User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive16

Deletion of Sheila Bird article

Hello. On 9 January 2014 at 15:53, User:Czar advised me of a proposed speedy deletion of Sheila Bird. You deleted the article two minutes later, so I would never have had an opportunity to address any copyvio issue. Yes, there is plenty on here that needs to be deleted, and I'm not questioning the reasonableness of your decision, but people need more two minutes to address issues! Would it be possible to restore the article and I will deal with any issues within 48 hours. Edwardx (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, 100% of the article was copyvio or close paraphrasing. Might be better to just start from scratch.  czar ♔ 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Czar is correct, and his advice is sound. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just created a new version of the article, which I hope you will find to be satisfactory. Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for restore

Hi There, I have recently edited Nikki Galrani page. It seems genuine and notable article and have added proper references to it. Please review this and restore. Thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that the lady is genuine; there are, however, large numbers of actresses in India and notability here is not asserted. References alone are an insufficient assertion. If I restore the article are you happy to add whatever information makes her notable above other actresses?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User page little format issue

Hello Anthony, with your last edit on your user page you have left this | }} on it. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; sorted.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for going through my ugly CSD marathon. I was looking forward to see which courageous mop man would pick those up haha. Rehman 12:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

__what5 0on earth arre you doiing

Geledi clan

I was removing the speedy deletion tag from Geledi clan when you deleted it, so I saved my edit anyway and recreated it. The topic is definitely notable; the article was just poorly written.—Neil 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ministers of...deletions

Hello, recently you mass deleted a set of "Minister of..." articles. Unfortunately this included a few that should not have been deleted, but due to a misunderstanding in discussions and error in procedure the following were included on that list: Minister of Sports (Sri Lanka), Minister of Defence (Sri Lanka), Minister of External Affairs (Sri Lanka), Minister of Finance and Planning, Minister of Justice (Sri Lanka) and Minister of Highways, Ports & Shipping. Could you please restore all these articles to their finished state, before they were deleted to make way for their current redirect. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Just letting you know. Rehman 15:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, it seems there have been some recent developments. As most of those articles are restored now we can move on from here and remerge them properly if needed in future, with the history in tact.--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for dealing with 50.121.48.234 in a civil and polite manner. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback: 50.121.48.234

Hello, Anthony Bradbury. You have new messages at 50.121.48.234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jude Jaxon hoax

Considering the non-existence of Jude Jaxon, it seems plausible that User:HarrisburgMedical does not represent Harrisburg medical centre (besides naming after organisations is against policy WP:ISU). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If Anthony wasn't already involved I'd block the account. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Account is now username blocked (I was away from PC until now)--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Since you are the wp:admin who deleted the article about Sucharita Mulpuru citing Wikipedia:CSD#A7, you may be interested in the discussion at: User_talk:Ottawahitech#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Sucharita_Mulpuru. Thanks, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. What doesn't kill me... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion of Ed Lantz page

Greetings. My nephew David Lantz asked why I did not have a Wikipedia page since I have spoken at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on the future of cinema, have scores of articles published including a peer-reviewed journal, am invited to keynote at conferences, co-founded a thriving trade association, and have designed over a dozen digital domes worldwide including the Library of Alexandria planetarium in Egypt and Papalote Museo in Mexico City. I looked at some of my colleagues' Wikipedia bios and realized that my background was comparable. David therefore offered to create the page for me.

After many hours of editing, re-editing, and a constant string of page deletions over several days, plus numerous failed attempts to acquire the reason for deletions, David has given up in frustration. And I'm feeling kinda hurt, too.

I can provide David with verifiable evidence of any content as requested, but without knowing what is triggering the rejections, I am at a loss to help him. And he believes that he has been blacklisted and blocked from posting anything. One reason given for deletions is that the content is "promotional." He is pulling from my bio/CV which may be throwing too much into the mix... I am writing to say that I am a real person and am not trying to promote anything - just trying to support my Nephew in creating a successful page. I'd like to help David out - any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best, Ed

Edlantz (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC) __what5 0on earth arre you doiing

Could you please tell me either the name of the page in question (the page under "Ed Lantz" is very short, and I suspect not the page you are talking about) or else the name of the account under which he edits. I need one or the other to find and review the article, which I am happy to do. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have found the page. I have got to say that it still appears promotional (promoting yourself) and although it was not a given reason for deletion, asserted notability is questionable. You may have noticed that the article was deleted in rapid succession by three admins, of which I was the last. I do not feel it appropriate to restore the article, but if you would like the opinion of the community you can appeal at deletion review.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

__what5 0on earth arre you doiing

Question

Hello Tony! Can I ask , did Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Omar Choudhry (a page you've deleted) got any votes (were their any RfA !votes) on that page? ///EuroCarGT 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The page was not correctly transcluded, and hence received neither vote, nor comment, nor answers to any questions. The editor in question had only a few days experience here and only a handful of edits to his credit.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then! Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 16:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

I inserted a book source into Ben Chapman, and it's causing a lot of formatting issues. Could you show me what I need to do to avoid these problems, please? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC) __what5 0on earth arre you doiing

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for help. Iraag (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: HHHH

Hi. Considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#User:Iraag, I wondered if you'd consider restoring the dab page at HHHH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). What do you think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about it, but it was not a true dab page, in that the two articles quoted were, specifically, HHHH and 4H - i.e. not the same article name.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about not being a true dab page. And as there's already one at 4H (disambiguation), maybe HHHH should redirect to HHhH. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) ...and it doesn't appear (IMO) that the asserted A1 criterion was very appropriate. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. As you have no strong feelings about this, I've restored the previous versions (for the record) and then amended it to be a redirect. I hope this is OK. 14:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

recreated spam

Hi Anthony. This spam page you deleted a couple days ago has been put back up: User:Maxim trader malaysia/sandbox. INeverCry 20:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing?

Please I would really really appreciate an explanation as to why you trashed my work on the Geca Kon page, bearing in mind I had spent considerable energy ensuring that the page on your English Wikipedia to make sure it was linked to both the German and the Serbia pages. Yet you, with all the wisdom you could muster have deleted the page. Why7 Please tell me why? I really want to know why YOU feel you are justified in this action.Leutha (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am justified, in principle, because I am an admin here (for nearly seven years), and that is one thing that admins are entrusted with the ability to do. As to this specific page, I deleted it because it was a very short article containing no assertion of notability. Linkage to other wikis is not relevant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tony, thanks for that. Wow, an admin for nearly 7 years! That's great. I am starting to understand your feelings. However, I sometimes wonder whether admins of such long standing might take a while to understand the impact of new devlopments such as Wikidata This means that increasingly community members see the simple of establishing links to other language Wikipedias, which contain substantial pages on the subject in question, is an assertion of notability. However, you claim that this should be treated as "not relevant". I would be interested to know whether this has been the subject of much debate amongst you and your colleagues, and whether any of this discussion is available for me to read? In the meantime, I would be grateful if you could return the deleted material so that querents can read what shall soon be a much improved article. Actually I feel a little bit embrassed by the fact that the page is currently no. 2 on a google search but only end up with this!Leutha (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that you have been here for many years, and have a significant editing experience.. to answer your specific question, I am not aware of any debate on the topic in question; as you probably know debate on established policies is normally only initiated if a significant policy change has been proposed. I am happy to post the article on your talk page; that will allow you either significantly to improve it, so as to comply with current Wikipedia policy, or alternatively to apply for restoration of the deleted text at deletion review.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is now on your talk page. I may be misinterpreting, but one or two of your edits give me the impression of being sarcastic. I would be most grateful if, in any future communication with me, you could seriously try to avoid giving that impression.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Hey, Anthony, I'm puzzled by your deletions/restoration, the net effect of which is the talk page of the category is gone. Could you enlighten me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. `--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored talk page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh oops

