User talk:Ad Orientem

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ad Orientem (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome! Please read this before posting here.

I am an Administrator on the English language Wikipedia, which basically means I am part of the customer service and maintenance team. If you have a problem or need help with something please leave a message. However if your issue does not involve me personally or is time sensitive/urgent you may wish to request help on one of our noticeboards.
I'm a part-timer, so bear with me if I don't get back to you instantly.
If you are here because you think I made a mistake somewhere, YOU COULD BE RIGHT! I am neither omniscient nor infallible and sometimes screw up. Let's talk about it.
Please be polite and remember to assume good faith. Also check the potty language at the door. I don't talk to other people that way and I expect the same courtesy in return.
While minor editing is fine, for the sake of continuity of records please don't delete comments on my talk page even if you later conclude you were wrong. If you want to retract a comment, just add a note or you can ~~strike out the text~~.

If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your topic with ~~~~.Click here to start a new topic.

Usertalkpageheader Usertalkpageheader

Dyken Pond

Hey, thanks for the 'thanks' on several of my edits to Dyken Pond - I admit I was compelled to putz a bit on the article after seeing it unduly sneered at on WP:ANI, and it seems your initial edits probably saved it from the chopping block. Regardless of its initial messy state or the other actions of the article creator, I'm a bit bothered when geographic features are so routinely dismissed here (the project's role as a gazetteer is called out at Wikipedia:Five pillars fer chrissakes!). So thanks for your initial intervention! Take care - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note and I appreciate your work expanding the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday

Us old farts need to stick together. I'm 52 :-) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that ITNR proposal

There is a separate page for discussing ITNR additions or removals, at WT:ITN/R, you may want to move that there instead of at WT:ITN. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got the pointer and discussion turned around; you have the pointer at WT:ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer

On 23 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many see also links

You restored some of the see also links that I had removed on quackery. I added a link template to the introduction so I figured we could remove a few of them. Please take a look and consider if we really need all those. Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will look. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

"It's not entirely clear that that it is event that."? I have no clue what in the world that means. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means that I am a very careless typist. Event should be even. I will fix it. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editor

I reverted your erroneous closing of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive editor. If you had read the complaint you would see that these are unrelated complaints. I reported User:Silvio1973, who keeps trying to disrupt Italianization, which has nothing to do with the dispute at Marco Polo, safe for User:Silvio1973, who is being disruptive at both articles. You closed a complaint about cite tagging, disruptive editing, bad faith actions, source deletions, content blnaking and onerous demands by said Silvio1973 at Italianization, with the argument "Yet another thread about the same content dispute closed a few threads above this one". Absolutely wrong: Italianization vs. Marco Polo. I reopened the case as it is still not resolved and has nothing to do with the smearing of User:Hzh by Silvio1973 for having added 10k of sourced content at Marco Polo. best regards, noclador (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute. That's not what ANI is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator Ad Orientem. Thank you.. While I don't think anything will come of it, the anonymous editor who posted this complaint failed to notify you. Regards Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I feel like Henry Hill in Goodfellas after his first pinch. My first summons to ANI as a defendant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congratz on receiving your first accusation of being an admin. What's further, congratz on managing to abuse admin privileges within seconds of being an accused admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! And I managed to get acquitted thanks to our rigged system in less than five minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, true as well. Man our justice (for admins) system works fast. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against Donald Trump

You have an empty citation next to "under Title 18 of the US Code." which you did on 19:58, 12 November 2016, could you please fill it in or remove it. 47.148.79.80 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Ad Orientem,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump protests

I'm wondering if this article should be split into 2, separated at Election Day. Thoughts?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late but FTR addressed on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the welcome. I'm a longtime Wikipedia editor who has switched into IP-anonymous editing (you'll find a couple of other IPs on ITN/C saying that they're longtime editors; those are likely also me). If you have any comments or suggestion about my edits, please feel free to drop me a line. Again, thanks to you! 23.233.82.54 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ad Orientem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Sammy Lee (diver)

