User talk:Cabayi/Archive 2

January - December 2015

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cabayi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Howard C Cox

Reference Howard C Cox. I have removed all promotional messages and all that is left is fact. SOrry fro misunderstanding, but our supporters have asked for a Wiki entry. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardccox (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Then let one of your supporters do it. Don't create the article yourself, you have a conflict of interest. The same goes for Fairfueluk. Bazj (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. Please delete all entries I have wasted my time in putting up today. That's my user name Howardcox, entry Howard C Cox and FairFuelUK. I will not be using a service that purports to be helpful but stops honest authors in public life explaining their campaigns honestly. An apology would be welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardccox (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Howardccox You seem to have mistaken Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, for a free advertising service. You also ignored the guidance posted to your talk page. I quite agree you owe an apology. Bazj (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am totally new to Wikipedia. So I apologise for getting the entry wrong. But I did read the guidelines and changed accordingly. I want to be removed completely from this service now as it seems I am not ready for the closed cartel of operators on here. I genuinely did not know my entry was wrong, so I changed it. Please remove me from Wikipedia or at least tell me how to do it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardccox (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had a rummage around and it appears that it's not possible. Your next best option may be to have the account blocked. JamesBWatson, can you help? Bazj (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly block the account if Howardccox wants me to, but I am not sure there is any point in doing so. The pages that the account has created have been deleted, and all that is needed is to walk away and abandon the account. Howardccox is perfectly free to remove all content from his talk page if he likes, leaving it blank, but user talk pages are not normally deleted, as it is sometimes necessary to consult the history of messages to the editor, particularly if he/she ever decides to come back to editing (either with the same account or with a new one). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Blatt

Good evening Bazg (It is evening here)

Thank you for your kind response and guiding regarding the Bio entitled "Nicolas Blatt" (I mean it). Here is the situation: I am 80 years old and luckily going on 50 (excuse my joke) and i am a very active teacher of European History in different colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Nicolas Blatt died exactly 50 years ago and he would be 125 years old now. He was my father. Regardless how I look at it and objectively, he was an important man during his times and he contributed a lot to the field of ophthalmology internationally and nationally. He also is an example of how scientist were treated in Eastern Europe during the 50s and 60s. What I wrote is objective and factual. I inadvertently used words which I should have not used because this is my style of writing: I am writing papers for my students and I am correcting their papers at test times. Since I saved in Wikipedia his bio, I edited it several times and I removed or changed all the no, no words. Everything i listed in the bio took place, nothing is invented or subjective, I just narrated the chronological facts. Everything that I said is 100% documented and at the bottom I added numerically all the references, inserting the numbers in the the text in the area where each belongs. I also listed in bullets his most important publications indicating where each was published and where each can be found. Everything I said is verifiable. I don't look back at him in a flattering manner because of my connection to him. I also intend to add links from the computer of different writings where his name is mentioned by other people. He was mentioned in many Journals in the USA, England, France, Germany, Hungary and Romania. Many of them are not in the computers because in those days computers almost did not exist, however, those Journals are still available today in their existing officers and different libraries. I am all mentioning them in my references (British Journal of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, American Archives of Ophthalmology, Archives dOfthalmologie (France), ‘Ophthalmologen Verzeichnis’ (Germany) and others. Also at the time of his death all this Journals wrote about it. Equally verifiable is the article written about him in 1949, in the "Romanian Review of Medical sciences" in which he was condemned for promoting Western Science instead of promoting only Soviet Science. His connection with the Royal Court of Romania and his work with Queen Helen of Romania in trying to save Jews from concentration camps are equally verifiable. In addition to the references I inserted in the text a few quotations from these different Journals and reviews. When he succeeded to leave Eastern Europe he was appointed Professor at the Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt Germany. That is also verifiable.

I am not a wizard with computers, I work very well with computers for my classes, especially with Power Point, I had to learn a lot before I figured out how to edit articles in the Wikipedia page, as such i made probably many mistakes in adding references and the format, but i am learning. Why nobody submitted until now his bio in Wikipedia, I don't know. In my writing I took the example of other similar bios in Wikipedia. There are also several people who are presently alive, and I believe that some have written their own story. This has nothing to do with me. I have pictures illustrating many of the facts I mention Please accept this bio. The facts are objective.

Thank you,

Erica Blatt Harkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Blatt Harkins (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Erica Blatt Harkins, I'll put in the effort and do a full copyedit of your article. Please don't take it personally. It's not meant to be offensive to you or your father. It's just aimed at getting the article into a Wikipedia style.

Regarding some of your other points,

my style of writing - we're all products of our background. It's not just a matter of words. As a teacher I guess you'll be used to the "Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you've told them" style. 25 years in IT has left me with a very terse style. Wikipedia style lies somewhere in between the two.
Notability - the head of department when I was an undergraduate, a pioneer in his field, doesn't feature on Wikipedia. He doesn't even appear when you do a search on Google. That's just to say that Notability isn't a trivial bar. History is cruel and lots of worthy people are forgotten. Even after the article's been polished and wikified someone may come along and ask for the article to be deleted as Not Notable.
I believe that some have written their own story - then as a good Wikipedian you should caution the editors about writing autobiographies. If they're not notable, nominate the article for deletion. As in your case, it's about improving Wikipedia, not about honouring anybody, or advertising, or any of the 1001 other things people try to use Wikipedia for.
That is also verifiable - then please provide links to source material so that it can be verified.
Why nobody submitted until now his bio in Wikipedia, I don't know - to be blunt, you don't know because you're not impartial. You're too close to the subject. That's why I put the conflict-of-interest caution on your talk page. It's a common problem, which is why the caution is a template. I hope you can detach yourself enough to take the copyedit as a good faith effort on my part.

Regards, Bazj (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Previewing the layout of refs

Hey Bazj. I just happened to notice your edit summary here. If you're editing a section rather than the entire page, just add {{reflist}} at the end of the section and hit show preview (but don't forget to remove the template before saving). See also User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js (though I don't know if it's currently functional and if it's only for monobook). Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit - Doh! It's painfully obvious when someone points it out. Thanks for taking the trouble. Bazj (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do this too,

, on an unfortunately semi-regular basis:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cruise1st

Hello Bazj. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cruise1st, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to be a subsidiary of a notable company, so even if not notable, it can be merged/redirected there. Thank you. So Why 15:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

SoWhy If you're happy with their SEO guy advertising them on Wikipedia who am I to argue. Bazj (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

When judging a page for eligibility under WP:CSD, it's not relevant who created the page but whether the page itself meets the criteria. In this case, it didn't and it especially was not written as a clear advertisement. WP:COI does not forbid such editing, it just advises against it. But if someone paid to edit articles does so in a manner consistent with policy, they are allowed to do so (cf. WP:PE). In this case, I cannot find any promotional language and being a part of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. indicates sufficient importance/significance to pass A7. Regards So Why 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnpops888/sandbox

A draft about a potentially viable topic can't be a U5, however this still qualified as a blatant G11 so I deleted it under that instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ralf Rogowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Kylemabua

Hi Bazj

The article I try to get onto Wiki about Aleit is important, I do understand the promotional side. Reason to get it on is because of the contribution Aleit did, after the establishing of their company, they have placed South Africa and especially Cape Town in the map for weddings. Also they did a lot of Hospitality in South Africa, and still are doing a lot. If you can let me know about any section I can take out to get the entry on, let me know please.

Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemabua (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 January 2015

Kylemabua, I think you're too close to the subject to write objectively about him or most of the other topics on which you've written.

Most of your contributions on Victoria & Alfred Waterfront are too promotional for Wikipedia but would probably be ideal on Wikivoyage at voy:Cape Town, or voy:Cape Peninsula - in fact the Peninsula article already has a redlink to voy:Victoria & Alfred Waterfront indicating some interest in the topic already exists.

Your contributions on Aleit Swanepoel show an interest in the guy that goes beyond the casual. The comments on your talk page (which you've blanked out) show an almost exclusive focus on promoting Aleit and his companies. This edit leads me to believe that you're being paid to promote Aleit & companies, a clear undeclared conflict of interest. Having read through your contributions I don't think you'll ever manage to detach yourself enough to write an encyclopedia article rather than a promotional piece. I'd recommend leaving the topic alone.

Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of CFAA

It seems that you are irresponsibly monitoring the CFAA page as well as others. Rather than randomly deleting articles, why don't you edit them to ensure accuracy and help make wikipedia a more accurate relevant forum. Your speedy deletions are curious and rather suspicious at best.

65.200.182.210 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ricklett ...as are your continued edits after logging out. Sockpuppetry is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Bazj (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, I think you are mistaken. There are numerous individuals attempting to get the CFAA onto wikipedia it appreas. As a moderator, you should be assisting in getting new articles written and constructed correctly. Want to provide constructive feedback or edits rather than deleting? It would be helpful to the wikipedia community and articles you are sensoring. 65.200.182.210 (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you shed some light on why you are requesting speedy deletion? Not affiliated in anyway with Ricklett and article provides unbiased facts. 208.54.36.152 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As a courtesy, i am informing you that your tags are misplaced. No sock puppetry nor affiliation to prior poster. This association is notable in that it is the only association for corporate finance professionals globally. Your suggested edits and or ammenents are greatly appreciated. Kinsey regards Wikkopp (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. If you can think of a plausible explanation why you, an allegedly new user, have recreated an article in pretty much an exact copy of a version that was deleted before you started editing (so you couldn't have seen it - allegedly), then take your reasoning to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricklett and make your case. Bazj (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we have the basis for one of those "weird event" TV series like Lost or The Event or FlashForward. Suddenly, across the globe, hundreds of people awaken, suddenly inspired to create the same Wikipedia article about the same obscure, new organization... --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One that turns out to be an episode of United States of Tara? Bazj (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Merri Soul Sessions

An article you PRODed as The Merri Soul Sessions (album) and which was subsequently deleted has been recreated by me. This article covers the same subject, an album by Paul Kelly, which is notable. This version has sufficient reliable sources and I've self-assessed it at C-class. As a courtesy, I am informing you of its existence.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, Thanks for the unexpected courtesy. I'd now make some polite comment comparing this version to the previous article, but it's beyond comparison. Good job. Bazj (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

UK MPs 2010-2015

Should I start moving some of the MP list pages from 2010- to 2010-2015? I saw that that was done for the categories but I thought I should ask about pages since they are more visible. spiderjerky (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, I was following your lead. You changed an MP I have on my watchlist and I thought I'd help out with the bulk work using AWB. I did notice this diff, suggesting Martin of Sheffield may object. Despite Martin's objections I think it may be prudent to get most of the house-keeping done before the general election campaign starts and we're chasing down partisan edits from the various parties. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not about to start objecting, the work is under way now. I think it was premature for the reasons stated, but it is after all a (hopefully) minor infringement of WP:MOS. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I was following someone else's lead (UK MPs was in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories, and when I saw you editing from that category I assumed that you had started it, given your status on the wiki. My fault for not checking up on the project, sorry if I've broken any procedure. spiderjerky (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i hope its not a problem. I agree with your statements. the first couple of articles were experiments with wiki, to see how it works. i thought that if i cited the information that would be sufficient it the material was in no way harmful to the companies. you are right that i have no conflict of interest, and i think that is becoming apparent, but i can admit to wanting to promote fair trade and any company that is ethical. the reason i set out to make this page is to help other people who are struggling to find a socially responsible company. the desire for many people is strong, but the limited number of options is demoralizing.

As for writing about topics that im not interested in, i understand how that could help me learn about wikipedia, but i do not wish to use my time in such a manner. i was hoping that this page would be acceptable, but if its considered not neutral enough than i have nothing to contribute.

once again, thank you for your help.

Kruno Skaric (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rider ranger47. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kingbyte, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 20:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rider ranger47, Thanks for reinstating the CSD. In those cases I'm inclined to re-csd as a G7 and make a note for the admin that the author blanked the page and that the previous version was A7/G11 (or whatever). It shows the author agrees with deletion and is a bit less confrontational, and a bit more AGF.

The page was marked as reviewed as part of Twinkle's process in adding the CSD to save patrollers duplicating effort on a page about to be deleted.

It's more customary to keep discussions together where they start, than to break it up by asking me to continue it at your talk page. Regards, Bazj (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah well...

Prudyluv‎ has been blocked by RHaworth for abusing multiple accounts, and for incompetence. I don't think I've ever blocked anyone for that... Peridon (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We can say we were there at the birth of a new policy! Bazj (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A.K. Capital Services Ltd.

I added http://www.indiamart.com/ak-capitalservices/ to your copvio tag. You Just beat me to tagging it myself! --220 of ^Borg 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I am pretty new to this so apologies if I am writing in the wrong place. You brought up some problems with my articles, could you please tell me in more detail what I have done wrong and how to correct this so I can try my best to fix it. Thanks for your concern. --Korfballplayer123 (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Korfballplayer123 All the references you've used to support your articles have been from ikf.org which, while it's authoritative, isn't impartial. You need to add references from independent sources such as reputable newspapers (more New York Times than National Enquirer), a quick google search will usually do the trick. For your Argentina article, how about these [1][2][3] My spanish is non-existent but I can pick out that there is an Argentine Federation, that Miriam Burga is its president, that the first PanAmerican championship was held in Brazil, and that the sources are not from Korfball clubs, associations, federations or the like.

If you go to your preferences page you can turn on ProveIt which will help you add references in the best style. While you're there, go to the editing tab and check the box for "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" - it'll make little difference now, but makes it easier to see what you've done, and earns you big credit when you consider becoming an administrator in future years.

The + tab at the top of a talk page starts a new conversation at the bottom of the page and saves you scrolling down.

