Jump to content

User talk:Michig: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Mark E. Smith: utterly opposed to accountability
Line 295: Line 295:


I'm too lazy to type it all out again, in one form or another. I have commented on the ANI thread but also at the talk pages of Ceoil and Ghmyrtle before I realised that thread had been opened. Can we please drop the thread and get back to talking: this seems mostly to be a case of "big beasts" clashing antlers or tusks or whatever but we all know that it is ultimately a content dispute and both can and should be resolved at the article talk page. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 01:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to type it all out again, in one form or another. I have commented on the ANI thread but also at the talk pages of Ceoil and Ghmyrtle before I realised that thread had been opened. Can we please drop the thread and get back to talking: this seems mostly to be a case of "big beasts" clashing antlers or tusks or whatever but we all know that it is ultimately a content dispute and both can and should be resolved at the article talk page. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 01:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
:Only just noticed, ''hadn't been edited for 7 minutes'' - is that the best you can do? Even by your standards you thats below par "reasoning". Such brazen stupidity and utter lack of character, how in the hell have you survived as an administrator. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
:Only just noticed, ''hadn't been edited for 7 minutes'' - is that the best you can do? Even by your standards you thats below par "reasoning". Such brazen stupidity and utter lack of character, how in the hell have you survived as an administrator. I notice you are utterly opposed to accountability, and will not respond to this, which is bad, but worse is that you bend facts. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:58, 5 February 2018

World of Guns: Guns Disassembly

Hello, Michig. I wanted to discuss with you the possibility of re-creating the World of Guns: Gun Disassembly article. First of all, the previous deletion discussion was extremely civil and I agree with all the points made. Here, then, are my points for creating a small article anyway.

Besides being featured twice on Rock Paper Shotgun (the second time is here), World of Guns was covered very positively in one of the more popular (and, uniquely, politics-free) US firearm culture blogs, The Firearm Blog. This, I think, reflects its unique position: it lies somewhere between being a hardcore simulator, a casual game for proverbial CSGO fans, and a real, viable engineering reference and teaching aid (The Firearm Blog editor notes that he actually used the game as a reference for repairing old firearms). The effort put into the simulation library seems sizeable to say the least - developers list "150+ models with 19 000 individual parts".

Here is its Russian-language article - see the ref section, it got more coverage in the Russian-language gaming press, including a segment on a TV show about videogames: Link. Also, the game seems to be reasonably popular in terms of user base (Steam Spy lists around 2.2 million installs, and Google Store lists "1 to 5 million" installs for the earlier version of the app; plus about a million users total on VK.com and Facebook).

To be honest, being an avid firearm enthusiast, I personally used the app a lot over the years. And I think it's extremely unique, sort of like Microsoft Flight Simulator of firearms. Pity it has little coverage, again probably because of its awkward position between casual and niche markets.

So, these are my points for creating a stub / small article with a video game template. What do you think?

I'm not familiar enough with those sources to judge them, but blogs, even if popular, are unlikely to be accepted as reliable. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Interstellar (band)

The article Interstellar (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not assert the importance or notability of the subject.

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. JayCodec (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Edi Fitzroy

On 6 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Edi Fitzroy, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ana da Silva
added links pointing to Rough Trade and DGC
The Lighthouse (Ana da Silva album)
added a link pointing to Sequencer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Liar (band)

I'd sure appreciate if you could all the supposed significant coverage of this supposed notable band... GiantSnowman 20:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Score (2Cellos album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic FM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Regarding AfD for Parvardigar (Pete Townshend song)

I just wanted to apologize for the confusion on the AfD for Parvardigar (Pete Townshend song) as I intended to ping both of the users who provided "keep" votes, but I accidentally copied and pasted your username instead. I wanted to apologize directly to you regarding this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Please don't worry about it. --Michig (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental reverts

I was slightly amused to see your edit summary [1], because yesterday I had a very similar experience. a tiny slip of my finger as my mouse cursor was moving over the "rollback" link reverted 24 edits to an editor's user page, covering nearly six months. It just seems a funny coincidence that you should do almost the same to me such a short time after I did it to someone else, that's all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done with those instant rollback links on the Watchlist. When your mousepad starts scrolling for no apparent reason it doesn't help. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a setting in preferences to remove the rollback link - I never (normally) do rollbacks without going into the page history first anyway. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Comprehensive List of Dizzy Games

Hi, Michig.