I put DB talk on the top of a talk page as it was still there yet it said you deleted it-so sorry I brought the page back as I noticed it had no page linked to it so I was doing that at the same time! Wgolf (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a time-lag effect, I expect. I deleted the article, then the talk page; talk page now deleted again. why it was brought back is not clear to me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, Tony. With all due respect, I think I will decline your offer of adoption. If I'm going to be adopted, I'd like it to be by someone who does more editing within the article namespace, as I think that will always be my primary focus on this site. It also bothered me a bit that you declined to respond to my formatting question; another user eventually fixed my error, but I'm still not totally sure what caused it in the first place (spacing issues, I'm sure, but I know nothing more specific than that). I won't take it personally, as I'm sure you're busy IRL, and I am too. Would you be able to point me in the direction of another potential adopter? Either way, thanks, and I'm sure I'll see you from time to time on the site. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't take it personally, and you are partially correct; Although I have in my time created a significant number of articles, mainly relating to pre-dreadnought battleships, Roman emperors and medical conditions, I have of late edited almost entirely in the admin sphere. I am sorry not to have answered your query; possibly the fact that I recently spent some three weeks in hospital after a heart attack and three operations, followed by a period of convalescence, may have had something to do with it. To find an adopter you can do no better than going to the adoption link. Happy wikying.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I had no clue about that. I lost my grandfather to heart disease when I was ten (his eighth heart attack), so I certainly understand how serious those issues can be. I hope you make a full return to the pink of health, and sorry if I seemed insensitive. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not at all; I had not widely publicized it. You may recall that I said I had a long holiday booked? It happened just a few days before we were due to travel. Nicely recovered now. but a number of e-mails failed to get answered. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope you get to make up the travel time later! Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversed deletion

Hello Tony, Just to let you know I reversed your speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lewis Earle Sandt, Pioneer Aviator, the nominator hadn't provided a source of the copyright, and most of the text used as sources was public domain (1912/13). I have advised the author to add {{PD-old-text}} for any public domain sources that he may have copied from, (as per the AFC decline statement). I have also asked Moonriddengirl to have a look for me to make sure that I haven't majorly goofed (which is entirely possible). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Brandiperkins

Re your message: I would be inclined to say no until they can explain why they created the Brandiperkins (talk · contribs) account after the Katiealbright (talk · contribs) was warned for spamming the same links. I blocked the Katie account, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Failed to spot the sockpuppetry.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't tag the sockpuppetry. I see spamming socks all the time and trying to figure out whose is whose is too much work, so I don't tag them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Ball MBE.

The speedy deletion.

I was asked the reference all material in this article which i have done but you have deleted it due to a portion of the entry being about the non-fiction book Eden - The Long walk to Justice. As Jonathan Ball's life is important and all references to the three cases fought were referenced i do not see the mention of the book being a fault. in traditional encyclopedia there were always mentions of the publications and their content.

Far worse as this book is part of his life we are effectively barred from an entry in Wikepdia of a citizen as worthy of inclusion as any other. i would also like to know why the first review only asked for references and how much this deletion is a matter of personal bias and how much actually rests on Wikipedia policy?

It does not seem to me you can limit the merit of an entry because a non fiction book based on a story of public interest and fully referenced is mentioned.

I would like another opinion on this matter.

DanielNanavati (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view the projected article is clearly promotional; but if you wish you have the option of applying for a review at the deletion review page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A10 criteria

Hi Anthony, I just wanted to tell you that I'm going to recreate List of recognised political parties in India into a redirect. It seems to me that the user who CSDed was only trying to get it merged with the other article, even the merge template was added (see here). Probably due to being unaware about the usual way to proceed through merging, the user thought the source page should be deleted through A10.

But rather than me doing it, shouldn't it be undeleted and then redirected? the page has a LOT of history besides being a former FL and having important articles linking to it. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony

Please will you respond to my comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Is_this_worth_filing_at_WP:DRV.3F? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

you made mistake

Go Won-hee is real person and here6 herehere by --Sunuraju (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Why did u delete the page Mahika Sharma.. we have links for it and have the reason of making her wiki.. than why are you deleting it... please create a page

Deletion of Aditnálta

Aditnálta should be directed to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditnálta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitwalkerr (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request for Redmoon660

You quite rightly declined an unblock request for Redmoon660, who is blocked for sockpuppetry. There is now another unblock request at User talk:Redmoon660, in which the editor acknowledges that his/her use of multiple accounts was unacceptable, and undertakes not to do the same again. My own feeling is that, as far as the sockpuppetry issue is concerned, there is no reason not to take the editor's statement as made in good faith, and since the block no longer serves any preventive purpose, if sockpuppetry were the only issue, I would be happy to unblock. However, I am less than 100% comfortable about unblocking an editor with a clear conflict of interest, who is here only to promote a point of view, and who has vigorously done so through nearly 2000 edits in a few months. Maybe you would like to look at the unblock request and my comments about it, and indicate whether you have any opinion on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have left my opinion on the editor's talk page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!!

	Happy WikiBirthday award!!
	Have a great day, and a Dogtastic Wikibirthday!!!! Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolina Silverhawks

Does Carolina Silverhawks look the same now as it did when you deleted it as A7? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the GR8BIT article

Hello Anthony, I was informed that you recently completely removed article waiting for review, located here "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GR8BIT" for the purpose "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.msx.org/wiki/GR8Bit)".

I very appreciate that you take time looking for information being requested to be published on Wikipedia, however I ask you to elaborate on your judgement. Please consider the following:

• It is fine that several encyclopedias have same description of the subject. Wikipedia is general encyclopedia, the page you found is specialized one;
• Didn't you have a thought that not Wikipedia page, but that content you found infringes copyrights? Did you check which content was created first? Following your logic, anyone can create webpage on some subject copying content of Wikipedia, put (c) onto that newly created page, and apply to Wikipedia for removal of original content;
• I hope you have looked at the submitted page's history, and saw that this page was declined more than year ago, and created even much earlier. I was told that Wikipedia (represented by you) immediately deleted the article without even rejecting it on the unverified basis (please describe which copyrights were violated).

