Contents
- 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management
- 2 Copyright infringement ~ El_Pollo_Loco_(United_States)
- 3 rollback request
- 4 Tri-Cities High School
- 5 The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- 6 Tech News: 2019-14
- 7 2018 Pulwama encounter
- 8 Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
- 9 Whoops!
- 10 Curiosity about change to Zak Smith page
- 11 A kitten for you!
- 12 Octothorpe?
- 13 Rollback rights soon?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management
On AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management your closing remarks were Concerns over sourcing are particularly well-taken here. There were no discussions on sourcing since I improved the article. I therefore believe you should review your close. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I added that note for two purposes:
- To bring attention to the fact that after you added links, nearly two weeks passes and not a single editor, new or returning, commented to agree
- To highlight an argument from the other participants, who were greater in number yet far less verbose, that may have been less apparent to passing readers beyond the more obvious calls to WP:NEOLOGISM
- That is, my delete close was not solely or even mostly based on the sourcing issues by participants favoring delete. This wasn't, in my opinion, the simplest of calls, and the strength of your argument was in large part due to the points you raised in your March 10 and 11 comments; it was not, however, how I read the consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If WP:NEOLOGISM is the call for the closure, and per WP:NEO this does not mean an article should be deleted does not carry sufficient weight, then this set a precedent which should immediately be followed on other articles. There has been incredibly little discussion on this point since March 10. The one person commenting made the comment within two minutes of a previous edit with minimal explanation of his reasoning and the unsubstantiated advocacy currently was taken as personal against a good faith improvement. While that person claimed WP:NEOLOGISM they avoided WP:NEO with an advocacy argument. With it being not the simplest of calls with minimal recent comments a relist might have been the alternative choice. A second relist is generally to be avoided but is often given for less.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You will appreciate I am further considering the weighting of your argument. I am minded I have a couple of in good faith reasonable but weak reasons to take to DRV to confirm absolute clarity on the NEOLOGISM ... Another approach is to onboard the consensus in which case Marketing operations management and Enterprise marketing management seem reasonably to be tested at AfD for the same reason. I have come to realise some might suggest Marketing operations management is merged to Marketing operations that is a redirect to Marketing performance measurement (MPM) ... the talk page of reveals a minefield ranging from good article to suggested testing at AfD! Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're saying that you're weighing asking for a reconsideration of the close at WP:DRV; that is certainly your prerogative! As for the rest of your post, I'm still having a little trouble following what you're saying, so please correct me if I've interpreted it wrong, so let me just say that AfD shouldn't be used to "test" something or to try and make a point with other nominations. If you have a good-faith belief that other pages don't meat the criteria for inclusion, by all means nominate them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- The first part is certainly true and I am weighing that. Your point at testing at AfD is true (and I had experience of such a test within the last week and the result was a move that possibly went wrong way). However I have to take my endeavour to understand the consensus reached and am entitled to submit to AfD articles reasonably falling within the scope of that consensus for deletion, and I can see little reason MOM and EMM should not be so subnmitted. In some respects, perhaps in every respect, (and perhaps not), MPM lies within the same category. But the MPM talk page reveals a *lot* of not so simple history and an article that possibly remains a mess ... and I might well seek asking on the talk page about giving that article some improvement/warning tags. It's also an issue as MPM has been used by the education foundation. Another way of reading the delete under WP:NEO (I think (WP:NEOGOLISM actually points the same) is I've been seeking to promoting the use of the term Marketing Resource Management (or perhaps Aprimo). But fully understanding the reason for delete may stop me bringing the wrong articles to AfD or raising an DRV in a non-optimal way. It still beggars my belief that by adding one reference to an unreferenced article with a source that if not WP:RS was at a minimum close to it and WP:RSN's response is to send the whole article to WP:RSN. If one says I'm promoting Aprimo am I not the one who help pulled back some bias from a paid editor that slipped right past a technically bungled AfC? (Rewrite old draft and submit and though AfC in 3 hours by paid editor ... others wait 3 months).Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I have chosen to make a suggestion of a Cleanup Tag on the MPM talk page. I will review responses before taking any further actions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)
