User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Any update?

Hi,

It seems like the ACTRIAL discussion is going on at five different locations now. I've drawn together what conclusions I can but information at different locations contradicts or at last predates information at new locations. As you and Kudpung are more in-tune with the whole business, I just thought I'd check if I'd missed anything: my current understanding is that the WMF is doing something Phabricator-related but I'm not sure if that's the latest on the progress.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 13:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACTRIAL and its talk page are now the places for the active discussion. The data analyst comes on as a contractor on Monday and Horn is going to ask the WMF if they can borrow a graphic designer from another team to make the landing page not look like Windows 98. I'll poke them again on Monday to get an idea for a start date and further advocate for a 6 month trial period. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Hopefully it'll be this year :P DrStrauss talk 18:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Gene Freidman

I removed the proposed deletion template from Gene Freidman. It looks like the article started out as a paid puff piece, but I have improved it since then. Unfortunately for Freidman, almost all of the coverage in reliable sources is negative. I actually left out a fair amount because there seem to be so many lawsuits and complaints against him. Sometimes being neutral means that an article will be negative. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

World's Lamest Critic, I've sent it to AfD per its origins and BLP1E: borderline notable individuals who were created by a sock farm that created both promotional articles and coatrack articles should be nuked. I would want it deleted anyway under WP:N. We'll see what the community decides, but as Rtichie333 above will tell you, I'm personally not particularly known for wanting to rescue BLP violations, especially when created by a sock farm that required me to get a CU to nuke an article under G5 for unsubstantiated terrorism claims combined with promotionalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If you don't mind me saying so, I think your concern about that sockfarm has clouded your judgment. First you insinuated that I was somehow involved because I objected to an invalid WP:G5 template, then you started making notability claims about someone with decades of press coverage. Please try to be objective. I think we're both working towards the same goal. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty level-headed, or at least I have been told so. I also try to be pretty objective. An account with a low edit count removing an arguably valid G5 template does raise questions. I've never seen you before and our first interactions have been on articles created by this sock farm that has a particularly nasty habit of creating BLP violations laced within promotion. That's why I pointed it out. I do my best to AGF, and on this farm have even been chided by some for notwanting to move faster. I am going to raise questions though, which I think is fair. Re: G5, as I said on Godric's talk page to you, there is disagreement in our admin corps about that. It deserves review. Re: Gene Freidman, I don't find consistent coverage before he was sued in 2015. I did an archives search back until 2000. He's low profile under our BLP policy and material about allegations should be removed until proven otherwise. Considering that the English Wikipedia is one of the most significant websites in the world, and yes, I do like to keep information about crimes that have yet to be proven out of an otherwise non-notable biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:G5 is very clear. There should be no disagreement among admins. You might be interested in this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on consensus, which means a lot of our policy applications are based on commonly accepted practice. In terms of G5, at least one arbitrator, a check user, one of our most respected admins, a member-elect of the BoT, and many experienced editors believe that we should use commonsense and realize that for massive sock farms with stale accounts dating back to pre-2010, there is almost certainly a blocked or banned user. I'm sure you could find at least one member of each of those groups that I just quoted do the opposite. That's fine, because Wikipedia has no firm rules and we trust both editors and administrators to use their judgement within community accepted norms to improve this project. That means a four eye review in areas where there could be disagreement, such as CSD.
Re: that deletion request, I'll mark it for speedy on commons. Its a clear copyvio. No need for discussion over there. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)--That was one of the best commentary, regarding the G5-matter(s).You nailed it.Winged Blades Godric 13:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is totally inappropriate for a new, inexperienced user like World's Lamest Critic to be even taking part in such discussions. Any more personal attacks from them and I'll do some deeper investigation and escalate as required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: user talk:DaringDonna. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, something to add to your armoury of arguments for G5 and to quote , especially when the tags have been removed by inexperienced users: As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. One doesn't argue lightly with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I've replied to World's Lamest Critic's post on my tp. Despite your excellent explanation above, he still just does not appear to get it. I hope he's not going to be so persistent as to train wreck the serious investigations that are on-going. I've suggested he find something simpler to do until he finds his feet proper. I would hate to have to put such a keen new user under sanctions to prevent any disruption. (t.i.c). I'd rather he left the problem to experienced editors than become part of the problem himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

