User talk:Mr. Vernon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New page reviewer granted

Hello Mr. Vernon. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 20:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

AnM60forJesus

I see that you nominated this empty article for deletion within less than a minute. On the one hand, I agree that quick response is good in some cases. (As we know, quality and not speed is important in reviewing, but it doesn't take deliberation to recognize something having no content.) On the other hand, there is a certain view that reviewers should wait some amount of time, such as ten minutes, before tagging an article for deletion, because the author may still be working on it. I don't have much sympathy there, because I don't think that an editor should compose an article with multiple edits in article space, but either in user space, and then move it, or off-line, as in a word processor, and commit the whole thing to mainspace when it is ready for mainspace. My basic point is good for you being quick to tag a nothing as a nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, it should have been more than a minute. The person in question also had the "This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator" template up. Normal blank pages I would just let sit for a bit longer before tagging. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No misunderstanding. I happen to think you acted reasonably. The silly "unreviewed" template is the result of reusing an existing article with it. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

NPR

Hi. Thank you for reviewing new pages. Please return to Marriage hall and tag with a correct criterion - there is no catch all. For more information please see the tutorial CSD section. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tag was removed per your request. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies / Request for help! :)

Hi there, firstly please accept my sincere apologies, I am completely new to Wikipedia and still trying to find my footing on how this all works.

I have been asked my the Instragram verification team to create a Wikipedia page about my achievements so that they can verify my account and did not realise that writing in a biography style was so strictly forbidden. I will spend the next few days resourcing web links confirming my history and try my utmost to re-write remaining more concise and neutral to events. I was not aware that there was such an intense screening process on this site, although clearly times have greatly changed since I last used it!

Would it be possible for someone to help guide me or direct me to a source where I can communicate directly with someone so that I can learn more about what is required by content creators here, since my second strike I have been reading through what is publicly available here but I feel that communicating with a real person in the form of a live chat would be invaluable to me..

Can anyone help? :)

Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuitarWorld (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would start here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Octagon Computer Superstore

I had few modifications made on the page, most especially to the wordings on the "History". See also the talk page for my reasoning about.

Hoping for your considerations and the removal from speedy deletion of the said article. Bumbl_loid 17:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

It helps a little with the copyvio, but saying 'Coupled with customer satisfaction through good service, it has been established in people's mind that for any computer or electronics need, "Octagon is the place to be."' makes it sound like an advertisement. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I took the information here and not from their website: http://kccmalls.com/mall-branches/kcc-mall-of-gensan/misc-pages/octagon/ Bumbl_loid 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)
Right, but that's not really a neutral point of view. It's a mall's website. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll remodify it again with those words omitted. Bumbl_loid 17:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)
Just try to make it factual and use a neutral point of view, and use some neutral sources for notability. And use your own words :) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok then. Can the deletion tag be removed? I had omitted those said words earlier. Also, give me time to do more research for the article's development. Bumbl_loid 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If it fails copy-vio, then an admin will remove the delete tag. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sir, i respect you reviewing my page. You said that there already exists a page named OTITIS EXTERNA which contains information like this. Sir , the conditions must be similar but there is no similar type of information . I would kindly request you compare the articles once and then take the necessary steps. MEDSBKS (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You can add missing information to an existing page if one already exists for that topic. In fact, you are encouraged to. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Acute necrotizing otitis media

I removed your a10 from Acure necrotizing otitis media, an inflammatory condition of the middle ear. You had tagged it as a duplicate of Otitis externa, inflammation of the outer ear. There is an article Otitis media, but it doesn't seem to have anything about the acute necrotizing condition. In any case, it seems to me that a redirect would have been in order rather than deletion. —teb728 t c 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

동해문화예술관

Would you mind explaining why you unreviewed it? I don't read Korean, but the page doesn't look suspicious to me, and you have already added the not-English tag. So there's nothing we can do in terms of reviewing. The translation is not a part of page curation. De728631 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another editor left a message about the article to the user, and looking at their talk page it looks like they may have had article issues before. I wanted another editor to look at the page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Illusions Gaming Company

Hi, hopefully the article has decent references now? Maki xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrogora (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Persuasive Moderatior

