User talk:Patar knight/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. 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 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmett Till. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

Dear Sir / Madam! The article You created seems to be Soapboxing, since it only deals with her continuous criticism of the Orbán-government, while she is allegedly an expert of this whole region. Please, visit the talk page of the article.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Wylde. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The page that you deleted for the CSD criteria was valid in all cases. It was substantially different than the version that was deleted via AFD, it had more content, more sources, and re-worded sentences, prose, and categories. This is a mistake, please take my suggestions into a consideration and revert the deletion. FiendYT ★ 23:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the new content deals with the reasoning behind the AfD, which was that ESMA doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the new information about awards that could be used in a case for substantial difference are sourced to her website, and don't seem to qualify someone under WP:MUSICBIO since they all seem to be local awards and not major music awards. The other new sources such as A&R Worldwide and the GigCity piece are also just pushing press releases from her website, and aren't reliable sources, while the extra sources on the anti-bullying video discuss an aspect of her career that was in the previous version deleted at AfD.

The only real argument that there is a substantial difference is the collaboration with Rich Kidd, but that is only sourced to a university student paper, and given that its two videos on her Youtube channel have a combined 1703 views, it seems unlikely that this would make her notable [1], [2]. If you can link a reliable source that covers that collaboration though, I'll restore it and send it to AfD. Otherwise, you should try deletion review.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 League of Legends World Championship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Mz7 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Look forward to working with you. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvey Chochinov 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/Harvey Chochinov 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The article 2016 League of Legends World Championship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2016 League of Legends World Championship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mz7 -- Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, on my talk page, some newbie just posted a message at the top. Can you copy-paste it to the bottom please? I'm on a Xbox one currently which doesn't have the copy-paste function, only my school computer can do it and it can be WP:BITEy to remove the question from that talk page. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think I've ever known anyone to edit from a console. Seems awfully inconvenient. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You have recently deleted an image i added for the writer Auguste Corteau. The above writer is a personal friend and has no objection regarding the use of the photo you deleted. It was copied from his facebook account but it was still uploaded with his consent. Please tell me if you need some evidence for the above claims or inform me about the omission from my part.

Thank you, Hector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector salonica (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please be aware that you can't copy images from the internet into Wikipedia/Wikimedia unless it has a compatible license or claims fair use. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, for how Mr. Corteau can get the photograph onto Wikipedia. If you can get him to follow the steps at the link, then the picture (which is quite nice), should be able to be used on Wikipedia, provided that Mr. Corteau owns the copyright for that picture (as opposed to just rights to personal use). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The article 2016 League of Legends World Championship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2016 League of Legends World Championship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit on Don Meredith (politician) I initially reverted the change as vandalism and later found that it wasn't that cut and dry. I appreciate that you took the time to look into it further. Thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, cases like these are hard. More caution next time and you're good. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to find an exact link back to the Twitter account they took that other BoybandPH image from and I finally found it just to turn around and see you already deleted it. Just wanted to give my thanks for the quick action! Even if it did result in a little waste of time searching for the link --Majora (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I scrolled through Twitter at first too, but then resorted to Google Image Search. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on Pictures.

You have removed my picture of Michael Moldaver. The owner of picture has given me the rights to use it. So I am not infringing any copyrights. Lloyd55 —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses. Photographs released for use on Wikipedia do not have a free enough license for use on Wikipedia, or any other Wikipedia projects, so must either be claimed under the non-free content criteria or deleted as a copyright violation. Since Justice Moldaver is alive, it's reasonably foreseeable that someone will take a free photograph of him, so an NFCC claim would not be allowed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't quite understand the nuances. Just to fill you in, I am editing this article for a class project. My goal is to raise it from a Stub article to something better (hopefully a C rating). I understand that you have an interest in this article as well. Perhaps collaboration is the best way to proceed. I am currently trying to find information and things to add to improve the article. Do you have any thoughts on good things I should include? I thought that I might add a few summaries of cases he decided while on the ONCA. For example, the Phillion decision.Lloyd55 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Lloyd55]]

