User talk:Valoem/Archive3

When all the culture warriors turn up, personally I'd rather avoid the whole brew-ha-ha. The comment by Tarc is probably the least cloaked inapplicable policies - he doesn't like the idea/the ideology it's associated with, so he doesn't want an article. As far as I can see, the other endorses are the same, but better cloaked to obliviate that. Disheartening, maybe, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and usually gets there eventually. Sorry if that's not much comfort. WilyD 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please userfy the talk page and article to my space. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done at User:Valoem/Michael Snow (attorney); for future reference requests at WP:REFUND are likely to be handled faster. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why is it back at Michael Snow (attorney)? I am about to AfD it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you move this topic to The Damned (2013 film) as that appears to be the primary topic used by pretty much all the references used to support info for this film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Food Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new John's Roast Pork article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of notable eateries. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sean Lennon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Sean Taro Ono Lennon''' (Japanese name {{nihongo|Tarō Ono|小野 太郎|Ono Tarō|extra=born October 9, 1975}} is an American [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valoem, could you please weigh in on this film? You previously weighed in on a related article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges (2nd nomination). Thank you. MoonglowMan (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Lindgren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project M. 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) 09:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the message to User: Ultra Dark. I now see that more than one editor has been making changes to Apex (tournament) and it appears I was confused by the multiple edits. Thanks for noting this. Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Nanney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project M. 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) 09:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annabelle (doll) 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/Annabelle (doll) 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valoem. I was able to get Seon-Woo Lee running. This is a heads up. UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I also got Alex Valle running. This is another heads up. UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate them being worked on. Sanford is an EVO champ, and Ricky has been known for breaking Nakoruru in Capcom vs. SNK 1. One important thing. Ricky Ortiz needs to be referred to as a "she" because she made the transition to a female life. Thanks. UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 14:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the disadvantages of being on arb com is that if I comment more than minimally on anything likely to go there, I cannot sit on the case. I have already had to recuse on half the cases brought so far this year. My comments now & in the past on i.c. have already been sufficient that I'd probably be asked to recuse here also, so I'll continue, but please bear this in mind. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, This a proving to be tremendously difficult. I've been nothing but civil throughout this discussion and Tarc is asking for a topic ban. I feel like Wikipedia is being patrolled by the thought police. Being the only one right now is extremely difficult. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assisting! im a new wikipedian and i want to write articles about women in uae but still i need to know more about wikipedia's rules, little bit worried because my very first article was nominated to be deleted, i'll try my best any way! thanks again. Sheuae (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested on WP:REFUND the article and its talk page has been userfied to User:Valoem/Interuniversal travel. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gilbert Le Coze, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Equitable Life Assurance Company. 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) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem, I wasn't requested to do this, but considering that Momochi has become Capcom Cup champion, I thought it would be a good idea to make the page. Look below.

Momochi

UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@UltraDark: Hey it looks great also I think we should move all gamers to their birth common name. It seems to be mostly WP:COMMONNAME, but also more professional. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you and I don't agree 100%, we do seem to agree a lot on this subject. At the risk of indicting my own occasional TL;DR behaviors, I wish you'd disengage an bit and allow other editors to express their opinions without constant rebuttal. Your opinion has been clearly expressed. We can trust an objective closer to sort out wheat from chaff. I think we've made a very strong argument for restoring to pagespace. I also think we have the head count. Other users have the responsibility to disagree with our positions using policy and guideline, and are doing so, civilly, respectfully. Strength of argument will decide this discussion. Overplaying the situation by badgering commenters (as you've done; that's my opinion) may not convey the correct impression to the closer. When one is careful to speak economically, people tend to pay more attention, IMHO. (I will concede I don't always follow my own advice, even in this post.) BusterD (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Aquillion is making a claim about your comments which maybe distorting your words. I recommend replying in this situation. When an RfC is nearing closure I have no choice but to respond.Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear enough? I can see why you have seemed frustrated trying to get people to see this subject neutrally. There's some sort of subjectivity here and I can't pin down its cause. In any event, a solid case has been made that your draft warrants inclusion (and it's a fair draft, though I'd like to see more sources). IMHO, the incel material (if it eventually deserves inclusion) would be placed more correctly at the sexual frustration pagespace. In that minor quibble I do agree with some of the naysayers in the process. Other than that, I hope I've helped make your case. If in the future you were to contact me on this subject, I would not consider that contact canvassing. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Merger of Andreas Lubitz. Thank you. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NACD, this Non-admin closure is improper: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language). ― Padenton|✉   00:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used my discretion here, this AfD has been opened since 26 March 2015 there has not been activity since 14 April and a clear lack of consensus arose I used my judgment it has passed the allowed time for a no consensus nac, you can revert the edit if you like it is in your right, though I cannot see any other outcome. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nim (programming language). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ― Padenton|✉   01:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reopening. I realize you're just trying to get experience, as am I, but this just happens to be a godawful AfD to swim into and the Afd is going to be a massive pain in the ass for whichever admin does close it. That's probably why it hasn't been closed yet. Really, it has more issues than the Lubitz merge we're both involved in. In the future, I'd keep to just closing the snow keep ones, really not worth the headache to get involved as a non-admin closer otherwise. People are generally going to be a lot more suspicious of non-admins like us closing AfDs they voted in, and especially in weird cases where there's single purpose accounts, sockpuppets, or canvassing allegations, it's a lot more complicated to judge the genuine consensus. No hard feelings on my end. ― Padenton|✉   16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I try to edit with as little drama as possible and I think you were perfectly correct to question the NAC. It still think it is a no consensus, the sockpuppetry is oddly enough hurting their own cause, but should not deny that some established editors are accepting its sourcing. I may open an AN incident for Lubitz it appears people feel DRV is not the right venue. It was Guy's close of that article that inspired me to close a few controversial AfDs because no consensus has been applied less and less correctly many closes are simply no consensus, administrative super votes are a growing issue I'm trying to do everything to prevent that. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reconsider this close? I think it is very clear that consensus to delete was reached at the AfD, based on the number and strength of the arguments presented. Thanks, Reyk _YO! 07:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: The rational for the AfD appears to be clean up and removal of excessive information with a lack of valid deletion criteria. There was little discussion and opened for three weeks. I've added three sources to the article and removed unsourced information this one in particular appears to a secondary source which covers the subject extensively. Let me know if you still have any issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the nomination and the delete !votes is completely inaccurate. Lacking proper sourcing or evidence of notability is a deletion criterion, and I think you know it. Please stop making non-admin closes until you can do better than picking a side and completely misrepresenting the other. In future if you wish to put in a keep !vote, put in a keep vote instead of a closing statement. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the AfD, lets see how it goes. I've explained my rational on the discussion page. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at WikiLeon's talk page.
Message added 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

w^{L<speak·check>} 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salux cloth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. 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) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, that SPA template you put under Libercht's contribution, I removed it: it is unjustified. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, you are so screwing yourself. Here we have a nice adversarial conversation about a subject, and you have to go down these sideroads about contributors. Take the high road. Talk about the subject, not the participants. Let the closer read all these comments and decide. Trust that the closer will take all this into account. BusterD (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have taken on the task of improving the article for re-release at some point, a couple of good references to Time Slips as a device in children's fiction: Linda Hall House and Garden and the Time-slip Story in the Aftermath of the Second World War in Presence of the Past in Children's Literature, (ed.) Anne Lawson Lucas