Mr. Vernon sounds like a legit person. I have considered to delete my stupid little page Jordan Josic Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatomuncha (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I please have the content back for the page you deleted on Ryan Fay

I created a page for Ryan Fay the youngest Global CIO . I am not sure why it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryancfay (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:BIO. Being the youngest anything doesn't make you inherently notable even if you could prove it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Hi, Mr. Vernon. I apologize for the delay in saving the information for the "Arik Bjorn" article. I got distracted on something else. But the article is out there now with well-referenced material. Thanks for your patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb32 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A1 on Mohangad

Hi Mr. Vernon -- I declined this speedy request yesterday because A1 only applies to articles where you literally can't identify what the article is referring to. The article doesn't need to have any content beyond an infobox, if that is sufficiently clear. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Speaking of which, what are the notability guidelines on forts? Do they need to be in a historic register? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe there's specific guidance on the notability of forts, but significant military installations tend to be considered notable. You could try asking the Military history WikiProject? My back-of-the-envelope feeling is that such entities would be likely to survive AfD if there's any sourcing at all available. [1] isn't reliable but says it was recently discovered in 2013, so there will probably be news reports and archaeological research published somewhere, though probably not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I may have to ask, this is peaking my curiosity (not because I really want the article deleted, but someone must have debated this in the long history of Wikipedia.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 on Logic School of Management

Hi again -- I've declined the speedy request on Logic School of Management mainly because educational institutes are exempt from the A7 criteria. I agree they are unlikely to be notable, so proposed deletion might be the way to go in this case. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

CSD nominations

Hi there; thank you for your assistance in keeping the encyclopedia in good shape. I notice that you have reported (accurately) a number of submissions as copyright violations, but your nominations do not include the link to the Duplication Detector Report. It would be convenient if you could correct your techniques so as to include this, as it makes verification of your report very much easier. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange ring of copyvios

I saw you tagged Production facilities created by Yadav.abhi. I think they are part of a ring who have been spending the last two days creating copyvio articles and putting copied information into articles. Himanshu Rana, Ashish.huriawal, Singhkumar, Shubhamv9, MUKUL SACHAN, and Dpkanjo. When one gets a few warnings they disappear and another seems to pop up. I have no idea what is going on. Justeditingtoday (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned this a few days ago in ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Series_of_very_brief_pages_on_highly_technical_subjects. Theory is that this is some kind of classwork assignment. I'm not sure if we can gather all these people together and block the underlying IP address from being able to make these edits, it is very tiring dealing with all these articles and sometimes they will slip through. I've also seen some editors do redirects, which does not remove the copyrighted content. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't know it went back further than yesterday. If it is a school project, their teacher is terrible because these are all plagiarized. Justeditingtoday (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
And that's just when I started NPP'ing again and noticed it, I think it may have started before that. Asking AIV for more assistance here, there has to be something we can do outside of manually tag this stuff. Keep fighting the good fight I guess. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled on a couple of them while patrolling recent changes. Then I looked through their contributions and found others. They sometimes take turns editing the same articles which helps discover other accounts. It didn't look like you got much traction on that ANI report. Do you think a second one with a list of the accounts and articles created might help? Justeditingtoday (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's try that. Maybe involve the sockpuppet people since this seems to be part of the same group. I can add the ones I've seen since I've started though that will take a while. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:SOCK, it sounds like meatpuppets (which may be what these are) can qualify. Maybe open up a big ol' sockpuppet case? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That is an incredible list you've compiled! It looks like the request was declined and communication was suggested. I'm not sure how successful that will be as it appears the accounts are abandoned after a couple of edits. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was getting a bit tired of trying to find all those sources anyway. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Live Streaming

This is a hot topic and possibly growing exponentially during the upcoming years, the most common phrase being "live stream" or "live streaming". I was aware of the Streaming Media article however, that being the landing article for live streaming may be outdated. Yes, almost covering the same,still the expressions can be differentiated. Also "live streaming" is getting way more common than "streaming media", I believe it's a good idea to separate the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatko (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I know (and actually live streaming is not the same as streaming media - the latter is still more popular because it's how Netflix/YouTube/Hulu/etc. work), that's why I redirected to Live media. If you want to merge the two articles together into a different article title, I'd ask the maintainers of Live media what they think and work with them. There's no reason not to leverage the work that's already been done. Good luck! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Syrup41