Any questions, feel free to ask here or add a {{help me}} with your question on your talk page and someone will soon come along. You've made a good start I hope you continue to enjoy editing wikipedia. Bazj (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for your advice as it has helped me understand where I went wrong, I have tried to find more suitable sources based on what you told me. Do you think your could check my articles again and see if they are the correct sort of references then get back to me? Thanks, Korfballplayer123 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They all look good. I've edited Argentina national korfball team using ProveIt so you can see the difference it makes to the presentation of references. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Aas Mohammad

Thanks for catching that. We have been advised to simply block, tag, ignore for future cases. I agree. You can always post at my usertalk if you find new cases and I can block. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guri Alfi

I removed the speedy from Guri Alfi as seeing he had a page on another wiki-if not I would of left it alone, but yeah be sure to check to see if they have that link in another language first before putting that up! I did put a IMDB link up and the expand language tag up. It needs to be cleaned up for sure though! Wgolf (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Reverse copyvio

Examining the website http: //collectondeliveryphentermine-op.blogspot.com/ , it seems to be an unauthorized Wp mirror, and a copy from it is actually a reverse copyvio. (the site itself ins on our blacklist) DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks that way. Which in turn makes the article a copy of Scottish English with some text removed, and some WP:OR added. So, A10 or PROD for OR? Bazj (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete Tag

I do not bother with the greetings and credible sources put please remove the label.--5.232.39.249 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Who are you? What are you talking about? Sign in and link to whatever it is that you want me to look at. Bazj (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sorrow: Every Good Feeds On Evil page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Too-speedy tagging

Thanks for patrolling new pages, a vital and under-appreciated task, but please don't tag newly created articles with WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 too soon after creation. While things like copyright violations and attack pages need to be tagged at once, new contributors often put in a word or two and then click "Save page" to see how it looks: it is discouraging and BITEy if a speedy-deletion template pops up at once. For incomplete articles like John Boudebza just now, it is best to make a note of the title and wait at least 10 - 15 minutes before tagging. See {{uw-hasty}}.

There is good general advice about new page patrolling at WP:NPP, and about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hi, i replied to a content deletion process but never got a reply. This in regards to The Future Group getting a reply would be courteous and help solve whatever the issue was.

AleksAas (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AleksAas I replied on the talk page, but I guess that got deleted before you read it. Assume good faith, and don't accuse me of a lack of courtesy.

As I recall, the article was all about what the company was going to do... will be built, plans to use, will also be able to - see WP:CRYSTAL. All it has actually done is raise some money and set up a website (which you plugged for them). You came nowhere near establishing their notability. In the absence of notability, linking to their website looks like spam. I'd advise you to read WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:COI but the fundamental problem isn't your writing but that the company is not notable. Any further article is just as likely to be speedily deleted, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11. Bazj (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

talkback|Mentalist karan|ts=09:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC) your proof may not be enough to open the case bazj Mentalist karan (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Wikicology. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The darkblade chronicles, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikicology - I presume this is one of those nonsense auto-messages from the Page Curation tool? I've never understood why it would start a conversation on my talk page, then expect it to continue on yours. Pfft! Bazj (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No cause to worry, it was a missed up. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian Hermansen Cordua/Scarcity and Creativity Studio

thanks for your feedback, I am new to all of this, please have some patience! In the coming weeks I will edit and refine the first draft that I put together today. If you have the time I would welcome all comments. kind regards, Christian Hermansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Hermansen Cordua (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian Hermansen Cordua Looking at the log I see the version I moved to Draft-space was deleted by an administrator as a copyright violation. The version there now looks pretty much the same. You need to re-work the article or this copy will go the same way as the last. Regards,

please sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes, ~~~~ which will produce a signature like the next line

Bazj (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dan Costa (musician)

Good afternoon,

Could you please tell me what is inappropriate about the website above ? Daniel7474 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The reply you received from Jimfbleak on your talk page yesterday outlined the problems you face. Recreating autobiographies which have no fate other than a speedy deletion is inappropriate. As I recall (though I can't see now that it's been deleted) you were nowhere near meeting the levels of notability required. Regards, Bazj (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC

I am afraid you didn't check it well enough. I have spoken to one of your colleagues who has urged me to get in touch with you to retrieve it. Ethically speaking, you ought to have contacted me instead of randomly deleting the site. This is disgraceful . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel7474 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 July 2015‎

Abuse by Bazj

Can you leave the page alone, it is a hate crime upon me. Give up and go home please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.68 (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chehalis–Centralia Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Big River Film Festival

Thank you for your feedback. I wrote the site using other film festival sites on Wikipedia as templates. I have added information requested in the notice. Please let me know what else needs to be done in order to keep the article visible. I look forward to your assistance and guidance. S Norsworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaFilmFests (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarising a chunk of text from Savannah River, and using a wikilink to List of film festivals as a reference hardly seems a good faith effort to improve the article. It needs reliable sources which are about the festival, not about the Savannah River. Bazj (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Tickmill

Hello!

I work in Tickmill and we would like our company to be listed on Wiki. As other competitors also have similar pages. I have already prepared all the content i need to make a page. Im really new in this so yes all the help is useful, becase some of the guidelines are just really hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeli436 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are "Don't do it". You have a conflict of interest. See the notice on your talk page. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

meeli436: "Don't do it" - And who will be able to do that? Other companies have done it and will be doing it continuously. I'll find a random guy on the street then? He is not working in the company. Or what would be the fastest solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeli436 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Other companies have done it - then feel free to nominate their articles for deletion where they fall below the standards required.

I'll find a random guy on the street - That's known as a meatpuppet. See the policy at WP:SOCK.

You wait. Someday an impartial person will find your company notable enough for an article and create it. You're not impartial. Bazj (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

meeli436: There you go!

And these are just a few of them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeli436 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Meeli436 I'm not your Cat's paw. Do your own dirty work. If you think they're not notable insert {{db-corp}} at the very start of the article. If you think they're advertising, {{db-spam}}. Once you've done that,look at the template that's been added to the page, it'll give you the text for a notice you need to place on the creator of the article (which you can find at the bottom of the "View history" page). Bazj (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OK! Thank you for that amazingly professional and non-helpful communication. You have made my week. Is there something you are able to to? --Meeli436 (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Meeli436 I've provided you with the information you need to do what you wanted. What more do you expect? Does your mother still spoon feed you? Bazj (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review my changes

Bazj

At User talk:HHubi you asked HHubi to incorporate text from one article into another. I took that task on, and he reverted it! Could you have a look at my edits and confirm that I have done something approaching the right thing (while not taking too much notice of a series of self reverts at Starshy leytenant which I made when I got into a spiral trying to sort out a redirect). Much appreciated. Shem (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just added a {{copied|from=Starshy leytenant|to=Senior lieutenant}} on both talk pages to preserve attribution. Looks good. Bazj (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bazj. Shem (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

organ appeal

Opps, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Template Editor

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Bazj, just wanted to say thank you for your kind comments on my Consumer Rights Act 2015 article. It is people like you that make Wikipedia such a great community and make me want to carry on editing! Best wishes, WakelessGrub (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd

Hello Bazj. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm seeing numerous news sources covering this article. Whether this is sufficient... I have not looked deep enough. In any event, A7 does not apply. Take it to AfD. Thank you. ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon I didn't just tag it A7, I tagged A7 & G11. It's the third time the user's created the same advert. The redlink shows you moved it just ahead of Kudpung deleting it as G11. The user's sole focus is on advertising this company and its boss Ramesh Agarwal (thanks for deleting). I'd also reported the editor at WP:AIV. You may wish to re-consider based on the whole A7/G11 & edit-pattern, rather than just on A7. Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon Don't worry. User's been blocked, the moved copy (4th version under the new name) has been deleted. All sorted. Bazj (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also salted the article titles now. If I had seen the G11 I would have actually read further than the lead and likely deleted it as a puffpiece. I saw A7 and ran with it. In any event, glad that's been cleaned up. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Question RE: Speedy Deletion of VAAG Company Ltd