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3mBA_EHrxvEC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=e+nesbit+time+slip&source=bl&ots=JOmcJ1Wec0&sig=ZUhNwz0P_CKGNA0VXfVQe0zbTag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAWoVChMIwo7U8e3JxwIVS7UUCh1vdgf1#v=onepage&q=e%20nesbit%20time%20slip&f=false

Tess Cosslett "History from Below": Time-Slip Narratives and National Identity in The Lion and the Unicorn Volume 26, Number 2, April 2002 pp. 243-253

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/lion_and_the_unicorn/v026/26.2cosslett.pdf

what appears to be the full paper is given here: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/4471/1/HISTORY_2.pdf Liverpres (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this before, and I wish I did, but I'm bringing it up anyway, because it appears to still be an issue.

If the result of the DRV was to put 2015 Shvut Rachel shooting into userspace on August 20th, why was it either not done, or put back in mainspace by the 23rd, with only one edit since that time, which has in fact introduced massive informational duplication into the article? MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan The consensus was to endorse close as no consensus which means to retain in mainspace per original result of AfD. Also what duplicate information do you see? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened - I was looking at the DRV response on the wrong discussion. Never mind. Informationally speaking on the article, though, various "suspects" are listed in multiple sections, some in one and not the other, and some twice. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your cut and paste move of Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940). Please note that John William McClelland is also known as Jack, so simply (footballer) is not enough to differentiate the two articles. Tassedethe (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tassedethe: Are we sure this is proper? I've never seen any title page stylized as Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940) with the birth year, I think WP:TITLE would suggest a simpler format, not sure what though, but Jack McClelland (footballer) seems to be a more standard MoS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard method of disambiguating, see e.g. Category:English footballers for multiple examples. Jack McClelland (Northern Irish footballer) would also be acceptable, as the other footballer is English. John William McClelland should probably be moved to Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1930) or Jack McClelland (English footballer), per WP:COMMONNAME. Tassedethe (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the location is more common, I believe that may be a better move, but I don't think year of birth is standard, maybe it is I've just never seen it before. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that DOB is standard and much preferred over nationality given that the latter can change in football. I have reverted your move and put the article back at Jack McClelland (footballer, born 1940). GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to restore, already done by another admin back in February. GiantSnowman 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem/Archive3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Here is a Rising Thunder wiki page I have created. It might need some assistance. Rising Thunder (video game) UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I added a lead for you:) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for patrolling the Rising Thunder wiki page. I'm happy that Seth Killian loves the FGC. By the way, were you ever a finalist for Apex? UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finished 4th 2010. I have not really been playing too much for the last years though. Are you a part of the community? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is so little text that I'll just post it below rather than set up a user subpage. I've nowikied the heading and url Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FoodSaver is a brand of Food Sealers, made by Sunbeam Corporation, a subsidiary of Jarden. The FoodSaver was seen on Oprah's best-selling item on The Oprah Winfrey Show, hence their slogan "America's #1 Selling Brand".

==External Links== [http://www.foodsaver.com/ FoodSaver Website]

Taken care of, sorry it took me so long. Let me know if you need anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hey I was wondering if you speak Japanese, is this notable Steak Land Kobe in Japan? Are there any good Japanese sources? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today and see what I find. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some ideas for the article, see The_Philadelphia_Experiment_(film) and the "see also" section of that article for more fodder. Also, besides a time machine and time slip, another well-worn path in fiction of time travel is faster than light speed and/or black holes: see Tomorrow Is Yesterday for a view. Yet another is "unexplained technology" - see the Philadelphia Experiment above and The City on the Edge of Forever (a time machine maybe?) and some oddity like Star Trek Generations. Cheers... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 13:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your work creating new food and drink related articles. Check out the project! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for contributing information to Wikipedia that gives the internet more information about China and its places. These can be rare and its nice to see (RE: Da Dong Roast Duck Restaurant)  ' Olowe2011 Talk 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Nanney 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/Kevin Nanney 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had our differences in the past, but I know this case is close to heart for you and you spent a lot of time on this article in the past. So perhaps you would be interested in this new article that has been created recently? People are debating whether or not to delete it; I think it should. But in the light of transparancy, you might want to weigh in. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythic Writerlord: Hey, thanks for letting me know. I would be in favor of deleting this article, incel is a non-notable neologism. The article I was interested in restoring documents a historic term involving involuntary sexual abstinence dating to over one hundred years of documentation including a source from Spooner's study of Sexology dating to 1916. See where I am coming from? I was never trying to promote this fringe concept. If you remember the content of the other article it is not even close to this garbage. Sorry to sound blunt, but the last article should have never been deleted. This however should. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fatal1ty. Since you had some involvement with the Fatal1ty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Dissident Aggressor 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Colt clan incest case 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/Colt clan incest case 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films featuring time loops 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/List of films featuring time loops 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.