- Update: I have applied the cleanup tag raised above. I have raised the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management and expect delete result on my understanding of community consensus on Marketing articles. I have chosen not to mention MRM but others or even yourself has the option of raising that, otherwise my plan A is to sit and observe the discussion (That does not mean that is what i will do). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Update: Nothing is simples per User talk:Spinningspark#:Talk:Enterprise marketing management. In gathering some idea of the messy state of many articles in Marketing I may at some point go to DRV however I am seeing a lot of issues which makes my version of MRM look positively glowing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see this is now at a self-DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April_3#Marketing_operations_management ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're saying that you're weighing asking for a reconsideration of the close at WP:DRV; that is certainly your prerogative! As for the rest of your post, I'm still having a little trouble following what you're saying, so please correct me if I've interpreted it wrong, so let me just say that AfD shouldn't be used to "test" something or to try and make a point with other nominations. If you have a good-faith belief that other pages don't meat the criteria for inclusion, by all means nominate them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You will appreciate I am further considering the weighting of your argument. I am minded I have a couple of in good faith reasonable but weak reasons to take to DRV to confirm absolute clarity on the NEOLOGISM ... Another approach is to onboard the consensus in which case Marketing operations management and Enterprise marketing management seem reasonably to be tested at AfD for the same reason. I have come to realise some might suggest Marketing operations management is merged to Marketing operations that is a redirect to Marketing performance measurement (MPM) ... the talk page of reveals a minefield ranging from good article to suggested testing at AfD! Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If WP:NEOLOGISM is the call for the closure, and per WP:NEO this does not mean an article should be deleted does not carry sufficient weight, then this set a precedent which should immediately be followed on other articles. There has been incredibly little discussion on this point since March 10. The one person commenting made the comment within two minutes of a previous edit with minimal explanation of his reasoning and the unsubstantiated advocacy currently was taken as personal against a good faith improvement. While that person claimed WP:NEOLOGISM they avoided WP:NEO with an advocacy argument. With it being not the simplest of calls with minimal recent comments a relist might have been the alternative choice. A second relist is generally to be avoided but is often given for less.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyright infringement ~ El_Pollo_Loco_(United_States)
Good afternoon Amory, can you tell me if this user 'Ndgilbert6' using this photo File:Elpolloloco-logo.png ~ can say this is his own work? ~Thank you Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Own work" seems incorrect, for sure — good catch! As for the copyright itself, logos that are simple geometric shapes or just text are frequently not copyrightable (see Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks), but this definitely goes beyond that. I've tagged it with commons:Template:Logo. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mitchellhobbs: It's been deleted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Amory :) Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
rollback request
on your user page it says you are willing to grant rollback request what does this mean?? ~~ JJBullet 11:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just that — that I am willing to review and grant rollback to editors who will use it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Am I able to be granted the rollback role, I know I have been a bit annoying that's just because I am still getting used to it all, if granted I will use it appropriately ~~ JJBullet 12:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amorymeltzer:sorry for being a pain ~~ JJBullet 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually answered your rollback request at WP:PERM/R, see here. Basically, rollback is only useful if you're consistently fighting vandalism. With only a dozen or two mainspace edits, you just don't have enough experience yet, sorry. That's no problem though: Twinkle makes it easy to revert and warn, and there's plenty more to do here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Amorymeltzer:sorry for being a pain ~~ JJBullet 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Am I able to be granted the rollback role, I know I have been a bit annoying that's just because I am still getting used to it all, if granted I will use it appropriately ~~ JJBullet 12:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Tri-Cities High School
Thanks for the revdel there. But there's more. The beginning end of this diff would be a better starting point IMO. Not directly BLP, but definitely hate speech. While you're there, please indef the named editor. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks — I missed that the account had done the same thing, so I snagged that one too. Appreciate the follow-up! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Tech News: 2019-14
16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2018 Pulwama encounter
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Pulwama encounter, I was browsing the AfD lists when I saw this was closed. Although I have no opinion keep/delete on it right now since the article is not visible to me. Can you at lease share a ref or two from the deleted version of the article here. I would like to review if there is a redirect target for this link. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: Sure, here are all seven:
- Masoodi, Nazir (15 December 2018). "7 Dead In Firing By Forces In Clashes After Encounter In J&K's Pulwama". NDTV. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- "Pulwama encounter HIGHLIGHTS: 7 civilians killed, mobile internet suspended in several parts of Valley". The Indian Express. 15 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- "3 terrorists, 1 soldier martyrd, 7 civilians killed in encounter in J&K's Pulwama". The Times of India. 15 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- Ehsan, Mir (15 December 2018). "Army deserter among 3 militants killed in Pulwama encounter in Kashmir". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2018-12-16.</ref>
- "Section 144 imposed in Pulwama". Greater Kashmir. 16 December 2018.