Heh. I'm in law school as well, and really really wish we had a class like this. The article is now already C, class, though it still needs more to be B or a GA. Definitely stuff on his SCC or ONCA judgements should be included, if their importance is cited to a secondary source. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I do have some confusion about discussing his decisions. Is it inappropriate to just cite the case? I'm not sure why more sources are required. For some decisions, there has been commentary and articles written. I am working to include them as sources to help improve the "only sites primary sources" issue. --- Lloyd55(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to cite cases for quotations from Moladaver's decisions and literal paraphrases of those decisions per WP:BLPSOURCE. However the case itself doesn't demonstrate why the case is important, the background of the case, or the quality of the decision, the effects of the decision, etc. which has to be done through secondary sources. For our readers, it's not clear why these cases appear on the article as opposed to the numerous other decisions that Justice Moldaver wrote. Essentially anything that is not obviously and readily apparent from reading the case has to be cited to a secondary source or else it can be removed as original research. I would also recommend that text not about Moldaver such as the background and other decisions, should either cut down and moved into their respective articles (e.g. Reference Re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6) or be used to create new ones (e.g. R v McKenzie). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that the list citation which I added is just a list to his decisions; however, by looking at the list you can see which cases have been cited most frequently. Does this not accomplish the task of citing it? Lloyd55(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:OR, and may change based on what legal database service you use. Looking at the link and sorting by most cited, there's several top hits that aren't on the list (e.g. Torbiak). Most cited also doesn't equal important. Without doing extensive research into these cases, some of them have flags that show subsequent unfavourable treatment, which means their long-term notability, despite high citation numbers is unclear. This is why we need secondary sources to justify including cases, because the existence of reliable secondary sources is a rough indicator for how important the cases are.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misty Copeland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatelaine. 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) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You deleted Peter A. French page claiming a copyright infringement and citing a footnote to his cv information that is provided on the Arizona State University site where he is an emeritus professor. It is not a copyright infringement. If you look at the pages of any number of other current and former university professors you will see that their cvs are cited at their university sites as well. This is a malicious deletion. Restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscotgda (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It lifts entire passages out of the CV, faculty profile, and liberally uses long quotations from other authors, all of which are copyright violations. It's acceptable to use a CV or faculty profile to source stuff in limited circumstances for uncontroversial claims (see: WP:BLPSPS), which many other articles do. What the other articles do not do is blatantly plagiarize from CVs or faculty profiles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to get a better understanding of plagiarism. It occurs when a writer uses the words of another writer and does not provide an adequate reference of the source. As it happens, the person who wrote and submitted the page on Peter A. French is his son and he has the right to use material on his father's cv. Also the cv is not the property of Arizona State University and is not copyrighted by that institution. It is the property of Dr. French and he posts it on the ASU site that is made available to him and other emeritus professors. However, in order to clear up any of these sorts of issues, we will rewrite and resubmit a new page that does not use what you claim are lengthy quotes. A previous reviewer insisted that such quotes be provided, so it looks rather like you reviewers are just running this around in circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscotgda (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The draft lifted several paragraphs more or less word for word from the CV, which only appears as an external link. The content from the CV has no inline citations to indicate that it was taken from the CV, and is was "sourced" to other sources. Even avoiding the copyright issue, this would be inadequate referencing. If Prof. French's son did not write his father's CV, then the draft was plagiarism, he did, then it was self-plagiarism.

You're correct that the CV is not the property of ASU, it's the copyrighted property of Prof. French. If he wants to release his CV under a suitably free license, he is free to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please note that donating the text does not mean that a draft will be accepted, the draft still has to show via reliable sources that the subject passes either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for professors. I don't see anyone in the reviewer comments insisting that multiple paragraph-long quotations be provided, but per our manual of style section on quotations, quotations from copyrighted text should should be brief and paraphrasing is preferable. We're not a place to place flattering review and commentary on Prof. French, but if they're from reputable sources and appropriately cited and paraphrased, that could be the basis for an article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

Dear Patar, this is Guitarhistory writing - I am hoping you are willing/able to assist in the page creation of Ariel Stevenson. All of the references are listed & cited. There are many additional media coverage & write-ups I plan to list, additionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhistory (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources to add, you should add them to the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manassas, Virginia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Patar Knight,

Just to be clear, I was the one who said over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_3#Ovechkin that I didn't understand the nomination; I signed that as IP 84.3.187.196 and forgot to add "User:SimonTrew as IP" which I usually do when editing from a tablet where I do not particularly want the tablet to know my Wikipedia credentials (call me paranoid. I don't care if it knows my IP address.) The thing is, it has an awful habit of "autocorrecting" things, leading for one thing to ridiculous edit summaries by substituting the one I have written, when I click "Save Page", for one I put on an edit I made seven months ago for a completely different article and things like that (and introduces spelling errors into my comments at RfD and so on: I'm on me desktop now so any errors are all my own) so I don't trust it too much with passwords etc.