Please mind that the citations do not mention time loops, only time travel, with few exceptions that can be easily noted in list of time travel works of fiction, such as 12:01 PM, Groundhog Day, and one or two Star Trek episodes and a couple other shows and films, but not every movie that features time travel. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion has been requested. I will be removing the request for the third opinion because there are a large number of opinions already being expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring time loops. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the third opinion request has been restored now that the deletion discussion was closed as Keep. I don't see a specific concise question, but I do see that multiple editors (not just two) have been discussing. I am closing the third opinion request again. If there is a content question, try the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 3, September–November 2015 Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News Potential upcoming project page changes by WikiProject X. Category discussions at CfD. (more below) — View by clicking [show] — WikiProject X may begin pilot testing to refine WikiProject Food and Drink's project's pages. A recent discussion regarding this occurred at the project talk page here. During September–October 2015, several food and drink categories have been discussed at Categories for discussion. Notices for these discussions are sometimes posted at the project's talk page. Notice about a new discussion was recently posted at the project talk page on 8 November 2015. There are presently 3,658 unassessed Food and drink articles. Assistance in reducing this number would be appreciated. Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and please update the lists by adding new entries and removing resolved or outdated ones. Recent Good article nominations are listed below. 04 Nov 2015 – Esparza's (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Another Believer (t · c); see discussion 03 Nov 2015 – Eagle Boys (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Clare. (t · c); see discussion 22 Oct 2015 – Grodziskie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Neil916 (t · c); see discussion 18 Oct 2015 – Copia (museum) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Ɱ (t · c); see discussion 18 Oct 2015 – Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); see discussion 14 Oct 2015 – The Culinary Institute of America (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Ɱ (t · c); see discussion 14 Oct 2015 – The Culinary Institute of America at Greystone (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Ɱ (t · c); see discussion Article alerts — View by clicking [show] — Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking [show] — Onel5969 Valoem DangerousJXD The project currently has 83 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking [show] — Oktoberfest tents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Cho Sang-woo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Amira Nature Foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)> Category:Edible fish by habitat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Euryhaline edible fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Freshwater edible fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Almond production in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Anti-café (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Jāņi cheese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Diablo sandwich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Hill Farmstead Brewery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Hong Kong Food Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Telstar (apple) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Dumelow's Seedling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Hygrophoropsis mangenotii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Goat water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Landsberger Reinette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Food waste recycling in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) Category:Marine edible fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Fermented dairy products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Marine edible molluscs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) More new articles... Also see versions in the bot-generated list's Revision history for additional articles (e.g. 1 November 2015, 15 October 2015, 1 October 2015, etc.). Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 33,530 articles attributed to the project, including 10,438 stubs. There are 35 articles at Featured article class, 160 are at Good article class and 2 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking [show] — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 15 31 53 FL 2 2 4 FM 140 140 GA 18 29 75 273 5 400 B 56 234 340 699 81 1,410 C 77 401 994 3,552 522 5,546 Start 22 327 1,679 12,000 3 3,903 17,934 Stub 17 543 9,024 4,951 14,535 List 12 71 115 536 23 273 1,030 Category 8,924 8,924 Disambig 218 218 File 3,022 3,022 Portal 811 811 Project 440 440 Redirect 10 72 639 2,865 3,586 Template 1,044 1,044 NA 13 13 Other 1 198 199 Assessed 185 1,098 3,833 26,757 17,701 9,735 59,309 Unassessed 18 1,979 1,997 Total 185 1,098 3,833 26,775 17,701 11,714 61,306 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,094 Ω = 5.12 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

  – Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, is it possible if you could make a page for this ZeRo defeater up and running. Nairoby Quezada UltraDark^{:) 2 CHAT} 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :) gimme a few days. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UltraDark, as per requested I've made a page on him. I think the article may need more sources, but it is a start. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does not prevent editing. Nor does is allow uncited claims to remain. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely correct, I disagree with your removal, you have removed sourced information. I believe there is a bit of over kill, I'll have another editor look at it. It is better to have a discussion before removing sourced information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not sourced properly. You're edit-warring. You're restoring uncited information. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One revert is not edit warring. Talk page discussion suggests consensus is against your version and the better method is to split the list better causal loop and recurring. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of reverting, create the alternate list. Whichever way you look at it the current uncited and poorly-cited entries do not belong on the list. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem,

I don't want to template a regular, but please see {{Nothanks-web}} in relation to Nuru (massage), which contains several sentences from here. (That page is undated, but is quoted in a 2011 blog post, here). Thank you, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I see the copyrighted material was actually added by 93.94.244.1. I'll try to fix the article if time permits. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have actually restored a page with copied material from the original Wikipedia, but I have also added sources to establish notability. The page you cited is actually originally copied form this page I restored. So it is the other way around. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, before you started editing Nuru (massage), that article already contained copyrighted material. It was added in a series of edits by 93.94.244.1 in 2013 ([1]), and the copyrighted material already existed in 2011 ([2]), which predates the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2012 ([3]).

Anyway, I think the article is cleaned up now. I restored as many of the refs you added as I could. But I couldn't restore ^[1] or ^[2] as both were supporting copyrighted content and I can't access either book myself (from Australia), nor could I restore the Vice article ^[3] as I can't read German and couldn't tell what it was verifying. I guess those three are actually the most important refs to establish notability . Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the material was not copyrighted as it was posted from a forum using sources which copy from Wikipedia. I believed that the content it was copied from the deleted history of Nuru massage which predates that forum post. However it is better safe than sorry. I am a bit confused with the removal of the sources though. It is two book sources and a Vice article which is used to establish notability. There is nothing wrong with citing copyrighted material as far as I know. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not transfer an article from another language's wiki using only a mechanical translator, as you did on Hans Posse. If you check the log of that article, you'll see that it took me over two hours of work to turn it into an acceptable article -- which is work that you should have done yourself. So, if you're not willing or able to do the work to end up with a viable English article, simply do not make the translation using only Google Translate. Thanks, BMK (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in the creation that it was a direct transwiki (I did edit some of the article). Excellent job improving the article since it was not an attack BLP and the information is notable, Wikipedia as far as I know prefers creations of sourced articles so others can expand after all we are a collaborative effort are we not? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it really must be an article that uses coherent English sentences and paragraphs, and direct translation via mechanical translators are not quite up to doing that, so they must be manually fixed. That work really should be done by the person who transwikis, or else we'd just set up some bots to hunt down articles on other wikis, run them through Google Translate, and post them on en.wiki. It's just not sufficient. I was hampered by not speaking German, so I had to jettison a couple of sentences I simply could not figure out, and hope that my reworking of other ones was correct. Fortunately I have some knowledge of the subject matter, and that helped. Please try to do some of that work next time. BMK (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is obliged to complete an article to a high standard; the basic principle in editing is there is no deadline, and articles grow by gradual improvement by many people. I think it perfectly reasonable in many cases to make the translation using an automatic translator, and fix up the grammar a little in the obvious places to read like conventional English, which for some types of articles doesn't require much knowledge of the language. Rewriting completely into fully idiomatic English can be harder, and as BMK notes, much more time consuming. It all depends on the nature of the article--trivial biographical and geographic articles need relatively little work. . People have different ideas about how much is necessary.