Hi Bazj, thank you for the explanation as to why the article on VAAG Company Ltd was deleted. I am working with the company to increase their web presence, and will disclose that in my profile going forward. But I was wondering if there's a way to request an article be added? The company ships globally and has a prominent presence at large events, including concerts and extreme sporting events, so it seems worthy that users who see the brand imaging there and are interested have the company basics on Wikipedia. If there are any changes I can make to my original article, of if I can request that someone else add the article, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you for your help! Penguinmud (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)penguinmud Penguinmud (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The two (now three) messages on your talk page contain lots of advice on how to write an article. Your current problems revolve around verifiability, notability, reliable sources, and your conflict of interest. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Regards, Bazj (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nadcap

The article I wrote for the project Wikipedia:Articles for creation almost a decade ago wasn't copied from anywhere. I can't speak for editing done by subsequent contributors. I'd suggest that "speedy deletion" is more appropriate for newly-created articles in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and that rolling back is more appropriate when violations appear over time in existing articles. But frankly I don't care about Nadcap and I don't care to argue about what's best for Wikipedia. Do as you will, and godspeed. --Dystopos (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dystopos You're right. Someone else, entirely focussed on PRI schemes, copied your article and played with it, leaving alone the copyvio text added by another editor. I should have looked deeper. I'm sorry you've been troubled.

The article as it now stands has only self-published sources. I'll tag it and let it be. Bazj (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

everyone loves cupcake :) Mwaseemlatif (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Templates

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Templates for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

9 april 1990 invasion in Denmark, Norway

This headline (no more text) was wrong, can you delete it for me, please? User:Carsten R D

Carsten R D If you replace the content of the page with {{db-g7}} it'll be deleted as your request. Bazj (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, that's the one I'd already requested g7 on your behalf. Just wait, it'll happen when an admin comes along. Bazj (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bazj: Thank you! Carsten (talk) 20:56 (CET)

PolandDaniel

Why is the page im trying to create The Lucatoni Crime Family unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandDaniel (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

PolandDaniel, Because it was empty. More to the point, it was empty AGAIN. You'd been given advice about it and you'd ignored that advice. Wikipedia doesn't maintain itself, your blank articles take up the time and effort of volunteers. It is most definitely unacceptable to continue doing that. Your other article, The Friday Kings, was also a waste of everybody's time and effort. The other versions of it in your sandbox and on your talk page are also wasting time and effort. In what way do you think your articles and behaviour are acceptable? Bazj (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Baj

Sorry im just new to wikipedia, im not meaning to create the pages yet, im trying to do them in draft first and then create them, how do you do drafts?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.74.38 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see three copies of that advice on your talk page in the boxed items at the right hand side. Bazj (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

if i do them as drafts and then create the pages will they be kept on? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandDaniel (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

PolandDaniel, The same sort of material you've been creating? No. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. For creative writing you'd be better off at blogspot.com or wordpress.com. As a side benefit, loads of businesses build their websites on wordpress, some useful skills to be picked up there. Bazj (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Densukedartmouth

Dear Bazj,

Thank you for your note. I'm sorry for the error. I thought I was creating a user page. However, I would like a page of my own since I'm referenced in about a dozen articles or so on Wikipedia and my work has been widely read in my field. Is there any way I can get the information I put down confirmed by an editor at Wikipedia? Thank you for your help. Densukedartmouth (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the occupant of a named chair at a university you meet the notability criteria for a wikipedia article so, as much as I hate autobiographies, I've wikified it as much as I can so that it'll fit in. It still looks very like a CV, and there's no guarantee another editor won't ask for its deletion, but it'll pass a quick look. If you could make it look less like a list of colleges, articles and translations that would help. Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Canna

moved to User talk:Alessandro57#Canna (length_unit)

Pmc telecom

Hi Baj.

Pmc are one of the uks biggest telecoms companies. However there is limited citations available.

I want to create a wiki page which is useful and they are on loads of review sites etc, this can give people overall info on them.

I wanted to make it longer but could not do so with lack of references (I think )

any advice would be appreciated Steav88 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Steav88, The lack of citations is the biggest obstacle. The welcome message on your talk page points you to the five pillars of wikipedia, of which notability is the one facing you. Without independent, reliable sources you're never going to be able to show notability. Review sites (along with their own website, facebook, twitter, and anything else self-published) aren't reliable. Bdaily, the source you used, and the only one I could find for them, looks like it just republishes companies' press releases, which makes it unreliable too.

Sometimes, no matter how hard you look, some topics just aren't notable. Happy editing Bazj (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Silkywoolmercenary

Hi Bazj,

As I'm sure you know, you marked the page I created, "Edgenuity Inc.," for speedy deletion; and as such, it was deleted. I read through the criteria and understand that the reason for this proposition is because the content seemed to be too "promotional."

Would you be able to help me in identifying certain specifics that caused this to be tagged as such? Was it the particular verbiage used, or rather the content that was being expanded upon (products/services)?

Thanks in advance,

Silkywoolmercenary (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Silkywoolmercenary, I'll assume the version of the article in your sandbox is a copy of the deleted article (it looks familiar, and like you, I can't see the published article any more). A quick glance throws up the following issues:

® and ™ marks have no place on Wikipedia
The sources cited don't meet the requirement to be reliable and independent. Social websites like Google+ and sites that re-publish PR releases don't make the grade.
WebbAlign Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Partner... so what? WebbAlign doesn't have an article and a google search for it shows the sole piece of notability for them is that they gave an award to Edgenuity.
"Edgenuity’s published research and efficacy studies can be found here" is purely directing traffic to Edgenuity's website rather than informing the reader about the company.
"Edgenuity offers..." is promotional text. It's not awful, but it sets a promotional tone.
The layout with a separate paragraph for each product/service reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedic article.
"Edgenuity works with school districts and third-party research organizations to conduct evaluations that measure the impact of courses across grade levels and student populations. The results of these efficacy studies are used to guide product improvement efforts." - Um, they monitor and improve their products? Doesn't every company that produces stuff?

Hope that helps, Bazj (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, this information really will help to draft a better article. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain and help! Silkywoolmercenary (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services

Bureau Veritas Worldwide and Bureau veritas Consumer Products Services India are two entities with whole different business. I have read about both the companies on internet. Bureau Veritas deals with testing and inspection of all the products whereas Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services India only deals with consumer products. Being a citizen of India , I have done business with BVCPS India and therefore I know there working is different from BV. I have reverted back redirect to " Parent " page because these are not same entities. If being a manufacturer of consumer products why do I look for the page of BV whole. I need a wiki page of BV consumer products division to know which consumer products they test , where their offices are present , where their labs are present and all. I recommend you to please fir understand the businesses or operations of both and then take a step. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services India need a different page. JackDan1 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Itch.io

