User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2019 1

Your draft article, Draft:Aaron Bastani (political commentator)

Hello, Djm-leighpark. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aaron Bastani".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

re: Large number of PRODs circa 22 October 2018

I see the discussion is closed. Well, if my actions create a backlog, it just going to have to be dealt with eventually. Backlogs are not a problem per se. Prod notices just like others are an indicator of potential problems and they should not be dismissed "because we have too many [problems]". I appreciate you reviewing them, but don't feel pressured you have to deal with any backlog yourself. Nor will the project suffer if the backlog grows (in fact we have numerous backlogs going for years). Remember to have fun editing Wikipedia, don't let yourself burn out! Personally I like to alternate different tasks here - one week I'll create new articles, another I'll hunt down spam for deletion nominations. Diversity is fun. If dealing with prods is tiring you, try something else for a while. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

PROD's are time limited. So no it isn't "fun". Bloody disruptive. That number of PRODs is an overload. Turns people off Wikipedia and to the dark side. Anyway you've had you're fun. People in my life have suffered. We both know the the articles had serious issues and most (but not all) of what you raised was reasonable ... but I am probably seeing a failure mostly to checkout reasonable merges. Thanks a bunch ... I'm bound to spread the grumps but that the way it goes. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you didn't seem to get better after my prior comment, I will be more frank with you, particularly since you call my edits "bloody disruptive", quite a personal attack (but I know, admins don't need to respect NPA). You should be thanking me for trying to deal with spam, not complaining. Your attitude is not helping others, including me, have a nice experience here. I understand you are exhausted, been there, done that. But you've reached a point your exhaustion is turning into biting other volunteers. Please take a break, play some computer games, or with your cat, or whatever, and come back when you feel other people here are trying to help you, not hurt you and the project. And I strongly recommend you put deletion-related tasks on the side, they are clerly stressing you out. You should be here to have fun, not to be miserable and spread such attitude around (through personal attacks and complains about those that just try to work). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately given the number of good faiths noms I am currently good faith de-prodding for one reason or another your request for me to stop has a COI. My apologies for the 'bloody disruptive'. It means I was self disruptiving my own life. that is my choice. You may take me to ANI if you wish. Meanwhile I shall be back to sorting content.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to take to ANI here, no worries. Certainly, some prods are not legible, including of mine, it's good to have a review. And if I disagree, there's AfD. Keep up the good job, just remember, a) you can take a break, it's not good if you are editing stressed, we are here to have fun and b) a declined prod is not a bad prod, it is just a part of editorial discussion. A lot of prod declines are effectively saying 'it's borderline, we need a proper AfD discussion' rather than 'nah, it's 100% notable/good article topic'. And we all make mistakes, one way or another, to err is to be human, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus

Thankyou for your comments

In normal times when I review a PROD the initial Triage goes Reasonably safe Prod (easy deprod); Ho hum this has had a previous prod (decline or leave be or watch - its why I now put main emphasis on Old prod full); Straightforward keep or no work pass to Afd (deprod); and the rest which may require work or show signs of something or perhaps signs of a negative COI or whatever ... these probably need deproding. To a degree one is reasonably time limited assessing a PROD; and its appropriate to dePROD even if that subsequently looks a stupid decision because as you say it can go through a fuller AfD review. (That said I look at the provenance of the PRODer .. I had you as being usually uncontroversial in 80%+ of cases .... ).

You are probably aware I am using User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox-P to track your nominations of 22 October (Derived from User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox-W). Obviously many some would accused me of a WP:HOUND but I think most would see it as a way of managing and understanding the set of proposed deletions and analyzing results. At this point I have two left to determine: TopoFusion will be a dePROD but it is just a case of how much work I do so before to try avoid it going to AfD; Tie (information technology) simply requires a more detailed investigation to determine my best option ... TIE is not the greatest of search terms. To be frank and it light blue(lilac? - I am colourblind ) I'd sort of not be surprised to see at AfD. The medium blue deprod's are a mixture of those I'd generally expect to be safe keep (albeit some maybe noconsensus) at AfD and those where a merge is reasonably obviously possible and I would have expected to be picked up during WP:BEFORE (Some are in fact crying out for merge and on some I may have even prep'd the target ... and I am not merging Oblix myself as Oracle is a Wikipedia Sponsor ;-) )

While I obviously wish you to do a WP:BEFORE (and this may be necessary for some where I have pointed at improved references on talk) for practical purposes and as a rule of thumb I can otherwise see no reasonable objection to those being taken to AfD. (I'll probally end up moaning about an inadequate WP:BEFORE on one or two of them at AfD but thats as may be). For practical purposes for this set in terms of light Blue dePROded ones if there is a plausible merge it may work better to pass those by me first to see if I am willing to undertake the merge as that may save 4 or 5 AfD noms. (Not all merges are the same... another long essay) Some of the Blue dePRODs have no plausible or obvious merge however I feel they mostly have a strong chance of AfD survival but should who wish to take to AfD following a proper WP:BEFORE then that is your right, I'd certainly hope we can filter out merges (in out of its many forms ... the most extreme is a WP:MERGEPROP and while we may have at least one of those ... WordWise will be a stonecast merge of some kind but I might prefer WP:MERGETEXT there. Some of this is time. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. Main point just to say it is somewhat likely the way I put it above was mostly unfortunately. I think we are on the page that for PRODing a full WP:BEFORE is not required, and for dePROD review the reviewer also only needs to see some reasonable reason for dePROD. Probably the key point is someone seeing a dePROD really needs to ensure they have done a WP:BEFORE before taking to AfD and not skip that step.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou. (If I have said anything in a bad way or offensive of stupid above please realise not meant and due to inadequate proof reading ... ) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I do appreciate your lengthy and very interesting reply. I will likely reply in-depth in 1-2 days (a bit busy IRL) but I want to note that AFAIK WP:BEFORE applies to AFD but not to PROD. (Which is why BEFORE itself notes PROD is an option instead of AfD, and WP:PROD does not make any reference to BEFORE). Now, I am not sure if this is the best way to do things, but proceduraly, I don't think PROD nominations are required to follow BEFORE step. The way I look for it, the burden of proof for prods is much lower than AfD, hence also the decision being made by a single reviewer, not a community. To me, prods are like a WP:3O, whereas AfD=RFC. In other words, when I prod something, I often do a much more cursory review of sources/etc. than for AfD, since a PROD is is to me a way of asking a single person (the prod reviewer, i.e. you or whoever else reviews it) 'do you think this is spam/etc. or not'? If the reviewer agrees, we have just saved the community discussion time over a very likely spam topic. If not, then the matter warrants further review (since someone is likely to be wrong, either me or the reviewer, which may either mean that I agree I messed up, or I take things to AfD to get input from the community).

On another, more philosophical note, there's a question of 'what's better for Wikipedia: deleting spam more quickly, and occasionally taking down an obscure good topic, or being cautious, and letting spam stay, since it will also reduce the occasional bad deletetion'. I don't have a good answer to this, except that I know I used to consider myself an inclusonist, but eventually I became more of a deletionist I guess (see my OP-ED WP:CORPSPAM, which is a better term than my initial 'artspam'. So my occasional prod-floods are responses to me seeing, what appears at least to me, as 'way too much spam' in a given category. TBH, browsing stubs in some categories like software or companies or such is really like looking at a spam flood, sometimes 90% of stubs seem like they are purely promotional paid-for vanity/ads. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blowsh

I think nearly everyone agrees there is a mass of historical articles on wikipedia that fall below any required standard. However we should really be encouraging these to cease in a positive way and NPP is likely key in this. The one on this set that really concerned me was Browsh. Pathway was:

• 9 August 2018: Created by Saviourmachine
• 9 August 2018: Templated notability+primary sources issues by Tedickey ... Seems good faith and highly appropriate giving creator (or others) time to improve. (However what didn't happen was assignment to the WikiProject Computing which might have been useful)
• ... (no apparent obvious response by creator over next weeks)
• 2 September 2018 Curated by Cwmhiraeth
• 22 October 2018: PRODed by Piotrus
• 24 October 2018: dePRODed by myself following improvements ... This was also the (first) point talk page was created bringing into the fold of WikiProject Computing (which may be necessary for PROD alerts)