For this particular article, which I consider more than a trivial biography, I would have gone a considerably further before leaving it. Most specially, I would certainly have rewritten the lead sentence , so someone glancing at it would understand at least that far. BMK, I want to especially congratulate you that you didm uch more than just fix the translation, by adding the material from the Fuhrrermuseum also. The result is a bio article in WP much fuller and with much more balanced coverage than the one in the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit the lead paragraph that was about it though. Anyways I completely agree, I think I did leave some grammatically errors laziness gets me sometimes. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article was deleted after an unanimous agreement as to its lack of notability at AFD, I would rather direct you to request allowance for recreation at Wikipedia:Deletion review after you have located the relevant independent sources demonstrating its notability. -- KTC (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KTC: It will go through DRV if desired, please review my edit history I am long time established editor who specializes in article restoration and DRV. I prefer to work with an article that has history to show the evolution of the article per WP:PRESERVE. The discussion was unanimous, but two votes with little discussion isn't necessarily definitive. Recently, I worked with the article time slip which focused on the fringe concept, when in reality it is a notable plot device in fiction. This article suffers from the same issues, here are three sources not included in the original article, [4], [5], [6], and [7]. The term actually refers to UFOs which include meteors and man-made objects not of Soviet or US during the Cold War, the hypothesis regarding extraterrestrials is a new fringe theory, anyways I am seeing some legitimate content. I do agree with the delete, and do not intent to restore the same content. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KTC, I think our current practice in these cases is to undelete and move the previous article into Draft space, where it can be worked on. A request to userify when made by an established contributor should not need to go to Del Rev. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the links Valoem provided, I have userfy the article to Draft:Fastwalkers. @DGG:, while I undoubtedly would have some unconscious bias in favour of established editors, I'm not totally comfortable with the idea that established editors' request for userfication should be judge more favourably purely from the fact that they are an established editor. Article should be judged on its own merit, and not who wrote (or will be writing) them. -- KTC (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read it then, as any editor acting in good faith, unless there's some special reason otherwise" DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree with your close of this discussion. Your rationale sounds like a vote not an assessment of the arguments and with the split I would have preferred to relist it for a final time before seeing what falls out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz You are free to DRV it if you would like which may result in no consensus at best. Just to note it has been opened for 3 weeks so some time was given only possible other close was no consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to ask DRV to undo an incorrect NAC. I preferred to discuss it with you but since you aren't interested I have just undone it and relisted it myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Callinus (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you ran with the Anybody can part of my close and ignored the best to form some sort of consensus before doing that part. Whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Wait what? You said anyone can restore, I wrote in the edit summary anyone can relist. Given the discussion there appeared to be some notability with restoring the preferred outcome and/or relisting per your DRV closing statement. Did I misinterpret? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by anybody can restore the page was, the software won't prevent anybody from restoring the page if they're not an admin. But, I'm a janitor, not a cop. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused, everyone knows the software doesn't prevent that so I wasn't considering that interpretation, did you prefer a relist? I can do that, I am not sure what your asking. The discussion is opened I restored with the comment of no bias against renomination. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you userfying it to your account?

Hi, this is to inform you of my reversal of your non-admin closure for the reasons explained there.  Sandstein  16:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this back to your userspace. you have not improved the sources and this has only just been through DRV. Please try to do some significant work on this before trying again otherwise it will just end at AFD again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Sandstein was this really what you had in mind when you put this into Valoem's userspace? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, I did add sources which is exactly, which why I asked him to reconsider his DRV closure which was 6-2 in favor of allowing the content to remain in the mainspace to prevent this from happening. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop vote counting to decide consensus. Lets leave it to Sandstein to rule on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this isn't an AfD, if no policy overrides, should it not be based on votes? Otherwise we could just have a double supervote. And also I believe Sandstein said to relist, I don't see any objections from him if I added sources (also RAN did expand the article, but I see you two are in a heated argument) its not the exact same content. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some adage about getting into arguments with random people on the internet that seems rather apposite here. I'm not really going to get into a back and forth. I suggest you wait for the admin who closed the drv to rule on whether the article was ready for mainspace. If he says yes then I'll move it back and apologise, If he says no then it will go straight to AFD if you chose to ignore that advice. Either way no harm will be done waiting for Sandstein to comment - and who knows, there could be a solution and an apology in your future rather than your spending the next seven days arguing with strangers under you are blue in the face. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that's completely reasonable, though I would prefer an AfD regardless believe it or not. It a way for me to determine whether my judgement on the merits of the article were right. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how the article Salumeria Biellese ended in the User:Valoem/Salumeria Biellese page.Valjean1969 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting far too much energy into canvassing seeking help and discussing elsewhere than into actually editing the article. Lots of suggestions and sources have been provided, so start improving the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (Redacted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@BullRangifer: What are you talking about? Where have I canvassed please enlighten me as canvassing is against policy. It also appears that you have been around since 2005 so your lack of experience surprises me. The basic principle of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. I've started the article with appropriate sources Cunard has provided additional sources I do not own this article you are more than welcome to expand it if you feel so. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've been around since about 2003. Sorry about the poor choice of words, and I have redacted it. I'm well aware of the nature of how articles are created and maintained. I just tend to prefer, out of courtesy and recognition of subject experts, to give authors a chance to try to save their hard work. Nothing more than that. I figured you'd appreciate that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your comment is still quite bitey nonetheless. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been editing User:Valoem/Salumeria Biellese and I think that I am ready to undelete the Article. Does the person who Deleted it have the power to undelete the article. The original title was Salumeria Biellese and I like to live it the same. Thanks Valjean1969 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Valoem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Rosiestep (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Do you have children Valoem? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching them to behave like you very ... unfortunate indeed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we can finally leave this old mess behind us. I am sure you must be relieved too, having finally received a strong consensus and a sense of closure. I know I am. We've had our differences in the debates, but I feel we conducted ourselves professionally. I am sorry to have heard you received off-wiki threats for your zealous involvement in the case... but with so many respected editors speaking in favor of deleting the article, perhaps you can let go of your notion that information is being "surpressed" on Wikipedia.

Happy editing, and have a wonderful 2016. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, first sorry about all the confusion on this page.

Second, I thought about it for a bit and I think we should experiment with the hiding thing for a while for about a month. If all works out, then we will leave it hidden. If not, then I think we should try to find a new way.