I don't think we've ever talked directly, but I've always found your commentary on various talk pages or debates to be well-reasoned and helpful. It's nice to know the feeling was reciprocated :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, yes, thank you for your kind words. Something I didn't put in the barnstar is that every time I visit your user page, it inspires me to go through 2009 orphans in search of the ones that are 100% failures of WP:V and PROD them. It reminds me of when I started on WP (when less edits were more than they were now) 10 years ago, in both good and bad ways :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Ohh, that is the biggest possible compliment, thanks! I love finding out that other people are in there with me slowly chipping away at it :) It's just crazy what you find in there. Notable stuff that's never been unstubbed, copyvios untouched for 10+ years...I don't know, it's a bit like checking the bargain bin, you have no idea what you're going to run across. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. And a little more independent from the sources we write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, thank you. It means a lot. I know you are very busy so sorry if my pings were annoying: I did want to keep you in the loop though since you have helped with some of this mess. If you are interested and look at the link I posted at Kudpung's talk, you'll see the editor interaction analysis between the old account he discovered last night and the confirmed socks. I haven't done a full analysis, but you have creations with overlap dating back to 2010. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification requested on your comment at my RfB

I'm taking this here because I don't want to "badger" you in any way, I just wanted a clarification. In your !vote you wrote that you view my answer to your Q18 as an improper weighting of things near the end and an assumption that people who supported at first are incapable of changing their mind. I don't think that fits my answer really because my example was one in which the supporters were capable of changing their minds but simply unable to do so because they did not get the necessary information that would definitely have changed their minds in time (because they were offline or didn't check the RfA again). Of course a crat shouldn't presume that people able to change their !vote were not capable of doing so but that was not what I thought I was saying and certainly not what I meant to say. I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like a more detailed explanation (if possible) why you think in this extreme example crats shouldn't be allowed to assume that supporters would have switched if they had the chance to do so. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy, sure, as you know, we don't often agree, but I do hope you know that I really do like you, and I hope I am always civil and agreeable even when we are on different "sides". I think one of my issues was that the assumption that people would always have changed if they know something that is problematic. Yes, some would likely, but others could very easily stay support because of not believing the info, etc. If it was a timing issue, then I think there might be justification in extending the opportunity to allow people more time to switch, but that absent indication from the party, we must assume that they would be fine with their !vote being in support. If you look at your current RfB while some people have switched because of WJBScribe and Maxim's opinions, others have actually come back to reiterate their support. If a bunch of people had begun to fall off at the end because of some information that they found over the pale about you, I don't think it would be fair to close it unsuccessful.
Katie's analysis reminded me of your double relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeksha Center for Learning PU College (DCFL). It was an AfD that had a clear quorum and was relatively uncontroversial. You seemed to assume that no one had considered the possibility of redirecting. I actually agreed with you, as I almost always do on that type of school article, but I don't think it is okay to make assumptions about what the participants did and didn't consider.
In my case, my two RfA criteria are simple: 1) Don't be a jerk. 2) Have a clue. Because of this, I almost always !vote early at any RfA. If it turned out that the user had been a fresh start account over issues with POV warring 5 years ago, and they had concealed it but it was within policy and this came out in the last 24 hours of an RfA, depending on how well they met my criteria, I very well might not care at all. If it was a user like FIM (who really does need to run for RfA) who had no issues since the clean start and wasn't under sanctions, I would happily stay supporting. If it was someone who was a bit of a jerk, I would probably switch, but it depends.
I realize that this is a bit different than your vandalism issue, but I also consider it to be a much more likely scenario. Perhaps I would have been better to phrase it that SoWhy seems to assume that all editors who supported early on would change their minds given damaging information and that since they are incapable of doing it because of time, its fine to weight their !vote less on this assumption. If that seems better, I would be more than happy to strike and rephrase. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Right back at you! Despite our philosophical differences, we agree more often than you think.
You are correct with the extending possibility. I forgot that this is an option, probably because I cannot remember a single time this actually happened. I had tried to construct a scenario were the information was completely believable and so damning that everyone certainly would have switched but your point is a good one and you are probably correct. I think I have to reconsider my answer to Q18 (not for you or Katie but for myself because such scenarios are not limited to RfX).
As for the AFD relist you mention, there is unfortunately some evidence that a number of people don't consider WP:ATD when !voting. There seems to be a bit of a black-or-white approach to deletion discussions these days which is why I think it's helpful to remind people that other alternatives exist and often enough !voters will actually change their !votes. Iridescent prominently mentioned IAR in the discussion and I think that does include pointing out such alternatives in support of the first pillar, i.e. writing an encyclopedia.
Didn't know FIM was a "clean start" editor, interesting. You are correct that he should run for admin soon. On that we can agree Regards SoWhy 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy, I'm traveling now so can't respond better but did want to clarify that I wasn't saying FIM was a clean start editor. Just that if he was and the old account had non-sanctions related issues, I wouldn't give a damn at RfA. Pure hypothetical. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just dropping in to say a) thanks for helping kick-start WP:ACTRIAL again; I don't really have much to say other than I hope it all works and b) you and FIM should be admins. If you don't ask for the bit, Mr. Fuzzybottom will come looking and forcibly give it to you ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, Ritchie333 thanks for the kind words. My standard response to b) anytime someone tells me that being that my first goal on WP currently is getting ACTRIAL up and running. Once that happens I'll think about standing for the bit (whilst ignoring ORCP if I do per my recent critique of it ) Re: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I think we can make adminship like infant baptisms and medieval ordinations. Consent of the receipient not being needed ;-) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking roundabout November, just in time for Thanksgiving, of doing a job lot of RfAs - you, FIM, Megalibrarygirl, wiae and (what the heck), Timothyjosephwood. Safety in numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Meh. Thanks for the thought Ritchie, but I still have doubts that I'd pass. I will probably always think that more admins are better than less, since that guards against admins becoming backlog clearing bots rather than the material contributors that they were before they got the mop, who occasionally contribute in areas they used to. But at this point the mop would probably just be a distraction. Personally, right now my objective is to reach extended confirmed on a Wikipedia the language for which I don't speak. I'm almost halfway there on de.wiki. It's a stupid arbitrary goal, but I like the idea of it, and I've made at least one friend I can barely communicate with in the process. TimothyJosephWood 22:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
TJW, we will add you to the list of forcible adminships with FIM. I'll consult wit Mrfuzzybottom after his RfB. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to have a choice in the matter, Timothyjosephwood! LOL Ritchie333 is on the case. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Has... there ever been an April Fools RfB? Better yet, has there ever been an RfJ (request to literally be Jimbo)? I think Mr. FB is up for the task. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, I think Bishzilla filed a request for this at one point. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No, no! Bishzilla too modest concerning own virtues, no matter how tremendous. Little admirer User:Aunva6 requested 'zilla foundership in 2013. Request quickly granted,[1] as proper. Nevertheless request itself now redlink. Perhaps deleted by White House Communications Director to spare Trump's Jimbo's vanity, who knows? bishzilla ROARR!! 08:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC).
Oh, that is back when we had fun. Right now I'm just not sleeping, fully expecting to be out of a job tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It'll take more than a semi-satanic avocado to get the better of you, I suspect. Or, would hope, anyway. — fortunavelut luna 07:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor newsletter fix

