User talk:Раціональне анархіст

Welcome!

Hello, Раціональне анархіст, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Cuba

I saw the revert of my edit. For reference, the material at Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was related to the edits discussed at WP:ANI#Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I would note, however, that while meat-puppetry is frowned upon per se (and the bulk of pro-Cuban regime editors are certainly de facto meat-puppets to a large extent as well), the material in question should be judged on its own merits. (If it's garbage, by all means kick it.) I was triggered to revert by lack of a comment explanation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry was just one of the issues, although that's what started the ANI thread. Also flagged were concerns about WP:COI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPAM and in some cases (though not in this article) WP:MOS. Commented a couple times was that most country articles already had a "Human rights" section, and this section addition resulted in undue weight to this one particular human rights issue. The material has value, but likely would be a better fit in the "Human rights in (country name)" articles, such as Human rights in Cuba, although the mentions would need to be integrated into those articles and not blindly copy/pasted as was done in several country articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Раціональне анархіст Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And a merry New Year!--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the notice

I blanked the page on the O'Hare case, I always prepare just in case the report is verified, I had no clue they (Google) did that, thanks again for telling me, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Flutist and TOC

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the reason to move the TOC is accessibility reasons for users of screen readers (aka blind). This is also done per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD.

If the TOC is after the first section heading, the TOC becomes invisible to those using screen readers. Also, if there is any text between the TOC and the first section heading, the text become invisible. I understand the frustration with the white space, it is common issue. But, it is more important that everybody can read the text. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've created a section on the MOS/lead TP to search for solutions.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Flutist

A tag has been placed on Talk:Flutist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Talk:Flautist was copy/pasted rather than moved. move reverted, so now this duplicates Talk:Flautist

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't move a TP to a page that already exists. ...I also suspect that an AfD is the wrong way to deal with this.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody want's to move it and there is no AfD for it. I just redirected it to the correct talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion -- this notice was automatic. It seemed most appropriate to me to delete the talk page given the large amount of duplicated text which looks odd in the history (none of it should be preserved), but there's not much harm in just restoring the redirect. Nobody's proposing to delete any of the articles on fl[a]utists. See my response to your merge/rename combo at Talk:Flautist. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Раціональне анархіст, the talk page could have been easily moved by an admin. However, the article has been at flautist for 9 years, so a proper Wikipedia:Requested moves should be done. Whatever else do not make a "copy and paste" move, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong 1981 riots

A couple suggestions:

• [1] AFD is not a vote: do not carry votes without providing a rationale based on our policies/guidelines, otherwise they will be ignored in the close
• [2]The same with similar comments. Read WP:Not notable. You have to explain WHY the subject fails (or meet) our notability requirements.
• [3], [4] Guidelines' criteria are not mutually exclusive. Failing one criterium does not mean failing all the criteria, and very rarely people meet ALL the criteria of a guideline.
• [5] Please read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A close for "speedy keep" requires no votes from deletion from other participants.
• [6] [7] Do not redirect articles nominated at AfD. It is considered disruptive. Even if te consensus at AfD is to redirect, wait the close.
• [8] Remember to notify the article's creator in their talk page when you nominate an article for deletion.

My best, Cavarrone 07:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; I've notified HenryLi (who has about forty other Hong Kong notability AfDs).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Lars Walker

I've been bitten on this sort of thing myself -- for instance, I wrote the article on Baen author Ryk E. Spoor, and here's its AfD. If you can't show better notability sources for Walker than "a mention on the Baen.com page for his books" and "a mention on the site that publishes his column", I don't think the article on him will survive -- and from there, I don't think we could use it to support the Throne of Bones article.

Sorry. DS (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's really a deplorable state of affairs, isn't it? Wikipedia is being buried under an avalanche of plasticine pornstars who survive their AfDs because the direct-to-payweb smut industry has figured out how to game Wikipedia's rules by ensuring that everyone on and off the mattress is festooned with multiple "notable" <snort> awards. Meanwhile, writers of actual merit are ganked in broad daylight.

However, dogged persistence helps. (You wouldn't happen to have saved a copy of the Ryk page, would you? If I can find something, we could recreate it.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to save a copy. I'm an admin: I can access deleted content. If you can find other material to support that Ryk - or Lars - is notable, then go ahead, I'll restore. I'm always willing to retract deletion requests or restore pages in the face of proper sources. But I didn't find anything for Ryk (whose work I like), I didn't find anything for Lars (whose work I haven't read), and I didn't find anything for AToB. DS (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I found an independent review of a Lars novel, but cannot include it due to examiner being placed on the spamblock list five years ago. (I've created a discussion entry about that here.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lars Walker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lars Walker 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/Lars Walker 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 th discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it certainly didn't take them long. DragonflySixtyseven, I'm hoping you'll weigh in. Perhaps we can use the AfD discussion as a catalyst for improving the notability guidelines and/or resurrecting Ryk E. Spoor.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