On 6 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sammy Lee (diver), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hey Ad Orientem. I saw your post at AN about WP:ERRORS and thought to myself "Why can't he fix it? He's an admin right?!" only to find - much to my surprise - that you aren't! 10 minutes of contribs stalking later and I think you'd made quite a fine administrator here. You've got a solid record of contributions covering most of your typical voter's requirements, and they certainly gave me confidence that you could use the tools well. In addition you're good at communicating with other users, and I was struck that you're happy to accept when you're wrong on a topic (withdrawing AfDs for example), which is a big plus for me. What are your thoughts on running at RfA? I think you'd stand a good chance and could get to work on WP:ERRORS/WP:ITN and any other areas that took your interest. I would be happy to nominate you, but there's no rush, and feel free to go to WP:ORCP first. Sam Walton (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. First I'd like to thank you for one of the nicest compliments I've gotten on here. That said, I'm not really interested in RfA. I have enormous respect for most admins and what they do (and what they have to put up with). But I'm a little reluctant to go there myself for several reasons. First and probably most importantly I'm not sure I want to be an admin. Secondly I am not sure I am qualified. And lastly I doubt I could pass RfA if it was only open for ten minutes and voting were limited to my immediate family and closest personal friends. Again though, I thank you for your very kind words. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reason for not doing so is and should be the most important, and I totally respect that. As for your 2nd and 3rd, I respectfully disagree, and invite you to think on it more and post at ORCP in the future if you'd like to prove me wrong :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voicing some support - if your interest in ~~deleting the main page~~ helping out with adminy things ever picks up please do consider WP:ORCP -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samtar and Sam Walton I have thought it over after looking at some of the pre-RfA essays which seem designed to scare the bleep out of anyone thinking of going there. Anyways my opinion of my chances hasn't changed much, but if both of you think the project would benefit if I had a few extra tools then I will pop over to ORCP tomorrow and see what the consensus is. It's a weekend and I doubt anyone is paying attention today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was reading over them the other day and came to the same conclusion - they seem much more focused at avoiding nominations for people not qualified rather than encouraging actual admin hopefuls. Glad to hear it though :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - look forward to seeing the poll! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Samtar and Sam Walton. Well we have a little over a half dozen reviews in and the results strike me as something short of a ringing endorsement but not exactly ice cold. Four have given me 6/10, one didn't give a number but I walked away with the feeling that he was saying 50/50. And there was an outlier whose review sounded like I was being promoted for sainthood. That kind of personal endorsement really makes you feel good but I have be honest in saying that I think the others were a bit more realistic. There were no real surprises and I don't disagree with any of the analysis of potential weaknesses in my record that could draw oppose votes at an RfA. Not sure there will be (m)any more reviews but if there are my guess is that they will give me a similar grade. I did note that neither of you posted a review but you have both suggested your support here. So the next logical question is do you still believe that the project would be better off if I had the tools and do you think my odds of passing are good enough to warrant my going to RfA. The one thing I don't want to do is waste the community's time. And it should go w/o saying that I am not going to go looking for a tall building if you decide that I'm not as strong a candidate as you originally thought. That is after all the whole point of RFAP. Anyways let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6/10 as an average at ORCP? that sounds like a near ringing endoresement by ORCP standards to me (7 or 8 would be better, but, you've got a strong chance with a 6). ORCP is probably more stringent than RfA itself is due to the way it's structured to be intentionally nitpicky. In an RfA generally only oppose voters build strong arguments against the candidate, and ORCP I think is very much aligned with this way of thinking. Support voters are not as likely to show up at ORCP because they really don't have as much to say. I mean, how often do you see a support vote with a two word rationale vs. an oppose vote with that same level of scrutiny. I don't think you're in the same threatened position that Godsy (68%) was, you're more likely to have an RfA along the lines of Vanamonde (83%) or at worst Oshwah (75%). That's just my opinion though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks rnddude. I noted that ORCP has a track record of being a bit conservative when reflected against the actual RfA results. That could be encouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is nothing to go by, I'm a year between score (very very low) and RfA, but you're correct in the statement ORCP is conservative. I personally still believe the project would benefit from you having the toolset, and the ORCP comments give me further confidence you would get by when it came to a !vote. You're going to get opposes, horrible questions and frankly ridiculous comments thrown your way, so the question is do you want to give it a go? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will say that I quite expect one of the 6/10 voters to oppose you on either a) being hungry for the tools despite being clearly told you weren't a perfect candidate or b) being so keen to take on RfA after mere days of going through ORCP and therefore hat collecting. Like the logic of some people; AO; Do you think I'm ready for adminship? P1; Yeah just about, you've got the experience, good attitude, you'd make a pretty good candidate in my opinion. AO; Alright I'll go ahead with the RfA then. P1; hang on a minute there mate, you're a bit too keen on the bit aren't you? oppose! It's like, why do you think I asked? because I'm not considering becoming an admin? yeah that makes a ton of sense doesn't it. I could legit make a GradeAUnderA style rant about the RfA process. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you'll take this, but I'd also advocate you running at RFA. While I have been named and shamed, I never abused the tools, and I'm 100% certain that you have a finer temperament than me, and wouldn't do anything stupid. Just go for it. If you make 1 positive admin action, then you've done your job. This place could use a few more trustworthy admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it very kindly. Your reputation for giving unvarnished opinions is well known and I particularly appreciate your endorsement since, although we generally agree, we have also crossed swords once or twice. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely still think that the project would be better off if you had the tools, and I'm still confident the community will agree. The ORCP reviews strike me as being apprehensive, but not negative, in an "I can't find any reason you'd be a net negative, but I'm not quite confident enough to give you an outstanding review" kind of way. As others have said above, ORCP does tend to be more conservative, and at RfA there's no rating out of 10 - people either support or oppose, and oppositions tend to be based on specific points of apprehension, which I'm not seeing for you. I have a few points I'd be happy to make in a nomination about the feedback you received (in an indirect way), and still encourage you to run. My opinions are unchanged, and I would still be happy to nominate you. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, with all the encouraging comments I have gotten, I think I am going to do it. Assuming I don't have an overnight change of heart I'd like to get it over with as quickly as reasonably possible. I'm already getting nervous and I'm rather fond of the few non gray hairs I still have. Maybe we can launch it on Sunday or Monday. That would give me a few days to cram for the test and we can work on introductory statements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've started a drafting page at User:Samwalton9/Ad Orientem so you have time to draft your first answers, and I have somewhere to put my nomination together. Samtar, I would welcome your co-nomination, if you're interested, feel free to add a section there; no worries if not. Sam Walton (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: I'll be adding my co-nom later this evening -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samtar thank you. Your support means a lot. On a side note I am going to suggest we start this on Sunday early afternoon, maybe noonish. That way I can just plan on spending most of the rest of the day by my computer to answer the inevitable early questions. Also I am on the East Coast in the US for time purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works for me. It's up to you how you want to monitor your RfA, but I'll say that waiting to give an answer until you've thought about it is never a bad thing - people don't tend to get cranky over missing answers until it's been a couple of days. That said, I had an RSS feed set up for changes to my RfA to stop me incessantly checking my watchlist all week, so I can't judge. Sam Walton (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your suggestion about being slow and careful in responses. I assume that at least a few questions may be designed to trip me up. One thing that may (or may not) annoy some will be that if I honestly am not sure of how to proceed in a given situation, my almost invariable response is to seek advice from other experienced editors. And while we are talking about handling the RfA, I am not a fan of challenging oppose votes, even if I think they are ill-considered or frivolous. The only exception would be if someone makes statements that are factually, and demonstrably, wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely reasonable, and I would be surprised if it annoyed anyone. At my RfA I said much the same thing, which actually saved me from what was otherwise regarded as a sub-par answer ("I'm not really happy with Q7/7A, but "so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above" completely saves it for me."). Not a bad thing at all :) And for the most part I agree with not responding to oppose votes. I'm happy to do it on other user's RfAs if I see something particularly ridiculous, but I prefer not to see the nominators or candidate getting into arguments there. Sam Walton (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend upping "statements" to "allegations". There will definitely be factually incorrect statements, the question really is whether there will be allegations of misconduct that misrepresent the facts to paint a false picture of events. Although I agree with Sam above. I challenge oppose votes on others RfAs, but, think it would reflect poorly to see the candidate and nominators engaged in disputes over the votes themselves. Let the supporters and neutrals handle it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Thank you both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