Hi Tony. I couldn't find the template used for the NPP newsletter, but if you have access, could you please change "<hr>" to "<hr />", as the lack of the endtag means that edit coloration continues on. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide, sorry for the late reply. There is no official template (to my knowledge). I used the formating that had been done in previous newsletters. I've updated it in the proof of the last one so that it should be the same for this month's. Let me know if that is the fix you were talking about. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tony -- that was it. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace rename

Hi- I just want to make sure I'm not out of line on discussing the Panzer Ace renaming- I actually am working on an edit of the "Dog" page and I don't want trouble. How does this process work? Is the discussion on the page of the "Panzer Ace" article? Thanks for your help- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe, you can read over the process at WP:RM. You either Support or Oppose my proposal based on policy reasons. You can also suggest another title and explain why you think it is better. You normally bullet your reasons. The goal is to develop a formal consensus on the page name. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also- If I put in * Support can I still make comments or suggestions on the page? Or should I wait? Can I still make suggestions for edits on the page or should I start those in a new section? Thanks, Jeff TMakumbe (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe, an RM is a special section to discuss what the name of the page should be. You should typically keep comments in this section to be about the name. You are free to add comments about other parts of the article in other sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help- JTMakumbe (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rulgaye

Hi Tony, Do whatever you think is appropriate as per terms and conditions but just let me know what exactly made you tag this article for deletion ...and then i may contest or do something about itDashing2002 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dashing2002, thanks for stopping by. Two issues: the article was clearly written in promotional language with the intent to promote the subject, and it doesn't explain why the average person on the street would expect to find such an article in a general purpose encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, Thanks a lot for the explanation, i think you are right at the moment ....it was due to mere ignorance and nothing else....thus i admit and appreciate the action.......next time i would surely keep in mind both aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashing2002 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tony, thanks for your contribution. I am not paid to edit, I take a interest in lgbt and community work in the United Kingdom and only edit or submit new articles which are able to be accurately sourced and verifiable and also in the public interest of relating to an issue of public discussion . Much appreciation to you! MIRANDAScoCIS (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

MIRANDAScoCIS, thank you for your response to my query. Happy editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
TB, on that precise note, check this guy out  :) — fortunavelut luna 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that just lovely. Unfortunately, I do think that if those works were commissioned the client is unlikely to be very happy. Bad writing makes for bad business when your business is writing. Speaking of bad writing, have you seen WP:ASTONISHME, Fortuna? Its something I think should be mandatory reading at any introductory composition class at the university level. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's very clever. Although it is too long; slightly repetitive? -an exercise in concision suggests itself!  :) even so, thanks for pointing it out there. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna

New edit filter

@Kudpung, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Doc James, and Rentier: and any others watching who care: We now have edit filter 867 for large initial creations by non-extended confirmed users. We're still trying to define what "large" is. The goal being to catch the most in the filter while not overwhelming it with too many creations. Thoughts on that would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Large_creations_in_single_edit_by_inexperienced_users TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Really great Tony. Looking through that list and seeing lots of concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The other advantage the edit filter logging has is that it keeps a record of the accounts for behavioral comparisons even if the main space articles are deleted. Certainly helpful for those of us without the bit, and I suspect also helpful for those with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: CyberExtruder Page

You marked the page we made for our company as a candidate for speedy deletion. We had modeled the page off of other similar companies within our market segment and want to get any advice for making the page a useful part of Wikipedia. Any changes we would have to make to get the article up to the standards for a page we can take care of. We understand the conflict of interest issue, is this unavoidable entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberextruder (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyberextruder, the problem with the current page is that it is unambiguously promotional: it reads like a brochure for your company and is full of marketing speak. It even uses we in it. This is a reason enough for deletion under our policies. You could try to rewrite it, but then it would need to pas [[WP:NCORP|our notability guidelines for companies, which I am not sure it does. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

UFO Kidnapped

Hi, I noticed that you removed a section of UFO Kidnapped, that I re-added and yet it has been removed again. I think that this section should be included because even though it not have the information is important for the article. There are lots of articles that do not yet quote sources, but still cite their info, so I think it should still be on the page. I am trying to hire someone to make some YouTube videos comparing both YCDTOTV and UFO Kidnapped, that will show scenes from both shows, but I haven't found anyone yet to do it, and I do not yet know how to do it by myself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Davidgoodheart. I see Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi removed it again. The issue here is that while articles that have been around from the early days of Wikipedia do have these sections, they are not in line with our policy of verifiability and original research. If the material cannot be sited to a reliable source and it is an observation that someone has made on their own, it should not be in a Wikipedia article. Have a great weekend! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with RM closure

Hello, I disagree with this RM closure you made at Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)#Requested move 15 April 2017. There seems to be more support votes than opposes and your rationale "!votes supporting moving do not address the stylization points raised by those opposing, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are relatively weak" doesn't seem convincing since the oppose votes are basically calling it stylization but that's obviously not true since the dot is part of the title. Removing the dot changes the title and that's the same as changing "Michael Jackson" to "George Washington" (not the same in significance but the same in policy). — TheMagnificentist 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TheMagnificentist, several things: first that close is three months old. Too much time has passed for a relist and since no action was taken and it remained at the stable title without anyone challenging it for that long, I think it would be inappropriate to move at this time without a fresh RM.
Next, the supporters failed to explain why in this case the period was needed. One did raise WP:CONSISTENCY, but that wasn't explored by the other participants. Most of the support votes were weak in this regard: they were either OTHERSTUFF without explaining why it was preferable or along the lines of its just that way, neither of which are that convincing based on naming policy. The oppose !votes on the other hand cited a clear policy-based reason: we don't do stylization, and the supporters were unable to provide a good rebuttal to that.
Finally in terms of numbers, consensus is not a vote but by my brief nosecount you had 16 in support and 12 in opposition. For a relatively well known and high profile subject, that is not a strong consensus on numbers alone, The close might have been better as no consensus to move, which I think there pretty clearly wasn't, but I felt at the time that the strength of the oppose arguments in the naming policy were enough to push it to not moved. There is little practical difference between those two closures as the result is the same.
You are of course free to take my actions here to a move review, though from a practical standpoint it's been so long since the RM and those tend to take a month to get closed, I'm not sure it's the best option if you want to move the page. If you want to try to establish a consensus for a move again, a new RM is probably the best way to go. You might get some pushback from opening it only three months since the last one, but since that one could have been equally well closed no consensus to move , there might be an appitite to test consensus again. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Fastcoin edit and suggestions

Thank you for your help and pointing out problems with the article.