NO retaliatory actions! Do not seek revenge against the deletion of Walker starting a bunch of AfD against random pornographic topics. This behaviour is considered disruptive and the only result you'll achieve will be to be blocked or banned. Read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The previous deletion nominator of Brittney Skye engaged in this sort of behaviour and less than two weeks ago he was indefinitely banned from WP. Cavarrone 07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your warning and know it looks like sour-grapes, but the Lars Walker AfD episode (it has not been deleted as of yet, though I expect it to shortly given the prevailing sentiment) has simply made me more interested in AfDs (you'll note a lot of activity by me today, with only a portion of it related to pornography articles).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

@Раціональне анархіст: About Lars Walker... can you add a reception section to show sourced reviews/critical response to his authored works to show notability under WP:CREATIVE? If yes, ping me. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt:, I'm going to ping @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: (who recently voted Keep), as he appears to have much more experience digging through book-related archives than I do. Pax 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, the typical author article doesn't have a reception section; only major works with their own articles usually do. Pax 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt:, I've located and included the review of Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch in News Weekly, which should constitute a solid, notable RS. Pax 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good job. An author is notable through his works. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Colebatch article - body of text is not resolved - show why or how the substantial portion of body of text is actually referenced - it isnt. satusuro 00:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Change it back, if you desire. The tag was just old, and it looked like there were enough references. (Without reading into it too deeply, might I guess that simply moving the references to relevant paragraphs within the body would be a satisfactory resolution?) Pax 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the issue is a little more complex. It is a WP:BLP - such tags should not be touched, has nothing to do with age - BLP and enough references is not where the whole BLP issue arose from. For a start a whole range of claims are made about Colebatch and other living people in the article that have no WP:CITE to actually back up the claims. Resolution would be where such things as old friend harry butler and others could actually be tied to a ref. No ref, it is is an issue. If in fact you do not have the citations to clarify most claims in the article - better leave such items alone, imho.satusuro 00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Porn AFDs

morning, just a word to the wise. You really need to include reference to checking sources and PORNBIO when you list stuff. It's going to struggle otherwise as the proporn crowd will attack you for being lazy or not doing due diligence as that's easier then defending the subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Um and nominating people who pass PORNBIO is not a good way to tackle the problem of having too many non-notable porn articles round here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In my own defense, PORNBIO is arbitrarily worded; i.e., what constitutes a "major" award isn't defined.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Consider how major or minimal an American academy award might be to someone in Nairobi or Mozambique. If any award is major to its industry or genre and is supported by sources considered expert for that industry or genre, then we may accept that it is major enough for Wikipedia considerations, even if we do not personally agree. We must all try to separate our personal opinions from established community consensus. WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, not an essay.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI#SPA Rebecca1990, possible industry insider. You may wish to respond there. Chillum 00:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your mass reporting porn articles to AfD, such behavior is often taken for action against Wikipedia. Recently: 20 December 2014 - User:Redban has been indefinite blocked for the same behavior than you. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Redban was a SPA blocked initially for being a disruptive PITA, with said block extended indefinitely due to sockpupperty. Meanwhile, my account had no porn-topic edits until Dec. 24. Therefore the claim of "the same behavior" is countervailed by the facts. Pax 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I could be wrong, but your baseless nomination for deletion of Nappi's article smells of retalation towards some votes and comments you probably didn't like it, first of all this one you tried to delete it. If so, desist from such behaviours, I have not to explain why. Also, please don't remove the AfD template until the AfD is properly closed [9]. The AfD close needs to be recorded in the edit summary. Cavarrone 07:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Just to expand a bit on what was written above... we have thousands of non-English topics within Wikipedia supported by many thousands of non-English sources. The English language Wikipedia is simply presented in English, it is NOT restricted to only English-language topics nor to only English-language sources. Please read WP:NONENG. English is preferred, yes... but it not a policy nor a guideline, and when English-language sources are not available, non-English are perfectly acceptable. Please be careful lest you slide down that slippery slope and all your edits become suspect. Regards, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's good to know, as it solidifies a non-English reference for Lars Walker (currently under AfD).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Раціональне анархіст, As a result of this discussion on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, I have determined that there is consensus from the community to impose temporary restrictions on your account. These bans prohibit you from nominating articles for deletion and editing articles about or related to pornography for the duration of 30 days. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ISIL

I expect you may be very interested in this discussion and the links off of it. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. Pax 09:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ebola/west africa