I am the right person to talk about copyright matters on the subject (GR8BIT), and I confirm that I granted permission for the content to be published on Wikipedia encyclopedia pages.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugenyBrychkov (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Submission had already been declined, as you say,more than twelve months previously, as being non-notable. The article of which this appeared to be a copyright violation was modified by you, it appears, in January of this year. I have no way of telling how extensive the modification was, nor whether it was radical or trivial. As the article had in any case been rejected the copyright issue appears to be academic. Incidentally, when you post a comment onto a talk page, it is helpful if you sign your post; either by adding ~~~~ or by clicking on the pencil icon at the top of the text box.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, I do not see your point. It was declined a year ago (BTW, is "notability" measurable - or it is up to personal judgement of reviewer?), then elaborated and sent for another review. Academic or not, the result is that article was killed without considering it again. Would you please return back and reconsider it? Thank you. EugenyBrychkov (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a better path is to create a smaller stub with robust sourcing that establishes notability for this computer through 3rd party reliable sources. You should also talk to someone about the copyright on your wiki- it may be incompatible with that of Wikipedia so if wiki content is ever copied there it may be in violation of content licensing. @Newyorkbrad: may have some thoughts, I'm not a lawyer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks. I know that there are many edits (proper ones too), required to get into admin, but one cannot deny that even a person with high number of edits can be stated as one without any reasonable knowledge. I know, I have not done many edits, but I am trying to get into a proper course of editing. Oh, and I am not one who gets piled on. I know, there will be many opposes, or might be all of then as opposes. I am not afraid mate. Still, Thanks a lot for the heads up. :) User:Harrybrowne1986 — Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend, I am not trying to put you down; I just do not think you are ready yet, and I am certain that this is going to be the general feeling shown. It is a fact of life that a meaningful number of edits will be needed; as I say, about 3000 is the minimum which most people will accept. And at least four, prefereably six, months of editing through your registered account. but I quite seriously wish you well for the future.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	We haven't properly met yet, but I have seen the tireless work you've done around the site warning users and reviewing unblock requests. While those tasks can be tedious and sometimes irritating, I really appreciate that you have taken the time to commit to them. Please keep up the fantastic work. EmilyREditor (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, what should be done with edits like this one? EmilyREditor (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Make a report at WP:AIV. I have attended already to the IP you highlight. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hello Tony, I had just noticed that you deleted (almost a year and a half ago in January) I'd Rather Be Baking Cookies: A Collection of Recipes from Lisa MacLeod and Friends, a page I created. The speedy deletion rationale by the nominator was This page has no real value to Wikipedia, is being used for someone's soap box, political gain and vandetta. [sic] I personally wrote that page (with another administrator), and it certainly was not a soap box or a personal vendetta on my part. It even appeared on the main page in the DYK section. I also wasn't notified about the speedy deletion by the nominator, therefore didn't know about the nomination to contest it. Given the nominators contributions are only to Canadian Conservative politicians, I suspect he is the one who has the issue. I would appreciate your restoring the page, I would do it myself, but think it would be improper as the creator without mentioning it to you first. Much thanks, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Restored at your request. I must say that it still looks a little promotional, but I would not dream of arguing the point. Perhaps you could review it and see if you are still happy with your text as posted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wackslas unblock request

Hi Tony, thanks for your input on Wackslas' unblock request and for being willing to give them another chance. By the way, while you accepted their unblock request, they were still blocked. I removed the block, as that appeared to be your intent. Was that okay? Best. Acalamari 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I got distracted in mid-flow and failed to remove the block. My apologies. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Missed unblock

Hello, Anthony. It is clear from this edit that you intended to unblock this editor, but you didn't. I have unblocked, as you can see [1], but I thought it might help to let you know, so you can watch out and avoid similar mistakes in the future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Errm, after I posted that message, I saw the section above! Care needed! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Slapped wrist accepted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Cecilia Maher

Hi there, you've just deleted Mary Cecilia Maher. Would you mind restoring the article, please? People with an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, with only a handful of exceptions, are considered notable. Maher was the founder of the congregation of the Sisters of Mercy in Auckland, and that's why she's got a DNZB entry. Schwede66 00:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you A7'd Mary Cecilia Maher recently. This was on my watch list and probably written by me (but I'm not sure, without access to the history). Based on the coverage in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography I beleive that this person is notable (I may not have done a good job of expressing that in the article). Could I please get you to undelete this? I'm happy for you to move it to draft:; immeidately nom for AfD; or anything else you see fit. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the article; it still fails as written to aver notability. I have put a hold tag on the talk page, but it will still be deleted (by another admin) if left in its present state. A valid reference, which is present, does not of itself confer notability, although it certainly helps, and indeed as I expect you know is obligatory for a biographical article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Moved to User:Stuartyeates/Mary Cecilia Maher. Do not move it back until it is a proper article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Akhtar Raza Khan

I noticed you deleted this page. Why do you believe that article needed immediate deletion?

Also, you might want to look at the links and redirects. I came here because I noticed there are a lot of broken redirects to this page, might want to take care of those.

Just for reference, that article received just over 100 daily views.

Elassint ^Hi 04:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Edit war in progress

They were playing the same stupid game as IvanOS was. Neither of them are anywhere close to newbies and they really should know better than to edit war over a single word whose existence or lack thereof has no meaning to the vast majority of English readers. It's just plain ridiculous that we have to look at that kind of nonsense over a glaring WP:ARBMAC hot-button issue. If anything, I could have made IvanOS' block a longer one, because I've previously applied blocks to them with no apparent result. YMMV; I see you're an admin, so you can adjust block lengths yourself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't dream of doing it without discussion. Or after, for that matter, unless you agreed.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you really need my permission. I'm certainly not going to block-war with you over that :) I don't block people very often, so if you have more experience doing that and you are certain an adjustment would be an improvement, please feel free to intervene. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian Bader

Hi Tony, I would like to ask why the article was deleted? I mentioned that it is notable since he just won an ATP Challenger title. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

World highest ranking of 255 does not appear to confer notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There are also plenty of articles for tennis players that have world highest rannkings outside 255, aren't those also supposed to be deleted? Just for information right now he is actually ranked 226. You can check it here. MbahGondrong (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly they make a better claim to notability. I am not going to trawl through all the tennis articles here, but will look at any you nominate.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so in the WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines it is mentioned as per point 4 that the person is notable by winning and ATP Challenger event, and although not mentioned there that they need to have a world highest ranking of 255, he definitely fulfilled that right now. Is it not good enough for the article to be recreated? MbahGondrong (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, point conceded. I have restored the article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Hello. I just wanted to notify you that the author of Real MD Asif keeps recreating the article. He also removed all deletion tags reviewers have put into it. Please advise. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Balarampur Sampriti Sangha