ITN recognition for Bill English

On 15 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill English, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Israel

I noticed at your RFA that you said you wished you had sent Lee Israel to DYK. You may have missed that a year or two back a new route to DYK was established. You can now nominate for DYK articles that are newly promoted good articles. So, nominate it for GA and once you get through that you can nominate it for DYK. The main thing you would need to work on that I can see after a quick look is to expand the lead a little. Also, the reviewer might ask if a free picture is available, but I don't see anything on Commons. Since the subject is deceased it is a fair answer that no new images will be possible. You might be able to persuade someone to release one though, or you can use one under a fair use rationale. Pity it is her and not her. SpinningSpark 19:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of that and will look into it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceaușescu

Thanks for closing the FRINGE discussion at this point. I'm aware you're probably not involved but this is a courtesy message to let you know I'll be continuing the discussion on Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu where I am sure it will look appropriate. Regards. --OJ (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... yeah. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please do not donate to the WMF. Fuck those guys. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor advice

Hi, I am a new editor to Wikipedia, having created my account just this past week. I also happen to be a new Orthodox Christian, having recently converted. Needless to say, I was quite surprised when I saw that a fellow Orthodox Christian was being nominated for adminship. Is there any advice you give for a new editor? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt.Delta (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Mt.Delta and welcome to Wikipedia!. I dropped a template message with a bunch of links that you may find useful. I do recommend taking at least a quick look at them as I think they are very helpful with the basics. Beyond that I'd just suggest starting out by concentrating on working on articles. Begin with improving existing articles on subjects that interest you and once you think you have the basics down you can try your hand at creating new articles. Things to remember when editing in what we call the mainspace (articles) is to be sure you don't add any claims that are not backed by independent relaible sources. By extension this means we don't insert our opinions or stuff that we just know to be true from personal experience or we remember reading about it somewhere or we saw it on TV. Any claim of fact that is not obviously non-controversial needs an inline citation to a reliable source. Unfortunately poor referencing is a pervasive problem on the project. There is a reference wizard called PROVEIT located in the lower right of all the mainspace editing pages. I have found it incredibly helpful.

Also I would suggest focusing on working on article content and creation for maybe your first six months before expanding your work, if you fee so inclined, to some of the behind the scenes stuff. Beyond that, my best advice is to just pick an article that interests you and that you think you can help improve, even if its just copy editing to spruce up the grammar, and have fun! If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Congratulations on your recepetion into the Church! Many years! -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. We have a lot of wiki-projects that cover almost every imaginable subject where editors collaborate on improving articles related to its subject. This can be a great place start. Sadly some of the projects are less active than others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Year in review: Looking back on 2016