Thank you for editing my list!

However, I do not completely comprehend your comment: "declined speedy deletion - A7 does not cover computer games".

What is "A7"?

Best regards,

Dobrescumihai19 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor tagged the article for speedy deletion, citing criterion A7 ("A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)". Since this list is not dealing with one of the topics covered by that criterion, the speedy deletion was declined. --Michig (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Can you add page protection to List of longest-running United States television series A user keeps using multiple IPs to add a made up show to the list of longest running shows.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning on the IP's talk page and added the page to my watchlist. If it continues I will look at protecting, but the level of activity on this article doesn't really suggest protection is needed at the moment. This has also been added to other articles so is a wider problem. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - noticed that you were an admin. A user called Duker22 repeatedly keeps adding in a fake band member into the infobox on 22-20s - they've been using this account since November last year for this sole purpose, but this has also been going on for several years, yet no one seems to pick up on it. They previously did the same under the name Piratofguitar in 2014 adding the same names. Very odd/sad. Surely they should be banned as it clearly a vandalism-only account - and maybe the page protected somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.106.190 (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to my watchlist. There's not enough disruptive activity at the moment to justify page protection, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. --Michig (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done it again - it's a vandalism account, so surely at least the account should be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.207.97 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chidera Okolie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chidera Okolie 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/Chidera Okolie (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed: a tweak to professional boxing records

This is a message I am leaving for users who regularly edit the record tables for boxers, or at least those keeping an eye on them. I have proposed to ditch "Professional debut" from the #1 fight slot on most contemporary records, and it would be appreciated if you could comment at the WikiProject Boxing talk page. Much thanks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Art or The Black Ark?

Hi, looking at Perry's article, I see a section about a studio named The Black Ark, but not Black Art. Did he have another not yet discussed in the article, or was that a misreading? LadyofShalott 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The studio was the Black Ark, but his record label was named 'Black Art' - see here. --Michig (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Since that is not clear (and not my forte at all), would you mind making that explicit in the article. As it stands, it is only in the infobox, hence my confusion. LadyofShalott 15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, will do. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! LadyofShalott 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you off, Michig? Another unverified bucket-kicker. Bound to be plenty of obits. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced now, although the article needs a lot of work. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI regarding a user you previously blocked

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious three years!

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding notability

Hello, I was wondering if I could have your opinion on this song "All These Kisses". Are the chart listings it mentions reputable? Clearly, the topic fails to meet GNG but typically a placement on a notable chart usually overrules that. I do not want to waste time AfDing it if the charts are notable, and I consider you an inclusionist. With that being said, if you think it fails to meet our standards, I'll feel more confident in AfDing it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in the article is poor, and I didn't find anything better (this seems to be the best coverage out there and is pretty awful), and as a 2017 release if there's coverage out there I would expect to find it from a Google search. The charts are, in my opinion, garbage, and don't confer any sort of notability. As a single-track download only, I would argue that it isn't even a single, but that's a separate issue. I don't see anything there that's worth saving - I guess it could be redirected as an alternative to deletion (although if that's contested it may need to go to AfD anyway). --Michig (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the articles for Jimone and James II state that these are EPs. The template should reflect the articles, not set its own agenda. Therefore, they belong in the "EP" section, not the "Singles" section, unless there is consensus to change the articles. Please discuss at Template talk:James#EPs. --woodensuperman 10:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit without explaining it using an edit summary. I reverted it with an explanation in the edit summary. Per WP:BRD your next step should have been to discuss it, not revert it. The articles do not show that those releases are EPs - they have just been edited to appear that way by Wikipedia editors, who are not reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years of adminship, today.