Hello Anthony Bradbury, I just want to know why you have deleted the article "Balarampur Sampriti Sangha" which was created by me? You have cited that it is a "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion" article. But in reality this article is about an organization of social workers. Does writing about an organization of social workers seem like an advertisement to you? This organization is 100% genuine and it is situated at Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. If you still don't believe me, here is the map link: http://wikimapia.org/30594031/Balarampur-Sampriti-Sangha-and-Shitala-Mandir and here is the link of the website of this organization: https://sites.google.com/site/wwwsampritisanghacom and here is the image link of this club: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balarampur_Sampriti_Sangha.jpg
I think these evidences are sufficient for proving that this organization is genuine. So, I request you to kindly restore the article. Sorry for my poor English....Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman888 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

An organization does not have to be profit-making in order for an article about it to be promotional. I could also have cited lack of assertion of notability as a valid deletion reason, so I do not feel that restoring the article is appropriate. Feel free to take your request to deletion review if you wish.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Deer and the kelomang

Hello Anthony. I see that you previously deleted The deer and the kelomang. Now there is another article on the same subject with a slightly different title. Not realizing this, at first I cleaned up the prose in the article, including the fact that the word Kelomang means hermit crab, not snail. So anyway, is this a blatant hoax do you think? Or do you suppose it could actually be a genuine attempt? I see that user:BP20Benny, who wrote the article, claims to be part of a ""Free Your Knowlegde 2014" Writing Competition from Jakarta Theological Seminary in Jakarta Indonesia". Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Should I fix this article up some more or do you still believe that it (like the other one) should be deleted? Invertzoo (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Paco Ahlgren

Paco Ahlgren was speedily deleted with the reason cited 'No indication of importance'. However, the article referred to two awards the author had won. Therefore, the outcome couldn't be 'no indication of importance', at most it would have to be 'insufficient indication of importance' if you felt the references were not adequate. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether an author is made notable by awards depends on the significance of the awards. This author has received insignificant recognition for a self-published book.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying the Eric Hoffer Award isn't a significant award? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: due to none response I have asked for a deletion review. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it

I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the rangeblock, and I'm saying that in all sincerity. Despite being collateral damage, I won't try to contest it further, since I already have a previously-registered account and I can appreciate why a rangeblock may be necessary. I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to read through my request and respond.

Even so, strictly as a matter of curiosity, I was trying to find out what that range had done that warranted the block in the first place, since I was only able to track down one IP address related to what I would presume was a vandalism spree. Most of the (much smaller) wikis I've used or administrated have had a place where information of that sort gets logged so that it can be reviewed later. Is that the same here? And if so, is it publicly accessible in a place that I could be pointed towards? If not, that's perfectly fine and I understand, but given that my interaction with Wikipedia has been rather limited to date, I've found that my unintended involvement in this administrative action has led to my curiosity piquing with regards to how such things are processed.

Thanks again, and have a great day. Aichonic (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please reverse Julian deletion

Can you please undo your deletion, in the last few minutes, of the Julian (meteorologist) page [2], where I have been working over this lunch to improve the references and address other issues? You literally deleted this while I was in the cycle of reviewing my changes, before putting them up on the Talk page. Please. Any replies other than action, please reply here, I am watching in real time. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of the new info box, and new references, and haphazard appearance of the article, alongside the following comment, had to make clear than an edit was in process at time of your deletion. Please, revert, so I can finish; reject the finished product, and not what I was in midst of improving. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The sources are by Colleen M. McCorkell of NCAR, reporting the archiving of the extensive papers created by this meteorologist at NCAR. These are not the best sources, but they are valid. See also other improvements to content and referencing of the article, on a clearly noteworthy scientist. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)"

Please, I am awaiting your reply, to be able to post the revision I have given hours to. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Leprof 7272. Your draft article has been restored. It was deleted because it hadn't been worked on for six months. Please be sure to add sources that are independent of organizations related to Mr. Julian - news reports, magazine or journal articles, books, etc., which discuss him and his contributions. Then please submit it for inclusion in the main encyclopedia, because the "Articles for creation" area of Wikipedia is only a temporary area for articles that are being prepared for the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony, with deep respect for your person (as judged by your User page), and for your efforts performed at Wikipedia: If you are not responsive to editors (as it appears you do not currently have time to be, see last several unanswered entries above), should you be deleting articles? Should you perhaps recuse yourself until you have time to be responsive? Thankfully, Anne stepped in, but yours was the initial action, so the onus was on you to reply. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You complain about my lack of response, and I feel that your complain is wholly unreasonable. Your first request is timed at 19.14 yesterday: as it happens I was otherwise engaged at that time. There is no requirement that admins, even the more active ones which I am, should be on call at all hours and in all circumstances, and being logged-out for a total as of now of just under fifteen hours is not unreasonable. I have not yet dealt with your request, but will now do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that your request has been dealt with by Anne Delong, which makes your previous posting redundant; in fact, I wonder why you made it. Anne has answered your initial question correctly; articles awaiting submission for review, or failing review, which have not thereafter been edited for at least six months may be deleted, and usually are. Yours was one such.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, and apologies if the assessment of non-responsiveness was unfair. I have had a week full of Admins like RHaworth that treat people poorly and deletions with a cavalier attitude. Your deletion as I worked came in the midst of this, and I likely over-interpreted silence, and the few Talk entries to which you had not responded. Cheers, and here's hoping for a speedy end to this "public service effort" (my retrieving a bio of a meteorologist from the deletion pile). I normally write on chemistry and pharma. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No such good fortune. Rankersbo, instead of receiving and reviewing the revised submission (16 citations, sections, and an info box, etc.), instead re-received the originally rejected and deleted draft (3 citations, one a dead URL, and otherwise a mess)—and therefore rejected it… without a look at the real submission! What a mess this is. With the deletion while I was editing, I have to say, no good deed goes unpunished. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good news: Editor Rankersbo, realizing that he had rejected the Julian draft on the basis of viewing an earlier (and not the best, actual review draft) reversed his decision, and the article is back in queue. Cheers, again apologies, and thank you for your understanding. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Garr1984

Hi, I already made my point at User talk:Garr1984 after the use made three unsuccessful unblock requests over posting a fake news source, amongst other maladies such as falsely accusing me of vandalism just so he could get his puerile edits about a certain Rugrats character on. Any chance of locking his talk page and getting it over and done with? Thanks. --Marianian^(talk) 06:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby

A title such as this is an assertion of notability if correct. Several of these were nominated at AFD and were kept, with some editors regarding these as inherently notable. Peter James (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Grfr12345

Hello Anthony Bradbury, I am very concerned of the aggressive language you used to block Grfr12345's request to be unblocked, posing as aggressive and intimidating by saying 'These are good questions, why did you?'. You also used this question to accuse Grfr12345 of something he may be wrongfully accused of. On top of that, your question did not answer the one posed by Grfr12345 as his block was definitely premature. Aneditor (talk tome) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It would also seem that your talk page also produces these rude, shutdown comments. And yet you block it for 'vandalism' ? These people are very civilised from what I see. Aneditor (talk tome) 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Gustaf Brunkman

Hi. Just as a friendly notice, I have reversed your deletion of Gustaf Brunkman per WP:NOLYMPICS, which states "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games". Since this is at least an assertion of notability, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under A7. Also, for good measure, I've at added at least a basic reference to the page so that said status is at least not in question. Canadian Paul 16:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby. 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. Peter James (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I transfer?