Before posting, I checked the history of that article and seems to me nothing wrong there just you got the wrong forum, essentially reverted yourself and then brought to RfD. Why it was unclear to me is that having kinda fixed your mistake why you didn't just WP:BOLDly do what you suggested but then brought it to RfD and then a short while after added the SIA content to it. No doubt all in good faith, but it really puzzled me exactly what you were proposing, I suppose what I mean is it just muddied the waters again after you had cleared them yourself.

Then to say speedily keeping your own nomination with the closing remarks "if anyone disagrees, take it to my talk page", I am sorry but that could sound like fighting talk. At least around where I grew up, "if you don't like it, we'll take it outside" is definitely fighting talk. I am sure it was not meant to sound that way, but I think it would have been better to leave the nomination open, explain further why a thickshit like me couldn't understand exactly what you were proposing, and let someone else close it. Or, just "withdraw" the nomination and then speedily do what you wanted. I believe WP:INVOLVED has something to say, and other admins have lately marked some closures thus, although that seems a recent innovation to me (to mark thus).

I have no problem with the action you took to improve Wikipedia, I just think you went about closing your own nomination wrongly, since "withdrawn" would probably have made more sense than speedily keeping your own nomination with remarks that sound like "if you don't like it, tough". I have as you suggested taken this discussion to your talk page, but at Wikipedia, the encylopaedia that anyone can edit, it perhaps is not the best idea to tell other editors where they can take it. It sounds aggressive to me, although having "known" you from RfD for a fair while, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but the opposite, "I'm happy to discuss it". Still, your talk page is not the right place for that but the RfD itself, which would have been open were you not to have closed it.

I do not need to WP:AGF because I know you are in good faith, and I sincerely thank you for all your hard work at WP. I for one sincerly appreciate it, and thanks are something I should say more often. I can understand that you would want to sort it out as quickly as possible, but no great harm would have come from getting a consensus or just marking the nomination as "withdrawn".

See you soon at RfD. Thanks once again for all your hard work, I sincerely appreciate it.

Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw in the history that another editor had converted the redirect to surname SIA. In the past where I've unilaterally dones these BOLD moves, I ended up getting reverted and then taking it to RFD anyway, so I decided to go straight to an RFD. I re-added the SIA content for convenience of RFD participants to see what I was proposing to be moved to the new title. Definitely did not meant for my closing statement to be taken that way, so I'll amend it. Great to see you back. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in this merge discussion. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Per your participation in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 20#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars, you may be interested in a related request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replace links to redirects with "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" in their titles. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I was considering seeking the deletion of this page, but I thought I'd get your opinion, as I found your input helpful on Sphering the other day. It seems to be adequately covered by hatnotes. What do you think? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

From a quick look, it looks like Leuphana might be the ancient town for Luneburg. I would consider adding that as a third entry to the DAB, but it wouldn't need to be included in the hatnote, since it's explained at length in the text. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You closed the discussion on the redirection of ((VAKHIDOV)) SOBIT (ABDUMUKIT) VALIKHONOVICH, and ((SHARIPOV)), RUKNIDDIN FAYZIDDINOVICH. Nominator's deletion rationale was flawed. Champion wrote: "I don't see how these are helpful given the redundancy of the use of the brackets, this exact stylization is not mentioned in the target."

I think Champion is claiming they aren't likely targets for an internet search.

Prior to the spring of 2006 the USA had kept the identity of the Guantanamo captives a secret -- just like a totalitarian terror state. In Argentina and Chile, human rights workers documented how security officials would "disappear" people they suspected of sympathizing with those wanting to overthrow the regime. Having them mysteriously "disappear" was seen as more terrifying to those who might sympathize with the terrorists, than an open trial -- particularly since a trial might, after all, acquit them, since most of them hadn't committed a crime.

Up until the spring of 2006 the USA followed the example of totalitarian terror states. But a court order forced the DoD to publish a list of the captives' names. On April 20th, 2006 the DoD published a list of the 558 individuals whose "enemy combatant" status was reviewed in 2004, and on May 15th, 2006, the DoD published a list they claimed were all of the 759 people who had been held at Guantanamo. (This list was actually a lie, or misdirection, as they did not include half a dozen individuals the CIA held there...)

Anyhow, although these redirects are odd looking, they are, in fact, how the DoD listed these two men's names. In May 2016 this list was published thousands of times. I was working on Guantanamo related topics, at the time, and my google news alert gave me, no exagerration, thousands of hits. This list is still being occasionally republished, as-is, even today.