Again, sorry for the confusion and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwoo217 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this thread: One of the other arbs had said they'd spoken to you. Anyway, it means that ArbCom didn't see any reason to be involved. That is, the private evidence didn't suggest that there had been a breach of policy (etc), any public evidence should be considered onwiki. That there isn't an ongoing discussion about this on wiki (that I'm aware of) means that you're fine. (Posted in my personal capacity, not on behalf of the Committee). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Thanks do you know which Arb had spoke to me? I was not involved in the alleged canvassing. The events that occurred after are what I need to clear up. Was the accuser any anon IP or established editor? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by accuser? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc I was curious to know who the accuser is. Was it an anonymous editor or established editor with a user name? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee keeps things sent to the mailing list confidential unless we need to reveal it, in this case I don't see a need to reveal that sorry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, sorry I am a bit confused, you are say that the evidence presented confirms I did not canvass those editors? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are likely aware, the reasons for the article being salted are extremely irrational and show an obvious bias. I have already proven that the user Mythical Writerlord is merely an Internet troll with an agenda, similarly to the now banned Tarc. That being said, since there are procedures for bringing back even such articles and you seem to be a trusted member you should try bringing the article back by referring to the wide usage of the term in online communities. Terms like manosphere or cuckservative have their articles. Of course, don't expect much due to obvious bias. And, yes, I am a user who is involved in such communities but I think you are aware I am speaking in good faith and that we both understand what this is about. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy article - also

If you believe the editor Mythical Writerlord is acting in good faith you are either misinformed or completely oblivious to reality presented to you. This person had been openly bragging about wanting to remove the article purely out of their pathological hatred for the term. I've even provided evidence for this in the 3rd discussion. If you believe he is anything but a malicious liar with an agenda you are sadly mistaken. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are acting in good faith, in regards to Mythical Writerlord I do not find that relevant. I know the subject is notable and encyclopedic. I generally focus on restoring articles which were deleted for non-policy based reasons, this one appears to be tougher. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)::While I agree that the Mythical Writerlord thing isn't exactly crucial at this moment are some things that could, or, sadly would be important in a saner world. 1. He is the one who proposed the first deletion back in 2014 (and probably others, I am not sure). 2. It is easy to prove his open gloating about the article being deleted and agenda on other websites. 3. His disturbing behavior went as far as to directing the article to something virtually called "Not getting any". 4. Several editors, like SandyGeorgia, noted his aberrant acts at the time and called them so. What happened after the first deletion debate was that there was a merge with "Celibacy" article and then a concentrated attempt to remove that section from the Celibacy article as well. All of it is highly immoral, really ugly and against several policies of this site. In any case, I hope you will gather the support of several editors who were in favor of keeping it with solid arguments based on the term's usage and try to explain that it is not something that is considered a medical disease, which is what some of the editors actually believed was claimed. I am not exactly a SPA, at least not in my mind, as I try to edit whatever I see as incorrect on wikipedia, but I am also no regular editor or a scientist and can't really be of any help here except to expose the extremely ugly agenda behind why your previous attempts were unsuccessful. Sadly, there is clearly a malicious agenda at work and it really is no coincidence that you, as an inclusionist, managed to add or bring back every article you wanted to except for this one, though a good majority them were much less notable and encyclopedic. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Callanecc (talk · contribs)
2. Courcelles (talk · contribs)
3. Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
4. Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
5. GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs)
6. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
7. Keilana (talk · contribs)
8. Kelapstick (talk · contribs)
9. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs)
10. Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), I feel proper policy would suggest the outcome of this accusation released. There were numerous personal attacks during the discussion and false accusations of canvassing and because I am innocent I must insist on knowing the outcome. I assume the evidence was weak and I am cleared of the accusation, if that is the case I would like to be posted on my talk page. The unfounded accusation was improperly posted during an active discussion which clearly skewed opinion on the subject matter. Please advise. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the ping function like the Bat-Signal to attempt to summon the Committee. You can bring matters before the committee once other avenues have been exhausted. Please seek assistance at an appropriate noticeboard like WP:ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already voted and made my opinion clear. Therefore, I have recused myself and have not commented on any threads on this subject. Please do not ping me about this in the future. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Valoem, you already have an answer in multiple venues that this matter of possible canvassing was raised with the committee but was not needed for admins to handle closing the discussion. See Drmies' post here and my removal of the note on the AfD here. You would be well advised to drop the stick. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, Guerillero, Opabinia regalis I was not certain this had to go to ANI. I am not taking about the subject, I am talking about the canvassing accusation which Drmies did not response to. Such attacks are against Wikipedia policy, whenever an accusation is made, it must be resolved either with the defendant found not guilty or guilty. If the defendant is found not guilty then the accuser is responsible for false accusations which I would of course pursue. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, did you just ping two people who asked not to be pinged about this? Don't do that.