I would really have loved to see the curator drafting and encouraging the user to AfC or Teahouse (somewhat positive pathway) rather than what happened which is a destructive pathway. I'm not rally familiar with NPP ( I've learned to work on the bucket and shovel basis of stick at least one good notability reference on it if it's an (Irish) steam engine with a red link to it or at least two and probably three otherwise and that seems to work well ) ... however I'm not sure whether Blowsh treatment was inside of NPP guidance (in which case I might suggest tweaking it) or a one off outside of guidance ... in which case one off fair enough nobody makes more mistakes than I do. (I've mentioned names here to make them aware of the discussion). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was the new page patroller here. My remit is to check that the article is encyclopedic, has references, categories, etc and is not a copyvio, you can see our instructions here. Now, this is a subject about which I know nothing. I could leave the article for someone else to review, but with a backlog og over 3000, I don't like to do that. If it is obvious that an article is non-notable I will nominate it for deletion and in this instance the article was already suitably tagged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth : Really great thanks for responding as it is great to see your angle! This tells me I may need to consider if the process guidelines might be benefit from amendment to achieve better outcomes. I would need to consider this because an improvement of 1% in outcome by increasing guideline complexity by 20% would not likely be good. However if might we in a case such as this that if an uncurated article tagged with notability was untouched for say 2/3 weeks a bot could draftify it ... of course this may be a stupid idea. I may ponder and investigate this some more. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for what it's worth. I don't feel I'm important enough to decide if pages are notable or non-notable. If moderators decide to delete pages, it's not my place to think differently. Anne van Rossum (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance

Thanks for your guidance regarding contributions to Wikipedia. That was very helpful. I am new to this platform and learning what it takes to contribute. I am interested in contributing to the Oracle Database article, but also potentially to the articles for Oracle Exadata and Oracle Zero Data Loss Recovery Appliance. I am an employee of Oracle and have made that discloser on my user page. I am learning how to request edits, so please don't hesitate to give me additional feedback. I enjoy writing in general, and I anticipate I can be a valuable contributor on these topics, including meeting the high standards for accuracy and objectiveness required by Wikipedia. Thanks! Ccraft us (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Zensar Technologies Consists of lot of dead links

Dear DJM,

I was putting an effort to contribute on this particular article Zensar Technologies by providing proper content format as the existing one looks very scattered and lots of dead links, Therefore have re-written the same in below formagt along with all available inline citations as per wiki guidelines, however you seems to have undid all my revision. Hence request you to go through the one I have written keeping only available content with proper citations & also help removing dead links from this article.

Here is what I thought of contributing & looking forward to your thoughts on the same if you think it makes sense. Thank you

Deepak HM (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dear {{U|Deepakhmwiki)) .. I find your reasoning not credible. I don't see a lot of dead links. I actually find your changes more scattered! I see two marked up, plus there was an issue on the archive one I found earlier. I've found another where the link has just gone dead and I've switched it to the archive. If you have specific other specific citation links you have issues please discuss those on the ARTICLE talk page first. See WP:LINKROT for ways of avoiding dead links. I find your suggestions to remove parts of history and remove it a non sequential way not an improvement. There may be a case for a better description of the current overview of Zensar Technologies in the lede however it can be quite difficult to do so without going to promotionalism ... and having some placed some effort into getting this article saved at an AfD and having a no neutrality tags I would be very unhappy to see that. Given you also done some poor formatting of my talk please be careful in future. And can you please discuss content on the article talk page not so much on my talk page. Thankyou.15:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

History

Zensar Technologies is a multinational technology company headquartered in Pune, India with offices in the US, UK and South Africa. It is a subsidiary of RPG Enterprises. Founded in 2001, the company has an annual revenue of $480 million and employs approximately 9,000 employees.

Zensar Technologies deals in e-commerce, mobile applications, cloud computing, digital transformation and data analytics. Zensar Technologies operates across retail, healthcare, airlines, banking and insurance sectors.

Zensar Technologies is listed on both the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and is present on several indices including the NSE's Nifty 500 and the S&P BSE 500.

Ganesh Natarajan became CEO in 2001 for what was to become a 15-year tenure. Sandeep Kishore took over as Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director in 2016.

Acquisitions and subsidiaries

Ventures

The following acquisitions have been made by Zensar since 2014.	Venture	Date	Company	Value	Location base	Description
Acquisition	2014	Professional Access Inc		New York
Acquisition	2016	Foolproof Inc		London
Acquisition	2017	Keystone Logic			Omnichannel retail order and warehouse management
Acquisition	2018	Cynosure INC	US$33m	US	For leverage of insurance and Guidewire practice.
Acquisition	2018	Indigo Slate

References

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green Line (Luas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milltown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Stillorgan

Hi. You have now twice removed a section of this article and the only reason given is referring to a red-link. Please state your reasons clearly here or I will re-inserted the deleted material which under 3rr you may not then remove again. Regards Sarah777 (talk)

@Sarah777 ... Thankyou for pointing that out. I should have used WP:Settlement. The purpose was to remove navbars from a WP:SETTLEMENT. As it happens there is a further issue with this particular navbars as Stillorgan tram station is not where Stillorgan Railway station was (that now being just the other side of the current Sandyford station). When I think of some good words to to put I will look to put the explanation in the article talk. I also may try and fix this lot of station and depots with some prose but I make wish to make co-ordinated changes to Luas Green Line and Sandyford as well. As a heads up I may an some point suggest a Dún Laoghaire harbour article ... being a merge of Carlisle Pier and part of Dún Laoghaire ... but I'd like views such as yours first (Technically easiest to Move Carlisle Pier then merge from Dún Laoghaire). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Djm. I think the new (?) railway templates are a big improvement on the earlier practice and I'll help extend them to other articles on the tracks! To be honest, I hadn't noticed them when I posted earlier.

Good work - I was thrown a bit off course by the redlink. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Shankill railway station (DW&WR)

Good job! Useddenim (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of DWWR 15 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DWWR 15 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/DWWR 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (DWWR 13) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating DWWR 13.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Keep up the good work on these articles.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted my content just because it was Anon?

I just spent some time adding Version History data to Dorico software's page, and you deleted it because I was anon? So what's the point in allowing anonymous editing if it gets instantly deleted? There was nothing contentious in my Edit. Oh, but you missed the External link to Dorico's Youtube channel, so you might want to delete that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.212.120 (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The key point is the information was unsourced. I see you have now returned it sourced. As I am aware of the youtube external link which as you say I had missed that will probably be removed by myself or elseone .... External links are often abused. In general it is job of the product website to make that resource visible to those you need it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Operation Yellowhammer

Hi there,

I am not trying to be disruptive by editing this page.

The page states that the name of the operation was chosen randomly - this is not true. The naming was influenced by the call of the bird - The UK Treasury should own up to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpammyJackson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there may be be all sorts of reasons and theories about the source of the name, but Wikipedia will when push comes to crunch only accept what can be sourced even if it isn't true. If you look back through history this earlier edit of mine which got reverted to where we are you can probably judge what the community will accept (OK it has a daily mirror source which was unacceptable. I can direct you to WP:Teahouse if you'd like an independent viewpoint. Thankyou. 19:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

About the page Vidyut Kale

Hi,

I just saw your message. I have put the conflict of interest notice as you suggested, but my article is already deleted. I don't know who had created it. Since I usually don't use any surname, they probably didn't realize that it has been years since I changed my surname legally.

My main interest was mainly that it was with a name I no longer use and spoke of coverage of my experiences with domestic violence - which really is not what I am known for beyond what I went through at that time. While not a secret, there is better information about me.

I don't know how to create Wikipedia articles, but if I decide to give it a shot, I will definitely use your suggestions. This is most helpful. Thank you.

Just for my knowledge, how to request change of name of article? Like this one was Vidyut Kale - but my name now is Vidyut Gore.

Vidyutblogger (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that someone has recreated a blank page for my article. I will try using your suggestions. Vidyutblogger (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made this space to collect some information User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut Gore - can you copy the earlier content here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DRV

Please do NOT edit that page! Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit the page Vidyut Kale. It is at WP:DRV ... Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3. Be very extremely careful about entering that discussion. Thankyou. 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not touching that page at all. I am just collecting better references here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut_Gore Making articles seems quite complicated, so for now just collecting references. I hope doing that in the sandbox page is all right.