What I think this means is that, without regard to how funny looking these redirections are, they nevertheless are terms that someone might perform a web search for. Therefore, I request restoration. Geo Swan (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Restored, per [3]. Thanks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Patar knight, thanks for your comments on the Milhist talkpage about revdel. I am concerned now that my understanding of revdel is flawed. I've seen it used quite a few times in similar situations to the one mentioned. For instance on Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, where many of my own edits were revdel'd due to an underlying copyright issue I was unaware of prior to starting to copyedit the article. So that I can try to understand this a bit better, would you mind taking a look at Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and letting me know whether revdel was appropriate in that situation, in your opinion. (Ultimately, I have no desire to have the edits undeleted, nor do I wish to vilify the admin who made the decision, I'm just trying to understand it better). If not, do you perhaps have an example article where you believe revdel was used in an appropriate manner? Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Without access to the source that's the source of the copyvio, I can't say. WP:RD1 isn't absolute, since it says that best practices at the copyright problems forum apply, which may be more context based (e.g. seriousness/length of the copyvio, how substantial others' edits are). Most of the time I revdel, it's on G12 candidates, which have minimal edits, but this case is less clear cut. I might not have revdeled anything once the copyvio was removed, or may a few edits depending on the previously mentioned factors, up to a point where the initial copyvio was sufficiently changed (if it was at all). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for taking a look. The source of the copyvio was this, I believe: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Entire sentences were lifted almost word for word, and weren't significantly changed until the revdel. I'll have to defer to the revdelling admin, who seems to frequent the copyright problems forum, on this matter. WP:RD1, does say that best practice at that forum apply, which might often contradict the don't revdel when others' attribution is removed. I'm not sure if the legal team has made a statement on it one way or the other, if just revdelling content doesn't count as removing attribution since it's not in toto, or if removing copyright violations trumps our licensing requirements. Maybe it's worth shooting a request for clarification at some appropriate forum for clarification if you feel strongly about the issue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Was this edit by you a mistake? I can find no record of IsaacSt contributing to the article, its talk page, or the AfD. And your relist comment also talks about a withdrawal of the AfD, something that does not appear to have been suggested by anyone. Did you intend to make that edit to a different AfD? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened. I think the double transclusion of the Schostal AFD below it on the log page may messed with the XfD closing script I use, which hides closed discussions. So I might have seen IsaacSt's keep !vote with new sources, and a withdraw attempt, which would've been out of order given the previous delete !votes in the Part AFD. Either that, or I just fucked up. I've gone ahead and deleted the page, since there seems to be a consensus to delete. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't able to reproduce it, but I might not have perfectly replicated the scenario. I'll chalk it up to human error then. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help at RfD. That probably sounds sarcastic but is not meant to be.

I argue very vigorously, I know, but I hope always with politeness. I know you are kinda my "opponent" so let's argue them vigorously together.

Together we will make the encyclopaedia better. That's what it's all about, isn't it.

Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am n ot good at awardign barnstars and stuff, but you can have one if you want for constant vigilance at RfD. I know awarding yourself a medal is a bit communist, but I don't know how to do it. But I award you it now. This is sincere. I do see how much hard work you do, even though you are constantly wanting to keep everything and I am constantly wanting do delete everything. I don't, actually, I keep most, but the ones you see at RfD are the tricky ones. But thanks for keeping an eye on it. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess one suggestion I have to you is that several of your RfDs end up being withdrawn. Consider spending 30 seconds and inputting the redirect title into Google Books or Google Scholar (which are much better at turning up hits for less common spellings) to see what usage it gets. If it gets a lot of usage and you're satisfied, RfD isn't required. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Patar,

Hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request lifting the protection of K. Wah Group page so that people could make further edits on it and enhance the understanding the businesses owned by Dr Lui Che-woo, an influential business tycoon in Hong Kong. As far as I know, K. Wah Group and K. Wah International Holdings Limited are two separate entities that, K. Wah Group is a conglomerate businesses in industries including real estate, gaming, and hospitality and so on, while K. Wah International Holdings Limited is a listed property arm of K. Wah Group. I think the information of K. Wah Group on Wikipedia could be enhanced. I have made the suggested edits below and see if you are fine with it. Also, may I suggest the Admin separating K. Wah Group from the current K. Wah International page so that correct information could be added accordingly?