Trowdad (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Trowdad, I've went ahead and nominated the page for deletion because I don't think it fits our inclusion criteria. You are welcome to voice your opinion there. If you have a conflict of interest (such as being an employee of the company) you should also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I don't understand how hundreds of these cryptocurrencies can be called to Wikipedia standards but one is not. What makes them different? Hopefully through discussion we can find the reason and edit to make it up to standards. I do not work for Fastcoin I have no COI with regards to it. Thank you for your consideration. Trowdad (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Trowdad, thanks for your reply. That other currencies don't meet our standards and are included is not a reason for us to include Fastcoin. Among other things, we require significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources in order for something to be considered notable. I hope this makes a bit more sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the best thing I've seen in ages

Looks like we both managed to file an SPI report on the same person at the same time! [2] My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I pinged you there, but I went ahead and merged the reports (we edit conflicted, but I went ahead and did it because it made sense at the time. Feel free to remove if you don't want it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence of Rome

Hello Tony, Regarding the move of the article "Lawrence of Rome" to "Saint Lawrence", I certainly agree with all the reasoning, regarding

  • "He is most commonly known by this name"
  • "Lawrence of Rome is not frequently used"
  • "clearly the name most readers will be looking for"

But please also consider this: Similarly to what you said: "moving this title to Lawrence would be out of the question", I also find the move to "Saint Lawrence" very unfortunate. The problem is that there are so many other Saint Lawrences, that I can guarantee you total chaos will follow. People will attribute everything "Lawrence" to this "Saint Lawrence" without checking if this actually the right saint. You might be able to oversee what gets written in the saint's article, but I wouldn't want to check for every link created to it. This is where "Lawrence of Rome" is clearly superior: It makes people stop and think about it.
I see it much in the same way as the many, many other lemmas that do not reflect the wording most readers will be looking for, but a scientifically correct wording or the legally correct name of a person.
And all this reasoning goes doubly for the Category: It will become useless as people will most certainly throw everything "Lawrence" into it without thinking twice.
Best Regards --BjKa (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

One more comment Re: "The Commons category also is simply Saint Lawrence". True, but this has been much older, and there you can see the result, where no one can tell which Lawrence is meant. Obviously it will most often be this St.Lawrence, but there are also many exceptions. It would be quite a chore to untangle that. --BjKa (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi BjKa, the move on the main page for this category has been moved to Saint Lawrence as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Until the move, typing in Saint Lawrence just redirected to the page: it did not send you to a disambiguation page. There is a disambiguation page in the hat note that people can go to if they want a different Saint Lawrence. That move has concluded, was unanimous in support, and was well attended. The question we are now asking is if the category should match the main page name. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the help--this is really an interpersonal quarrel between the 2 editors involved, quite apart from their diametrically opposed view on all aspects of notability. There is I think already an interaction ban, &, as frequently occurs with such bans, they both try to circumvent it by doing things they know will upset the other party. I cannot take direct action, except to try to keep them from snother ani where they will very likely both be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Hello! I was digging into your contributions and logs for a while, and I really feel we need admins like you. Would you accept a nomination? --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Kostas20142, thank you for your kind words. I've had several people approach me about it or offer nominations. My standard response is what I'll tell you: my primary focus on Wikipedia at this time is implementing WP:ACTRIAL. That is more important to me than getting extra buttons. Once that is underway and I've finished up a few other projects, I will consider. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

COI - of a different kind

Hi TonyBallioni. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) .

Response for your speedy request to deletion

Hello Tony, I am responding to your request for speedy deletion as I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh in your judgement. As a student, and a new member of the Wikipedia community, my only intention with creating the page was to spread knowledge about an Information and Access Management software, I study these types of software in depth at my university in the Masters level and was surprised to find that a software that has received many patents and works with some of the most well established telecommunications operators in the world was not listed on the Wikipedia space. I am asking that in good faith you please remove this request, and rather mark it for clean up, and allow me to review what you believe to be promotional. On the premise of sharing knowledge, I would like to know what you believe to be promotional or inflammatory, and adjust the work rather than just scrapping it and having it deleted. As a new user, and this being my first contribution to the community, I would like to have a learning opportunity rather than just be told what I was done is wrong. Please allow me to make adjusts me to the page in a clean up manner, rather than just telling me it is simply not good enough to meet your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvedd-paddick (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Cvedd-paddick, I see Jimfbleak has removed much of the promotional material: the concern here is that the material as a whole presented the products and history of the company in a way that you would expect to find in a short write-up for a potential customer or investor. Its better now, but it is still borderline between G11 and something that would need to be discussed at Articles for Deletion. The other issue here is that it doesn't appear to be notable: the only reliable source I could find that wasn't only a recycled press release was the WSJ blog, which falls short of the coverage we expect for corporations. Even if this article survives the G11 process, it is unlikely to survive our deletion process in the long-run. If you have other questions, please feel free to reach out. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Tony, I've warned Cvedd-paddick on his talk page about disruptive editing and requested a COI disclosure. Since he said he wasn't being helped on the article talk page, I chopped the most OTT spam, but I have no problem with the article being deleted as on notability or spam grounds as it stands. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Jimfbleak, they've restored the content you removed and appear to be socking with an IP now. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
IP blocked, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've also indeffed Cvedd-paddick as WP:Not here, since he's ignored all the warnings, failed to declare a COI and edited through an obvious isp sock. I've also now deleted the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim, I think you missed my strike above: the IP has a consistent but odd contribution history of making both necessary and unnecessary changes to wikilinks, so it might not be a sock. When I first pinged you I was on mobile so I didn't notice. The odd cosmetic editing could be considered disruptive in some circumstances, though. Re: the block of the account and the deletion: the editor is likely NOTHERE and I agree with G11, but thought I should point out oddities with that IP, though. Thanks for all your help on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked the ISP for now since it's not an WP:SPA. I'll leave the editor blocked though, unless you think I should give a final chance. I'm logging off now, so it will keep to tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I think its good. A pretty clear spam user who is familiar enough with WP policies and behavioral guidelines to all but invoke BITE on a G11 piece after it had been in mainspace for 12 hours. Likely not their first time around the block here. Thanks for all your help again. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello TonyBallioni, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My Paintings/ Adam Cooley Aciam888