Wishing Michig a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It feels like it's been longer. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Popular music is my main WP interest, and you are the most important admin in this area, IMHO. Keep on keepin' on. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thread on my talk

I responded to you and then immediately archived it, which was silly. If you need me, please {{ping}} me here and I'll see. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 15:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton

Remember this? Apparently the user in question perceives that a bit of civility would indeed hurt him. 113.210.183.18 (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the above article has just been renominated at AFD despite the previous AFD resulting in keep on 2 September. Three weeks doesn't seem long enough. Its the same nominator, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I have closed the Afd for Skytap so it ca nbe relisted it in a simpler and clearer way, as requested in the discussion. If it is, please enter your comment again. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Radio 1 Sessions (Inspiral Carpets album)

Hi Michig, I'm sure you remember the discussion we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio 1 Sessions (Inspiral Carpets album), about whether there would be reviews in the music press at the time, and I said I would look in the British Library when I was back in the UK. Well, I was in there last week, and had a good look through the music mags and this is what I found:

  • NME, Mojo, Uncut – nothing
  • Melody Maker – included in the weekly "Bits & Bobs" round-up, which means one or two lines on the rest of the week's releases... rated 3/5 and the review says "the Hammond-heavy Inspirals sound a tad dated these days".
  • Q – also 3/5... "This collection confirms that the pure feral belligerence of 'I Want You' and the magical 'This Is How It Feels' have aged surprisingly well. However, most of these sessions sound curiously hollow, like a donut with an unnaturally large hole."

The library don't have copies of Select, and Vox had ceased publication by this time (their last issue was June 1998).

I haven't yet checked the four likely newspapers for music reviews (Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent) but I still think it's unlikely they would have reviewed the album – they normally only have space to review four or five albums per week, and this album wouldn't have been one of the week's major releases.

But anyway, we now have two (short) reviews from reliable sources, albeit lukewarm ones – enough to ask for a WP:REFUND and restore the article? Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. Difficult one - a couple of reviews from decent sources added to the article would likely have been enough to stop it getting deleted, but there's probably limited scope for expanding the content beyond what was there before. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think – there might just not be enough to make a decent article just yet. I'll have a look in the newspapers and see if there is anywhere else that might provide something. But for now I'll put it on the back-burner – I have the citations noted down so I can provide them whenever necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Thanks! --Michig (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor have launched the first speedy deletion, but for that case the AfD is more suitable. So, I have replaced the template by a better. I haven't made a point. I challenge Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's clausure. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan explained me that. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marley

Could you kindly explain why you reverted my caption of Bob Marley's photo at Reggae? You don't agree that he is a legend?--DanJazzy (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to write with a neutral point of view. Superlatives such as 'legend' are not appropriate. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Elvis Presley is described in Wikipedia as "one of the most significant cultural icons of the 20th century". Michael Jackson is the "King of Pop". Why is describing them in superlatives OK but not Bob Marley?--DanJazzy (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is fact, not a superlative. The second was Jackson's nickname - the article doesn't say that he was actually the King of pop. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bob Marley is described as an "international icon" right here at Wikipedia. can we therefore use the caption "iconic reggae artist Bob Marley"?--DanJazzy (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start a discussion on the article's talk page to try to reach consensus for a change. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quesiton

Why close the Electronic Arts Studios AfD before anybody had a chance to comment? Do I have to officially nominate it for deletion only and mention merging as an alternative? If not, then I'll just renominate it, so I fail to see how your actions were helpful at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a merge is appropriate, you shouldn't take an article to AfD. AfD is only for articles that you believe should be deleted. You stated 'it should just be merged with Electronic Arts', so you clearly didn't believe outright deletion was appropriate. If you think an article should be merged you need to add mergeto and mergefrom tags to the articles and start a discussion on the target article's talk page. This is spelled out quite clearly at WP:AfD. --Michig (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Michig. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: location of Foxwoods Resort Casino (MOS:BOXING)