Suggested information on K. Wah Group:

K. Wah Group was founded by Dr Lui Che-woo in 1955. It is a multinational conglomerate principally engaged in properties, entertainment and leisure, hospitality, and construction materials, with market presence in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Southeast Asia and major cities in the US. The Group has over 200 subsidiaries, including two Hong Kong-listed flagships K. Wah International Holdings Limited (SEHK: 0173) and Galaxy Entertainment Group Limited (SEHK: 0027 and a constituent of the Hang Seng Index). Other major subsidiaries include Stanford Hotels International and K. Wah Construction Materials Limited and, Stanford Hotels Corporation and Cresleigh Homes for the US businesses. The Group has more than 33,000 employees worldwide.

Please find some articles that have description of K. Wah Group for your reference: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1876828/hong-kong-entrepreneur-lui-che-woo-rises-tough-beginning-run http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1101617/monday-face-lui-che-woo http://www.worldsrichpeople.com/lui-che-woo.html; http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/men/lui-che-woo-net-worth/ https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/chewoo-lui/ http://www4.hku.hk/hongrads/index.php/archive/graduate_detail/333 http://nextshark.com/meet-hong-kong-billionaire-sold-peanuts-survive/ https://successstory.com/people/lui-che-woo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kycsprg (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The below is the structure of K. Wah Group for reference: http://www.kwah.com/aboutus_structure.php?lang=en

I've moved the page to K. Wah Group. Please suggest individual edits on the Talk:K. Wah Group using {{request edit}}. I have no desire to write your page for you. You should submit proposed additions to the text and wait for a volunteer to accept or decline the changes. Please consider our verifiability policy while doing so. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Patar, only just seen your reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (disambiguation) due to real world. As the consensus was to delete, it's moot now, but I hope you appreciate that your comment [5] is in the minority view - only the creator and yours. This only seems important to say, despite being moot, because of this incongruent portrayal of my edits as not being in line with consensus at MOSDAB, edit consensus and current practice. I'm hoping we can make progress on the inconsistencies with SIAs in future, regards Widefox; talk 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I've been busy with real world stuff as well, so I haven't looked at that AFD, so thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure I agree with the close, since they only address what is admittedly the weakest example of another dab entry meeting the PTM requirements to be a valid entry (i.e. Brexit secretary). When I have more free time in a few weeks, I'll look at some more sources, and decide if I want to bring it up with the closing admin and/or take it to DRV, and participate in the SIA discussions. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As almost unanimous (you and creator aside), not sure how it's possible to interpret such a clear consensus otherwise or how the close is in any way disputed. I would support your desire to clarify if this is in any way if unclear. Maybe taking up at the dab project may be fruitful as it's mainly about the interpretation of PTM. Widefox; talk 18:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions are not a vote, but should be decided based on policy and guidelines. In this case,the AFD was closed before any discussion of the multiple reliable sources I found which used "Brexit" ambiguously or my edits to the DAB page which rectified the TWODABS situation. It's fairly common at AFD to relist even if the !vote balance is tilted if significant sources are brought into the discussion near the end of the seven day period so they can be properly discussed. No one is contesting that PTM disallows entries without significant risk of confusion or reference, so the DAB project page wouldn't be suitable. The question here is if the sources provided show that there is a significant risk of readers will confuse one or more of the contested entries with Brexit, or refer to those entries as Brexit, in which case they would not be barred by PTM. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also in this case, the only user who addressed my examples/sources was the closing admin, who only referred to what was admittedly the weakest example of a possibly valid DAB entry (i.e. the Brexit Secretary) which was the only example brought up (and not by me) which did not have a RS ambiguously refer to it as just Brexit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly policy and guideline based arguments. There's no bold "Brexit" alternative title in any of the other (sub)topics. It's a dead argument. That AfD had some of the most experienced dab project members unanimously giving policy and guideline !votes.