Hi. I hope this ends up in the right place. I am not very technology minded, with a paint brush I have confidence but with a computer not so much. I was contacted by a writer about 6 months ago, he was writing an article about me and needed information and asked if he could use some of my work. I said yes, and I thought that was that. Later, he said I needed to personally join wiki and add my pictures and give my consent to usage. I did and I thought that that was that. Then I got another message that they were being deleted and I had to prove that my paintings were mine so i spoke with someone from wiki online and they told me it would be better to send them from the email address on my website along with pictures of myself that also appeared in the mass media at the same time to prove that I was in fact Adam Cooley. Everything was fine until, Then I got another message that they were up for deletion, again. I just finished contacting wiki on live chat and they sent me a link to a program which would generate the copyright license agreement. They told me everything should be fine...but i dont want to have to do this again. This is like reverse catfish. So if you have any suggestions as to how i can prove that i am Adam Cooley, and that I did paint all of my paintings please let me know.

here are my contributions:

File:The Suckling Pig by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:The Dream Machine by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Banana hands by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 1 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Masa and the Horse by artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Self portrait 2 of artist Adam Cooley.jpg File:Cooking Dinner for the Little Lady by artist Adam Cooley.jpg

they are all on my website, in my book, on my facebook, instagram, gallery listings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aciam888 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Aciam888, not a problem: the reasons the files are nominated for deletion is actually to protect your rights: putting them on Wikimedia Commons under that license means that anyone in the world at any time can use them for any reason, including commercial, and adapt the images anyway they want, including ways you might not like, so long as they credit you and release it under the same license. This release isn't just limited to Wikipedia.
The reason Wikimedia Commons requires an explicit license release is that it would be a major violation of your intellectual property rights if we represented it this way to the world if you were not the one who released those rights. So long as you own the copyright to these images, you are free to license them anyway you want, but Wikimedia Commons will not publish them without proof of release of license since you are a professional artist. If you have already contacted our email support team with a license release, they will handle it from there. If you haven't, let me know and I can point you in the right direction if this is still what you want to do.
On another point (and also for your protection), did the writer who contacted you solicit you for payment in return for writing an article? Please don't repost the contents of the email here as that material is private. If they did solicit you for payment, it would be helpful for us to know: we take the rights and safety of living people very seriously here, and there have been times in the past where people have been emailed seeking payments that have turned out a negative experience for all parties. I'll email privately as well to inform you of my reply here, but I would like all communication other than that to be on-wiki in this case. Sorry for the long reply, but I promise you it is because we are trying to protect you and your rights :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply...and I am glad I managed to actually get my message up...seriously am a chicken pecking my computer keyboard. I do appreciate the concern about copyright issues. I contacted someone on wiki chat and they set me up with a quick and painless license release. Hopefully, i did everything correctly and it will work out. If it doesnt work for some reason i will definitely ask you to point me in the right direction. I thought i posted an explicit license release when I posted them but if i didnt, then i might need a bit of direction.
No, the writer never asked for payment, he was very friendly and seemed interested in my art and seemed to know alot about art in general....so i went out of my way to give him as much information as i had and that was the reason i decided to let him use a few images. Aciam888 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Aciam888: it was explicit in that it was clearly stated what the license was, but there was no proof that you as a professional artist had agreed to it. I could create an account right now claiming to be you and go to your website and pick other images and upload them under that license. The process is designed to protect the intellectual property and creative rights of the rights holder: If you contacted the email team that deals with licensing issues, they should handle this from there. Thanks to your responses to my questions :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to RfC at NOT