Generally perfectly fine. Thankyou. Please check WP:RS. Good luck understanding it but that is what we are after. In general the more quality the publication the better. If they discuss Vidyut Kale without actually speaking to you that is also in general better. Thankyou. Please remember to sign posts to talk pages with:

~~~~

. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you very much. This had been so confusing till your messages. Much appreciated.

Vidyutblogger (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing name of an article

(I wrote this originally half an hour ago but its still useful though it may strike you as a little weird for which I apologise).

@Vidyutblogger this may amaze you but I cannot be sure if you are Vidyut Kale/Gore or a person impersonating Vidyut Kale/Gore. And for my purposes here it matters not one little bit either way! Here to me you are user account Vidyutblogger who has a declared conflict of interest with articles dealing with Vidyut Kale/Gore. My suggested process (hopefully near right) for requesting a rename is the for any person with a coi.

1: Find one or even two WP:RS indicating Vidyut Kale has changed their name to Vidyut Gore 2: Point to her blog which should indicate that is the name by she now wishes to be known. 3: Use the WP:REQUESTEDIT system on the talk page of the article to request the change 4: If you want to change the name of the article (that is move it) this might be regarded as a potentially controversial move. WP:RM and WP:RM#CM apply. It is

Requestedit will seem a little strange but I can point you at Talk:Imperva where you can see REQUESTEDIT being used. I am not sure if it is the best practice but at least you can see an example. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use WP:REQUESTEDIT - will this do as a RS? https://twitter.com/Vidyut/status/1111952956293894144 - The Vidyut Kale article in its deleted version recognized my Twitter account. Alternatively, I found my correct name listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNESCO_Workshop_(2019_New_Delhi)_Lists this links to the Wikidata page for my name, which has all variations of previous names, including Vidyut Kale. Ideally, on my own site, I don't use a surname at all, or at least would prefer to not list Vidyut Kale at all.

Vidyutblogger (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well विद्युत् गोरे the name is sorted (Well sort of) [on Wikidata] so that helps ... and I dont think you put it there given the history. I've archived it here. [1]. Problem is this Wiki might not accept that as a reliable source. Dates on the history there might be important. the Katie Price (Jordan) is the sort of approach that would probably be taken .... but that s not exactly the same senario) ... but I'm way out of my depth here and will likely give poor advice. It can probably be sorted on the article talk page if necessary or ask at the WP:Teahouse for advice. Actually Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is probably better advice than my ramblings from the top of my head. There is a lot of good advice there.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

So how do you recommend I proceed? I can describe my problem on the talk page and request an edit and provide whatever proofs are requested apart from these two. Obviously, I have papers with legal change of name and all as well, if it comes to that. Also, I have a request - could you take a look at the sources I have compiled in the sandbox page, and see if they are okay and advise me on what I should do about them? Writing an article is beyond my skills, and anyway, I shouldn't. But I could offer them on the talk page if you think that is appropriate or for now do nothing. There will probably be more, I keep getting into public interest type stuff but I found these in my bookmarks so... for now, till I hear what you suggest, I'm doing nothing - including no further compiling. Vidyutblogger (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

At at quick glance the references in your sandbox looked as they would be mostly be dismissed as WP:RS for one reason or another. The way forward will depend on the outcome of the DRV discussion. The DRV is very specifically discussing whether the AfD procedure was correctly followed and the Closure was correct. To summarise the DRV outcomes might include:

1. The DRV endorses the AfD and its closure and the Article is deleted.
2. The DRV determines to return the article to AfD whereupon the outcome might be retention or deletion.
3. The DRV overturns the AfD decision and the article is retained.

Should the article be deleted provided it is without prejudice it may be WP:REFUNDed and returned to draft (or a replacement put started its place). If issues are addressed it may be returned to mainspace as an article. Should that happen you would be welcome to monitor the progress and point out any errors of fact to the improvers (e.g. article name) or even top quality WP:RS but in general the more independent from anyone working on the article the better. Any attempt to circumvent the prior AfD by using an article name of Vidyut Gore would be viewed poorly. Because I am involved in DRV discussions on that page I do not want to say any more. But I was concerned when I seen history of the article that had I seen that at the time you comments at the AfD I would have immediately have undone your edits to the article and posted something like the warnings I did on the your talk page ... My only other comment is if you try to start or work on a article which COI's with other work as say a journalist it may be problematical ... it would be better to learn the ropes of wikipedia by working on something safe and uncontroversial like a village or a food dish or something. There is a process called AfC that helps but it is backlogged for about 3 months usually. For the moment with respect may I presume to suggest you mainly passively await the outcome of the DRV discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the heads-up. The Longford proposal could lead to many more similar ones and I don't really think any change to the status quo is necessary or helpful. Sarah777 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ..... Weirdly it was only that a Google search brought up Wikivoyage Longford Town which didn't have a custom banner page. I had a quick search on Commons for anything that had a picture usable for a banner (electing to specifically to avoid anything railway related (unless it was good and last option standing). In the event I chose the swimming pool which sort of worked with a 7:1 crop (I be honest I would have preferred the Canal or someething else but I'll work with what I can find). In the process I happened to note it was your photo and I know your are well opinionated on these matters! As I say I'm now back on the fence. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Supreme Leader

Care to explain these edits? – [2], [3]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington I have concerns over your what may be seen as negative interactions with with the sock concerned and determined perhaps best if I confirmed your action as seemingly correct. While neither you nor I have total independence i do not want them coming off block and reverting your edit just because you made it. I am to a degree gobsmacked no-one reverted that edit earlier. I did bareurl the article sometime back but the person doing the refill left one reference in an awful state with a .ly info capture redirect showing so I fixed that. I had thought about seeing if anything redeemable but got caught up in a Template:play audio that didn't really work here and then simply gave up and went away and did something else. In retrospect stupid I missed the obvious (and somewhat naive) sock use earlier but likely others seen it and let the DRV play out naturally before taking action. The sock may have a case for carefully using a sock per WP:SOCKLEGIT but result was WP:BADSOCK and I don't think the user currently has the experience to use WP:SOCKLEGIT correctly without running into issues. There are degrees of WP:AGF here, and some may say it is being stretched, but we have quite unusual circumstances.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Djm. Would you please point out diffs that display the negative interactions to me? I do not think questioning my "independence" would be an action based in policy simply because of the fact that I have participated in AFD/DRV discussions pertaining to the subject of the article/concerned user. My participation in the deletion/deletion review process does not disqualify me from reverting disruptive edits after I have identified them. The checkuser acted well within the ambit of administerial discretion by applying a block of one week on the sockmaster's account (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vidyutblogger). On scrutiny, there is no case to be made for WP:SOCKLEGIT, as User:Vidyutblogger had used User:Sparebug to leave a comment on the DRV of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale — [4]. Then, they also left a comment on another DRV, possibly to cover their tracks — [5]. After which, whilst editing with their primary account (User:Vidyutblogger), they deceptively claimed that this comment – [6] – had been their "only comment on this deletion review so far" — [7]. It is entirely possible that we have WP:COMPETENCE issues at hand, and that being a relatively new user Vidyutblogger does not have a grasp over policy. In that case, they may be encouraged to, and assisted with, making a case on their talk page to the satisfaction of the blocking administrator. Although, it appears that they are now claiming it wasn't them who had abused sockpuppets – [8]. Make of that what you will. In any case, thank you for clarifying your position. Based on your edit summaries to these diffs – [9], [10] – it is not clear whether it is you, personally, who is questioning my independence, but if it is you, then WP:POINT would apply to you as well ("do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"). If I were you, I would have waited for the block to have expired, and then instructed the defaulting party appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have virtually zero seconds to respond before hitting the road but that comment doesn't look good on face value and checkusers can likely tell with almost infallible accuracy if it is good or not .... Thankyou for pointing that out but I should of looked. Tony certainly gave WP:AGF but it will be running out ....If someone was saying sorry I shouldn't have been using two accounts wont do it again that's one thing ... if their denying its another thing (unless there was a super state conspiracy to discredit .... unlikely ...) Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vidyutblogger: In essence Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington was concerned over the technique I used to try ensure you (or friend sparebug!) did not come off black and get into an WP:EDITWAR. There may be some nuances beyond that but its probably best you ignore them. (I've lost exactly what I was going to say here because the following discussion on the Revert discussion below is in many ways more pressing from a Wikipedia viewpoint). Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Supreme Leader additions

@Vidyutblogger : I have run out of window tonight (and more specifically before MOTD) for covering the specific issues with this edit to Supreme leader and related matters so I hope to cover this tomorrow. Please remember at times I inconsistently speak absolute drivel and rubbish so while I try my best efforts I can be wrong. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Probably the immediate issue that arises when Vidyut/Vidyutblogger edited the Supreme leader article was coming under the scope of WP:COIPOLITICAL. Actually this extends to at least some degree to any topic covered in Vidyut blogs where issues of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:COI, WP:NOV, WP:POINTy ... can be at high risk of inadvertently occurring even in the best of good faith and neutrality can be hard to verify. To an extent the same sort of issues with a company COI editor writing about a company ... 99% of times the good bits tend to be emphasized and problems skipped over and ignored. (Equally others may care to over emphasize issues).