- Press Trust of India (15 December 2018). "Pulwama encounter: Separatists call for 3-day strike over civilian deaths". Business Standard India. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- "Separatists Call For 3-Day Strike In J&K After 7 Killed In Encounter". NDTV.com. 15 December 2018. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Whoops!
Re [2] – I forgot that I had already voted. Thanks for catching it! –FlyingAce✈hello 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Curiosity about change to Zak Smith page
Hi, I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to contact you about your recent decisions. I just saw your change to the Zak Smith page. Did you check out the talk page first? A group of four people had proposed the update and there was just one dissenting opinion (who appears to be the subject of the article trying to protect his image). Zak Smith is famous for never giving up the last word in an argument, so if you have to get every single person to agree to the change, then there will never be a change and he will continue to be promoted based on his relationship to the woman who recently came out and told about how he abused her. I understand protecting the page because the subject of the article will keep making his changes as long as he can, but why freeze it in the state that benefits him? What are the next steps for people that want the article to accurately reflect the subject's relationship? Acidbleu (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I protected the page to enforce the previous sysop's action, which was to stop the edit war. I don't disagree there was a good discussion on the talkpage about that paragraph, but the protection was about stopping disruption, not about enforcing "right" version. The proper course now is to make a protected edit request and a passing sysop can act on it. See also WP:WRONGVERSION. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which I now see has been done, great! I'll leave it for someone else to take care of, but that seems fine to me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Amory, I posted the request on my phone so I didn't feel up to the task of investigating further. I'm unable to do anything about the full protection of the article, but as you've noticed the edit request and believe it seems fine, would you please respond to it? Thanks. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd rather not mix editorial actions with sysop actions and get involved; I think it'd look like I was protecting to enforce a particular version, rather than the previous admonition to stop edit warring. It's only been up for a little bit, I'm sure a passing sysop will swing by and take care of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Amory, I posted the request on my phone so I didn't feel up to the task of investigating further. I'm unable to do anything about the full protection of the article, but as you've noticed the edit request and believe it seems fine, would you please respond to it? Thanks. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which I now see has been done, great! I'll leave it for someone else to take care of, but that seems fine to me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
for your indepth close explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Mill, some admins just put "Keep", "Delete" or whatever than their signature (allbeit, usually for straightforward closes:)), thanks.
Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well said. And well kittened. I said delete and redirect, and I'm not sure that I agree with you (Amorymeltzer). However, that was an intelligent, thoughtful and admirable close. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Octothorpe?
So I see this edit summary and I'm like "What the...? What's an 'octothorpe'?" I'd like to think I have a decent vocabulary in the English language, but I'd NEVER heard this term before. Kudos to you for using such a word! My vocabulary is expanded :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a fun one! I knew of someone who (in the context of social media, but still) called it a "hashie." I nearly died. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Rollback rights soon?
Hi, I'm Gooner2004, and for the past several months I have been editing as an IP; I'm quickly learning about Wikipedia from one of my friends who frequently edits. I'm even attempting to become an administrator sometime in the future. I want to use rollback rights as I am against vandalism and feel like I'm familiar on WP:Vandalism. Also, Twinkle is a little slow; having rollback rights makes it a bit faster. Any comments? Gooner2004 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, Gooner2004, you've certainly been active! Nice work, I like the enthusiasm! Your reverts look pretty good, so I'd definitely say you're on the right track. Sysops generally like to see some consistency, so not just edit count but also some length of time being active (i.e. more than two weeks) but keep up the good work and it should be no problem. In the mean time, though, a few suggestions:
- Make sure to appropriately use the user warning templates. Sysops like to see consistent and appropriate use of scaling templates.
- I reverted two edits you made to IP user talk pages, namely User talk:2600:1008:B15B:8D2C:B5FD:AED7:E5D:78C2 and User talk:2604:2D80:803D:8D8F:38E9:24E8:4AD6:2202, to which you had placed a blocking template. Only sysops can block users from editing, please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
- Relatedly, it's best not to get down in the mud and fight with vandals. Revert them, and revert them if they call you names, but don't insult them back or anything like that — see WP:DENY.
- I think you did all that in good faith but it shows some unfamiliarity with policy. That's okay! You've only been editing for two weeks, so as I said, just keep it up and keep at it. Let me know if you have any more questions! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)