Just thought I'd give you a heads up that Syrup41 has vandalized after your final warning. 73.96.113.87 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. They replaced their vote on the AfD page with other text, which I believe they have the right to do. Whether it's still actually Syrup41 or not is another matter entirely. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see... It looked like the user had replaced someone else's comment with their own; but it was actually their own comment in the first place, thanks for the clarification. 73.96.113.87 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr Vernon, This is indeed Ben Garrod and I have made a few changes - I hope that is okay. Let me first say that I am an absolute techno-luddite and am not sure how to do any of this. Apologies if I am getting things wrong here. Some of the information on the page was factually inaccurate and in some cases misleading with regards to some of my affiliations and qualifications. I am hoping it is okay for me to make these necessary changes. If it was you that made the page, then thank you very much . . . I only heard about it today during a radio interview. Regard, B — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGarrod (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't make the page, and certainly apologize for any inaccuracies. There are general concerns with editing a page about yourself (which is why we tend to encourage editors not to do so); though I'll admit I've never been in your position. Make certain that you properly source anything if you are adding information, I think that will alleviate any concerns about incorrect information possibly being added. Best wishes, Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr Vernon,

Hope you're well. I'm not even sure if these messages are getting to you - I really am that useless on a computer.

First of all, this IS Ben Garrod and thank you for creating the page . . . assuming it was you. It's much appreciated.

Secondly, I really don't know what a COI is, I'm afraid . . . and had no idea that I'd deleted one or even needed one.

I only found out that I have this page today after doing several radio interviews and three of the various presenters telling me I was an osteopath when I really am not haha! I asked where they had heard this and they said here. So all I'm trying to do is to change a couple of facts etc and add couple of links where necessary. I'm not on here to promote myself or make some fancy autobiography - I've read the warming page haha! If I'm able to make this changes, then I'll be a happy biologist.

Best regards,

Ben BenGarrod (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Osteopaths

Yeah . . . nothing against osteopaths but study chimps, monkeys and Neanderthals! It threw me when I was asked about a bad back!!! BenGarrod (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act[edit source]

Hello Mr. Vernon,

Thanks for reaching out to me. I'm aware of the existing article. However, that article's title is incorrect, since the name of the law is Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016. I'm a member of the nonprofit organization called Rise, who has been driving the movement to get the legislation signed by President Obama. I work directly with Amanda Ngyuen, who is the key person involved in this work. Amanda and I have just worked on creating the content for this new article and are committed to enhancing the content in the future. Could we possibly work together to merge the two articles into one, hopefully the new one that I just wanted to publish?

Thanks,

--Jaeminsung (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok, so here's the rub. You have a conflict of interest with the bill - you can read WP:COI to read about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Keep in mind in any case you are strongly discouraged from editing the article because of this COI, but if you wish to proceed - you have to declare that you are involved with this bill directly (you've told me but you need to inform Wikipedia as well), and go through a few more hoops. Please go to WP:COI, read it and follow the instructions - you'll need to follow a few steps but other editors have done it. While there, you might also ask about the article renaming if it isn't the final bill name - unfortunately it's not something I can do easily, but an admin should be able to assist. Good luck and please let me know if you have questions that I can answer. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

response to message on sexual fantasy

hi, this is in response to your message. I'm not sure how else to reply yet. i am new to wikipedia and was trying to see what you deleted. didn't mean to undelete the stuff you did but when i saw it was undeleted, i tried to undo it. i thought i was successful but sorry if it wasn't, please feel free to redelete the stuff and no im not User:Verity345 . i just wanted to see what had been changed.QuuenChris (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)QuuenChrisQuuenChris (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello from Anna

Hello there. We keep crossing paths lately. A pleasure to make your acquaintance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A pleasure here as well! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Productive, been around forever, clean blocklog, friendly, why aren't you an admin yet? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I took a pretty long break for the past few years. I've also never asked to be an admin - it's not something I've ever thought about really. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes. 2013-14-15, no activity. Well, maybe consider waiting a few months then adding your name to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll to see. After all, you've been here 10 years 10 months with 16,546 edits. That should count. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If you are listening, question - I think it would be helpful (as part of anti-vandal patrol) to see the number of characters changed, not the difference in article size. I think some vandals are exploiting this, saying "minor changes" with "-1 characters" and then it turns out they've disparaged a BLP page. Assuming this idea hasn't been proposed before, where would I propose it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
A very interesting idea indeed! Good thinking! Why not bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A7