• The entry for Modi was of a larger size and different in nature to other entries in the list. That leads to a possible issue of WP:UNDUE. The fact it had comparatively so many references may also have been an issue drawing more attention to the entry and in the reference list. That isn't to say other entries didn't have there own and in some respects worse issues ... the problem here is undue weight is a concern which becomes more of a problem if there are other concerns as well. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• The use of WP:BAREURLS (see also Wikipedia:Inline citation ) is a minor issue but an issue. In general its far preferable to triage source quality through citations than being forced to visit the site. When I visited the Supreme leader page after reviewing contribution history given comments on on the DRV that you had been active my firsts thoughts were something along the lines of Oh dear ... trouble ... there's going to problems here as sure as eggs are eggs ... likely coi issues ... what are all these bare references ... oh hell one of them's twitter ... I really don't want to touch this .... there's too many bare url references anyway (I had not inspected carefully and had assumed with checking ... incorrectly ... that not all of the 8 out of 10 bare url references had been added by yourself) ... I know I call in Bare url fix. So I added a Template:Cleanup bare URLs which usually means an (independent) helpful person will helpfully appear somewhat shortly and do the conversions to cites. (I can run the Refill tool myself but it does sometimes need to be subjectively checked and sometimes I will request a third party to do it for any of a whole host of reasons). Anyway the conversion resulted in a horrible introduction of a .ly domain in a title and a syntax error and I immediately took action to correct that with a summary indicating I was only concerned with the syntax of the reference (and implying I was saying nothing about the suitability or quality of the source). In summary bare url references are better than nothing but not as good as good quality citations (and for that matter its even better if archive links are also present, see #Strandhill references). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Twitter and video sources. I delved a little into the twitter reference as could be highly problematic and likely to fall foul of WP:TWITTER and Wikipedia:Citing sources. As far as I can remember Supreme leader was mentioned at the end of twitter that did not automatically play and I think was difficult to find. Per WP:PAGENUM this would have been difficult for someone to find ... and I recall from memory it is necessary for the source to be easily and simply identifiable from the given reference. Without analyzing further I suspect others might point out a whole host of problems as well. As a rule of thumb I would suggest it may be almost impossible to use twitter as a successful source unless you really know what you are doing and aware of all policies. It may be noticable at this point I got distracted by playing with Template:Play audio (and les noticably wondering if Emperor Dalek could be added to the article ... then wondered briefly if Davros would be better ... ) ... I then determined spending too much time and best to quit and leave it alone.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• The remaining sources used may or may not be better. It may be they were, which is possibly why some may have seen them but preferred not to remove during the DRV as may have caused unnecessary distraction from that process. It may also have been felt content removal might have been subjective. Its also why abusing sockpuppet accounts as a reason for removal avoids getting into a subjective debate. ( It's precisely the same technique I used (correctly or incorrectly) quoting lack of attribution in the merge WP:MERGETEXT for the merge of Relational database management system into Relational database ... (though I'd agree it can't be left as is ... ongoing)) ... also the termination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management via WP:COPYVIO may have been used to avoid the AfD discussion ... though by weird perchance in tha WP:G12 proved invalid and by random just happened to end up on the 3rd April 2019 DRV page ... which is how I randomly came across Vidyut). I'm probably diversifying verbosely quite a lot. But overall I am at this point do not wish to given an opinion if Modi should rightly be present on that list or not but I will say I do not object an attempt to form a case for it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Should you still wish to add Modi to the list I would suggest Template:Request edit per WP:REQUESTEDIT as the way to go. IF you fully make obvious you have a conflict of interest. IF you do this you will have done due diligence and the request will be independently reviewed and may be actioned or not ... I would dutifully request the independent volunteers who in good faith deal with (and action or otherwise) these requests are not harrassed even if their decision not to implement something seems unreasonable. Copying and quoting an example from Talk:RMG Networks#Reply 8-APR-2019 with due acknowledgements to the author:Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The best way to request changes to an article is to use the phrase "Please change x to y using z", as shown below.

Change x to y using z

x A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any) y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any) z A reference which verifies the requested change Example edit request: Please change: The Sun's diameter is 25 miles.  ↑This is x↑  to read as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles.  ↑This is y↑  using as a reference: Harinath, Paramjit (2018). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.  ↑This is z↑

• @Vidyutblogger: I've said a lot above and it will undoubtably contain errors and others will have different view but I hope it is overall useful. I do believe you may the capability of making useful contributions to Wikipedia ... but also that you are at extremely high risk of getting yourself blocked which would be a shame and I'm very sure we don't want that to happen. I welcome comments and different opinions and angles from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington but do not wish to get embroiled into a debate anything ... I currently have far more balls in the air currently and far to much discussions compared to content work. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I observe Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has useful comments on events at User talk:Vidyutblogger#Your edits on Supreme Leader and suggested any further commentary on this matter is placed there and I concur people should now follow that suggestion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Strandhill references

Hello, I wonder if you intended to add archive links for so many of the Strandhill references? On trying a few, like the CSO 2016 and logainm references, the live links worked fine for me. Thanks Declangi (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• The issues with WP:LINKROT are enormous. I would say a high proportion of links end up as as dead link's after 10 or 20 years. And then this is a verification problem. Most reference URL links I now put on articles from scratch are backed by archives. The IAbot tool I used just does the job. It missed one here I did myself, that link could have been said to be promotional and if I had time I might have preferred a citation from the champion say.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the idea now. For me, what's a bit confusing currently is that it's hard to see if the archiving is of a live or dead link, without going into the page code/markup. I wonder if the average Wikipedia reader understands the distinction. But I realise this issue has already been debated and considered on Village Pump etc. In the case of Strandhill, you're correct that most references would be dead in 10 years. Declangi (talk)

Its sometimes possible for IAbot to archive a rubbish version of the page (either content totally changed or a custom error page) and one is actually responsible for back checking after use. Its actually why its better to ensure there is an archive copy of a link as soon as the reference is made. Then its always possible to switch to it simply by changing dead-url=no to dead-url=yes. Marking dead-links with Template:dead-link is useful if nothing else but sometimes these are transitory. I'll try to remember to take a look at it sometime and check everything over. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert

You reverted my merge, but did not revert the source article. Please let me know what your specific objection is, as the article was in much better shape after. I will correct the deficiency and we can move on. Lfstevens (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I believe reverted both synchronously. However I have just proposed to begin a replacement merge discussion on the talk page. I do not have sufficient bandwidth to do that justice tonight. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Lfstevens: You've probably noticed I've tried to gather support for a WP:MERGETEXT with redirect to (RDBMS) section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Databases#Merge discussion of Relational database management system into Relational database. There has been no response so far. If there continues to be no response after 2, 3 or 4 days or thereabouts I shall explicitly ping members of the original discussion to see if there is any objection to the revised proposal. If none occurs after a further 2, 3 or 4 days or there is general agreement I will perform the merge. This will have the effect of ensure attributions are all good. I may possibly initially remove all or most merged in content as requirements for attributions will have been met. Which regards to the specific contents improvements you previously made I have not more than scanned them briefly and have at this point no view on specifics but I may visit prior to merge but my general reasoning is stage 1 technically complete merge. stage 2 improve article. Hope you find this satisfactory. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. Appreciate the courteous discussion, although I wish it had happened beforehand. Lfstevens (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

My brain is in recovery mode and it didn't have a clue or a plan at 06:00 BST Saturday ... if you had added to the existing merge discussion I would have been less inclined to revert especially if you had given indication to merge. But Wikipedia encourages WP:BOLD. I don't actually think I was entitled to revert if you had precisely followed WP:MERGETEXT although I'm not sure there was consensus in the previous discussion. More importantly I think there is now a better chance of getting consensus and moving forward. I should really become British PM to sort Brexit. Thanks for understanding.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are sources

I am happy to add them instead of a prod, ex [11]. But if I don't see sources, I don't think that asking for them, or any other rationale, is a problem. A problem is that deprod can be too easily abused by spammers, making us waste time at AfD. A non-spammer editor should have no problem providing a source or a valid rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• We have different angles on whether that is an issue. But I am more concerned if the root cause is really that the advice on Template:Proposed deletion needs improvement. A dePROD without improvement or something will lead to most PRODers going to AfD ... though anon IP PRODers may not and sometimes people are prepared to put in a lightweight PROD or mischievous/speculative PROD but are not prepared or unlikely to goto AfD and in these cases I myself sometimes dePROD without improvement. (The last case spring to mind who PRODed 10 related articles in about 10 minutes ... the first was reasonable; two were definitely unreasonable; and the remainder spread across the spectrum in between. I think I dePRODed the most reasonable with no improvement ... as no challenge emerged simply dePROD'd the remainder (except the first) as unsafe PRODs ... No if you PROD an article there's an almost certainty its unfit to stay in mainspace in its current condition (and I'm not sure I can justify putting almost in this sentence). I've kind of forgotten why I've started writing this 2.5 hours ago (thankyou XDFcloser!) but I must move on and need to think if a change to Template:Proposed deletion might be helpful.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Some other

