfD closer and was impressed by your thoughtful comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kardashian Index (which is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 8#Kardashian Index).

Would you consider also closing discussions at WP:ANRFC, which doesn't have regular closers at the moment? Your insight and willingness to explain your closes in detail would be very helpful at WP:ANRFC. If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Thank you again for your Archive.is close! Cunard (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No prob. I can't commit to being truly regular due to chaotic schedules in real life, but I'll at least try to drop by periodically. I tend to focus on backlogged areas anyway. :P --slakr^\ talk / 10:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. WP:ANRFC needs all the help it can get, so irregular closers are good too. :) Cunard (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem about SineBot

Hi, and I've noticed that SineBot has left a message about how to sign posts (and this is the second time). As far as I know, I haven't forgot to sign my posts since the last time it gave me that message (and that's in June, 2014). Can you please evaluate this and make a reply. Thanks. Wikipedian 2 09:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian 2 (talk • contribs)

{{Unsigned IP}} draft for discussion

Hi, I've proposed some changes to {{Unsigned IP}}. Since this affects SineBot, I'd appreciate your input on the proposal. I've started the discussion at the template's talk page. Thanks! Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Repair ;)

Dear Slakr, recently (after some years, obviously) I've written couple lines while I wasn't logged in, vide: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.96.19.219 —— What shall be done? Could you repair this? Pretty please and thank you ^_^ SR-7v (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)