Hello, this is regarding the article Yun Bai:

This doesn't meet A7 because it contains multiple credible claims of significance, such as notable publication LA Weekly naming her one of the top 10 emerging artists and solo/two person exhibitions at notable art galleries, among others. Since speedy deletion is inherently a bit of a bitey process, it's best to use PROD or AfD if it doesn't strictly meet a speedy deletion criterion. If you're unclear about A7, Adam9007's essay is a good read; otherwise just be careful about speedy deletion. Besides that, thanks for reviewing new pages! Appable (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back! It looks like they improved the article a bit. There does seem to be an art with these, I've AfD'd articles before and seen that they should have been SD'd. Apologies for wasting your time. The AfD is up if you wish to participate. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, thanks! I'll look into the artist over the next day or so (sometimes articles can be buried) and then put in my view. Appable (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Mr. Vernon,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 808 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park

Mr Vernon,

My name is Jeff Lowe, I am the new owner of the park. I'm requesting that MY edits be left alone. This is no longer the zoo that the Wikipedia page describes. It's under completely new ownership and we have been battling the reputation of the old park. How fair would it be if the old owners of your current home, showed up to paint it a different color than you just painted it? The park that this page describes was closed down and no longer exists. The "greater Wynnewood exotic animal park" is not the Garold Wayne Zoo. If you want to build a page that critiques the former park, feel free, but MY park should not be automatically associated with the old zoo.

If it takes legal action to have Wikipedia stop tying me to the former zoo, so be it. If these corrections are going to be reverted back to the opinions of those who have no association with my park, I will be forced to take legal action.

Jeff Lowe (405) 207-4362 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.100.33 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I anticipate Mr. Lowe will be back, probably as a new IP addy. He should read WP:NLT, WP:COI, and then should post constructive suggestions for change to the article to its talk page - Talk:Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park - more than simply bleating that there is no "good press". He should not expect the park's history to be whitewashed, nor should he expect PETA's concerns to disappear because they're not a government agency. He can either engage constructively or find that in effect he is not engaging at all - his call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Melanie Melanson

Hi, Please change the title Mr Vernon, but please be ready to combat the speedy deletion.

User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: Moved. This is an older case so I'm not sure how many sources are still around. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanking you, and speedy deletion

Hi thank you for changing the title, but will there be a speedy deletion tag issued, it happened with my last two articles User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that. I'll watch the page, if a speedy comes up I'll take a look at it. There are still news articles on her disappearance from this year so I don't think there will be an issue with notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If you catch it before me, WP:N/CA is what this article falls into for notability. -- Dane2007 talk 02:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

NPR

Hi. Thank you for attacking the monumental backlog I hva noticed gowever that you are patrolling very quickly. In some instances as many as 14 article er minute or one on an averge of of every 4.28 seconds. WE know that it is not possible to do a quality review and check all that needs to be checked in such a short time. Please slow down. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Ah, yes. Those are links that an editor added for Pakistani senate members; since these meet notability guidelines inherently for politicians, and the article contents are for the most part stubs with basic information (e.g. no BLP issues), these were easy to check and could be verified in bulk (check list for 5 names, patrol five articles.) Trust me, I am not doing it that quickly for most articles. That being said, I will slow down and if you want I can go back and unpatrol these. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I had not been spying on your patrolling but i was drawn to it when I arrived to delete PB Tha Hitman for which I have declined the CSD. I then noticed the general speed of all your reviews. Please understand that even if we have a monumental backlog, a backlog is preferable to inaccurate tagging or patrolling. The purpose of using Page Curation is also to notify the users of why you are tagging their articles. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
He may have left for the evening. Perhaps move it into his draftspace? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Akhdut

Hello Mr. Vernon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Akhdut, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While I agree with the WP:A7 tag, I think that this contested speedy deletion should be dealt with in an WP:AFD discussion. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies and help

