User talk:Appable

Thanks for declining A7 on those. I was considering declining them myself, but was afraid to due to recent assertions of "making up my own notability criteria and demanding that the community complies with them". I really don't know how you manage to avoid such accusations. I suppose it's because you're less active in A7 than I am? Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: No problem. I've wondered about why my A7 patrolling hasn't seemed such a big issue (and why I haven't been dragged to the dramaboards, as it seems you have a similarly strict definition. It might be based on activity, as you speculated; I do sometimes nominate articles for deletion (AFD) as soon as I decline CSD (as a procedural nomination) if it's a more borderline case and there's nothing to merge/redirect to - perhaps that makes some editors a little less annoyed? Appable (talk | contributions) 06:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it more shocking (and worrying) is that the editor who said I'm making up my own notability criteria is an admin. I too sometimes use AfD, PROD, or {{merge to}} if I think it appropriate, but a lot of the time I have no opinion (for example, if I decline an A7 because the subject has a notable creator, I'm saying it could be merged. Whether it should be merged is another matter: it could be that the subject is notable and therefore qualifies for its own article. But either way, deletion is not the best course of action, hence the decline. This also goes for personal relationships, for the very guidelines I'm frequently accused of violating actually support me by saying they could be merged if not notable. I'm beginning to think that too many people equate non-notability with deletion). I also think that part of the problem could be that if I decline a CSD and just leave it, I reckon people think I'm saying the article should be kept for the reason I declined the CSD (hence the hoo-ha about WP:NOTINHERITED), or don't seem to realise that declining CSD is not the same as voting keep at AfD. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a high school kid being harassed by some other high school kids who had the bright idea that it would be amusing to make a hoax article about him.

He came on the help chat and asked for it to PLEASE be taken down.

I did some research and concluded that it was a blatant hoax, a lie, a piece of garbage, a worthless waste of time from beginning to end. There is no professional footballer by that name. There is none. There isn't. The professional footballer of that name does not exist. The AfD was a waste of time and resources. It was unnecessary. It was pointless. Process is important, but it is not all-important. If you want that article restored just so it can sit through a week of AfD and then be deleted, you are wrong. DS (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks for the clarification, I agree with your assessment given that information. As a suggestion, a little bit more information than "unverifiable" would help - G3 blatant hoax or something would prevent confusion over a fairly vague deletion criterion. If process doesn't make sense in such a context - well, there's a reason that IAR exists. It would be nice if a specific criterion or IAR could be cited in deletion reasons, though. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok - it would be useful to see why - thanks if you can explain JarrahTree 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

checking my contribs and yours I cannot find the diff, my misreading possibly of a dif, sorry JarrahTree 15:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: BLP PROD can only be placed when there are no external links or inline citations that support statements made in the article. In this case there was a link to the subject's website, which did in fact support statements made in the article (actually, the article was just a copy paste of the website). Therefore, it was not a BLP PROD. Remember that BLP PROD requires the absence of any sources at all. Appable (talk | contributions) 15:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that - cheers JarrahTree 23:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you declined Maronda Homes A7 deletion however it has been deleted 3 times today alone as both A7 and G11 (and G12 at one point) and this version is in no way an improvement nor does it adequately establish notability. A single reference to a local paper that is more or less an interview about the company's bankruptcy is hardly an independent reliable source. I've retagged it as both A7 and G11 as it appears to be an SPA with quite an agenda. Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Sorry to be annoying, but I still disagree with A7. G11 also doesn't seem to apply: it's not overly promotional. I was quickly able to find more sources that are actually independant and reliable. I would not consider that local paper an interview, either, and while it doesn't adaquately show notability on its own it's enough to pass A7. Feel free to bring it to AfD though. Appable (talk | contributions) 21:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super Bowl LVI 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/Super Bowl LVI 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. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revert your CSD decline here. I did not nominate it because of the web criteria, but because of the organizational/company scope, which it would fall under. This is an article about the company just as much about the software, and it does not assert significance, which means it at least plausibly falls within the scope of A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't agree that it's about the organization or company involved (the article is mostly about the software as far as I can tell), and the company would largely be notable based on its software product. Thus the notability of the software would be the key point in an AfD discussion, and therefore A7 should be based on that. Additionally, the article appears to have a credible claim of significance - a fairly large user basis with notable users, and I found at least one source that could help demonstrate notability: https://www.wired.com/2016/03/open-source-devs-racing-build-better-versions-slack/. It's not a great source, but in combination with the many other not-great sources it's enough that there could credibly be something notable here. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I took it to AfD. Since it is a tech startup, I disagree with your logic here and still think it was an eligible subject and the article is covering the firm with a natural discussion of the product it provides, but I'm fine with opposing views. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've commented on the discussion. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your instructions, I will remove the speedy delete tag. I will also post a summary of arguments on why this church is notable on the talk page for "Church at Addis".