Hello, I saw you nominated Itch.io for deletion. This is anything but smart. A quick google search comes up with lots of sources which shows this website is notable. For the advertising reason, just put the advertisement tag on it. The references need to exist, not be in the article. Check the talk page for a list of 7 references which can be used. Ana r chyte 08:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Anarchyte, Thanks for the laugh, "The references need to exist, not be in the article." - I can only patrol the article you've written, not the article you wish you had written. None of the 7 refs on the talk page establish notability and I have questions about their reliability. Bazj (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Hey there Bazj, I'm sorry if the article came off in an advertising tone; I've tried to keep an NPOV wherever I could. I would just like to say that the company does have notable achievements, in that they were the first few who provided customers with a hassle-free process to obtain a ccTLD. This in general opened up a new avenue for entrepreneurs who simply wanted their business on-line. Since the infobox asked for a homepage, I was inclined to add the website name to it - if it comes off as advertising, I'll be happy to delete it. Alchez (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Alchez, the link to the website only comes across as promotional because the article doesn't establish notability. The one fact which you claim makes them notable (registering .bd domains online) has no sources to back up the claim. Registering ccTLDs online is no big deal, it's been commonplace elsewhere for 20 years. Looking at ovo's website and its selection of ccTLDs, the .bd domain isn't even listed. Looks like Ovo don't consider it notable either. Bazj (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand. It's just that ccTLDs in Bangladesh were a huge deal since it's still a developing country. But nevertheless, thank you for your inputs. :) Alchez (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Zeus (band) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping me, it was just a mistake. It wasn't my first article, I edit The Arabic Wikipedia, translating English Articles into Arabic. Have a nice day ☺ --Esraa Gamal 37 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I saw one of your edits which removed {{myspace}} from a random page on my watchlist. Thanks for all your work with AWB removing that template following its TfD. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

BEV Technology (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I gave a more precise definition of a biofireplace which was very outdated. As technology elvolves so do bio fireplaces.This advancement in technology is not defined in the previous definition, so I want to give the readers and searchers a definition that is up to date and accurate. Planika is the company leading this type of market, and it's the only one with a patented BEV technology. As the owners/ developers of this patent, we should have the right to describe it and let people know that something like that exists. I would also like to add some drawings explaining the technology and its uses, but I have insuficient rights to make such a publicity. I would definitely would like to update the info on bio fireplaces, so Its an up to date and informative one. I would like to invite you to review the articles again and have a more positive opinion about them after this explanation. I look foward your repply and any feedback that you may have. L.orczykowski (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)L.orczykowski

Your comment "As the owners/ developers of this patent, we should have the right" is almost a perfect description of advertising and conflict of interest. You haven't shown any interest in Wikipedia except as a vehicle to try and promote Planika. Bazj (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don’t fully understand you point of view, because I don’t think that my article about [BEV technology] isn’t any different to the one about [IOS] for example. I just mentioned Planika as the inventor of the technology (which is true) in one sentence. I thought it is something that should be said especially that the technology is copied by other manufacturers. The rest of the article just explained the way it works. If you would do a fireplace market research you would see that ethanol fireplaces based on in, are a vital part of it. I believed that Wikipedia supposed to be a reliable source of information. However I cannot really see it looking at the article about [bio fireplace], which instead of giving the complex information is misleading the readers. That is why I wanted to expand the article by adding more types of bio ethanol fireplaces available on the market and showing the differences between them. I did not mentioned Planika and I included the types of the fireplaces not offered by the company. I’ve seen links to the ModaFlame company, that is why I added to the ones to the Planika website, on which readers can find more information about bio ethanol fireplaces. I think all of the above show you how your decision about deleting my articles is confusing to me. It looks like some writers can add information, not following the policies you told me about, and some are not. 82.160.17.98 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)l.orczykowski

my article about [BEV technology] isn’t any different to the one about [IOS] for example - Googling BEV Technology returns just under 2 million results of which (after looking through a few pages about Beverage Technologists and about Battery electric vehicles, only your advert on Youtube seems to be relevant. Googling iOS on the other hand returns 656 million results from a wide range of different sites.

Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources iOS has 97, some from Apple, most from independent sources. Yours had how many?

If you can't see the difference between the two articles it's because you're blinded by your conflict of interest.

Wikipedia supposed to be a reliable source of information - and part of its reliability is keeping promotional material off the wiki.
I’ve seen links to the ModaFlame company - which I also removed at the same time as removing yours. The argument you use to have your links included is a well-worn argument which doesn't work - WP:OTHERSPAMEXISTS.
It looks like some writers can add information, not following the policies you told me about, and some are not. - if you see spam please delete it through whichever route seems right, editing it away or nominating for deletion through one of the deletion processes, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD.

Wikipedia is run by volunteers and, believe it or not, I volunteer my time to help build an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform for Planika or anybody else. I trust you're here to improve the wiki, not here to use the wiki for advertising, aren't you?

I won't deny that there may be a viable article in Bio fireplace but what is there at the moment sucks. BEV Technology on the other hand only existed to promote your patented technology. Your use of BEV seems to be your own usage, not shared by anybody else.

Please remember to login before editing.

Hope that helps, Bazj (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Entire MySpace links

Hey there! When you're removing MySpace links, could you double-check that this doesn't happen and that the entire line of text is gone? Thanks! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, must be time to take a break. I can remember thinking whether the seesaa website should be deleted too, but completely missed the ja icon. Thanks for catching it. Bazj (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, in carrying out this deletion, did you check if all links were compatible with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? If they were, they should not have been deleted. You averaged around 20 edits per minute on AWB, which is characteristic of someone spamming the save button, not someone who's individually checking each transclusion as was required by the closure of that TfD. Please be aware also that if you are not individually reviewing each edit or are editing at a very high speed, the activity may be considered a bot as per WP:BOTASSIST and require approval at WP:BRFA. ~ Rob^Talk 15:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I went through once with a regex picking out the use of myspace in refs, once again looking to remove those which were incompatible with ELMINOFFICIAL, a third time substing those which remained keeping an eye open for any rogue ELMINOFFICIAL cases, and a final pass through Draft & User space blindly substing but with the same edit summary drawing attention to ELMINOFFICIAL so that authors would be aware if the issue before submitting to mainspace. I may have got up to 20/min on the final pass, I was doing around 6 or 7/min on previous passes.

Since the links were all grouped at website= in the article's infobox or at the External links they weren't tricky to spot. The trickiest cases were those musicians whose article used {{Official website}} to point to the record label's website rather than the artists, or had multiple {{Official website}}s pointing at a whole bunch of associated acts.

The four passes weren't necessarily continuous. I targeted some of the template's lesser used redirects earlier ({{MySpace-music}}, {{Myspace.com}}, {{MySpace music}} & {{Official myspace page}}).

OK? Bazj (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The process also prompted 3 AfDs, AWImusic, Curtis Smith, & DigitalX. Hope that helps reassure you my brain wasn't cruising in neutral. Bazj (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, it appears I only saw your edits in the user space, which was after several other rounds of checking. Thank you for clarifying this for me. By the way, when you orphan a template and it's ready for deletion, you can nominate it for speedy deletion as per WP:G6 (usually with Twinkle). Thanks for your work in this area, and sorry if my message came off the wrong way. I just wanted to make sure, since I knew at least 600 transclusions were there last night when I happened to look. ~ Rob^Talk 16:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I could, but you still have a request to wait before deletion at the Holding Cell, and a note saying you'll tag them when satisfied. You've put the ball pretty firmly in your own court. Bazj (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I was just letting you know for the future. I'm removing some last transclusions now and then will ask for an admin to delete it. ~ Rob^Talk 19:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, The talk pages? The guidance at the top of the Holding cell says... ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion). First diff I check and you've altered the meaning. Bazj (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, one of the flaws of template deletion is that it will alter previous discussions no matter what. In this case, it was my personal judgement that retaining the appearance of the template was more important to the discussion than retaining the template name, especially considering that the template name can be preserved in the edit history while the appearance cannot. The template was used to demonstrate how it would appear in articles, so merely having a redlinked template there would be more problematic than substituting, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Species abbreviations