How do I transfer my account? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bigpolesmokerfromoh: Are you asking for a rename? If so, I can do that for you. Acalamari 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Acalamari, he was username-blocked, and I unblocked for username change, so I am certain that a username change is being requested. I will leave it to you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on their edits, it seems they wanted the name "Bumblebee9999"; I have renamed them. Acalamari 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

sayed mohamad bagher posaei

Hello. Excuse me, I have a large document. Were large contributors to this article., Please restore it here. Thanks.Mokhtar-saghafi (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not exactly clear what you mean. If you are asking me to restore the article on this, my talkpage, the answer is no. If you are asking for it to be restored in article-space, then I must say that in my opinion it is not an article which deserves a place in Wikipedia, although you have the option of challenging this opinion at the deletion review page. If you want the text of the article posted to your own talk page then I can do that; let me know if this is your wish. I do not understand your comment about a large document. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Why was this deleted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Opdyke? I have been working with editors for a very long time now making all necessary changes to get this page up and abide by Wikipedia guidelines. Please restore this page so I can continue modifying it until it meets the guidelines. I have been working with almost two months worth of progress and was making significant progress and have put in significant time on this article. Thank you.

MattMatt.tennenbaum (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not allowed here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:68.109.175.166

I have strong reasons to believe that this user is a sockpuppet of Jaqeli. I suspected since June 8 and talked to User:FactStraight about it. After Jaqeli got blocked, the IP addres voted in support of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs (02:28, 22 June 2014) then fourteen minutes I mentioned to User:Sandstein that he might be a sock (02:36, 22 June 2014) and then six minutes later he voted oppose on the request move for Talk:Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani (02:42, 22 June 2014). Now he is using his oppose vote as prove that he is not Jaqeli. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please post at WP:SPI, not here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in,

User:Blackbetty412, vandalism account, identical user page as you. Sepsis II (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest blocked as vandalism only, [3], Sepsis II (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am, perhaps, more tolerant than some. But I have warned him, and will block on next transgression. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Cybersemiotics deletion

Dear Anthony Bradbury (talk) On June 27, 2014 I received a message that the entry on Cybersemiotics had been tagged for deletion. One hour later the article was deleted. I was on vacation then and tried frantic to contact you and User:Justlettersandnumbers who tagged the entry. Like I said to User:Justlettersandnumbers, I appreciate the efforts to maintain copyright rights but the content that was deleted is part of a disciplinary framework and the editor who added the content to Bitrum was Prof. Søren Brier who developed the framework. He was the one who gave me the content as he wants to ensure that the description of Cybersemiotics stays the same independent of the venue. Nonetheless, I worked many hours making the entry specially for Wikipedia. I am not sure how to proceed right now.

Can the deletion be reverted? I will gladly fix any citation problems and provide any proof of copyrights and/or work the parts that could be different from the Bitrum entry. Unfortunately I do not have the latest edit of the Cybersemiotics entry and without the entry I can't ask for the scholars in the field to contribute to the article.

Please advise!

Thank you,

--Crau999 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Crau999 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were unable to respond to the deletion notification. One hour is the usual time allowed for a response, but obviously on occasion circumstances can prevent such a response from occurring. The article was deleted, not because of any problem with citations, but because it was a copyright violation. I do not know what you mean by calling the article part of a disciplinary framework, and a verbal consent for publication given by the original author is wholly inadequate here. I gather that you are not the owner of the copyright? If so the procedure is complicated. I suggest you go to WP:COPYVIO and determine your best course of action. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly WP:COPYOTHERS or WP:DCM may be helpful.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anthony Bradbury (talk),

Thanks for your response! The content posted is the official description of the framework according to Prof. Brier. It should not be an interpretation. I can have the written authorization but I need the text as I did not make a copy. Can you please revert the deletion so I could at least have the content?

I checked the Bitrum Copyright disclaimer and it is is as follow:

"Creative Commons 3.0 License

Creative Commons License

Publications within BITrum frame, as well as the content of its websites are protected under a Creative Commons Atribución-Sin Derivadas 3.0 España License. Public reproduction, distribution and communications is allowed whenever the work and its authors are properly quoted, using as responsible institution: BITrum."

http://en.bitrum.unileon.es/reproduction-rights

My understanding is that even if I did not have access to a written copyright I could still use the content if I quote Bitrum. Am I completely mistaken?

Like i said before I do not have access to the content, but whatever part was taken from Bitrum I did reference it. Maybe the quotation was not properly placed and I will definitely work with the editors of Bitrum and Prof. Søren Brier who wrote the entry.

Here is where he is shown as author: https://sites.google.com/site/glosariobitrum/glossary/cybersemiotics

Thank you for helping rescue the content and your understanding,

Claudia Jacques

--Crau999 (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anthony Bradbury (talk)

I went through the Wikipedia training and read all the information on Copyright and Copyright Violations and I can provide written permission for the entry Cybersemiotics that was questioned as violating copyrights. Nonetheless I understand now that I should try to explain with my own words instead of copying from reliable references. My only concern is that because the text describes a theory it would be best to use the description defined by the theorist who created it. I am working on a new article on Cybersemiotics and I am wondering if you could make the deleted article available for two days so I can have a better picture of what I have done wrong and where I can improve.

Thank you so much,--Crau999 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Funky Skull deletion completion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melvin_Jackson_Funky_Skull_cover.jpg

Professionalign (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It remains that, as of the deletion date, there was no article in Wikipedia about the artist. The article therefore qualifies for deletion; in the event of an article about the performer being accepted in Wikipedia the deletion could be reviewed. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. Please delete the leftover cover. I cannot as it is an admin function. Professionalign (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Eric Fisher

Hi there! I was just wondering how I go about getting my deleted page back in order to edit it. I believe I submitted a request to get it back, however I have not received any notice yet. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherarch (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to WP:REFUND/G13 and follow the instructions there.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted?

Hello,

My page (Jeff Opdyke) has been fully deleted while in the process of working on it. I have for several weeks been working on revisions to make it meet Wikipedia requirements and it was near completion. The progress I have made has taken me many many weeks, and I have now also lost the place to review everything I have written and the sources I have obtained. Please restore the article so I can continue working to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.

Thank you, MattMatt.tennenbaum (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted?

Hello,

My page (Jeff Opdyke) has been fully deleted while in the process of working on it. I have for several weeks been working on revisions to make it meet Wikipedia requirements and it was near completion. The progress I have made has taken me many many weeks, and I have now also lost the place to review everything I have written and the sources I have obtained. Please restore the article so I can continue working to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.