We're not a court. We don't do "not guilty" verdicts. As posted in multiple places on-wiki, the result, such as it were, was "doesn't matter one way or the other". This matter is closed. Go write an article about something else. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1980 Uiju earthquake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insignificant event. No damage, injuries, or deaths.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dawnseeker2000 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1980 Uiju earthquake 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/1980 Uiju earthquake 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. Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you closed this AFD as "no consensus" and cited User:Cunard's comment that establish the band's notability. Could you please expand a little on that? He presented four links: a now-deleted images on Commons, an article by Powerplay Rock and Metal magazine of the band, a link to Newsstand that verifies that said magazine is published physically, and a link to the band's Facebook page where they make an unverified claim ("We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world"). Since one isn't about the band at all (Newsstand) and the other isn't a suitable source for a WP:BLP (Facebook), that shrinks the usable amount of sources down to two. For a band that's been active for 12 years, it's a little alarming that there isn't anything else. Searching the Korean portal Naver (both 'Fatal Fear' and '페이탈 피어') doesn't bring anything up on them; I actually end up getting articles about Fear (1996 film) instead. Basically, I would like a little articulation as to why you felt the discussion established the band's notability, especially in light of WP:GNG itself: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. — ξ^xplicit 07:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in as an uninterested third-party. I'm unsure what to think about this close. From the purely policy-based point of view, this doesn't fall under the guidelines of WP:NAC for NC closures, since it didn't have, little or no discussion. But, as I've stated before, I'm all for expanding the scope of NAC's, so this technical detail doesn't bother me personally. While I happen to agree with Explicit that the sources presented are marginal at best, it's not really the closer's job to judge the sources. It's the closer's job to summarize the arguments. In this case, Atlantic306 agreed that the sources were sufficient, and nobody attempted to refute that. So, we're left with three people making ostensibly reasonable arguments for deletion, and two people making ostensibly reasonable arguments to keep. Had I participated in this AfD, I'm sure I would have argued to delete, but given what's there, the NC closure seems reasonable. My prediction is that if this were to go to WP:DRV, it would get re-closed by an admin with the same result, bypassing any WP:NAC questions. Of course, WP:NAC says, in a case like this, that there is no prejudice against speedy renomination, so maybe that's the best solution here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ξ, RoySmith Thanks for point that error. My general experience with Cunard is that he is highly respected and accurate when favoring inclusion. I feel that if the discussion were to drag on for another week the result would be the same. However, I have added no prejudice against speedy renomination per RoySmith whose judgment I also trust. Just to add, dead links still do establish notability as notability cannot be lost per GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to stumble upon this and have to say I find this to be an inappropriate NAC which should really be undone. Non-admins shouldn't be closing discussions for which there is not an obvious consensus (or, arguably, a very clear lack thereof), but even more importantly if you want to opine about the sources, that means you should !vote, not close. While expanding the scope of NAC is a worthwhile discussion, it's not the case now. I don't think it needs to go to DRV -- it just needs to be re-opened. I'm also not sure what "(no prejudice against speedy renomination per talk page)" should be taken to mean. Perhaps I'm commenting while you're in the progress of leaving a talk page message, but at the time you added this comment there was none. That makes it sound like a no quorum close, which wasn't the case... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can no consensus exist for this reason,, every close that I've been questioned before resulted in the same conclusion so it is safe to say my judgement is sound. This band also clearly passes: 4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. as Cunard pointed out, but are you saying that there was clear consensus to delete? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I need to respond with much of what I just wrote above. So I'll just point to that and explicitly request you revert your NAC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused you want me to revert so you can post NACs are inappropriate to close the discussion? What are you bring to the table in favor of deletion? I will revert under one condition, if this article closes the same way or in favor of keep, you are to never question my closes again. In the future you can have someone else question me, but not you. All my closes in the past have been perfect even after I reverted when questioned in the past. Keep in mind an administrator has supported this close given the discussion so reopening this would mean you feel further discussion would lead to a delete correct? Or is this request due to our previous encounter? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "you want me to revert so you can post NACs are inappropriate to close the discussion" mean? Are you saying I want to post to that AfD saying "NACs are inappropriate"? Because I don't think that NACs are inappropriate. This one was. Regardless, no deal. If you make an inappropriate NAC again, I will most definitely challenge you if I see it. The fact that you're pushing me for arguments to delete just makes my second point -- not only was there no obvious consensus (and no obvious lack of consensus), but you also !voted in the close (i.e. you see "no consensus" as equivalent to keep and took the opportunity to enact your keep !vote as such). I don't know if further discussion would lead to delete, keep, or no consensus, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it was an inappropriate NAC.

If you're going to try to dismiss challenges to your NAC with appeals to your own "sound judgment", I'll just drop this link here, which shows literally the lowest percentage I've ever seen of AfD !votes lining up with consensus (at least among people with more than a handful of AfDs). Now, that tool/stat has plenty of problems, of course (this is the first time I've ever linked to it to make a point), but I didn't come here to say your judgment is poor, or even that you're wrong. I would've challenged a NAC done that way (and worded that way) regardless of who did it because it was an inappropriate close. The difference is almost everyone else, upon their NAC being challenged, just undoes it. Sometimes it's closed the same way by an admin, sometimes it's not. But you're not only standing by it, you're arguing on the basis of your own judgment, setting up preposterous conditions, and arguing in a way that continues to make clear that it was an inappropriate close.

Regarding "previous encounter", the only "encounter" I can think of is that I participated in a few of the string of "involuntary celibacy" AfDs/DRVs you were also involved with and that we fell on different sides of those discussions. Maybe there's something else I don't remember, but as I said, I would've challenged anyone making this NAC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my closing record. Also many of those pages have been restored. The only closed I was incorrect was Robotech Armed Forces which I reverted myself. And yes, Incel is a serious subject gave me a number of other issues on this encyclopedia, I was harassed offwiki with a threat that if I pursued the subject further I would have "trouble" editing Wikipedia. Since then a number of editors have questioned me all editors who participated in that discussion (I'm not saying your one of them). Anyways I left a message on Explicit (the nominator) to see if he wants me to revert. If he does I will revert. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I assure you this is not connected. Regardless, without repeating myself, I'll just say that you really should just undo an NAC, even if you're right, upon any good faith request to do so. There's no hard policy saying it's required to do so, of course (I don't think), but that's what I typically see happen. If you're right, and it's re-closed the same way, you get an "I told you so". But what's the downside of just undoing it? Presuming you're just evaluating consensus rather than using the close to supervote, the only hassle is a couple minutes of lost time. (You're spending quite a bit more time than that engaging in this thread). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites I have reverted per your request, I am assuming good faith, and hope you are not among the editors who have accused me of "misogyny", please input your vote (btw they attacked me on Facebook). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to abstain. I had opened the AfD yesterday (in a deep chrome tab), but didn't look at it until today (should've refreshed first). I had settled on delete or weak delete, but it would be, I think, unseemly for someone who didn't participate in a 3-week-long discussion to press to re-open it and then take a position in opposition to the close (i.e. the point of my initial message was the close, and I don't want it to seem like the point was deletion). I left a comment to that effect at the AfD (without specifying delete). But thanks for re-opening. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a glaringly omission to WP:NAC in regards to "no consensus" closures where there is some discussion. It doesn't list it as a possible outcome non-admins can use to close a discussion, but it also doesn't discourage it.

For what it's worth, after seeing the discussion relisted a second time, I planned to offer a rebuttal to Cunard's comment under the belief that it would run another full seven days. The day I planned to do that was the fourth day thereafter, but Valoem closed it before I got to make my argument. I didn't attend to it immediately and almost didn't bother bringing the issue up until I searched for Korean sources and found that even publications that focus on underground bands such as Fatal Fear don't cover them in any manner. I honestly can't find a thing about them.