Hello. I'm apologies if I do something wrong, I'm new in Wikipedia, I'm from Spain and I read everything in our Wikipedia (in spanish). I'm trying to write a biography about an american artist (Kyle Krone) and I have received a message what tell me that I'm using multiple accounts. However it's not true. I'm a new user. I don't understand this problem... I'm working with this artist and I would like to write this biography but if any sentence is not correct, please let me know. I can delete it. Now I have any reference for the veracity of the biography. Please, could you help me? Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia.martinh (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I can try to help. First, may I ask what you mean by "working with the artist"? You're in touch with him? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Patricia.martinh (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Yes. I mean I'm in touch with the artist. We usually talk by email and I'm working with his music press in Spain and he asked me if I could help him with his wikipedia biography. He tried but he didn't know how to do it.Patricia.martinh (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. What you have is a "conflict of interest" since you are working with the artist and his music press. You just need to go to WP:COI and read this - it doesn't mean you can't edit his page, but you do have to declare that you have a conflict of interest, whether you are being paid to do this work, and so on. I would also mention this on the Sockpuppetry page - if they can verify this, they will close the case (it means I thought you and Kyle were the same person because you were making the same edits.) You may get a bit more scrutiny over what you contribute because everything has to be factual and encyclopedic in nature; some of what his press has written sounds very promotional in tone, which is perfectly fine for his website but not for Wikipedia. Last, thank you for being honest with us, and good luck. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Vernon, I understood the conflict of interest. I read it and explained everything on the Sockpuppetry page like you said me. Hope to do it well. And you right about what his press has written about him. I understand better now. Let me know if I can do it something more. Thanks a lot for your help.Patricia.martinh (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The page I created accidentally overrode something!

So sorry Mr. Vernon.

I was creating a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Morris and it accidentally overwrote the list of Christopher Morris'

All I want to do is create a page for Christopher Morris, I just needed to be more accurate with my title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpmichigan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been reverted. If you go into the history for that page (go to the top bar->view history), you can see your old edits and create a new page. Note that you (it sounds like you are Christopher Morris) need to follow the instructions on WP:COI (basically you need to state that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article.) You should also read WP:BIO to see if you meet general notability guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia. And last, I would highly advise you to change your username. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The HUMAN Project Deletion

Hi there,

The Human Project page had speedy deletion and we were wondering what was wrong with it and what we could fix so that we aren't deleted again.

Nyuiisdm (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mr Vernon, me from 9 days ago . . . so I made the minimal changes to the original page about me . . . took out the incorrect info, made it as neutral as possible and stuck a load of references in. I also added a photo with an agreed terms of use in . . . the photo has been taken off, some of the links are gone and it says at the top of the page that it has been heavily edited by someone close to the content of the page . . . well, that's me obviously but I was hoping that with your agreement, it was all okay. Can I add these things again? Is it possible to remove the weird 'someone has edited this etc etc' thing. It just looks as though I set the page up and am a vain megalomania haha! At this rate, I'd rather not have anything on Wikipedia . . . it's been a nightmare. I have several other media colleagues in the UK who have been through the same issues, apparently - they said it can be done but might take some time. Any advice or help, please? you were great last time. BenGarrod (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello - those are good questions and a bit above my pay grade, so to speak. I would go to WP:COIN and ask these questions, they should be able to assist and they are the experts on Wikipedia policy for this kind of thing. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter (November 2016)

Hello Mr. Vernon,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 808 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Originally sent to all New Page Reviewers 26 November 2016. This message sent manually. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC).


BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Nomination of Historic rivals (Denmark) for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spiderone 12:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Your IP block

I think it's really unlikely someone hacked your wifi. More likely that you share the same IP subnet as the vandal. Got any neighbors ranting about the ACA? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. Nevertheless the IP block continues, which is ridiculous. It should have expired by now. Theaveng (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for End terminal

An article that you have been involved in editing—End terminal—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Comfr (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mr. Vernon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mr. Vernon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

uncitated waffle that was poorly written and documented. if to be rewritten check for sources and grammar

"In the case of purely psychological or phaocaomoatic pain, a better approach can include low dose methylphenidate,". you're going to let this be ona . wiki page?

that text is nonsense!!! let me change it for god sake.