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appable, I see you changed my CSD on Nicolas Alaverdian to a redirect to Nicolas Alahverdian. Under normal circumstances I would not disagree if a common or accidental misspelling, but in this case the author of both duplicate articles introduced a conscious misspelling to avoid salted article Nicholas Alahverdian and there seems a trail of deletion discussion in the past. Now, situations may have changed, but I would therefore - in this case - not necessarily redirect, but rather delete given circumstances and motivations. Thoughts?! Jake Brockman (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: I would wait until/if the current article is deleted. At that point, it's a fairly clear G8. Right now, it's just splitting a deletion review process into two for no real reason - and if it's decided that it is not substantially identical, then the redirect should probably stay. Appable (talk | contributions) 09:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your decline on Damilola Dawson as it's a hoax (took me a second as well) based on the poor attempt to make it a mashup of Adetomiwa Edun and some random garbage. While not a "vampires and the boogey man exist" type of hoax, it still applies here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Thanks (just saw your edit summary). I searched briefly and everything that came up seemed unrelated - I'll check a bit further next time. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At Pentastrattismo two admins and an experienced editor think you are wrong. Judging also by the comments on your talk page,perhaps it's time to check your entire patrol log and read the tutorials. For these reasons we introduced the New Page Reviewer user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Looks like it was deleted under A11 - I wasn't exactly willing to add that tag myself since I wasn't sure if more sourcing was available in another language, but I don't object to its deletion under that criterion. I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific issue with regard to the "comments on [my] talk page" - obviously there's a lot about speedy deletion, but except for a few mistakes in early 2016 (Pandas! movie hoax, etc) I don't see anything that doesn't fall under a reasonable interpretation of speedy deletion criteria. Appable (talk | contributions) 03:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would have understood that I was politely alluding to the fact you are probably not sufficiently experienced to be doing this type of maintenance, and you are creating work for the qualified Reviewers and admins who besides reviewing new articles, have to check your patrols too, and they probably don't appreciate being warned by a new user either. Something brand new for you to read is Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help with OnePlus 5. You could look at the talkpage for reference ideas. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks for letting me know! Appable (talk | contributions) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've started a discussion about BLPPROD's wording. I might also start a RfC about raising the ineligibility standard to a reliable source. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As written at WP:A7, This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. The observation that a handful of local sources exist is not germane to removing the A7 template. Geogene (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of why we need an absolute consensus that the inclusion of reliable sources is sufficient to meet A7. I'll pass it to AfD anyway. Appable (talk | contributions) 05:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code the Future Appable (talk | contributions) 05:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for getting that started. Geogene (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Falcon 9 Flight 23, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G7'd. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
The warning placed on that IP user talk page was appropriate, based on their edits. Please do more research before using warning/notice templates. - ^theWOLFchild 20:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I didn't place a warning or blocking template. I still disagree, it was the same article and original research versus unsourced content is very similar (i.e. you were probably warning for the same thing as the other guy. Also you still haven't justified a level 3 warning - that is completely excessive. He did not edit after the last warning, and it is ridiculous to say he was editing in bad faith. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you were probably warning for the same thing as the other guy ..."probably"? In other words, you don't even know. You did all this and didn't even know what you were doing. The "other editor" warned them for their edits at List of main battle tanks by country, which they continued after being reverted. The other editor gave them the level2 notice which was appropriate. I gave them a notice for not using edit summaries, which is level 1 by default, and then after reverting their edit at multiple space explorations articles, I gave them the addition notice (that I added an explanation for in the 'optional notes' section), which at that point is level 3. It's pretty straight forward, What about all this don't you get? Why don't you check the edit histories involved before you go reverting and templating experienced editors that are trying to fight vandalism and other incorrect edits? - ^theWOLFchild 20:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert and this revert, neither of those edits had an edit summary to explain why they changed sourced content, not did they add/change the existing sources to even give the appearance of supporting their changes. It's not my responsibility to research every random, unexplained, unsupported change made to sourced content by a new IP user account. I reverted, which was appropriate, and gave an explanation. I then added a 'welcome' template to the IP user page, to help them, and added appropriate notices. They made a series of similar edit to a different article the same day, and despite a revert and notice from another editor, continued with unexplained, unsupported edits to the same article. This is the first step in an edit-war and could be considered as disruptive editing.