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleeng

In this edit, I'm not sure what the talk conversation about this refers to. Could you link that to the right page? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RoySmith done. I was referencing the link you had posted just above :) Sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Checklist

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Checklist. I messed up the ping -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Membership surrender

Tony,

Jytdog has suggested via my talk page that I am unsuitable to continue patrolling new pages. Although I do not understand the logic behind his reasoning for this, I am not interested in questioning it either. It was a great learning experience being a group member, and was glad to volunteer my time to help keep that backlog down. But unsuitable is unsuitable. I doubt I shall ever use the right again at this point, even if I am not formally dropped from the group, so maybe this is just as well? "Not even the appearance of impropriety." I am doing the best I can, and it seems this is part of it. Cheers! KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Do you also have the ability to remove my other group memberships, autopatrolled and autoconfirmed? Those are on the chopping block too and I am not sure where I need to go to get them taken off my account. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi KDS4444, I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to remove permissions. I think this is the best way forward regarding autopatrolled at the very least, but I hope that at least in my interactions with you I have been civil: if I have not, please accept my apologies.
Re: user rights, Drmies looks to have been online relatively recently. He might be willing to remove the NPR flag and any other user rights you want to hand in (semi-random ping of an admin I've had positive interactions with who is most recently online). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Ha, and then jambalaya and the British baking show intervened. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Kind of a sad thing, but I have removed the "New page reviewer" tag. This is really the one that does something--it marks unpatrolled pages as "patrolled" once you look at them. The other rights really don't seem to involve whatever Jytdog was complaining about; "autopatrolled" is useful to you as an article creator, and "autoconfirmed", well, I think you know what it does--it allows you a bunch of certain edits. If they are on the chopping block, and you really want to give them up, then we can do that too. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
We edit conflicted Drmies, I was saying that both of your options were better choices for a Saturday night than Wikipedia, and better than my Yuengling and Criminal Minds.
As an FYI, I this request is in reference to this way too long conversation. Autopatrolled oddly enough was the one most people thought was likely the appropriate one to remove, but obviously this is up to KDS4444 since there is no community wide guideline here yet. Thanks as always for your help. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, this concerned COI stuff? That's a different matter, I suppose; I saw that the user had created a bunch of articles: did they get paid for those? Because if so, yes, maybe that should go too. I have to tell you, I've never paid much attention to the "patrolled" tag; if that is something that is actively used to combat abuse of Wikipedia, then it makes sense. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe 4 or so total paid articles, one of which was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson, where the subject had requested a specific version be uploaded to Wikipedia (and which to KDS4444's credit they did try to revert away from at one point.) The patrolled tag just makes an article be indexed by Google instantly rather than the standard wait to be marked as reviewed on NPP or hit 90 days. The big difference is that it forces the articles into NPP and prevents indexing rather than relying on goodwill to self-request it be unreviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am guessing that Jytdog wanted me to surrender the NPP rights because he felt I might be tempted to accept an unscrupulous line of work summarily patrolling a list of pages for someone or other— there was some recent discussion on the New Pages Patrol page or newsletter about an ad for a Wikipedia editor who would get paid $35 per article to patrol without asking too many questions. Which makes my surrender of the right either a form of inoculation against disease or a presumption of guilt. The real issue is with undeclared paid editing, which I have not done. But no matter that. I see that the right has been removed, per my request. Thanks. (I mean, I guess; right?). KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 05:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sherlockian Study of the Day

What does this edit-history tell us? — fortunavelut luna 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone's going to be creating spam articles in mainspace soon. I've added the relevant mainspace titles to my watchlist. Thanks, FIM. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The deceased individual

Just so you know, I feel a bit unsafe making edits about the recently deceased person we're talking about, because I sometimes do some traveling in the region. (Nervous smile.) - Alternativity (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternativity, thats fine. Never do something on here that makes you feel unsafe. I reached out because I thought someone in the Philippines might have a better ability to find sources confirming death than I would. I'm normally pretty good about turning these types of articles around, but with recent deaths from outside of North America and the UK it is harder to finding obits to confirm death. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Do note my most recent edit in the discussion. I'm now pretty convinced this is a problem of two separate but similarly named individuals. - Alternativity (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I am sure they are distinct. I commented there as well. Its a messy situation in what seems to be a messy region politically. Hopefully BLPN will get more eyes on the issue and we can get things sorted out. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ACC needs help!

Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!

Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Dane. Right now I've been pretty busy with WP:ACTRIAL coming up and also cleaning up after some COI sockfarms. I'll consider it in a few months, but right now my focus is unfortunately on other things. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I completely understand! Offer is on the table for whenever you're ready if you decide it interests you! -- Dane talk 04:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

New discussions on Catholicism and Catholicity

Hi, I saw that you took part in resolving several issues regarding Catholicism. Recently, some of those issues and discussions have been reopened on the page Talk:Catholicism (term), and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, 1669–70

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Papal conclave, 1669–70 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emil_Bashkansky

User TonyBallioni,

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emil_Bashkansky. I hope this clears things up. 63784563583073562973A (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi 63784563583073562973A, I requested another user review the subject as well, and he concurred with my assessment on the notability of this academic. He has listed the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Bashkansky. You are free to comment there about the case for the professor's notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Request of clarification about "Proposed deletion of ZeroTier"

Hi Tony,
I received your notification the proposed deletion of ZeroTier page. The page was deleted too.
ZeroTier is an app that delivers VPN, SDN, and SD-WAN capabilities for computer networking. It allows users to connect laptops, desktops, phones, embedded devices, cloud resources, and apps (almost any kind of device or application), any way they want anywhere they go. ZeroTier's technology is free and open source.
ZeroTier Inc. is the company that has developed ZeroTier - along with other solutions.
We would like to know if it's possible for us to have a Wikipedia Page - either for the app/software or for the company - or if it is just not allowed at all.
If you can give us your advice or help us with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding our issue it would be great. It will also prevent any other content from being marked for deletion again.
Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldina.scarascia (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geraldina.scarascia the page was deleted under the speedy deletion criterion for spam by administrator Jimfbleak. Jim made the determination that the article was promotional to the point where it would have to be entirely rewritten to be able to be included in Wikipedia. If you are associated with the company, you should read our guidance at WP:COI. Typically a company or product must meet our sourcing standards as found in this guideline to be included in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for ping, Tony. Geraldina.scarascia, apart from the spamming, you also failed to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to your company, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims. Also read this guidance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network

Hi Tony, Re: request for deletion of the wiki page for Al-Shabaka Al-Shabaka,_The_Palestinian_Policy_Network. Can you clarify the concern on notability? It seems that the think tank is cited or referenced in numerous media articles, scholarly journals, books, etc. Some of these were referenced in sections that you have deleted. Is it a formatting issue or something problematic with the references themselves? Would like to keep this up, if possible and if its an editing issue. Thanks 12.130.117.108 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi 12.130.117.108, I've removed the proposed deletion as a courtesy and listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network to be discussed by the community. My reasoning for deletion is there. Re: the board members, they weren't in the link you provided, and we typically don't list board members in see also. Another editor found a source, and added them to the prose of the article as Wikilinks. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

David Coffey -- Speedy Deletion

I read your comments and agree that many of the sources were self promotion. However, he is a C-Level Executive at LegalShield and is listen on their Wiki page. His publications are noteworthy including the American Bar Association. I believe with the edits in place now that our guidelines are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Instaslam84, thanks for the message. The article is not up for speedy deletion, I have sent it to be discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Coffey. Re: your claim to notability here, I still don't see it. Being the chief digital marketing officer for an organization does not make one notable, and the independent sourcing that is available on Mr. Coffey is not enough to pass our notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wanna mop?

Hi KDS4444, I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to remove permissions. That's too bad, Tony, but it's fixable. You certainly belong to the category "oh I thought he was already an admin". 16k edits, over a year of recent activity, article creation, civility record, policy pages... you're the kind of user that every wiki would like for an admin. What do you say? No such user (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No such user, thank you for your kind words :) My standard excuse of avoiding the crucible is that my focus has been seeing that WP:ACTRIAL is implemented, but as the lovely red timer there shows, I need to find another excuse soon . On a more serious note: its something people have approached me about a few times now. Since a few other projects on-wiki and in real life are winding down now, its something I'll think about moving forward. Thanks again for your vote of confidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, if you insist on waiting for the WMF to actually get off their trouser-hams and do something, we'll never see you there :p — fortunavelut luna 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least I don't have an RfA shortcut, WP:ADFIM TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Should I take it as a yes or a no, then? Sounds like a resounding "maybe". No such user (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Heh, I like that turn of phrase, a resounding maybe. Serious answer: it is something I'll consider and am thinking about because I've had a fair amount of people approach me on and off-wiki about it. It isn't something I feel the need to rush towards, however. I wish I could do better than give you the resounding maybe, but that is where I am right now. Nothing ruled out, but nothing set in stone either. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Feel free to drop me a note when you feel ready, and I'm sure there are other talk page stalkers that would be glad to fill the nom. I predict an easy sailing through. No such user (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I am also ready to jump on the bandwagon. Alex ShihTalk 16:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_6"