Hallo, You removed the {{Species abbreviation}} from Fenestrata (disambiguation), but it left the page in a strange state linking only to a few redlinked Fenestrata. I added {{intitle}} to help readers find what they might have been looking for, but then realised the page was perhaps likely to be deleted as useless, so amended the hatnote at Fenestrata to point to this useful page. I don't remember WikiProject Disambiguation being alerted to the discussion about deleting this template. I'm going to raise a discussion there now as to how these terms should best be handled. PamD 09:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PamD, I'll hold fire on the remainder of the instances of the template. Twelve other articles were also left as empty shells which I nominated G6, check my CSD log for a list of them. You may need to check Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Template:Species abbreviation for deletion review, and request a delay at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Bazj (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. Yes, I saw the deletion discussion, today, but it would have been useful if some disambiguation geeks had had a chance to get involved in it. I'll look at your G6 list. Thanks. PamD 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It would, but I'm not the person to complain to. I'm just carrying out the result of a 4 month old discussion, not the instigator of, nor a participant in, the discussion. Perhaps, taking the larger view, TfD needs a delsort in the same vein as AfD has. I'll ping the participants in the TfD so they know of your new discussion. Bazj (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PING: Augurar, Pigsonthewing, Dimadick, Plastikspork

The ones (as in your CSD list) where the page is left empty are perhaps less of a problem as the reader will fall into an "in title" search by default. But in a case like "Fenestrata" they get led to just the one article (which had a hatnote pointing to the dodgy dab page, formerly "Fenestrata (epiphet)", and now has a hatnote to an "in title" search). I'll be interested to see what comments the dab project people have to offer. I see it's already in the "Holding Pen" but have added a comment there and a link to both this discussion and the project talk page. Thanks. PamD 10:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note Regex for resuming the task... \{\{[Ss]pecies[ ]?[Aa]bbreviation\|[\w\s]*\}\}

And note also that in the discussion there was mention of "replacements such as this one leave much better content", so that that editor's "Delete" seems to be a "Delete template but replace by something better". PamD 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't split discussion over multiple pages. I've commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Species abbreviations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Albicans

The page should be a redirect, there are no disambigs with one line.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Bazj (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected Vicina. Vicina (disambiguation) should be probably removed. Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Tagged {{db-disambig}}. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No reason to delete the redirect from "Vicina (disambiguation)" to "Vicina" - some editors go around creating redirects like that for all dab pages. But the CSD decline reason was odd too: "decline CSD – dab page wrongly converted to redirect", as it wasn't so. Ah well. Added a genus entry to the dab page anyway, as there's a redirect at Vicina (moth). PamD 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nivalis

Disambig with one option.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Xx236, All the changes in which the Species Abbreviation template was removed are in the pipeline to be reversed - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Species abbreviations. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's still only one option, i.e. a redirect. Does the dictionary link make a disambiguation?Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Once reverted [4] there will be more. Bazj (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Language with name

Hi, please see the discussion, Template talk:Language with name § Requirements of parameters for lang-x template with User:MSGJ. —«harith»(discuss) 09:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox nhsc substitution

FYI... Your script is barfing. See diff. Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite Thanks for the heads-up. Not a script, just a straight template subst. Revisited them all & did the housekeeping. Bazj (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've got to fix about 20 pages where a script of mine barfed yesterday. Oh the joys. Bgwhite (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There are few left. Couple of articles aren't yours and I'll fix later. Bgwhite (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite Worked my way through the list except for Rundle's Mission where I can't see a problem. I think my fix this morning resolved the item listed. Bazj (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Inactive user / Template:User longterm inactive

I think you might have made a mistake with trying to process the outcome of the TfD: it closed as merge/redirect, not as merge/subst/delete. In particular, AFAICT, the consensus (as judged by the closer and by the TfD participants) was that the template name should stay around, as a redirect or wrapper around {{not here}}. As such, I don't think substing the template on all those user and user talk pages was appropriate; they have more markup on now (including some technical template internals), rather than being a clean use of the wrapper which the TfD determined should be kept.

Was this just a mistake, or did you have some other reason to subst the templates? (I don't really want to mass-revert your changes without discussion to see whether it's you or me who's missing something.) --ais523 08:38, 11 October 2015 (U T C)

ais523, I picked it up as a REDIR, which wasn't working because the parameters don't match up. If I went too far with the substing please do what you feel is right. Bazj (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, I see what happened here. The problem is that the template wasn't designed to be substed, so it was spraying template markup all over the page. (I've been trying to fix it manually, and ended up making it worse because I was substing another template that wasn't meant to be substed in the process, oops. I've cleaned up after myself now though.) --ais523 09:36, 11 October 2015 (U T C)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Bazj. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is it OK for pronunciation symbols to be Original Research?. Thank you. ----mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me to split this table in 2 tables : 2006–07 Liga II, because all the tables of Liga II have 2 separate tables. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm travelling until Wednesday next week. If you're OK waiting 'til then I'll be happy to help. Bazj (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK Thank you, Have a nice trip !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25, split done. Regards, Bazj (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you edit please the 2013 season here : EMF miniEURO?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want. The only 2013 item there is a redlink to 2013 EMF miniEURO. Bazj (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need people to help improve the red links on that page. Have a look on other editions and create the page 2013 EMF miniEURO. Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lee Roupas for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Roupas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A local party official does not meet notability, but since it was nominated before without consensus I feel I should go the long route and notify people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 November 2015

Mpen320 - there's no discussion there. Using Twinkle is a foolproof way of starting discussions. You might want to try that. Bazj (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bazj - I have no clue how to code a lot of Wikipedia. I'll work on it, but no promises. mpen320 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (US Central Time)

Hello Bazj

Hello Bazj, I am not Muhammad Farooq, I am real sister of Muhammad Farooq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaistakausar.pk (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is Thanksgiving in the US, so thank you!

I am just a regular editor and nothing official like an administrator or Wikimedia contractor...I am an editor probably a lot like yourself. One important thing for me is to express thanks to other editors in a personal message to their talk page. This is not a template. I am just leaving this note for you to express my appreciation for your recent participation in voting for Arbatration Committee Members. Your vote is a great thing and with as many people participating as possible there is an excellent chance that we will have good representation on this committee. The Very Best of Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How to create a page of a company

Sir,actually I wanted to know how to create a page about a company on wikipedia. Talkiemukesh (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about YOUR company that you mentioned in your autobiographical article. In that case the advice is DON'T!! See WP:COI for the policy. I'll add a welcome message to your talk page with the other advice you may need. Happy editing, Bazj (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

About the Empty Page...."Texts Everyone, Texts."

Thanks for your comments kind Sir....U will kindly be advised that I notified of why the page was started. I am heading out the door to my office to begin work on it in moments...be there in an approximation of sub-game equilibrium in two hours....long commute today. Hopefully traffic lights friendly; so thanks again for reminding me of my policies' I'll do well to make sure Blue Gene and Watson are updated as to your diligence....many thanks! Dutch. Publican Farmer (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Question re: tag

Hello Bazj, A question for you regarding the article, Ecological art: I noticed that you tagged the article for COI via TW. This is a non-commercial, educational encyclopedia article on a relevant topic with hundreds of practitioners around the globe.