What you've done is equally disruptive, reverting template notices, then re-reverting those unexplained/unsupported edits, then placing a warning on my talk page? And looking at your edit summaries, you apparently think this is some kind of 'fun game'. Well, go play elsewhere. - ^theWOLFchild 20:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I apologize for the "haha so funny" edit summary. I interpreted your template warning as a snarky comment at first, and as you can see I reverted the removal after further consideration. I don't think this is a 'fun game', that wasn't my intention. My note was because I interpreted your actions as biting a newcomer, and because I wanted to explain why I thought that and because you're an experienced user, I didn't use a warning template.

Hohum did not revert all of the IP editor's edits on List of main battle tanks by country. Instead, he removed italics and removed one part that was not relevant. The IP editor continued editing, and stopped using italics based on the last edit (clearly showing that they are willing to be part of the project). He stopped editing at 16:08, and about 10 minutes later, Hohum added a general caution to add citations.

Only then did you come in, after the editor had stopped editing, and reverted their work on some articles and added the warning and welcome template. There was nothing resembling an edit war. In fact, based on their changed behavior after Hohum's edit to remove italics, it looked like constructive editing. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they continued at the tank article without a single edit summary or source added, which is why I reverted and gave them the edit summary notice. Then I found the changes at the various space-related articles, again no edit summaries or sources and that's why I reverted and gave them and additional notice. (I also added a 'welcome' tempolate and organized the page). The templates are just that... notices. They're not punitive. They're there to inform, instruct and guide. They are also cumulative but, level 3 is not the end of the world. You're acting as if I was an admin that suddenly and unjustly bloccked them. Hopefully they (it's a university, so who knows how many different people are using that account, or when it'll be used again), will take note of those notices, and the links they contain to the relevant guidelines and policies and edit accordingly going forward. However, you removing notices and reverting innapropriate edits is not only extremely unhelpful here, but sends mixed messages that can only lead to confusion. And I'm not sure why you are so adamantly defending this particular IP address. Do you have any involvement or particular interest with this school? - ^theWOLFchild 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: The reason I dislike level 3 notices in this case is because it tends to assume bad faith – "please stop" – when this editor really did not seem to be acting in bad faith at all. And that pushes away new editors. I don't see any reason why a level 2 notice would be less effective, but it would be somewhat less hostile. I definitely agree that the templates are helpful in general, but I get worried when the fairly harsh level 3 or 4 templates are used too early.

For your second question, I have no involvement with the school and am not connected in any way to that IP address. I try to stick up for editors acting in good faith when there's warnings that don't feel right or unfairly placed speedy deletions, and I happened to see that edit from my watchlist: most of my content edits have been spaceflight, so I follow a lot of pages there. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're "dislike of level notices" is something you should up on those notice's talk pages, or at the village pump. And if you disagree with Hohum's or my actions, you should take it up with he or I directly. Instead, you re-reverted the edits I reverted on those articles, then you reverted the notice I placed on that IP user talk page, then placed on warning on my talk page. It's one thing to look out for newcomers, I actually respect that, but you need to balance that with the respect due to experienced editors, people who have put time and effort into building and maintaining this project (and if not respect, then at least acknowledgement) including those of us that regularly, if not daily, watch out for and correct edits that are, for whatever reason, not suitable (whether it's vandalism or a mistake made with good intentions). The next time you have a concern, just ask. There's a good chance it'll get sorted out without all this... effort. - ^theWOLFchild 03:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the classification of Falcon Heavy as a "heavy-lift" or "super heavy-lift" launch vehicle. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not?". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 02:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting WP:MOVE discussion has been started at Talk:Dragon_2#Requested_move_16_August_2018, and I observed you expressed an opinion on a previous move discussion in 2016 on the same article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, @N2e: I added my thoughts, which have apparently not changed in over three years. Appable (talk | contributions) 00:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Asia Broadcast Satellite Ltd. Company Logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam: Fixed, I think. Let me know if there's other concerns; I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia image policy. Thanks for the notice! Appable (talk | contribs) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Appable: Please provide a link to where this image originally comes from. If you made this image by yourself please specify that. --Wcam (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcam: Okay, done. I was under the impression "Asia Broadcast Satellite Website" was preferred over a direct link, but I guess that's the standard? Appable (talk | contribs) 20:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Es'hailsat logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appable,

This is to let you know that File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-08. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Asia Broadcast Satellite Ltd. Company Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Appable, I would like to ask for your honest opinion regarding Sultan Qaboos private life in the talk page RFC. Itshrabkhan (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]