All that aside, thank you for reopening the discussion. I'll make my case at AFD shortly. — ξ^xplicit 01:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fire needle acupuncture 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/Fire needle acupuncture 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 4, March 2016 Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News Food- and drink-related CfD discussions, Cat meat, New Liquor portal, Recent Good article promotions and Unassessed articles. (more information below) — View by clicking [show] — Many project-related categories are presently listed at Categories for discussion. See the project's Article alerts for more information and links. A discussion regarding cat meat is occurring at Talk:Cat meat § Legality in Canada section. The new Liquor Portal was created in late November 2015 for liquor related topics. The following food and drink articles have been promoted to Good article-class in 2016: Carrot soup Crab dip English Cuisine Esparza's Grodziskie Lemon Drop Pizza cheese Plum cake Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management Royal Stag There are presently 3,575 unassessed articles. Additional attention from the project's assessors is necessary and would be appreciated to reduce this backlog. Article alerts — View by clicking [show] — Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking [show] — 18 new members!CamV8AeonxKar2016Lee788OmotechoLeuven2015Rich FarmbroughChiswick ChapAnna FrodesiakAtsmePrimaPreussenErpertSueDonemOff-shellBogger GunkartaBwtranchDebbiesw The project currently has 100 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking [show] — White Tiger's Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Legacypac (talk · contribs · new pages (80)) started on 2016-02-26, score: 10 Olive Oil Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Janestreet350 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-02-22, score: 20 Terra Greens Organic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Neetjash (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-02-19, score: 10 Mars Nederland Veghel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by DinosaursLoveExistence (talk · contribs · new pages (16)) started on 2016-02-29, score: 10 Club Quilox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Eruditescholar (talk · contribs · new pages (11)) started on 2016-02-29, score: 30 Boston Tea Party (café chain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by LegereScire (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2016-02-29, score: 10 Refermentation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Rachelskit (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2016-02-28, score: 40 Graeme Burns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs · new pages (8)) started on 2016-02-28, score: 10 Alex Brewster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs · new pages (8)) started on 2016-02-28, score: 10 List of Georgian wine appellations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Biwom (talk · contribs · new pages (12)) started on 2016-02-27, score: 20 Tvishi (wine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Biwom (talk · contribs · new pages (12)) started on 2016-02-27, score: 20 Wok to Walk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-02-26, score: 10 Pepsi Spire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Rowanlovescars (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-02-26, score: 20 Kill Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cattus (talk · contribs · new pages (160)) started on 2016-02-26, score: 10 Royal Dragon Vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (37)) started on 2016-02-25, score: 10 Arnbitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Gardar Rurak (talk · contribs · new pages (25)) started on 2016-02-25, score: 10 Brian Petruzzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by PorridgeJohnson1 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-02-25, score: 20 2013 Northern Ireland Youth Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Sport and politics (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 20 2012 Northern Ireland Youth Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Sport and politics (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 2011 Northern Ireland Youth Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Sport and politics (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 2010 Northern Ireland Youth Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Sport and politics (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 2009 Northern Ireland Youth Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Sport and politics (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 O-Aew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kwangkongkul (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 Vazisubani (wine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Biwom (talk · contribs · new pages (12)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 20 Monterebro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (37)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 Predictive microbiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by MiriamRGarcia (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-02-24, score: 10 More... Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 34,340 articles attributed to the project, including 10,580 stubs. There are 38 articles at Featured article class, 176 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking [show] — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 15 31 53 FL 2 2 4 FM 140 140 GA 18 29 75 273 5 400 B 56 234 340 699 81 1,410 C 77 401 994 3,552 522 5,546 Start 22 327 1,679 12,000 3 3,903 17,934 Stub 17 543 9,024 4,951 14,535 List 12 71 115 536 23 273 1,030 Category 8,924 8,924 Disambig 218 218 File 3,022 3,022 Portal 811 811 Project 440 440 Redirect 10 72 639 2,865 3,586 Template 1,044 1,044 NA 13 13 Other 1 198 199 Assessed 185 1,098 3,833 26,757 17,701 9,735 59,309 Unassessed 18 1,979 1,997 Total 185 1,098 3,833 26,775 17,701 11,714 61,306 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,094 Ω = 5.12 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the article. In WP:BRD, that is "bold".

You disagreed with the changes and reverted them. In WP:BRD, that is "revert".

I attempted to discuss the individual issues one-by-one on the article's talk page. In WP:BRD, that is "discuss".

As there was no discussion whatsoever to the contrary, you have no basis to revert every change I have made over the course of a month, backed up with detailed discussion and explanatory edit summaries with an insistence that I "please stop whatever (I am) doing".

Discuss the issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will also want to see my edits at Jim's Steaks and my pissed-off discussion at Talk:Jim's_Steaks#Restoring_edits. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources and tagging seems pretty ducky, I would just drop this, unless you have some reason for your edits you would like to explain. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely every edit I have made was explained with an edit summary, discussion on the article's talk page or both. If you do not read them, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to figure out "whatever (I am) doing". If you disagree with any of my edits or plans, the place to discuss the issues is on the article's talk page. If you do not discuss the issues, I'm afraid I'm left to deciding how to handle issues with the articles without your input.

As for my edits being "ducky", if you are referring to WP:DUCK, you will want to take the issue directly to the appropriate noticeboard. If you mean something else by "ducky", I'm afraid you will need to explain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously asked you to restrain from unsupported accusations that I am editing in bad faith. You have renewed your claim at Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks. If you feel there is good reason to believe my editing on that article is based on clear bias, an undisclosed conflict of interest or is otherwise inappropriate, please discuss the issue at an appropriate forum of your choice. The article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article (I strongly encourage you to join these discussions.). I will consider further accusations of bad faith on article talk pages to be personal attacks. Please consider this your first warning. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to discuss unless you nominate the article for deletion. I have found many reliable sources better than even those found in the article. Removing sources knowing other sources exist and then tagging for notability is purposefully lowering the quality which is vandalism, I would recommend you drop this now, go ahead and revert and an ANI will be inline. Your second removal of reliable sources confirms you are not here in regards to this cheesesteak joint. I am very logical and if you too then you understand this is no other interpretation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. At the moment, I am awaiting comments on the blatantly promotional source, discussed at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source.

WP:VANDALISM is the "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page....Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." We disagree about what should be included in the article. That is not vandalism, it is a disagreement. Please assume good faith.

If you believe after 10 years of editing I am not here to build an encyclopedia, take this issue to AN/I or another appropriate forum of your choice. Otherwise, do not make this claim again as it is an assumption of bad faith. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your history edits you are here to build an encyclopedia, just not on this specific subject. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem,

Last week you posted in the deletion page for Tenex Software Solutions and I appreciate you voting to keep the page up. I understand there is problem with the content and sources so I was wondering if you had any advice you could share with me that would strengthen the chances of the page not being deleted. I'm sure you are very busy but any advice or comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

Stevenjohnson14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How old is your company you need sources such as nytimes or multiple coverage in the news which is not a press release. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly restored the sourced contested at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source without explaining why. Please discuss the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your second warning. This: "vandalistic edits and abrasive attitude toward other editors for no apparent reason", as repeatedly explained, is not acceptable. Note, also, another editor's comment on you personal attacks here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I truely believe that is what you are doing, and thats not personal attacks. I am criticizing your editing not person. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you to discuss content, not editors. You are approaching the point where you will not have options.