wiki than en, might be a better choice, in light of your linguistic proficiency. Proper communication is necessary esp. when maneuvering in areas of quasi-admin maintenance (CSD, PROD et al) and your machine translated(??) texts are quite difficult to parse. ∯WBG^converse 19:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Winged Blades of Godric. This is a cruel and unwarranted statement. You don't even present any diffs? Was this provoked by their contest of your WP:G5 at RHaworth's talk page? [12] You are turning an established user from WP [13] over an overturned G5? Surely you cannot mean to do this? As you will know as well as anyone, this is a volunteer project, which survives on the donated time of experienced editors. We should be nicer and fairer to each other. Otherwise, this project has little long-term future. Britishfinance (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• To mix metaphors, I seeems as though the winged blades have flown completely off the rails. Does this edit display a lack of linguistick proficiency? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Britishfinance--I have been keeping a tab over Leighpark's contributions post the Supreme Leader incidence (check above threads) rather than after the decline of my CSD and I stand by what I said. Also, whilst you chide me for merely advising him that some other wiki might be a better venue for his editorial efforts, you seem to have comfortably missed that Leighpark was accusing me of having a negative political COI because I chose to tag a spam. Bye, ∯WBG^converse 09:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• On re-thoughts, withdrawing my statement. Unless, we do overlap, I don't care. Also, Rhaworth, we agree to disagree that the mentioned diff is linguistically proficient. ∯WBG^converse 09:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to add a little about the political coi issue. I had concern activists associated with the page's author (though probably not the page author themselves), might have claimed political suppression especially in view of the current elections. In the rush to defend a CSD on the talk page my editing was less considered than I would have liked with the rush being reasonable insofar as events proved I had less than ten minutes to mount a defence from a standing start(albeit I subsequently discovered I could have simply removed the CSD notice as non-author). Post CSD I obviously switched to attempting to get the page recovered. While I might argue the risk of allegations of political bias was a reason not to delete the page under CSD equally I cannot conceive that I would not be attempting to defend WBG robustly from any accusation of political bias. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Quick response as I see on my email I have alerts from various: I will admit myself and Winged Blades of Godric have had a clash in the past and perhaps understandably and perhaps mainly due to my fault they are somewhat upset. To my understanding Winged Blades of Godric has certainly been noted by people (who I think know what they are talking about) for doing some excellent work previously (and probably currently as well). For I number of reason including indirect linkages to recent discussions on noticeboards it is best this is de-escalated and I appreciate moves towards de-escalation. (This is the first page I've looked at since logging on). I would be far more concerned if the references were on a user page ... but on a sandbox ... not so much. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric RHaworth. Appreciate the withdrawal, nice gesture, and fair outcome. Even though we don't (seem?) to have a WP-acronym for it, the biggest "own goal" I see on the project is when an experienced/productive user says "screw it, not worth it" due to an issue over some specific edit/action that in the greater scheme is not material (versus that user's contribution). We are all volunteers here living in an extraordinary high-pressure environment where every action we take is publically logged forever (what corporation could live like that). We all make mistakes (I have made huge ones), even very experienced users (and admins). Apart from the <<1% of cases where an experienced editor is really a problem, we should cut each other some slack and give each other the benefit of the doubt. I see WBG contributing well all over WP, and I can see they have a great passion for the project, but I see some of the same in Djm-leighpark too. Mark Twain captured it [14]; none of us have any long-term future in this project if we can't see the good in our experienced colleagues? Britishfinance (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone - let's stay on topic.

You basically agree with me, but your insinuations that I have are at best unhelpful and distracting from the real problem here which is dealing with poor quality vanity images. I'm quite happy to WP:DISENGAGE and let editors discuss it out on the talk page - but I'd much rather talk about the relative merits of good photographs rather than the inadequacies of poor ones. I'm quite happy to encourage users to take photographs where those are adequate quality. I think that's brilliant. I hope people like Dave or Hammersfan can improve their photography to useful levels. It's actually something I'm passionate about. Tony May (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Tony May I'm concerned you style of interaction may be confrontational or escalatory or baiting ... quite possibility with no explicit intention by yourself. You may not see it that way. But usually you have a point. And often you are first on the scene to spot an issue. What I think might be useful is a UK railways guidelines essay on image placement and suitability (that has been mutually reviewed by several people) which could be pointed at rather than ending up with a one on one. (I'd also want people to have volunteered images for use in such an essay or where inclusion to illustrate a particular point by a respected image provider would not be seen as detrimental). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Tony May : I just re-engaged on the 378 talk page and have presented what I consider the 3 most possible candidates for consensus to decide. I've tried to lighten the tone a little and starting a new section may help concentrate on content. I'm not sure I presented neutrally but I think its a sort of reasonable attempt to present content. But I may have dropped my usual clangers and put my foot in it (again!).Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd also note an area where we may put different weight is in the background .... I will probably (usually) tend to favour cropping and bringing the subject closer whereas I suspect you may favour more the setting of the background. Its just a feeling. You have probably noticed I generally work more on Republic of Ireland 5' 3" historic rail articles and I'm generally grateful for any image at all. I'll also tend to try to intervene when the images seem to be disrupting the rendering of an article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• To state the Obvious there's the discussion (or not) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Livery diagrams and I was sort of bamboozled by Useddenim's reply and have tried to bring it back towards a content discussion (The good faith olive branch went down the pan). It is the Easter period and I am still hoping for response in that section ... from at least one diagram support and probably yourself (Which is why I was eyeing to see if you'd made recent contributions). If there is no balanced discussion response I may put forward a specific explicit prescriptive proposal based probably upon something like a single diagram (and sometimes two) may have encyclopedic value however liveries may be more appropriate at Operating Company level. Thankyou.10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm probably going to try to reach out to Dave on his talk page what I hope to be an empathetic manner. I'll probably be mentioning you with the aim of trying to get Dave to avoid getting into heated interactions with you. You are probably aware Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98 effectively concluded a mischeivious (third party) IP was trying to stir things up between you and Dave and I will be presenting that to Dave. Could I possibly ask you voluntarily and without prejudice to try to avoid interactions directly with Dave during any such process but to come to me if necessary. I'd be grateful if you could try. This process has little chance of success and may break down but I'd like to give it a go and would be grateful if you could support my attempt. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please self-revert your WP:NPA at [15]. Or this is going to be reported to WP:AN. I haven't seen such a NPA violation in quite a while, but I am giving you the chance to remove it - everyone has a bad day or 5 minutes every now and then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please report to WP:ANI. I am reaching the point where an indef ban would be a mercy. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are nicer ways to take a break that don't involve attacking other editors, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPA/WP:CIV_review_for_a_comment. I've no desire to see you blocked, but I also have no desire to be a stress-relief target for someone having a bad day and not willing to back dawn and apologize, sorry. Again, if you withdraw your comment and apologize, I will be totally satisfied, no need for any blocks on my account. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) While I see a personal comment, it does not seem to be a particularly actionable "personal attack". Djm, could you please clarify why do you think there are WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BAIT issues here? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @NHN: as you cam imagine you and I have issues not probably the best person to be here. There are a long history of prods and AfDs here and P his hit I think about 2 on my watchlist that could be resolved prior to AfD. kst which is a nom. of his which is still at AfD->DRV->AfD which I am still in progress for considering a rescue for as noted at the DRV. Thus chucking more stuff at AfD while not wrong is also not right. You can check the I's between P and I going back. I have other issues outstanding as well. Perhaps ANI is a good choice.... Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Aggressive attitude at Talk:Gaelic handball

Djm-leighpark, I do not understand your aggressive attitude towards me at Talk:Gaelic handball. You asked a question of Sky Blu 2 and, knowing that there was a very good chance he would not respond, I offered what I thought was a helpful suggestion, i.e. that you go ahead and close. I could have closed it myself, but I thought that it might look like I was trying to pre-empt you, so I left it as just a suggestion. I got a snotty response from you in return. I tried to explain – foolishly, as it turned out – that I had suggested it because Sky Blu 2 was inactive at that time, and I got "Whoo .... hold the pony". What's that about? Then I say I'm not arguing with you, and you start talking about taking it to ANI. Then, when the matter is actually settled, you come back to me with "DIY advice for bold people", telling me about "rules of engagement" and being left "open to accusations of incitement". Rules of engagement?? Incitement?? We were never in any war, except maybe one in your head! Please, please have a read of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. All my comments were made in good faith, and I don't deserve to be abused like that. Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Scolaire ... add your comments to the the report about me at WP:ANI#WP:NPA/WP:CIV review for a comment. I had given the guy 2 days 2 respond. Other people were egging we on to do it sooner when they coud simply have cloased the merge themself. If you feel bullied i apologise. But I was not going to be bullied into closing earler than I said I would. I will lightly be closing the merge at some point after i get home. I kind of spend my life between AfD DRV dePRODs Merges & ANI and even when I do a ittle on the old GS&WR I gets ripped apart. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see G's closed it which is fine as nom. had agreed concensus ( I assume he's done the mechnanics). It was always better if someone other than him had brought in the close but now especially ok has nom has agreed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I wasn't aware that somebody else had already taken you to ANI, and I have no interest in sticking my oar in there. But do you not think if you learned to moderate your language it would make life easier for you and for others? Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am amazed anyone thinks I think! Now if you threatened me with Sarah777 that would be a different matter ... look what happened at Longford ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your points made here and here; you clearly are working in WP's best interests, ensuring that no abuse of power is ever gotten away with. Thanks! It's appreciated. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