Thank you, MattMatt.tennenbaum (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand things cannot be plagiarized. The writing you are referring to was originally created by someone who was authorized my permission to use it. I would be happy to change it further to make sure it is not the same. I however, did not save any of my work (or my sources) outside of here on Wikipedia, so with this page deleted I have lost everything I was working on and don't even have any way to see where I last left off. Please restore and I can make any and all necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.tennenbaum (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Apteva unblock appeal

I've commented there about the other account. Its identity has not been a secret for at least a few years, yet they refuse to coherently explain why an alt is needed for certain topics. They once asked at ANI if they could select which account was blocked, and switch back and forth as needed. Seriously, that was their reply to a one-account restriction. This is the mentality you are dealing with here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not picked up on the name of the second (or first) account, but the degree of intransigence shown here is a degree which I can recall encountering previously only once or twice in the last seven years. Why he wants two accounts is not clear to me, given that his stated reason makes no sense. Certainly if he is ever unblocked, which currently is of low probability, it will need to be on the basis of a single account restriction.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Debraross1

It never hurts to get more information, but, just so you know, I would be opposed to an unblock, at least at this point in time. There's not just socking that went on here (supposedly innocent). There was a whole lot of disruptive/promotional editing by the two accounts. And if the person were really interested in abiding by Wikipedia's policies, perhaps they wouldn't have blanked their talk page, including the Welcome message. Although that happened post-block, it still speaks to attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not ever consider an unblock without discussion with the blocking admin, as I hope you would know (I have been here some long time). And as you will appreciate I was not aware of the identity of the other account until now. Blanking talk pages may be seen as acceptable, if one assumes that the messages have been read, but I take your point. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy, thanks, Anthony.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blanked their own talk page? I would. Maybe it's common among humans who feel they've lost an argument. In all settings.

I have no thoughts on any other aspect of the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, which does not in reality affect the issue. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so; my intent was mainly to educate Bbb23, for which purpose your talk page provided a setting. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I think I'll go back to school as your comments flew right over my head. No need to clarify, though. I'll survive unenlightened.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Rest easy; I don't go to quite the extremes of some of the education committee. :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony Bradbury. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toes and stuff

Just to let you know about this, same applies, revert me if it's bad. Dreadstar ☥ 07:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's fine. The conversation thread after my unblock refusal clearly indicates that this is the appropriate action. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft of new article

I've created a draft article that is similar to one you deleted. It is at User:Margin1522/draft01. I saw the person's question at the Teahouse, asking why her draft had been deleted. It was because it was about her, and she created it herself. But I think she clearly meets all of the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_photography#Notability_criteria_for_photographers -- she has had solo exhibitions, her work is in major collections, she is in the Union List of Artists, etc. So I created it for her. If it's OK, I'm planning to go ahead and copy my draft to a new page under her name (without the editing history of my draft). I've never met her. She's in London, and I'm in Tokyo. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving on after an approved unblock request

Hello,

I wanted to know what I need to do to correctly start editing and moving on from a approved unblock requested. I am not sure how to handle clearing or archiving my user page and talk page and what to do with my sock accounts. I searched for a guide and wasn't able to located any information on this particular topic. I appreciate the unblock and also wanted help on a topic that I wanted to edit but I know it's a controversial topic so I just needed some help. Please let me know. Also how do we e-mail admins? Is there a link that I am missing?

Regards Swamifraud (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Now that your block has been released you are free, if you wish, to delete some or all of the material on your talk page. Or if you wish to archive it, instructions are at archiving. Your sock accounts are all blocked, and you should avoid them completely under all circumstances. Make no attempt to do anything with them. If I can help with the topic you wish to edit I am happy to do so (assuming that it satisfies Wikipedia criteria), but unless you say what the topic is I am unable to confirm my ability to help. On your talkpage there is, down the margin on the left, a menu list. One of the options is "tools". If a list does not appear below this, click on it and a list will appear; you will see that the sixth item on the list is "e-mail this user". To e-mail an admin go to the admin's talk page and, on his page, click on "e-mail this user". A page appears on which you can type as you wish; there is a "send" button on the page for when you are ready to do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction; the e-mail link only appears as I describe it if e-mail is enabled. It does not show on your page because you have not enabled e-mail (it is not compulsory), but all admins are required to enable the e-mail link, so my instructions are correct. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I added my subject to your talk page. I will began archiving my talk/user pages and will build my page up.

Swamifraud (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Pramukh Swami abuse allegations

The topic that I would like your assistance on is for Pramukh Swami Maharaj. He is an Indian guru of a group called BAPS. In 2013, Pramukh was suspected for sexually abusing two other gurus. According to the conversation on the talk page in the past, these accusations should not be placed on in a Controversy section in Wikipedia page because he is “relatively unknown outside of India” but in this website of the group, it states that “Spread across the world, the BAPS Global Network is composed of more than 1100 mandirs and 3,850 centers.” In the drop down list there is over 100 locations in the USA and UK and they are building the world’s largest temple in New Jersey. So it is safe to say that this he is well known to millions of people around the world as a deity and guru. The sect has also responded to the allegations and multiple third party sites verify the accusations.

So the point is that I believe that a controversy section with these allegations it is warranted with the sect’s response to the allegations. This should be included on the Wikipedia page unless there are greater reasons that I am missing not to. Please let me know. I can write the section for you and you can let me know if it’s written correctly and cited.

The criteria for notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIME#Basic_criteria The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

The criteria for Biographies of living persons accused of a crime states that only if the person is considered unknown, then editors should give serious consideration to not include material in any article suggesting that the person has accused of committing a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Persons_accused_of_crime

Sources: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/ http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx http://dnasyndication.com/showarticlerss.aspx?nid=mImJz11JigGXnzzT4wzdp0d4AqdA/N9ShvzCIEbe/KU= http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3107856951.html http://www.ndtv.com/article/diaspora/one-of-world-s-largest-temples-to-be-inaugurated-in-new-jersey-570146 http://www.baps.org/Global-Network.aspx http://www.baps.org/About-BAPS/TheCurrentSpiritualGuru-PramukhSwamiMaharaj/His-Work.aspx

Swamifraud (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any help Anthony?

Swamifraud (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If he has been publicly accused of an offence, or has appeared in Court on a charge, and if there are reputable third-party and uninvolved references to back up the statements made, then the accusations can be mentioned. If they remain unproven unsubstantiated or unreferenced then by living persons biography policy they are not admissible. Note that on-line publications usually do not qualify as appropriate sources.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you about this again. Would you take a look at this [4]? Literally minutes after placing the cited allegations information in the article after having it up on the talk page for a week, a user who has already tried to question your unblocking decision, reverted the edit because it "sounds like gossip." This is the patrolling of the articles that I had to deal with initially. Please help. Thank you Swamiblue (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony.. After reading your actual words, I think Swamiblue find it hardest to understand.

• If he has been publicly accused of an offence - 2 other gurus who are opposing him cannot be considered as public
• or has appeared in Court on a charge - Never
• and if there are reputable third-party and uninvolved references to back up the statements made - No one says that these charges are true, except the 2 other gurus.