May I ask why you did not simply leave a message or question on the talk page rather than tagging the article with no communication in good faith?

Could you please provide more information on your rationale, as the article contains dozens of references and citations to practitioners and theoreticians in this genre. While I am a university professor and administrator one of whose many areas of expertise is art and art history, I have not cited myself, my writings, or any of my original research. Why the COI, and why use a TW tool rather than carefully examining the article?

Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How about you carefully examine Pointillism, Cubism, or Cave painting, then try and convince yourself Ecological art has any distance, perspective, or encyclopedic view of the topic? Even if you hadn't declared your background in academia it would be clear from the presentation of the article. It needs to be an encyclopedic article, approachable by the general public, not a research paper. Bazj (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ecological art practitioners include artists, scientists, philosophers and activists who are devoted to the theory and practices of ecological art."

"Ecological art practitioners include [people] who are devoted to ... ecological art."

"Ecological art practitioners ... are devoted to ... ecological art."

The closer I examine, the more it seems to lose meaning. Bazj (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I am sorry, Bazj, but I am not understanding you. Is your question rhetorical or ironic, or are you suggesting that I follow the format of Pointillism, Cubism or Cave painting? It is unclear if you are saying that it is a poorly written article, if so, thank you for pointing that out, I will continue to improve the article. However to imply that it is a COI is illogical - the article does not contain any original research, nor mention me personally, nor anything I've ever written. There is absolutely no commercial business attached to the article, nor am I being paid by anyone or any institution for working on it. The article was created because the genre of Ecological art is and should be distinct from the genre of Environmental art, and they were formerly lumped together in one article (Environmental art) which was confusing and incorrect. They are two separate genres.

I was unaware that having a background in academia was a handicap or forbidden in writing encyclopedia articles. If you feel that the language of the article needs to be more approachable and accessible, I will work on that, and would appreciate constructive suggestions! However when I look at many of the articles in the sciences, they seem unaccessible to the general public, and sound very academic (from my standpoint). For example: Jellium Local-density approximation or Quantum-mechanical explanation of intermolecular interactions. Why is the Ecological art article considered a COI?

Lastly, I do not understand the intention of your second message, other than implying redundancy. Do you suggest I list the types of practitioners, and leave out the "devoted to" part of the sentence? The point is that Ecological art is not practiced solely by artists, but also by scientists, lawyers, policy makers, philosophers, activists, etc. - that Ecological art normally develops from teams of people working collectively in different disciplines. I truly and respectfully seeking your help in making this a better article, and would appreciate constructive feedback and helpful suggestions in making it a higher quality article. My main concern is why you tagged it COI, rather than just saying it's a poorly written article that needs work. Thank you for your help, and hope to hear back from you. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI : I've never said you had a commercial interest. The policy states "your financial or other relationships". It's unfortunate that the policy undermines that message by discussing nothing but financial relationships. I can't see now what I saw a month ago when I tagged the article, nor can I recall how I came to look at the article in the first place. I am reassured by the time and consideration you're giving the discussion, and given some WP:AGF I'm happy for you to remove the tag if you feel you're detached enough.
having a background in academia was a handicap or forbidden - it's not... unless you're trying to raise the profile of a new branch of academia in which you have an interest.
the intention of [my] second message was that, as written, that sentence resolved to a tautological nothingness. Something along the lines of "Ecological art is a multi-disciplinary field involving the skills of ....", as you outlined in your reply, conveys the meaning more directly.

My subsidiary point there was that if a reader spends the time to consider that sentence, and then finds it devoid of any substantial meaning, when they next encounter a challenging concept, are they going to spend much time on it?

Pointillism, Cubism or Cave painting? Jellium Local-density approximation or Quantum-mechanical explanation of intermolecular interactions?

Let's try another example, near to my heart, Dacryocystorhinostomy. As an encyclopedia user, that article covers the ground beautifully (though it could do with linking to other wiki articles). If, on the other hand, I found that the surgeon wielding a scalpel at my face had learnt all he knew about DCR from that article, I'd panic. By analogy, I'd rather see the article pitched at the general reader than the EA practitioner.

The Ecological art article is detail heavy... do we need every topic in Mo Dawley's book? does ecofeminism need 22 references while museum studies and language get none and the Ecofeminism article itself only musters 19 references in total.

More succinctly, if I were stood in front of a piece of Ecological art, would the article help me to recognise that or not? That was my point in referring to Pointillism & Cubism. I'll presume a painting in a cave doesn't need a wiki explanation.
Tagging the article's talk page as belonging to whichever of the sub-projects at WP:ARTS are relevant may help in getting a more enlightened "second pair of eyes" to look over the article & help improve it. Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wowzers! This is extremely helpful, Bazj. It is exactly the kind of feedback I needed to hear to understand the problems with the article, and see it from another point of view. Many thanks to you for your feedback, and the time you took to respond in such detail. I will work on the article, and take all of your helpful suggestions in to consideration. I get it, and am inspired to reconsider many aspects of the page to improve it. It may be a week or two before I can focus better as it's the end of semester crunch/miasma/discombobulation. Forgive me if I sounded defensive in my message, I'm a new-ish editor still getting the hang of this. Know that I care deeply about Wikipedia's goals, and thank you again for your guidance. Netherzone (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iskander Zakirov

Hello Bazj. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Iskander Zakirov. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.. Deletion-tagging an article that is obviously still being written. allowing its creator only two minutes to finish their work, does nothing to impeove Wikipedia, but damages it by deterring a potentially valuable new contributor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I make no apologies for tagging unsourced autobiographies on sight. Bazj (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

you know?

I already finish the main temple structure. whatever you say, arrogant guy. --Composcompos12 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm The Avengers. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, UK O 8OO O86 9133 USA 18OO29O5189 microsoft office 365, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. The Avengers 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, I nominated it for deletion as spam, it's been deleted. Not sure what was achieved by un-reviewing it, but if it made you happy then all is good. Bazj (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't post the above message. The page curation tool does that. Those who created the tool, they use the first person pronoun I, instead of using third person. The Avengers 10:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, I'm not sure what your point is there. I was commenting on the pointlessness of unreviewing an article that was blatantly spam and heading for the bin; I wasn't questioning the message.

But, now that you raise it, was your point that you'd have not bothered to notify me, or that you don't want to take responsibility for what happens when you use the tools provided? Neither seems to be something to boast about.

Most of the tools come with the caution that "You are responsible for your edits". The fact that you don't see everything that it does on your behalf is neither here nor there. The message is signed by you, it is credited to you in the edit history, it's YOURS, not the tool's. Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe I am not wrong, if i say that reviewing an article means patrolling it. Un patrolled pages appear yellow. Most of those who creates pages which are tagged as speedy delete, these users remove speedy deletion tag. I changed my twinkle settings as when i nominate a page for speedy delete, the page shouldn't be marked as patrolled. If the user removes the speedy deletion template of a page marked as patrolled, then other new page patrollers might ignore the page, as the page is not yellow. The Avengers 12:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, Thanks for explaining. It's always good to see someone else's point of view.