You can edit, of course, but the problem is that the information has a cite. If it's wrong, provide a corresponding cite that says otherwise. Or use the article's talk page and get consensus on changing it. Get familiar with how Wikipedia works. The problem is that saying "I'm an expert in this subject" means nothing because that is not how Wikipedia works; we don't know who you are, and even if we did, WP:SOURCES is the overall guideline. Good luck. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

whatever man

i am just trying to make sure that articles on the site i used to use to study has correct information in. there is no citation for the things he was saying... not only that but it was full of grammar errors and information that is nonsense (methylphenidate being a painkiller...) but alas, you are the expert, right? so leave it. i dont care. i wont bother trying to improve another wiki next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.2.28 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


ps. that will be the last time i ever donate to wikipedia! who knew the admins were complete tosspots? good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.2.28 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice regarding BLPs

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Pls join ongoing RFC at Talk:Kirk Douglas#Request for comment current.--Moxy 🍁 04:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. I would like to know why Natalie Wood's alleged rape is being removed from Kirk Douglas' article, but Natalie Wood's alleged murder is not being removed from Robert Wagner's article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:RS one has been investigated by major news organizations and involves legal proceedings..... the other is a Blog posting by an anonymous user as stated in the sources.--Moxy 🍁 04:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a hug

I don't know you, but having read your user page, I would like to express: I'm sorry for your loss, and I hope that you have found your way back into the light. starship.paint (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Please check before reverting, and WP:DENY recognition, thanks. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Sola Busca tarot" page

What is "unnecessary/inappropriate" about my linking to a full set of scans of this deck? 92.5.63.207 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked like a spam link at first. I've reverted it back. My apologies. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

God

How was my edit vandalism? It was in no way destructive to the article. IThoughtTheGlueWasMilk (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Kayne West? Come on. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you notify?

Not that it really matters, but why would you notify the socks under these circumstances? I mean, if you think a potentially constructive contributor is being unfairly accused, or has acted out of confusion, that's one thing. But this was ... not like that. --JBL (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis It seemed like policy per [[2]] section 5. Am I reading it incorrectly? It's all academic now since the case is over (and I agree they were obvious socks and destructive ones at that), but I thought we had to notify the accused regardless. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If you read the top of that page, you'll see that it's marked "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." The relevant active page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases which says in relevant part You may notify the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER|sig=yes}} to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification isn’t mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.) All the best, JBL (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis Sorry, I see the action in question. Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
(I have cleaned up my previous edit so the quote works.) No problem, thanks. All the best, JBL (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RE: February 2020

Hello there,

In regards to your message, all of my edits were simply adding greater detail to the movie's plot gathered through careful observation. I would like to know how to possibly cite "reliable sources" for such details.

47.156.30.190 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That falls under WP:ORIGINAL. You can read WP:SOURCES and the related articles for what a reliable source is. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If noting down explicit details and dialogue in a movie is considered "original research", then something seems very off with that policy. Just my two cents though. 47.156.30.190 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Korean drama

Hello, thank you for reverting the changes for Korean drama. As to the number of dramas displayed in the List of highest rated Korean dramas in public broadcast I guess 20 might be sufficient but 50 is great because these are historical numbers that are difficult to find elsewhere (such high ratings are not achievable nowadays) and they also include some dramas that were to some extent "life-changing" in Korea at the time, thus it is good to use this table to find dramas important in k-drama modern history. As to the number displayed in the List of highest rated Korean dramas in cable television - 20 is great but 5% threshold is even better because 5% is considered to be a high rating for cable TV (cable TV usually has lower ratings than public TV in Korea) and not that many dramas is able to achieve that rating per year. As a result this table is great to find new popular dramas and get up-to-date information about what the Korean (and often international) public likes. I know that recently the table is getting longer but I see it as important - maybe the ratings would need its own page to prevent recent repeated changes and reversals?TanizakiChoson (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

TanizakiChoson - Perhaps, but if editors are not getting consensus before making changes like this, you should feel free to revert the changes, and discuss it with the editor - just make sure you don't violate edit warring rules (specifically report them first if it gets that bad). --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your comment at Murder of Tessa Majors deletion discussion

You seem sensible, so I hope you'll agree that insinuations about Missing white woman syndrome come off as in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above. I hope you'll consider striking your comment. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Selman Akbulut