For the record, all of the sources I looked at used "Brexit" to only refer to the topic Brexit. It is obviously and generally so, absolutely unambiguous. So much so, that finding exceptions would, IMHO, do nothing to prove or disprove the rule, but would just fly in the face of common sense and be undue weight - e.g. imprecise writing or errors etc. The dab isn't necessarily the place to argue about a topics alternative titles, but at each of the articles. Good luck trying to insert them, as they'd be, well, incorrect. I'm based in the UK, nobody refers to the Secretary as "Brexit", nobody refers to the referendum as "Brexit". If that is the thrust of the argument, it's less than a weak one. It's just factually incorrect. It's just not ambiguous. As I demonstrated on other dabs, we (current dab practice) don't refer to "Education Secretary" as "Education" or list them on the dab. MOSDAB is clear it's a WP:PTM. We've been over this, and consensus is clear on this AfD. That others, such as yourself and the creator are wildly out of step with consensus is not my concern, but when consensus is crystal clear, continuing seems WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 20:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harjit Sajjan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Observer. 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) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Patar - I just can't shake off Tooth Dover from the Kendra Haste article, (recent COI), so I thought I'd go apply all I've learned from you re OTRS permissions and how to write encyclopedically, (sincerely said), to the Nicola Hicks article. I think if I go work on the Hicks article Tooth will finally leave the Haste article alone. As you can see, the existing Hicks article lacks countless refs so I thought you would care to strip it down to the bare bones and then I will come in, locate her agent and do for Hicks what I did for Haste. I think all visual artists should be described adequately by their work, and I think there should be no limit to the number of images on any page, and I think Wikipedia ought to focus on what appeals to my son's generation; as long as Wikipedia insists on looking like Britannica then it's living in the past.

So what say - do you think, if I locate and communicate with Hicks' agent, I might learn something that improves the article? I think it behoves us to ask of those who know the subject best before we presume to claim to be knowledgeable. Mark^Dask 23:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Getting additional pictures, including hopefully one of the artist would be great. I'm busy right now, but will aim to review the article and look for other free pictures in the next day or two. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No Worries @Patar knight:, I've found the ideal intro image, though only Fair Use. I've already done a lot but this time I'm building on refs, (as opposed to writing an essay first ). Thing is there is already a Fair Use image, (Murder of Crows, for which Hicks gave her permission in 2012), that I want to replace with a far better image, (CrowDance, for which she has not), and for that I would like her cooperation.

Her permission in 2012 gleaned her no reward given the state of the article up to 3 days ago but, as you can see from the new intro image, Hicks is a sculptor worth proper treatment on Wikipedia, and it will help if I can persuade her to contribute to Commons. For that I need to be able to refer her to the Haste article, and the many images on there that were donated to Commons. Unfortunately it has a COI tag that spells conflict, which you could delete, (as editor referred to I can't). I have no wish to engage in further contretemps re the Haste article so, pretty please? Mark^Dask 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like to badger, Patar knight, but you are best qualified to review the Kendra Haste article and assess the worth of the COI tag. You rewrote it, and the images have all passed OTRS since your last input. Please therefore review the article and remove the COI tag. Mark^Dask 23:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that Zaki Ameer has been protected (by you I think) to prevent recreation. Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur) has been created recently. If this new article is to be retained it should be under Zaki Ameer rather than Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur). Could you look into this?--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's substantially better than previous versions, but the sourcing is at best mediocre, so I've put it to AFD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur) if you are interested in the discussion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Patar knight,

I am inquiring about the CerebralFix page that got redirected to Stickmen Studios after its AfD 2nd nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CerebralFix_(2nd_nomination)

At the time of the deletion discussion I had not finished writing the article. I have created completed the article in my sandbox with significant changes to the previous versions. The new article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lamenam3/sandbox

I am not fully sure of the process of how to get a discussion going for getting CerebralFix article as its own page rather than being redirected to Stickmen Studios. I hope that you are able to read the new CerebralFix article I have done in my sandbox and give me feedback as to any requirements I am missing and whether the article will pass as its own page.

Thanks Lamenam3 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest merging the content from Stickmen Studios into your draft, since it look slike CerebralFix is the main company now, and then submitting the draft via WP:AFC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Revolutionary War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Scheer has never been sworn into the privy council. Check the list yourself at List of members of the Privy Council for Canada (2006–present). Former house speakers are generally sworn in after they leave parliament. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my revert would've been correct if Scheer had those postnominals, which I did not check for. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think its promotion at all I thought it was a draft I wasn't even 1/10th complete.

How can I describe the company without describing the company?

I need to create a Wikipedia page for our business AptoZen so it can be referenced by Google and other 3rd parties to finish profile completeness for our company.

I was under the assumption a draft was a draft now I have to start all over again? that makes no sense. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderSacchetti (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@AlexanderSacchetti: Please see WP:SPAM. Phrasing such as "AptoZen is more than a technology company – it's a people first company." is obviously promotional and unencyclopedic. Everything on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Since you work for AptoZen, you must declare your conflict of interest before continuing to edit, and then try again at Draft:AptoZen. Keep in mind our notability guidelines for corporations. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. 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 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25