I just read about the "relist" that you mention I should be trouted for. Which one? I had no involvement in relisting either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management so I am confused? Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• This could be the case of the hockey player who said ... I turned round and punched him and then realised it was the wrong guy. I hope I've struck the relevant section .... I need to add of stack of things to check on when I've time ... an admin overrulling an admin 7 day relist is different to an admin overruling a extended user 7 day relist (at least in my book). Thankyou for your understanding and if my retraction has been insufficent or has omitted something.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's completely okay, you don't have to be sorry or trouting yourself! We are humans after all. Also I agree with reopening the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management at DRV (seems that 2nd relister you were looking for was actually Randykitty and not me, and the 3rd relister was Jo-Jo Emerus, both admins). I have issues that the additions Mark Viking did weren't discussed, and there isn't much talk about the actual subject's notability as well. Also, that means a redirect Marketing operations management should be restored per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh ... your usernames both being Jo. I am somewhat heeding the comments of DGG whose experience in this area is generally to be respected (even if we sometimes or even often have taken opposing viewpoints at an AfD). Thus I am knife-edged minded not to go DRV at this point but to await consensus for an alternative method of handling the article. If others feel they wish to take it to DRV in the meanwhile I understand and will likely support that. This area is complex and I am currently actively involved in about 5+ Afd's/DRV's and a 3 or more article rescues/re-incarnations and have recently been reported to WP:ANI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User page

Hey! I just saw this and I was so confused that I felt it would be best to ask you; what is this supposed to mean? --MrClog (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating the revenue within Infobox

Can the revenue be updated within the infobox basis this link: https://www.zensar.com/about-us/media/press-release/zensar-reports-202-growth-pat-and-176-growth-revenue-fy19 to $566.9 Million for Zensar Technologies --Stevethomas4 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Stevethomas4 ... Actually yes ...

1. simply revert my edit revert (Dont worry about theWP:3RR on this occasion)
2. follow it with another edit blanking the archive-url= an archive-date= in the reference.
3. Then run the old IAbot Checking the add archives to all non-dead references (Optional). If you have any worries about security, exposure, virus's or whatever etc with this then ping me to do it.
4. Feel free to WP:TROUT me for breach of WP:DONTBITE. (I had a rough time saving this at WP:AFD and I don't want it getting out of hand so it goes back there).

Any problems with any steps then I'll good faith do them unless I spot a bad problem in the reference source. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L&YR Class 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Aspinall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC) {{Done}} Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

LetterWise

You tagged me on this entry, so I added a couple of academic references and did a couple of small edits. I rarely edit pages nowadays, hope this helps. Dkechag (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes ... thankyou very much indeed. Hopefully this will help at the AfD discussion and I think should put article retention beyond doubt. I still need to work the article a bit but again thankyou. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. If you are curious about my moving the "less resources" phrase, it is because it does not apply to Iridium phones (they have a reasonably competent XAP CPU and enough RAM & ROM for word prediction). Dkechag (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks: I know knew very little about all this and have to work off the sources. I actually really ought to do a further pass through it all to check all claims etc. are reasonable. Any corrections are more than welcome. But it is not 100% certain the article will not yet be preserved .. it may be deleted. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. About the start sentence, I can find from the Delaware registry [16] that Eatoni Ergonimics was incorporated in 2000, but it started in 1999 as an LLC, so I suspect that's the "year founded" we should go with? However the results don't seem linkable. Edit: this court case verifies it was an oral partnership in 1998, LLC in 1999, INC in 2000. Dkechag (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted and makes sense. I think the sources are pretty well in place but the article likely needs a good going over just to smooth a number of kinks such as that. I'll probably do that if I can get an uninterupted period in a day or two. Thanks again.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion proposal of Karikku

Hi mate, understand that you have proposed the article, Karikku, for deletion. Just wanted to inform you that I have contested the proposal as the subject of the article, a web channel, has received a notable award and is one of the most popular web channels in Malayalam language (YouTube play buttons, subscriber base and view count of over 180 million attest this). --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally would have had more sympathy if you had not content forked Draft:Karikku but had developed that instead and ideally left it to go via AfC. That would have shown more of a collaborative effort rather than challenging the DRV. An admin looking to action the WP:G4 should review your contest reasoning. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mate, the only reason I got into this was that I happened to watch the Mazhavil Manorama award function the other night on TV where Karikku channel was awarded and later, checked the web to find out more. The earlier draft did not establish the notability properly, I felt, and hence my little mite on the article creation. Funnily, after more than 1500 articles spread over 11 years, this was my first article on a web channel. Anyway, thanks for letting me know of your thoughts. --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm .... Business address is on domain karikku.com ... website there says Feel the freshness inside!! - Coming soon... ... implies WP:TOOSOON ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Didn't check the website, seems they are just about to come out with one. Media reports cited in the article say they are active since 2018. As I mentioned earlier, the award and YouTube buttons help establish motability, I guess.jojo@nthony (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is the job of their official website to direct their groupies to facebook, youtube, .... it isn't the job WP to do this. We (WP or wikidata) do one point at their official website. simples. well .. maybe not. maybe just my cynical view. Finding a wordpress queen cant be that difficult....Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi mate, noticed your comment while reverting an edit of mine as way far too much concern of promotion for content added with summary 'Reference edited with ProveIt' . I would request you to go through my close to 12 years of Wiki activities which, I am confident, would correct you. The Provelt comment is an auto-generated one when we use that tool. For your information, the reason for my edit was:

1. the website address is already there in the infobox

2. the YouTube link in the infobox is a dead one.

Correcting an error of an editor, inadvertent or otherwise, is a laudable effort but if the comments that go with it is within the limits of courtesy, the effort would be all the more appreciable.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The chesspersons of Chennai don't call me Grumpy XXX for nothing. By all means mediate this on the article talk page. Perhaps it will end up at AfD. Perhaps I just stopped it from ending up there. Enough said.Djm-leighpark (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manjaros has been accepted

Manjaros, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mjs1991 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 11:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

What a fucking load of twaddle! Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) What a fucking WP:HOUND !!!

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit.

User:Doomsdayer520 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article "Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit". However the existence of this article, along with the "No Deal" section of Brexit negotiations, various portions of European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and several related articles, adds to a situation that seems a bit messy and redundant. Or in other words. a reader who is exploring the Brexit topic will encounter a whole bunch of different articles that have similar information and possibly some inconsistencies. You might consider discussing this issue with anyone who is active at Talk:Brexit.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the curation. There may be a case for various options, at a minimum I might consider an update template on the article or may be even a redirect. There's been a couple of articles and movements and settling on things on the past couple of days and I've not reviewed anything

Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit to ResourceSpace

Why did you undo my edit? Removing the proposed deletion tag is the correct way to object to deletion as per the official objection procedure. --Dan Huby (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the objection procedure Dan Huby (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant for a WP:AFD. I suggest you put that notice back in place. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No-deal Brexit

Your unilateral changing of the target is contested - the place to discuss is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Deal, rather than edit war over it. Widefox; talk 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I had put a Keep there but it didn't stick due to an edit conflict I missed and I have 2 other edits in progress at present. The problem is when someone changes things and then goes for an XfD based upon the changed state rather then presenting that at the XfD. That the No-deal area needs a refactor I have little issue with ... and some useful sources have emerged in the last week. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest seeing WP:PTM, which is the crux? (and WP:MOSDAB in general). Widefox; talk 21:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that there's two editors reverting your edit [17] on No-deal Brexit, you've done two reverts [18] [19] in 24hrs so the usual yadder yadder about edit warring applies (I'm sure you're aware about it). Really, next time when your edit is contested, discuss before trying to force it through against another editor or editors. I take it from [20] that you've stopped edit warring now? I shall leave this now. Widefox; talk 10:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

? 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. Widefox; talk 18:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

?? Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The labours of Hercules

I wish I hadn't started! A huge amount of updating is needed...