Personally, I use my CSD log & watchlist to spot CSD tag removal. The article is marked as patrolled to save other reviewers redoing work I've already done. The CSD log also pays dividends in spotting when the article is recreated, which can then flag up sock-puppetry, paid editing, and the like.

I guess we're on the same objective, different tactics. Keep fighting the good fight, Bazj (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Template editing

Hi,

I see you are a Wikipedia:Template editor so I wonder if you can help at: Template_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Wrong_sortkey_used. Since I do not wp:watchlist pages I hope you will either wp:Ping me or respond on my own talkpage. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Simonr1295

Bazj I was trying to delete a reference that I had inserted clumsily. I have requested a speedy delete instead owing to my conflict of interest. Thank you for your help. I will in future ask for amends to be made on the article talk page rather than make them myself. Thank you for your help. (Simonr1295 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

Simonr1295, that would seem a sound plan. Bazj (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol troll award goes to...

After reading the comments, it seems you have nothing better to do or must get paid to troll and request deletion of newly created pages. You sicken me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetscircle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I feel the same way about self-publicists adding multiple spam articles to the wiki. Bazj (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi, My unfinished page, Forbidden Haunted House, was removed because it was "advertising something". I disagree with this, and would like to finish editing the page and make it better. Besides, the attraction I'm writing about closed in October, and I don't know how you can advertise something that no longer exists. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraceyManorVA (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

GraceyManorVA, Sorry I wasn't around earlier on, but I see you've already asked SouthernNights to restore the article.

Since I'm not an administrator I can't see the deleted text but, as I recall, and as you new Draft confirms,

there were no reliable sources in the article, a blogging site like wix.com is NOT reliable,
the tone of the text was not encyclopedic, it seemed more promotional,
the text emphasised that FHH was one of a series run by a company named in bold text - even though this attraction closed in October it seemed promotional of the series.

All the advice I was going to give you've already acted on. Re-starting as a draft rather than in mainspace is the smart move as it will give you the breathing space to work on the article before it's judged. Reading the draft I'd recommend you take a look at the guidance on verifiablity and find some independent, reliable sources to show that the FHH was in some way notable. In all honesty, no matter how good your writing, I don't think FHH is notable. You're welcome to try, but don't raise your hopes too high. Happy editing, Bazj (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My team

You are in my team, read my user page, where are you from ? what country ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mistake on Template:Country data Nicaragua

Hi, Bazj. Thanks for managing my request on the template a few days ago, but there seems to be a slight error: the variants are not showing up; as of this writing {{flagdeco|Nicaragua|1839}} does not yield , but instead yields —current flag of 1971. Many thanks. Neve-selbert 06:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1839,

1858,

1889,

1896,

1908,

Fixed. I missed adding the variant parameter. Happy editing Neve-selbert, -- Bazj (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not an attack page

I'm not sure you read Boogottinyc well enough before you tagged it as an attack page. While there is some negative information in his background, the article overall is a positive biography of a marketing exec in the hip-hop world. (Not necessarily notable, and certainly unreferenced, but not wholly negative.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61, Are you sure you read it closely? It asserts criminal activity without any proof. Bazj (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I read it closely. It is an autobiography. Not likely that the guy would write an attack page about himself. Having removed the unsourced claims of criminal activity, the rest of the article is about a musician/representative in the rap industry, with claims (although unverified) of significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61, Linking username to pseudonym for the purposes of assessing an autobiography - with nothing other than a bit of vanity at stake - I'd agree with you.

Linking username to pseudonym to real world name to allegation of criminal activity - It's quite possible you're right, maybe even quite probable. But given the higher stakes, without sourcing, and given the possible real world harm, it's not a link I'm comfortable with. I'd feel much happier if the assertion were gone completely, not even lurking in the version history.

I'm happy with the way I dealt with it. Obviously you feel differently, and strongly enough to override my G10. So be it. Bazj (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Baron 3D

Hello Bazj. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Baron 3D, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Stop.

I understand that I have been reported to admin by yourself by reasons that are not clear to me, however what is patently clear to me is that you are deleting speedy nominations from editors when I believe it is admins job to decide if the deletion tag is warrented NOT YOURS!!! although by your actions it is quite clearly an admin position roll you strive for. I also see by your talk page that you have hardly been free of controversy such examples:- New page patrol troll award goes to... I see that there are also speedy deletion tags that you yourself have made that have not been upheld, which pulls into question your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines after being on Wikipedia for a year and two days.OOblivion (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

OOblivion,

I understand - I put the notice on your talk page. Glad you got the message.
I have been reported to admin - I'm sorry if it came across that way. I wanted a review of the caution you issued. I can't see the deleted contributions of the editor you cautioned to see if it was justified, only admins can do so. In light of the other misplaced tags you've placed, and given that it puts the editor one step closer to a block, I felt it was necessary. The process requires that I let you know about it.
I believe it is admins (sic) job to decide if the deletion tag is warrented (sic) NOT YOURS - you believe wrongly. Read WP:CSD. The author of the nominated article may not remove the tag - any other editor can.
it is quite clearly an admin position is a roll (sic) you strive for - sorry to disappoint you but No! I tried an WP:RFA 6 years ago and don't want to do that again. However, when I clean up one mistake I will check to see if there are any more. You are trying to advise other editors based on your 48 hours worth of experience. I hope you can see that your actions might (and did) need checking,
tags that you yourself have made - I make no claims of perfection. I am however willing to learn from my mistakes. I hope you are too. Bazj (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@OOblivion: As an admin with some considerable experience, I just want to confirm that any editor apart from the creator of the page is allowed to remove a speedy deletion nomination if they think it is incorrect, not just admins - of course, admins are the only ones who can actually carry out the deletion if needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remove tag on Ecological art page?

Hello Bazj, as per your very helpful suggestions on the (now archived) thread started on Dec 7, 2015 at 17:41, re: the Ecological art page, I have made the changes you suggest (Remove ambiguous meaning and redundancy; remove extraneous content; address NPOV; and make major edits to the long compendium from one source (in the theories section.) Now that my schedule has cleared I will continue to improve the page moving forward. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a detailed discussion of the weaknesses of the article. It was extremely insightful and educational. Do I have your permission to remove the tag at the top of the page? If it's not correct protocol for me to do so, is it possible for you to remove it at this time? Have a great new year. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Netherzone, Well, it's certainly improved since I last looked at it. I've tagged it (on its talk page) as coming under the umbrella of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. You can add/replace the relevant projects - there's a list of arts projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts#Descendant WikiProjects. I'd be inclined to leave the tag in place for a couple of weeks (say mid-Jan?) so that the participants at the project have a chance to consider whether they see any COI in it.

At a quick glance some of the references appear to be blogs or self-published websites which aren't considered reliable sources. The ones I noticed were:

2 - Linda Weintraub's blog
14 - chris.fremantle.org
16 - The Harrison Studio
24 - keepersofthewaters.org (not so clear cut as the others)
32 - shaizakai.com

Also,

6 - is a dead link
21, 37 - ecoartnetwork.org resolves to a generic ubc.ca website
29 - is a dead link

These are the ref #s as they are right now. ~~I'm just about to run ReFill on the page and see if it can check the refs more fully.~~

Regards, Bazj (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Bazj Thank you for looking over the page, and finding other areas that need improvement. I will work on those today, and look forward to continuing to learn from your generous help. Netherzone (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Archives & Search
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10