I can't start an SPI on this - but I think it's obvious. Ustun YILDIRIM is a sock of Eylem Z Yildiz. Definitely similar conduct trying to shut down the issue of Akbulut's sacking. Would you mind starting an SPI? Thanks. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

He's not a sock. I know who he is. Already emailed the evidence in. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit conflict - I was going to change it. Other way around - Eylem Z Yildiz is a sock of Ustun YILDIRIM. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. If you read the news article linked to in the article about his firing, it implies that there was a campaign going on - that this former professor organized it but other people were involved. Believe me, I have some evidence as to who these people are. It was not very difficult to figure out once I clicked on one of the links at the main article and did a little digging. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay I'll take your word for it. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Links at Mutation Testing page

First of all, the links at mutation testing page are not spam. They are active projects in the field of mutation testing. Most of them are not added by me either. They are added by their corresponding authors. Please look at the history of the page for more info. If you think this warrants removing, please create a discussion in the talk section first. Flat-out removing contributions from lots of academics on the topic just seems wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigChief1988 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:EXT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Sources

I am not trying to get into revert war but avoiding misrepresentation of sources And its only one editor who uses different IP address everytime. Thanks. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made the article neutral as IP address wants which is Result - "Sikh Territorial Gains". The IP Shouldn't revert anymore changes from here on hopefully. But its not fair but will be reasonable.WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@WorldWikiAuthorOriginal: You both need to step back at this point, to be honest. You've gotten blocked for edit warring, and warned besides that, blanking your page doesn't hide that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Blanking page is to keep it clear. Anyone is smart enough to look at history to see the comments. No need to be judgemental. Thanks,WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@WorldWikiAuthorOriginal: It seems more likely that you are blanking so editors may not know about the warnings you've been getting. You literally got an edit war notification tonight from Kansas Bear. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I have sent my message to Kansas Bear. There is nothing to think about why I am blanking my talk page. Like I said, I like to keep it clear. And I don't use any IP address like anyone else. What I have to say or what I do, my account is fair enough. No need to put blame on me without any understanding. So once again please stop being judgemental and help in preventing misrepresentation of sources. Thanks.WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

foundation 0-institute

Dear Mr Vernon, for our fresh new foundation 0-institute i have made a website, and parts of that website i am using for wiki. i did this before with the ZERO foundation wiki entry. I give permission to wiki to use lines from my website. Hoping to be included now soon. THX, Mattijs Visser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matvisser (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Matvisser, please read WP:COI. There are underlying issues with creating a Wikipedia article for an organization that you are affiliated work. If you are being paid to do this, read WP:PAID as well. At the very least you will need to declare everything. That is also required if you want to use copyrighted text from another site; you'll need proof of permission, otherwise it will be removed; read WP:CONSENT. Finally, none of this is any guarantee that your organization will meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and the article can be removed anyway. I want to thank you for asking and mentioning this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu

Hello Mr Vernon, I appreciate that my recent restoration of the redirect on this article may at first glance appear to be other than a constructive edit, but as can be seen from the article history, the redirect was unilaterally removed by user 2001:818:D958:3200:DCBB:C0DD:BD99:5C77 on 9 June 2019 with no evidence that such was agreed upon. It is perhaps of note that all this user's contributions took place on that date, and pertain only to similar individuals. This was one of several articles created by user Hanedan which were redirected to the Osmanoğlu family article, as they were found to have insufficient grounds in terms of notability for individual articles to exist. The quality of the article speaks for itself; vast swathes of unsourced genealogical material which do not confer notability. I was interested in this user's contributions having put forward another of his articles for an AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ay%C5%9Fe_G%C3%BClnev_Osmano%C4%9Flu). While as I say I appreciate your point of view, it seems unnecessary to go through the AfD procedure for this article also simply because one anonymous user elected to remove the redirect, with no evidence that such was undertaken with any approval from others or consensus on the matter. Best regards 78.144.65.61 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Got your message. The edits that were reverted were factual. If you block this IP address, you are acting in an illegal manner and not in accordance with wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I notice you keep reverting the young blood transfusion page. I would like to discuss this with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an edit war. I am making small factually correct edits. You are yourself reverting them. Is there a process for resolving this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hop over here: [3] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Vernon/Archive_4&oldid=1139500652"