Let's call the whole thing off I predict a mass exodus from the civil service because this has all the ingredients of a career-destroying project failure. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately one is stuffed and no-one has the confidence to !vote no-confidence. More seriously I have somewhat been of the concern this article may not have been the ideal foundation for a No-deal Brexit article and a lot of update might be needed and a black sheet might have been a better option. Bold refactoring may be required. Think of the opportunity ... not the issues. I have enough problems on the D&KR, Westland Row track diagrams, Letterwise, iSPIRT and the soap star.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlisle Pier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Rennie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Draft:St Antony's Church Machad, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Djm-lighpark, Contest CSD on article talk page but do not remove the CSD tag. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I understand I am within procedure to remove the tag providing I am not the creator per WP:CSD (The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so).. I'd allege have been blantantly ignored previously when using contesting using the button and putting on the talk page so I've been educated not to go that route. If I've misread the policies etc. I apologoise. In fact I am not the creator of said page so I believe your templating is invalid.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Djm-lighpark, greetings. Removing CSD, AfD would considered a vandalism edit. If you click on the twinkle and under "warn" and on seecond field, you will find from the drop down list "Removal of deletion of tag'. If you want to contest, state your reasons on the article talk page. Admin will always check the article talk page before action. If the admin deem the article falls under the deletion criteria then the article will be deleted. If not the admin will remove the tag and state reason on the edit summary. Hope this help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't use twinkle. I only raw edit. Enough said. The admin does not ALWAYS check the talk page ... he should but there have been cases dragged to ANI where he wasn't and I got severly disrupted by that. You have already LIED with the template you place on by page. The notice clearly says "If this draft does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. " .... ok I suppose I this implies I intend to fix it. Suppose I might tend to userify it but we have this sort of copyvio fork ongoing .... Ho hum Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Admin always check the talk page before act on CSD. Fix the article if you want, or contest on talk page, Removing the CSD tag and do nothing, it seems/like trying to avoid CSD. If admin delete the page wrongly, go to that admin and talk to them. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA ... I'm choosing to try a fix .... but really just everyones time will be wasted.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on No-deal Brexit; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Bollocks! Disruptive editing. I've had to fix the fuckin' thing and the Cleanup Bare URLs screwed up. Take me to WP:ANI and so on. ... Twat. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ MPS1992. You just reverted cite improvements and reverted back to broken syntax version! Are you mad ??????? + an Iabot run. thats standard stuff. And disruptional. Right Bully tactic that. Drag me to WP:ANI then. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Exactly how many such mistakes do you make with each set of edits made by "an Iabot run"? It looks like I will need to look into this rather deeper. MPS1992 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• It was barfing a version back but its been fairly solid recently. It's usually fire and forget but it did do 73 cite updates. I tend to ensure pretty well any online cite I have done has a wayback archive ... I take a peek if there was an appparent issue with it. .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Across the board addition of archive.org links to every cite at no-deal Brexit

I don't understand why you have gone to that much trouble? It makes the citations more difficult to navigate. I have only felt it necessary when the original is dead. Have I missed a policy change? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Its a bit of pays money takes choice. If one waits to till the links are dead one may find they don't have an archive which is a bit of a problem and a bit too late. I originally had all/mpst the refs nicely in the reflist which keeps clear of the text and in one section ... I've sort of been trying Harvard as an alternative recently but probably less effective on online links. If I see bare URLs I'll usually call in the cleanup specialists and IAbot it afterwards but they left a syntax issue. Is there a policy on this I'm not aware of? Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understood that there is a bot that identifies all new URLs and promptly gets them into the archive, so that they are guaranteed to survive? It may be the same or similar process that automatically detects dead links and updates the ref to add the archive link. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I come across stuff where that hasn't seem to have happened. Less so recently. But not all archiving works.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

George Hughes (engineer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Aspinall

L&YR Class 2 (Aspinall) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Midland

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

'Under construction' tag

I will make a point of not removing 'Under Construction' tags in future. I have felt free to remove (or insert) other tags, such as 'lede too short', and have not received any adverse reactions. Valetude (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou. The bot removed them after 7 days or so anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

look at the map on the page

the content is verifiable

please find something worthwhile to do with your time instead of reverting stuff you clearly don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.232.167 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou for supplying a reference that I have reFilled. The map did not verify the claim of 2017. The understanding of the signing of the comments I do have but I do forget sometimes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Djm-leighpark, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Djm-leighpark: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oracle Database

You reverted the sentence: One of the goal of the Oracle Database is to build cutting edge technologies like Multitenancy, JSON, analytics, Machine Learning, Blockchain, and many more, directly within a converged infrastructure to greatly simplify applications' development and deployment. due to incorrect grammar. Can you help me rephrqse it? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFVerrier (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I have indicated on your talk page you likely have a WP:COI with Oracle/Oracle Database you have not refuted. It is been you build up a history of contributing to Wikipedia on articles not connected with Oracle, and having gained such experience over many hours return. Having chosen to revert my edit is is probably better to seek help elsewhere as the the standard welcome message I game on your page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am an Oracle employee. As such, I know what I am talking about and my proposed changes are not marketing information. I just want to make sure that the information is readable and understandable. On this page, there is way too much information that is overloading to understand correctly. My only intent is to make it easier for readers and consistent with other Wikipedia Oracle pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Exadata . Even if I have a WP:COI , I should be allowed to at least propose changes. My first request is to add the sentence above as it is a fundamental characteristic of the Oracle Database that is not expressed on the page. How do you want me to proceed for this and other changes going forward ? Many thanks in advance. JFVerrier (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)JFVerrier

Are you sure you are an Oracle employee? The old Template:Uw-coi help template I put on your talk page shouldly likely have been read by one and they would have worked old the need to declare WP:PAID and edit under COI correctly? Or at a minimum officially declared your WP:COI rather than being outed by me. But quite frankly the chance of any new Wikipedia editor reading through that is next to zero. Probably best starting point is is to put Template:Paid on your user page. For content additions my understanding is best practice is to use Wikipedia:Edit requests / Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request / Template:Request edit. .... Please note I have written this is a hurry an am on and off line intermittent today so check this stuff at the help desk if necessary ... This is like running an Oracle database on a VM allocated 2MB of ram ... possible but quick tricky. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating James Pim.

User:Onel5969 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Very nice job on this article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@onel5969 - ... thanks ... I've hit the buffers and need a coffee ... [21] .. can't leverage as didn't mention James! ... still havn't forgiven you so sabotaging passenger locomotive though ... still you have incentivise me to given Harrison's thesis though but I'd foot a couple of floor of turf before betting through that. James Pim Snr. was brewer and I need a decent ref Junior lived in Monkstown castle and we needs a reliable source for the Pim's starting the Dublin chamber of Commerce as I am not sure yer man talking 2 4fm is a WP:RS. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Djm-leighpark!

Happy New Year!

Djm-leighpark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Malcolm Crowe (computer scientist) has been accepted

Malcolm Crowe (computer scientist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

PROD of LitwareHR

Hi I gather from your removal of my PROD tag that you have an objection to the description of LitwareHR as a piece of fictitious software. This isn't my description, it's the description used in the article itself and in the sources. Mccapra (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup. It ain't fictitious. Its badly put but the software is not fictitious but its the use case is fictitious.12:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ThePrint and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ThePrint, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Djm-leighpark! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Vidyut Gore

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Well done. Britishfinance (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That BLP AfD almost killed my enthusiam for Wikipedia – much appreciate that you took it on to restore it. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

indeed Good work DJM. Britishfinance The quality of AfD participation has been deteriorating. But there are always some folks like us who can see a notable article and turn it around. Feel free to ping me as well if you need a hand on any India/military/terrorism related article. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For doing some very good work and improving the article National Informatics Centre. DBigXrayᗙ 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated. The quite frankly its more brutal and rough prose going in to re-bulk up the article than any sort of beautiful ... though I would nearly quote Dick Strawbridge how beautiful is THAT! looking at the shapes of the references and names appearing on the sources which would likely scare most from dragging it to AfC if they found it like that in the first place. (That's not the same as deep scrutiny). I'd always suggest peoples consider WP:THREE for those wishing to save articles and maybe checkout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale for seeing hard scrutiny and the DRV on [[22]] as well. But quite frankly AfD/DRV is not what I cam to WP for, I come to do content and AfD/DRV detracts from that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad you liked them. Between Beer and strawberry, I often choose the safer option as a wikilove . A TLDR version of this fracas will be much appreciated. I could not agree more with your last line. In fact in the first few months/year of my editing, I considered AfD boring place where folks were arguing and doing less useful work when they could be working to improve the article. But overtime with experience things changed for me. I now consider AfD as an important part of the work here. I consider saving an article at AfD even more important than starting out something on my own, because I believe that by saving a notable article at AfD you are preserving the contribution of many editors (most of whom are IPs/ new editors). This in turn prevents them from getting discouraged after seeing something notable (in their opinion ) get deleted. So in a way you save their work, you saved some editors from leaving and that is a big contribution. Of course one has to draw a line and crap cant be kept to encourage noobs. I regularly patrol AfDs in hopes of saving article that folks are not interested into participating for whatever reasons cultural/social/linguistic/laziness etc etc. I regularly find pile on votes lacking substance and mimicking others on AfDs. And all these encourages me to participate more into the AfDs. I hope my thought encourages you as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on Lansweeper