News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

Special report: German ArbCom implodes

In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

Featured content: The Christmas edition

Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there

Going through the wikioscopy of an AfD can be tough. Here's a little encouragement from one who has been there, done that. Hope you aren't taking the opposes personally. - Brianhe (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It has been a bit stressful but I knew going into this that I was going get some opposition. What happens happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the last few days of my own RfA being fraught with peril that somebody was going to come along with a pile-on civility oppose and tank it, but it didn't come to pass. I've done a bit of a back-of-the-fag-packet calculation and reckon the odds of you not passing this are very unlikely at this stage (I don't want to give exact figures per WP:BEANS but you need a lot more opposes than what you currently have), so just hang in there and hopefully Santa will be delivering you a gift-wrapped mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may need a fingernail transplant before this is over, but I am holding on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid thing is that some of the oppose votes are based on one aspect and don't consider your contributions and abilities as a whole. There's a real problem with some RFA contributors who are looking for a needle in a haystack as a reason to oppose, rather than observing that the other 99% of candidate's actions are net positives. I think most of it boils down to jealousy and an innate knowledge that they themselves would never make admin in a thousand years so they're determined to (attempt to) ruin everyone else's chances. As Ritchie333 says, don't stress it. And in any case, if the community are stupid enough to reject your nomination, more fool them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the ...oscopy is over, I'd like to thank you for putting yourself forward (so to speak). No candidate is perfect, and I personally appreciate that you are standing on what kind of editor you are, not what kind of candidate others may be looking for. Before the pending close, I'm glad you can see demonstrated by !vote there are many in the community who support you and trust you with wider responsibility. Go and do good by doing well. BusterD (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the Administrators' guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

79% - I did say between Oshwah (75%) and Vanamonde (83%) did I not. Squarely in the middle. Congratz on the successful RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe, thank you and merry Christmas! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude it was 80% when the RfA expired but a couple !votes snuck in before it was closed. All of which said, who gives a bleep!? Merry Christmas! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Don't forget to change your talk page banner! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 03:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's your T-shirt. Congratulations! —MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) 03:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It might not yet be Christmas Day where you are (it is here), but enjoy the warm feeling at this special time of the year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 04:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations or condolences may be in order... I'm not sure which! Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, good luck and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Ad Orientem :) It occurs to me we haven't got a section in the Admin's guide for contributing to the main page; perhaps we can put something together once you're happy with the admin side of things! Sam Walton (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Don't let anyone slap you around with that political bullshit. You'll be a fine sysop. Just remember, you're the janitor - not the principal.--v/r - T P 08:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for hanging in there! You'll soon realise how outstandingly little of a deal it all is :-D -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Good luck, and glad tidings. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Must be a memorable Christmas for you, eh? Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for running, and congratulations on your successful run for adminship. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks much for running, it's an act of courage these days. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! --joe decker ^talk 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFA/Merry Christmas (not necessarily in that order)

Merry Christmas, Ad Orientem!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! Just wanted to say congratulations on the outcome of the RFA, not only that, but I feel you acquitted yourself admirably during the process. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Congratulations on becoming an administrator, and have a great Christmas! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed –
almost ten long, sordid, I-really-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

Katie^talk 13:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Thank You

There are far too many people I should be thanking personally but since that number is in the hundreds, I am going to be lame and post a generic thanks here. I particularly appreciate the support of so many when things got a little rough during the RfA (R F A the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia). I wish you and yours a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Ad Orientem! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Congrats on your successful RfA!

Merry Xmas and congratulation - do view Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school :-) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify reason for deletion

I am unclear why you have deleted my first entry on Wikipedia about the company Southern Tutors. There are many other pages on Wikipedia for similar companies and of similar content, such as Maths Doctor and Explore Learning.

There is nothing significant promoting the company. I have refrained from listing details of how the company goes about it's business or provided direct contact details so as not to be an 'advert'. The article was written with a focus on the history and charitable works of the company with citations from many external websites.

If you didn't think there were enough citations, why don't you add to it, or provide some constructive criticism for improvement, instead of deleting the whole page. By what authority do you do that?

Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCairns78 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesCairns78 and welcome to Wikipedia. The article in question was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional in its wording. Additionally I have serious doubts that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NPOV and WP:NOPROMO. I appreciate your contributions but we need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and all articles need to be worded in a completely neutral manner. Additionally we are not an indiscriminate collection of facts or information and there are guidelines for what we accept including evidence to support encyclopedic notability. Please don't be discouraged by the deletion of your article. Even highly experienced editors have had articles deleted. Again thank you for your contributions to the project and I hope you stick around. If you need help just drop me a line here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesCairns78. Ad Orientem is one of our newest administrators, and so I did a courtesy check just to be sure the deletion was accurate. As an administrator myself, I have the the ability to see deleted pages. I reviewed yours and I can verify that Ad Orientem's actions were correct. Your article relied heavily on primary sources, social media, and articles that were about people related to the company but not the company itself. Because you do not have reliably published secondary sources about Southern Tutors itself, the article fails our basic guidelines for inclusion. The deletion was appropriate and recreating it would not be appropriate. Ad Orientem earned the authority to implement community established policies through a community vetting process endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. We certainly don't mind explaining more.--v/r - T P 05:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A minor thing