If you look under "WHO quote" on this talk page (third subject from top) I argued more or less the same, I gave an exhaustive explanation of Spanish influenza and Bubonic plague in contrast to the current outbreak, so I agree with you, having said that let's talk it out, there is no point in an edit war between anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I've only had one "revert" today (the first cut was just the elimination)...but I won't press the issue. But I certainly wouldn't mind seeing you zork it out if it comes back. I think as long as we tag-team sparingly within the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to firm up consensus.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Ebola map: For what purpose did you unshade the islands of Italy, Spain and France in your map on Ebola cases worldwide? --Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

First, there was never Ebola in any of those locations (Spitsbergen looked particularly silly). Second, for the same reason the whole United States isn't a single shade. Third (and most important), it was easy to do in Illustrator. If Ebola ever breaks out in China or India, and someone wants those nations broken down into provinces like the United States, I'll probably turn the project over to someone else. Pax 11:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD Seph Lawless

File:Schahterskoe Premium.JPG

Here, Comrade, have some pivo! And then move the bottle to your user page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed this. I appreciate that you quickly reverted the edit, so I'm not complaining or anything, but I am very surprised by the notion that what was briefly removed was a personal attack. Perhaps you misinterpreted it? (It was intended as a plea for the avoidance of personal attacks.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it had the word "asshole" in it, which is pretty indicative. Pax 01:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is not up to you to censor another's words. And as you realized, an AFD is NOT to be edited after it is closed, except by administrative oversight. If you took Hoary's words as a personal attack on you fine... take it to ANI but do not redact another's comments. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa -- Pax did not redact and I was not complaining. I was just a bit puzzled. Perhaps I'm not the politest of editors, but accusations of rudeness don't come so often. I asked here partly because I was puzzled, and partly because I unpuzzledly thought that I'd been fairly clear and that if Pax were to reread my comment in context he/she'd get it and all would be clear. I could explain here and now, but I don't want to bore Pax (or myself). But enough. Pax, have a beer in the name of rationality, anarchism, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie to both of you. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All is well. Glad to know. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'm not red anymore

If you would prefer to be red I can delete your user page at your request. Let me know if you want that and I can do it for you. Chillum 00:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah; it's OK. I have an excuse to get off my ass and put something on it now. Pax 01:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"I'm gonna canvass a bunch of meatpuppets to send me barnstars!"

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For boldly going blue! Chillum 01:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia is not, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia....
>snip long paste< 331dot (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason that was deleted so long ago is back then we do not allow redirects from the article namespace to the Wikipeida namespace. The article namespace is only for encyclopedic articles. We still have the same policy today so I have re-deleted it.

It took a bit of searching but here is the original discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/July_2006#Wikipedia_is_not_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not Chillum 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Pax 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD

You recently closed reopened an AfD I had closed as keep on Bangladesh-Poland relations. If you have any problems with the way the AfD was closed, can you please bring to deletion review or re-nominate it instead of reopening a closed AfD? Thank you. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several ongoing Bangladesh-XYZ relations articles up for AfD, and I think all of them should run their full course with the same resolution (ideally they should have been bundled into a single AfD, but alas...). I also believe there exists an obvious canvassing/meat/sock-puppetry campaign going on among the "Keep" votes, and that such should be investigated. Pax 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing proof of sock-puppeting, beyond the fact that several users commented on related AfDs. If you think I incorrectly closed the AfD, you are free to request additional review at Wikipedia:Deletion review, although I doubt listing it there will produce a different outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over closures Pax, particularly in debates you participated in. I have made an admin closure of the AfD. Chillum 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard my previous message to you, I misread the AfD history. It seems you only reverted once. Still not advisable when you are part of the debate, however it is not edit warring. My apologies.(I also seemed to confused two AfDs with each other) Chillum 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I restored it before commenting. But I see your point. Pax 06:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat

As you suggested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharfuddin_Shah_Wilayat Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

(stuff)

Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Template:Z33 OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Avoid this kind of editing[10], your summary was misleading per WP:LISTPEOPLE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your POV regarding said lists has been explicitly overruled by an AfD's closing admin, Coffee // have a cup, in his top/front/center decision: "...WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the person meet our notability policies..."), a position identical to mine in the matter - so I see no rationale in discussing this further on my TP. As I am also fairly certain you have already seen this AfD's closure (given over two days passage between that and your posting here on my TP), I am compelled to assume an attempt at subterfuge and intimidation on your part.

Pursuant, I have again removed your non-notables from List of British Bangladeshis, and would suggest not edit-warring further.

As I am not a participatory of the ArbCom decision you cut-n-pasted, I'm hiding it under a show button. Pax 03:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a standalone article and having a mention in the list of people are not equivalent to each other. WP:LISTPEOPLE at least 4 points, one of it expresses: "If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to". If you cannot understand these policies well, consider reading them again or ask any other editor about it. It is also uncertain that why you had removed Lutfur Rahman, Akhlaq Choudhury from there? They have articles.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)