I think you made a good call on looking past the COI issues and recognizing the article's potential. Nice work on improving and rescuing the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

PUREVPN

I think you are overreacting and discriminating users here. First of all, I found that article as a complete mess as it is clearly not a neutral encyclopedia article. Second, I found skillfully inserted negative info in all the sections and it was mostly based on one unreliable blog review. Third, in the Reception section, I found the advertising of the other VPNS: "PC Magazine's Max Eddy wrote, "PureVPN is not a bad service by any measure, but it's not the best."[6] He preferred competitor VPNs Private Internet Access, which "offers a spartan experience at an unbeatable price", and NordVPN, which "costs slightly more than average but packs excellent features into an excellent interface". How that information can be neutral and encyclopedic? I would better suggest to remove the page about PureVPN from Wikipedia than keep it like that. I hope you don't have COI here as it looks like you prevent cleaning the article by all means, and automatically accusing a person in COI without even looking the updates and changes made. I would like to bring it further to other editiors as you are clearly overreacting here.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the way you reacted hear I have to do something until a third party looks at it. You simply don't have the track record and have declined to go via [[WP:REQUESTEDIT]. I have to stand back from an edit war. Look up a dispute resolution you would like or feel free to us the help directions I supplied on your talk page. Thankyou. With all the nice things said on my talk page all day a problem was likely to occur. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so experienced and I have no idea how even to do the [[WP:REQUESTEDIT]. Also, I thought that everyone one this planet has the right to edit Wikipedia in a constructive way (please, correct me, if I'm not right). Once again, I do not have COI and you only discourage new users from editing. My reaction is totally natural and all the reviewers are more than welcome to check my edits on the page. Have a great day.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 ... Given the amount of problem editing on PureVPN already and wandering straight in as an claimed inexperienced editor and reasonably presumably not reading all the policies and guidelines and engaging on perhaps very mild Wikipedia:Personal attacks on me and failing to continue discussions on the talk page. I am concerned the summary These edits have been done properly according the Wikipedia rules of neutrality of information. No advertising material was added is edging on not being compatible with not so experienced... Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Djm-leighpark! I explicitly confirm that I don't have any WP:COI with PureVPN or a competitor. I already confirmed it in the message above(in my Talk), so I'm surprised to see it again. I also surprised to see that you first put the COI tag on the page and then asked me about COI. I welcome all the constructive changes and I if you explain me how to edit or request to edit next time, I'd be glad to listen to the experienced user like you. Regarding your assumption on my experience. I did a few edits before on different pages and picked up some rules and experience but I still consider myself very inexperienced user. Let me know what rules of Wikipedia I breached by removing the biased information and blog reviews (which are not eligible to be cited on Wikipedia as far as I know). --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ... Effectively have replied on users talk page and also handling a way forward on the Talk:PureVPN. I really knew my talk page was looking to good today to last! Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kb03 and AfD of MB-Lab

Conversation collapsed due to uncivil language

As you might have lost interest in the AfD of Manuel Bastioni Lab, you might have stopped reading the AfD comments. I would like you to read my response to your neutral vote. At least my "p.s." section. As someone else has said to you: "That BLP AfD almost killed my enthusiam for Wikipedia – much appreciate that you took it on to restore it." You seem like a constructive contributor, who wants to improve wikipedia. Maybe you could look into this Kb03 user and do something about his behavior, bring this to the attention of others on Wikipedia or leave a comment, if I'm gravely misunderstanding his actions. Most people just want to improve Wikipedia and Kb03 seem to be the exact opposite. They are the ones, who demoralize and drive off a bunch of people by rollbacking hard work (e.g. 356 rollbacks in just one day without any comment) or trying to delete articles left and right. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC) @82.206.28.74 ... Kb03 is a NPP and while I may disagree at times with some of their actions in general they so a good job sometimes under a lot of pressure. 'Tis better if you have a concern with their actions to raise on their talk page as they invite rather than pushing someone else out into the vanguard. In terms on the AfD it is merely of necessity that someone points out the article was improved since initial nomination addressing some/all of the concerns. Some good closers would clock that anyway. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark, thank you for the kind comments. 82.206.28.74 If you have an issue with any of my edits just reach out on my talk page. I take criticism to heart and try to learn from my mistakes. Kb03 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Kb03, I do not believe you. These 356 rollbacks in three and a half hours seem like you just enjoy to destroy other people's work and did NOT look at the individual changes. Let's say you rollback 50% on some todo-list (which is an extreme ratio), you spend less than 20 seconds on average per article to rollback... Must be a really quick clicker, reader and decider... Very believable... About ten years ago, when I used to be an editor here, panels voiced their concerns about editors, who just run around reverting changes and new articles, which demoralizes and pushes off (especially new) users and removes good work, but even the most destructive editors at that time were not as extreme as you are. Djm-leighpark, I tried to reason with these kind of people years ago and gave up. I don't know how the bureaucracy has changed, so I don't even know where to look on how to start an investigation (and hopefully deletion) of a user like Kb03, so I was hoping that you (as you seem to improve articles and oppose deletion) might be interested in stopping this behavior. I understand that quality control is important and it's really good, when people stop vandalism. I do not oppose this role/function. But I do not believe this specific user is using his position with good intentions. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC) p.s.: This Kb03 user doesn't even seem to look at the changes he is destroying and then just reverts a part of his deletion spree, when someone points out his flaws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kb03#List_of_College_and_University_Agricultural_Engineering_Departments ). No wonder he can do this many edits! --82.206.28.74 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) @82.206.28.74 if you have evidence Kb03 is abusing e.g. rollbacker rights then they have already invited you to discuss it on their talk page. Alternatively raise at WP:TEAHOUSE. Or even go straight to WP:ANI to bring it to administers attention and to allow independent scrutiny and propose sanction. And if you evidence at ANI ping me the result here so I may comment or !vote as appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Thank you for pointing to ANI. I'll try to look deeper into Kb03 and will try to make a case against him/her when I've gathered more evidence of excessive/inappropriate behavior. Speaking of inappropriate. As you found it inappropriate how I reverted Kb03's AfD notice under the suspicion of vandalism I just want to note that every one of his/her incredibly big list of rollbacks is an implied accusation of vandalism. Except s/he doesn't even bother to state a reason. --82.206.31.87 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Removal of an WP:AFD notice is vandalism by anyone but the closer is vandalism. Removal of a WP:PROD notice can be done by anyone for any reason; perhaps becausing it is raining outside their window. However WP:COMPETENCY show realise removing a PROD notice both removes the 7 day delete protection from an article and is likely to lead straight to a WP:AFD unless there is a reasonable attempt to correct the issue. A PROD also leads to a soft delete rather than a likely hard delete at WP:AFD. But perhaps curiously I see no evidence of Kb03's AFD notice being removed. 19:31, 24 October 2019 Tapo [23] : suggesting deletion :::: PRODed article due mainly to Notability concerns and maybe concerns about WP:SUSTAINED. 03:06, 25 October 2019 82.206.28.66 Undid revision 922857585 by Tapo — Please refrain from vandalism. :::: This was in my opinion a valid dePROD but also an WP:UNCIVIL attack on Tapo In my opinion it left the article highly vulnerable to WP:AFD and removed the possibility of the article being improved under WP:PROD 03:46, 25 October 2019 Kb03 Undid revision 922911914 by 82.206.28.66 — not vandalism ( I'd argue this was unwise at it applied a 2nd PROD to the article. There may be an argument it was undoing a change that was vandalism but in my book once dePRODed that's it.) 08:21, 25 October 2019 Djm-leighpark dePROD (Reasoning: inc. possibly discontunation?) .. (added ref invalidating one source to refImprove) :: This was me making it evident a dePROD had occurred, questioning the initial reasoning and adding a ref to improve) 16:29, 25 October 2019 MarnetteD Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill (Regular Clean bare URLs doer (great guys) clearing a bare URL to a citation) 01:16, 28 October 2019 Kb03 Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManuelbastioniLAB (Almost inevitable thought perhaps arguably WP:BEFORE inadequate ...) Any admin seeing this will be noting how NOT to get an article rescued! 21:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia's view on vandalism is: On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Trying to delete valid knowledge is literally vandalism according to this. So my mistake was stating the reason for my revert... As it is uncivil to tell people not to delete an entire article worth of knowledge. Gotcha. And by stating the reason the valid revert of the PROD gets reverted. Now it's a dePROD, so it can be put into AFD to be hard deleted even faster. Gotcha. But everything is absolutely fine, because I dared to say "vandalism" and it's so verboten that no one uses it. Except when I look at e.g. Fb03 recent edits and see exactly that: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia [..] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdohsoduhw&oldid=925684994 So the validity and appropriateness of an action is based on rules-lawyering the WP bureaucracy and using authority (which on WP, let's admit it, is just nepotism) To sum up: Destruction of knowledge is good. Byzantine bureaucracy rules. Rampant authoritarianism based on nepotism. I see Wikipedia has not improved over the last years. In fact it has gotten worse. Now I hope this entire project becomes even more toxic. Up to a point when normal people don't want to contribute anymore and it becomes outdated, irrelevant and will be replaced by a competitor who will hopefully have a better solution against censoring, obsessive, opinionated people in power. What a waste of time. tl;dr: Fuck this shit. I hope Wikipedia dies. --82.206.31.87 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint (November 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: After a careful consideration of all available sourcing, I am not seeing any detailed coverage of its journalism other than trivial attributions.

As such, a failure of WP:NCORP as well as WP:GNG.

∯WBG^converse 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I regard amount of time you have held this locked from edit as unhelpful to say the least and seems to be made only when the article was likely to be brought to WP:DRV. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Fernihough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC) {{Done}} Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC) {{Done}} Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)