Hey Ad Orientem. Deleting and blocking User:Luc trottier was quite reasonable, but there wasn't any need to protect their user page against creation as far as I'm aware. Ultimately it's unlikely to be re-created so it's not a big deal, but pages are typically only protected against creation if they're recreated many times. Sam Walton (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good pooint. I will remove the PP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Well done on becoming an admin. You did break the mainpage on your first edit there though (only 4 RDs at a time), but don't worry Sam fixed it! Please reach out if you need any help. Step hen 23:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an entirely obvious rule, only being documented on the admin instructions page as far as I can tell! Sam Walton (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I've added some extra help to the hidden text on T:ITN. Step hen

Jan Stephen Pethick

Shall I put a link on the High Sheriffs of Greater London talk page - as the London Wiki page is 'start class, original research'? (The information is correct but needs others to develop to reach Wikipedia standards.) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What link are you proposing to add and to what page(s)? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Wiki [1] is as far as I was able to check: and Talk:High Sheriff of Greater London here. There is a case for saying that most of the persons mentioned are borderline WP entries but relevant on the London Wiki (which is 'a wiki with low participation which has original research' rather than a personal one'). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete under mentioned article

Hey, I noticed that you deleted the article BookMyShow without any warning or request for additional information. Kindly get over such such non democratic methods of yours. Kindly revert the article back to life and add the tags for what ever information you feel is missing. I would be happy to add that. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it did not make any credible claim to importance much less encyclopedic notability. I subsequently discovered that the article was deleted previously, and quite recently, following a discussion at AfD. If you believe the AfD discussion, or the closing admin erred, you can request a deletion review. Unfortunately, in the absence of a reversal of the AfD I cannot agree to restore the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for BookMyShow

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BookMyShow. 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. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

customer service

Thank you for quality articles beginning with Dimitri Isayev, for categories such as Religious rituals, for being ready to serve and clean, for "Welcome to Wikipedia!", "You don't need to live on Wikipedia" and "Blessed feast", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating pages vs. set-index articles

Hi! Thanks for the invite to discuss this edit. I just wanted to update you on the differences between dab pages and set-index articles. The Anthroponymy Project has been taking over the pages that list surnames, given names, or both. Those pages are being changed into set-index articles and, though they can often look very similar to disambiguation pages, they are not the same. The way to tell at a glance is to check the bottom of the page; there will usually be a template there that identifies which kind of page it is.

Redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title are supposed to target disambiguation pages only. As more and more dab pages get transferred to set-index articles, there will be more and more of this type of redirect left over. They need to be deleted (as soon as any links to them are resolved, of course). I've been working on these for the Disambiguation Project, and gradually weeding them out. You'll most likely come across more of my CSD G6s for these. I hope you'll help with the housekeeping. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! I zapped the page per your G-6 nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

...in my infinite wisdom, I somehow forgot to congratulate you on your successful RFA (Quite a Christmas present too!)! If you're still a bit woozy from the post-RFA party, this coffee should help you sober up; otherwise, just treat it as a caffeinated pick-me-up so you'll stay alert with the mop, so you will be without excuse if you delete the Main Page and make it rain monkeys and bananas. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current APEC foreign ministers

You have removed the template on the APEC foreign ministers despite of the information justifying that it is not a cruft and therefore legitimate. It might be possible if the mentioned template were to be recreated to eliminate any redundancy and just considering that even though it is mentioned in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Template:Current APEC Foreign Ministers, still it should be treated as a separate template from that discussion. Saiph121 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]