Spammers, friends and critics can't agree -- is User:A. B.:

A. "She (because clearly she's a bitch) is just doing her thing up in New Jersey. No one likes you, mother of three. No one." ^[1][2]

B. "Worst of all this user is very offensive to females." ^[3]

• Same user also edits as Tony.dean ^[4]

C. A stalker "from birmgingham england." ^[5]

D. A "lesbian feminazi."^[6][7] … wearing her "undies in a bunch?" ^[8]

E. A "robot." ^[9][10][11]

• Oh no!

F. Hiding a pornographic fire-parrot in Wikipedia's sandbox.^[12]

G. Living in Minnesota, USA.^[13]

H. Canadian, eh? ^[14] Tamil, no?^[15]

I. A Yankee?^[16] A Tennesseean?^[17] A Yankee and a "Kerry freak"?^[18]

J. In the American Air Force or maybe the Navy^[19]

K. Just stupid.^[20]

L. A kid sitting on a bean bag chair in Mom's basement eating Cheetos

M. A mom with a kid in the basement living on Cheetos

N. All of the above.

O. None of the above.

P. Somedays one, somedays another.

You decide.

•answer

I have notified you as required by the instructions below

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article at the time I tagged it for speedy copyvio:

• "It is only described from two specimen collected in the Misuku Hills of northern Malawi. It is much larger and brownish then Zanzibar Galago (which it was first identified with), with a dark brown tail tip and notably short ears. Recorded vocalizations from Kalwe are distinctive and merit further study."

Source[21]: "Finally, the “Kalwe Small Dwarf Galago ,” which is known from two specimens collected in the Misuku Hills of northern Malawi, may also be G. granti . It is much larger and brownish, with a dark brown tail tip and notably short ears. Recorded vocalizations from Kalwe are distinctive and merit further study"

How "Does not look like a violation"? Fram (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Here is the current copyvio report. Copyvio is rated as 8% likely.
2. This is the speedy deletion criterion:
   • "This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution."
3. Here is the copyright notice at the page you cite:
   • "No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation."
4. Here is the Creative Commons statement

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then it's plagiarism, not copyvio. Fram (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Good thing nobody deleted it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but giving a good explanation of why you reject a csd is mire helpful than your terse edit summary. Anyway, thank you for taking an interest in my and only my afds, in one case your comments were even relevant. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)`Reply[reply]

You recently added a link to an article in Sculpture to the Blueprints at Addison Circle Wiki page. The link takes me to the EBSCO login screen; I have access to some EBSCO resources through my local public library, but it won't pull the article up. Presumably the library isn't subscribed to the correct collection, and I suspect that many readers will have this same problem or won't be able to access EBSCO at all. Can you permalink the magazine article, or use a different link to a more accessible web archive? Carguychris (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should be able to access EBSCO via the Wikipedia Library if you've signed up (I highly recommend it!). Let me see if I can fix the problem for others; I'm not sure I can. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris, I'm not sure I can produce a link that gives others free access to EBSCO; I've tried without luck but that doesn't mean it's not doable. In the meantime, I've emailed you a copy of the Sculpture article text. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help create subsection format (background and education, career) on the Emmanuel Ibru page. I don't know how to do that yet. Thank you. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again!!! Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you removed the PROD I placed on this article, with an explanation that there are news articles about it. I didn't tag it for lack of news articles; they just do not suffice for the subject of the article to meet the General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG. You've also not mentioned them. While a PROD can be removed for any reason, a good reason is always helpful, especially when disputing the content of the nomination. Best Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Megan B. Here’s what I wrote:

• "remove PROD tag. There are additional news articles out there - possibly notable. At the same time, nominator's concerns about reliable sources seriously considered - recommend AfD”

PROD is for obvious, non-controversial deletions. If in doubt, articles should go to AfD for further discussion. That’s how I see this case.

I think the quality of news coverage in some countries is really iffy and it makes these cases hard. I appreciate your care for our content! —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to know when people agree with me so I know I'm not being ridiculous. JM (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam, that one source you retained for "Bukka I" by some obscure author Y. G. Bhave, I think it can also be removed as the author is not a historian nor any form of recognition or WP:Notabilty in this field. 182.183.7.252 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just skimmed the second ref. It did not seem egregiously biased like the other ref. Also, judging by the publisher’s other titles (see the book’s back cover), the publisher seemed reputable. My edit should be seen as a deletion of one ref, not a solid validation of the other.

I am not an authority on this subject - I was just dealing with what looked like obvious problems. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! The meta:Steward request/username change wasn't the right place for this, so I brought you a kitten. I just wanted to let you know that we genuinely appreciate your volunteer efforts. Keep up the awesome work; we see it and value it!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you - this means a lot. I so enjoyed Meta. I returned after a 10-year wiki break and for now I've mostly focused here on under-referenced articles and deletion candidates. I look forward to getting more involved with Meta again soon. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to step on any toes, but I've asked ScottishFinnishRadish about their RfC close on their talk page here: [22]

I know you're intending to put an appeal together as well, but I thought I would be proactive and am happy to help if desired. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. You're not stepping on my toes at all. I've discouraged some others from barging ahead because I thought they'd demand a review based on "this is a stupid idea" (which it is) rather than grounding it Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SFR acknowledged the pro-table !voters were in the majority but noted they made weak arguments with regards to policies and guidelines (i.e, just a lot of WP:ILIKEIT). Some of the people on the airport talk page are agitated enough to screw it up and get the door shut forever.

