User talk:Djm-leighpark

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archives (Index)

2018 1 2019 1 2019 2 2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2021 2 2023 1 2024 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please feel free to contact me about contributions here or on the relevant item talk page as appropriate. Or to prod me here to go to the item talk page.

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)

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.

Template:Z33 ∯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)