That is clear violation of biography of living person. To add more, Swamiblue now claims that I am vandalizing[5] [6] wikipedia and his edits should be reverted only if they are vandalism.[7] Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Clay

Hi there. Today I nominated Antonio Clay for deletion. When I looked through this log, I see that you, User:Courcelles, and User:Ronhjones have previously deleted this article. I'm not sure how it keeps appearing. This article should play offense! Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted and salted. It can be resurrected should he become notable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Clay

Antonio Clay was a three-year letterman for the Clemson Tigers (2005-07); I have verified this by reviewing the online PDF version of the 2013 Clemson football media guide (p. 174). I had noted unusual activity on the article, several days ago, when an IP user was adding new honors like "All-American," etc. -- and I work a lot with college football All-American articles. Clay was not picked in the 2008 NFL Draft. Before I could explore the article's claims further, someone else nominated the article for AfD. Anyway, Clay does exist, and did play for Clemson; beyond that, I cannot yet say. I thought you should know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Whether it counts as a hoax or merely misinformation becomes a discussion point; but the obvious fallback position is that he is in any case lacking wikipedic notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• AB, the only reason I had not nominated the article for AfD myself was I was still trying to figure out what was real and what was blatantly false per WP:BEFORE. As best I can tell the subject did not satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, and I strongly suspect the subject was not going to pass WP:GNG, either. That having been said, if the article gets recreated, the speedy deletion for blatant hoax is probably not available. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

All versions created by two users with very similar names (Antoniclay43 and Antonic43), probably just one person - may even be an autobiography. If they look to create again then the links will point to WP:AfC Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete My Created Article

If The Pakistani Urdu-language reliable newspapers References are not acceptable for English Wikipedia Please Speedy delete My Created Article Najmi Healing Energy Or Remove the Objection Tag from the article. Thanks. --Farha Zeba (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is being considered for deletion if the expressed opinion of the community so decides. It is not appropriate to apply speedy delete, and removal of the deletion tag before a decision is reached is not allowed.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

Regarding [8] -- Why not let the checkusers who monitor the unblock queue -- I'm not the only one, I'm pretty sure -- handle these rather than denying them? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

G11 - spambot

Greetings Tony! A userpage you've deleted LucieAllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a spambot. Best, ///EuroCarGT 18:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone did not receive the memo . . . .

AB, it's back: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Clay (2nd nomination). Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect page

Hello,

Please redirect Achraf Baznani to Achraf Baznani (photographer). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maromania (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see this. Welcome back; I hope that everything is well with you. :) Acalamari 22:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly; it was just a holiday. I know that the wikibreak message is over-complex, but it looks ok on the page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

odd unblock decline

When declining Raymond88824's block, you left this note: "Merely deleting your legal threat is not sufficient. You are required to specifically state that you disavow any legal threat made by you against Wikipedia and any of its editors in relation to any edit made here, and that you agree not to make any such threats in the future." I don't see where that's required by the legal threats policy or where it's common practice to require anything more than retraction for obviously vacuous legal threats (or most other one). Protonk (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This was not a vacuous legal threat. It was a very clear and unambiguous threat, which requires an equally clear and unambigious retraction and disavowal. If you feel that asking for a commitment not to repeat the threat is inappropriate then so be it, but in my personal view this requirement is implicit in the requirement to desist from the threat already made. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are great wikipedia editor i aprreciate your interest in history and science. i would like to contact you email me [email protected] do not forget to send your some of your photos i would like to know your face!! Krishnachaitan (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lateral invertion

Thanks for deleting some of the articles I tagged for speedy when I was doing NPP earlier today. However, I disagree with your deletion under the criteria of "patent nonsense" of Lateral invertion. It was not a well written stub, true, and it did have an encyclopedically-superfluous personal comment (a very friendly and good-faith comment actually), but it is a valid topic and did attempt to define the meaning. I was personally looking at redirecting the article to something pre-existing but wasn't sure what that should be. Any suggestions? Wittylama 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My reason for deletion was A3, not G1. G1 (patent nonsense) was the suggestion of the NP patroller. A3 is "no meaningful content".--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A3 is a more correct tag than G1, that is correct. But I still argue that there was indeed meaningful content, and that the article subject is indeed notable. It should not have been speedied but at the very least redirected. Can you suggest an article that this title could be redirected towards? Wittylama 15:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not feel that the content is significantly meaningful. As an aside, and not of course a deletion qualification, the title is spelled incorrectly. And, as you say, the personal comment is wholly superfluous. The article summarises as being a statement that when one looks in a mirror objects seen are laterally inverted; this is technically original research, as well as being a statement of the obvious. I am not going to redirect this article, but thank you for your interest. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Olivier Leclercq

Well it seems that Olivier Leclercq was recreated, also seems to have some sock puppetry going on. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chticalifornia might want to look into it. Wgolf (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock of User:Swamifraud

While the sockpuppetting issues may have been addressed, I am unclear as to why you did not require this editor to change his user name, especially as he's editing articles with "Swami" in the title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "swami" is variously defined, but ir commonly taken to mean "religious guru". It does not refer to any specific person ans, as such, I do not find the name objectionable. Feel free to take it to WP:UAA if you wish. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the user to voluntarily change his name. For reference, would you find a user name like "PriestsSuck" objectionable? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a look at your user page after I asked the above question. I pulled that example out of thin air and it was not constructed with you specifically in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the specific style harassment I get from members of this group. I have not made one edit to an article, just opened up a discussion and this guy jumps down my throat to change my user name. I have asked him on my talk page to explain why. I hope he can provide a better example then a false comparison to priestsucks. Please keep an eye out for these kinds of forms of undermining critical research about the topics. I read the username policy and I do not find my user name in violation of any policies and neither does a administrator but this person specifically does? Swamifraud (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Swamifraud: You were in fact blocked indefinitely for your user name before you started sockpuppetting. So fine, I will add a report to WP:UAA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting me. The administrator agreed and declined your report. They stated "Not a blatant violation of the username policy." [9] After this, I will report you for harassment because two administrators have told you that my user name is not a violation. Swamifraud (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Might want to read what he wrote again. And the same administrator blocked you before for... a blatant violation of our username policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony and Daniel have stated to you that they I do not find the name objectionable and Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Swamifraud (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, you were aware of his socking? I cannot believe this user at all, I think he is harmful for this website. Yes everyone deserves 1 million chances but this user has socked too much and he has not contributed into any other wikipedia's sister project that could make any of us believe on him. 6 month STANDARDOFFER is for those who have rarely socked, there is bigger length for people like swamifraud. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of his past history of socking. As was the admin who blocked him, with whom I had a discussion before, after the usual 6-month edit-free period, I unblocked him. All of the socks remain permanently blocked. I really do not understand your problem here. If you suspect him of socking again or if you feel her is vandalizing, then by all means make a report to the relevant place. But second-guessing a previous discussion is, in my opinion, not helpful to the project or anyone here. As far as I am concerned the matter is closed unless there is any fresh concern raised about this editor's activity since his unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User does not exist