Your refusal to discuss changes is stonewalling. That is not sustainable. Eventually, you will either discuss the changes and a consensus will emerge or you will be blocked and the changes will be made without your input.

No matter what you may believe about me, my motives, etc., repeatedly assuming bad faith, calling our apparent content disagreements "vandalism" and impugning my character will eventually lead to a slap or two on your wrists and, if needed, blocks. If you do believe I am intentionally damaging the project, the only place to discuss that at this point is AN/I. You have repeated your claims long enough, back with idle threats to take it to AN/I. I am telling you point blank to stop or take it to AN/I. If you are unsure how to start a discussion there, any admin would be more than happy to help.

Further personal attacks, let me assume you, will not change my behavior. They will result in further warnings and, as needed, other remedies.

The current topics awaiting discussion are:

• The promotional site used as a source, outlined at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source. You have not explained whether you believe its promotion nature does not matter or if you believe it is not promotional. Please explain.
• At Talk:Jim's_Steaks#Celebrities is the copyright violation scan that two other editors agree does not support the claim. You have insisted it does, but the wording of the source does not seem to say anything about celebrities handing out there, and does not say that the walls at Jim's have autographed photos of celebrities who have eaten at the restaurant. Please explain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koren Specific Technique 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/Koren Specific Technique 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. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koren Specific Technique 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/Koren Specific Technique 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. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are aware, but WP:CANVASSing is strictly prohibited. I think it could be construed that this and this are canvassing as they are obvious attempts to get an outcome you want as well as making the argument overly personalized. I would recommend not doing more of this in the future.

jps (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jps This is falls under appropiate canvassing (which I do all the time) I left a neutral message on Cunard's page as you can see and BullRangifer is involved in the discussion and removed the same sources which he thought was primary the people I requested may favor your side not mine so in fact is may be the opposite of canvassing also per WP:CANVASS what I did is allowed per:

• • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

and Cunard is generally regarded as an expert in source finding so I consider him and expert in many fields. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral tone" generally does not include calling other editors "biased". jps (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jps Apologies I misworded, I meant to say the encyclopedia tends to be bias against fringe topics. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you did explicitly mention me, which is part of the reason I decided to come to your talkpage. Please be careful in the future. There are right ways and wrong ways to ask for outside input and impugning the character of another Wikipedia editor may not be the right way. jps (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 5, Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News Recent Good article promotions for project-related articles. — View by clicking [show] — The following food and drink articles have recently been promoted to Good article-class: Applesauce cake Beurre Maître d'Hôtel Chips and dip Clementine cake Copia (museum) Dime Store (Portland, Oregon) Naem Old-fashioned doughnut Pancake machine Pink slime The Modern Cook For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts. Article alerts — View by clicking [show] — Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking [show] — 6 new members!OnBeyondZebraxVMS MosaicMartinyoung2775Omni FlamesCAPTAIN RAJUEdwardx The project currently has 106 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking [show] — National Identification Registration Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Fsmatovu (talk · contribs · new pages (41)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 10 Domaine Tempier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Needlepoint9 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 20 Kill Time (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · new pages (105)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Indian Tea Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Rohanrafaroger (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Tops Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 20 Kaspa's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Faktong Keang Buat (Pumpkin in Coconut Cream) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Woraveerinj (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Darra Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Jeffreyrubel (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-21, score: 10 Cervecería 100 Montaditos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kanghuitari (talk · contribs · new pages (55)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Potentilla simplex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ggpauly (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Burger urge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Lindsmay10 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-28, score: 10 B & D Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bennyben1998 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 33 Beer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Legacypac (talk · contribs · new pages (63)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 F-Block Metallocene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by YanwuShao (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Bamboo Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Divyaappidi (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-23, score: 10 Jianbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Jmps2016 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Friends of Beer Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bedivere.cs (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Miniature food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Groupgg (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 English Tea House and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Bazin (bread) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · new pages (14)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Cyprus Wine Routes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Euclidthalis (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Taking Care of Business (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by The Dragooners (talk · contribs · new pages (87)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Pastrami on rye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (19)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 30 Pictou County Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kelapstick (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Wasabi (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 William S. Bloxsom-Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kcwatson55 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 20 List of the largest fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cupido1234 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Food - Weapon of Conquest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bzuk (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 20 Margot Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Gareth E. Kegg (talk · contribs · new pages (25)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Deep Fried Oreo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cla1402group4 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 34,474 articles attributed to the project, including 10,607 stubs. There are 38 articles at Featured article class, 185 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking [show] — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 15 31 53 FL 2 2 4 FM 140 140 GA 18 29 75 273 5 400 B 56 234 340 699 81 1,410 C 77 401 994 3,552 522 5,546 Start 22 327 1,679 12,000 3 3,903 17,934 Stub 17 543 9,024 4,951 14,535 List 12 71 115 536 23 273 1,030 Category 8,924 8,924 Disambig 218 218 File 3,022 3,022 Portal 811 811 Project 440 440 Redirect 10 72 639 2,865 3,586 Template 1,044 1,044 NA 13 13 Other 1 198 199 Assessed 185 1,098 3,833 26,757 17,701 9,735 59,309 Unassessed 18 1,979 1,997 Total 185 1,098 3,833 26,775 17,701 11,714 61,306 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,094 Ω = 5.12 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't do something like this again. This is in direct violation of WP:FOC and WP:NPA and I already warned you about personalizing disputes above. If you continue to try to skew discussions just to needle me, I will report you to WP:ANI and ask for an interaction ban. jps (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Resaonable WP:CIR concerns are not "personal attacks." A better tack might be to give WP:GNG a once over. The complaint's particularly rich coming from the author of this recent PA: "Are you the famous GamerGater?" 166.171.187.71 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please come on your established name and no I never heard of him. jps if you feel I've done something please ANI. I fully believe you are not acting on WP:NPOV and while you may a good editor in certain areas I believe you misinterpret GNG to the point of disruption in subjects you dislike. In the case of your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m, I agree with you, however you were again accused of removing sources to favor the outcome for deletion which is not here editing. Do not remove sources mid-AfD, editors have the right to judge the source for themselves. I never had any bans or even visits to ANI, so feel free to be the first, strange request for an interaction ban when you are the one engaging almost every time. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have personal problems with me, the correct place to discuss them is on a usertalk page. Not in a deletion discussion. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.