Greetings. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:WikiProject Boxing regarding the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino, and how it should be specified in MOS:BOXING. To form a consensus on this, your opinion as an active member of the Project is essential and highly welcome. The current discussion can be found here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken Boxing

Hello Michig, You mentioned that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing was not very good. Could you please give me some issues I could improve? Thank you, Tomehr

The main issue is sourcing - most of the article content is not supported by citations. --Michig (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ChicaneChilled.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ChicaneChilled.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, when you add a bolded alternative name, like Anita del Rey here, please remember to provide access from that name - a redirect (as here, now done), or a hatnote, or a dab page entry as appropriate. It helps the readers, and helps avoid a future careless editor creating a duplicate article at the other name. Thanks. PamD 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fighting back against Johnpacklambert

He has become an exceedingly zealous over delete and is harming the spirit and ease of functionality of Wikipedia and is being highly disruptive.

I have fought back and beat him back on two article deletion pushes, and I will continue to fight him.

Thanks for your efforts. Rsarlls (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Patrick Ward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your opinion that WP:NOTNEWS means that newspapers are not used to support GNG?  Does GNG say that "local and routine sourcing" should be discounted?  I'm seeing consensus (where consensus is a function of the WP:N "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") that the evidence is that this topic passes GNG.  Editors agreed, while trying to discount it, that "local coverage exists".  Editors objected that "this is a county sheriff", but we have no WP:NOT guideline to exclude county sheriffs.  Where and how have we ended up with a loss of content contributions?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first two questions - no, and no. My close merely reflected consensus, and should not be taken as an endorsement of any of the views expressed in the discussion. Inclusion of subjects with primarily local coverage (that is, local to the subject) will always be subject to differences of opinions. As closer of the discussion I had to go with the consensus that was apparent. --Michig (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jack Moran (boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail re Andy Diagram

Hello, Michig. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.78.148.198.89 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig - thanks for your edits - I rarely edit on Wikipedia and so am not up to speed on etiquette, my apologies. The photograph in question is jointly owned by myself and my friend Alan Gregson as he took it on my Olympus Stylus at the gig and I was next to him. So it belongs to me but he took it. He is happy for me to have uploaded it as mine but I just wanted to give him a credit for it too. We are both actually personal friends of Andy Diagram and really disliked the photo that was previously uploaded but only just figured out how to change it. I've also added a lot of little bits and pieces on this page too that were out of date or just wrong. Andy doesn't want his real name or full date of birth up there though. Kay Dickinson 78.148.198.89 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Golden

Can you migrate the deleted article, including references, on Shaun Golden to the list at Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey. You have to add something in the comment field about where you moved it from to maintain the edit history. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article, merged sourced content to Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey, and redirected it there. If any of the unsourced content can usefully be incorporate (with appropriate sources added) it's there in the article history. --Michig (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When there are only a few sentences, it doesn't make sense to have full articles, when they can be handled in a chart for the position they held. We do the same thing for television episodes. Sum up each episode in a few sentences. Thanks! --RAN (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Smith

I'm too lazy to type it all out again, in one form or another. I have commented on the ANI thread but also at the talk pages of Ceoil and Ghmyrtle before I realised that thread had been opened. Can we please drop the thread and get back to talking: this seems mostly to be a case of "big beasts" clashing antlers or tusks or whatever but we all know that it is ultimately a content dispute and both can and should be resolved at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noticed, hadn't been edited for 7 minutes - is that the best you can do? Even by your standards you thats below par "reasoning". Such brazen stupidity and utter lack of character, how in the hell have you survived as an administrator. I notice you are utterly opposed to accountability, and will not respond to this, which is bad, but worse is that you bend facts. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]