Hi Anthony Bradbury, concerning [10]. The user does not exist. There are no logs showing he exists, the page was made by another user, and any links to it are made by yet another user. Why should this not be deleted? --Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Im on my mobile so checking things goes slow. You are correct that the account exists, my bad for the confusion. Those userpages were not made by this user. And any links to these pages were made by yet another user. I probably should have mentioned thatt. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the account exist, ofcourse the situation is different. I agree it may all be one person. I widraw my request for now. - All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Eldhose

Hi Anthony, I had provided enough citations and the person of interest is notable and still I found the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sheikhul_Mashaeikh_Dewan_Syed_Zainul_Abedin_Ali_Khan_Sahib&action=edit) to be deleted. Please let me know what exactly is the copyright issue and I would be grateful if you could recover the deleted page so that I could resolve the conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthalathottathil (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jazyfko

Hi Anthony. 5 years ago you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Mark_Martin&action=edit&redlink=1 page. J Mark Martin is a notable person, in terms of being a pastor of one of the largest protestant churches (12,000 members) in USA see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_United_States. Some of other pastors are as notable, or less notable, but yet they do have their own wikipedia page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nieman, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Johnson_(pastor), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Glenn, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Tolle just to name a few. How can I help getting a page up for J Mark Martin?

Thanks

1991 Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act

Hi ... I'm interested in the deletion of the page on the 1991 Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act. I am a professor at Michigan State University. In my undergraduate senior seminar on US immigration policy, I have students complete or revise a wikipedia entry about a topic in US immigration policy. One of my students completed this entry and, although it is true that he cut and pasted it from his word document onto wikipedia, it is well-researched, accurate, is not plagiarized and doesn't violate any copyrights. Could you please restore it as it is an important topic that warrants an entry. Thanks, Anna Pegler-Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonap (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gordonap

Since when do we put comments on someone's user page? Please be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right; that was careless of me. To be fair I think it was a one-off, unique error. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The salting of "Evil Beaver"

hi!

I am trying to create a article for a Band Evil Beaver and noticed the the name space Evil Beaver is locked from creating a page. I am asking if you will unlock it so I can use it for my article I am working on. I am trying to create my first article and really trying to learn the ropes. Once I get this one in form to acceptance I would like to do more writing. I also actually am using this as a way to work on my writing skills. I am serious about this and have taken Evil Beavers page on as I noticed it had been denied several times and I like a challenge. So I have poured hours of research time into locating sources and information to try my hand at creation of a legit article on the band. I know the article is not perfect and am working on it as I get time to focus on it. Will you please release it and link this article to it as the submitted draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Beaver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evil_Beaver_(2) I appreciate your time

scottsdesk Scottsdesk (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you may be aware the original article was deleted by another admin some two years after my involvement, and the salting admin has commented on the current draft page. The draft is also awaiting review. I suggest you contact either the salting admin or the last admin to delete; I am neither.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Africell page

Dear Anthony,

Can you please restore Africell wikipedia page that was deleted by your side.

Below are the details: 09:52, 22 October 2014 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Africell (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.lintel.com/Holding)

The data were being changed with missing links so can you please restore the old data info. Meanwhile, we are working on fixing the links.

Your prompt feedback is highly appreciated.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulucylulucy (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is grossly promotional, and adding links will not make it less so. I am not prepared to restore it, although you have the option if you wish of lodging a request at deletion review. Also, as Wikipedia accounts are for use by one person only, why are you using the pronoun "we" in your request?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Africell

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Africell. 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. Lulucylulucy (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

request

please restore my article in my sandbox. i will improve there--Vipdus123 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Restored in your talk page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:OpaqueVodville

The user has placed a malicious unblock request (see his talk page). Note that the sock puppet master MRivera25 had its talk page access revoked for abusing their talk page [11]. Recommend changing the block of this sock puppet to revoke talk page access as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Banned" forest, redux...

Hello Anthony, and thanks for your speedy deletion of the above-named article this morning. The author has re-created it, this time as a translated version of the de.wiki article. But the name is still nonsense--a completely non-existent term in English.

Sorry to bug you with this, but I'm not sure how to proceed. The author, User:Zaxevi, made no reply to the message I placed on his/her talkpage, and is not a communicative editor from what I can tell, but seemingly one of those non-native speakers who likes to practice English on here on en.wiki without interacting with editors here.

As I suggested on the article's talkpage before it was deleted, I think if the article is worth having, the only workable title would be the German term, de:Bannwald, because there is no English term that encompasses the German word's multiple historical meanings, though today it mostly boils down to "protected forest" or "forest preserve". So I'm wondering if I should just move it to "Bannwald". Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for your input. Eric ^talk 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be moved to a more appropriate title. "Bannwald" is ok, except that very few people would think to search for it, were they so minded, under its German title. Neither "protected" nor "preserved" are entirely accurate; how about "German forests with restricted entry"? Cumbersome I know, but reasonably accurate and searchable in an encyclopedia context. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for pondering about a more appropriate name. That is difficult, because the meaning differs. However, a Bannwald is not a forest with restricted entry, but where certain restrictions are in force. One definition given in the English wiktionary for "ban" in the paragraph about its etymology is "to command", i.e. to give orders or directives which in itself is a privilege and comprises the right to grant privileges. However, a lengthy explanation is not a good title, and I'm still deliberating. Perhaps something like "privileged forests". --Zaxevi (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, I took the liberty of copying some of this exchange to the article's talkpage so we can keep things together there. Eric ^talk 19:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. May I say how nice it is, for a change, to have a non-confrontational discussion here!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Should probably...

Revoke talk page access for that guy you just blocked. Thanks for nailing it so fast, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say. I have revoked his talk page access. Thank you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

article on meenakshiben patel

you deleted this page citing that person is not of much importance. she is mayor of largest city of gujarat and 6th largest city of india. you should have discussed matter on talk page before deleting it.CAKrutesh (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAKrutesh (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, with respect I should not. Admins make their own decisions, although these are susceptible to change in the event of dispute. In my opinion your article, which mentions neither Gujarat nor India, does not adequately infer notability. you have two options. If you wish I will post your text here for you to improve, or alternatively you can appeal on the basis of the preaent text at deletion review. If you would like the text posted here please let me know. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

request

please restore my article in my sandbox. I am still working on improving it.--dputgr11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ameka Wisdom Bone

You deleted this user's user page as a violation of WP:NOTAWEBHOST, which I agree with (having been the one to tag it). I thought you should know the same content is on their talk page. Not sure what can be done about that though; deleting the entire page may not be a good idea, and revdel seems excessive. demize (t · c) 22:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have left the talk page, with a warning comment, on the basis that nobody is going to find it under its current labeling. I will watch to ensure that he does not transclude it into article pace. Note that the userpage dates from September last year and the talk page from four months ago. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gilliam

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

– Gilliam (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

long enough admin
Thank you for being "an Administrator on Wikipedia long enough to know what I can do, and what I cannot. I am always prepared to do the first, and to consult on the second", and for seeing when others can do the same , - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian! (6 June 2007)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 7:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 308th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For deleting that "Africa" WP-Book. Don't know if you saw that the creator indicated on their user talk page that they wanted it deleted. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)