SFR just did his job based on what was presented to him. I was unaware of this RfC until after the fact when I was looking at a trip to Las Vegas. Had I commented at the RfC, I would have drilled into exactly what our policies say about primary sources; using airline and airport data was very much allowed in this case. I'd have cited chapter and verse, etc.

I think any appeal needs to be grounded on the primary sources question, not "the-admin-screwed-up".

There's other stuff to consider, too, and I've made a bunch of notes but been busy in real life. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think both can be true - it reads to me like a supervote, since if this were an AfD, I'd go to DRV on the grounds that the admin picked a closing result which was not adequately supported by the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a review usually gives the benefit of the doubt to the closing admin. It’s probably best to just stick to policy and let others draw their own conclusions.

i think many !votes had underlying ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT vibes likely depending on how much they fly. If the didn’t fly much, this just seemed like “pointless” trainspotting or highway editing. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How would you like to proceed? Would you like to do a joint WP:AN post? SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also happy to help with a draft, though I'm not sure about reopening this can of worms yet since (so far) it's unclear if Sunny or anyone else will be attempting to remove the tables from a greater number of articles. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's sort of my thought as well - there's trouble as soon as anyone tries to remove them, since they're generally well maintained by users who don't participate in RfCs. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to notify you that I have also decided to request closure review, though my request has a different objective than yours. The link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish to elaborate on my reasons for starting this closure review. I had my own legitimate concerns about the close, which were partly inspired by the points you made about primary sources during dispute resolution. Though I also was aware that you intended to challenge the close, and I wanted to put it on a stronger footing beforehand. I don't think that that is a bad thing, but I wanted to apologize if it seems like I sought to preempt you while you were not ready.

My idea was that I could request closure review regarding the specific changes that I considered necessary, and you could subsequently request your own review centered on your particular concerns. In retrospect, however, I acknowledge that it is rather impractical to have one thorough discussion about the RFC one day, and have another a few months later.

In light of the above, I am willing to withdraw my request for closure review if you desire more time to formulate your arguments in collaboration with other editors. This would leave me in a limbo until you post your challenge: I was apparently the only editor seeking to enforce the RFC consensus, but I no longer feel comfortable defending a major part of the close. We would also certainly repeat ourselves to some degree in a future discussion. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is worth it, in the interest of having a fair debate about this controversial issue. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never thought you've acted in bad faith. I have not thought you were trying to pre-empt my own request for a review. While I disagree with your editorial views on these tables, I've been impressed with how conscientious and polite you've been in notifying people, dealing with the angry mob on the Las Vegas airport talk page etc.

As for the RfC and now the close review, they've turned into a real muddle.

With regards to formulating my arguments, by now I've pretty much laid them all out there by now. Don't feel you have to withdraw your request.

We'll see what happens. Right now, I suspect those tables, which I look at all the time, are doomed. "You can't win 'em all." I have no hard feelings towards you.

Whoever deletes 1000s of tables needs to have a thick skin. The Las Vegas airport talk page got pretty ugly. Wikipedia has some editors that like a good fight - maybe you can pawn that task off on them.

I shall console myself that Heathrow will still have a section for bike routes.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}< A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your civility as well.

If that is the case, and given that multiple people have already expounded their arguments, it is probably best to continue with the present review.

By the way, I agree with you about the excessive detail on things like bike routes in certain articles. The Las Vegas airport article used to mention the different parking garages, cellphone lot, and the location of bus stops. I pared down those details recently, though someone added the bus routes back. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind the other stuff like bike routes. They're probably useful for some readers and Wikipedia is not paper.

I just put a higher value on an airport's connectivity and volume. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Deaereating feed tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condenser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, A. B.

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Following your edit on Bushra Razack, Do you reckon that reliable source(s) as the first one from the GBS Bertha Centre from the University of Cape Town is not good enough? ^ "Bertha Centre". gsbberthacentre.uct.ac.za. Retrieved 16 June 2023. As well as the one from News 24??Please, go through the links and actually read. Thank you MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think either of those two links will satisfy the two notability guidelines that apply to this article:

• Our main Notability Guideline:
  • See the subsection, General Notability Guideline. It requires the following:
    • "'Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
      • Here's the No Original Research Policy
        • The News24 article is more about the Bertha Centre than about Bushra Razack. It doesn't provide enough significant coverage about Bushra Razack.
      • See the subsection, Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
    • "'Reliable' means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."
      • Here's the Reliable Source Guideline
    • "'Sources'" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
    • "Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."
      • Note that the gsbberthacentre.uct.ac.za link is reliable, but not independent.
      • Usually news media such as News 24 are secondary sources but interviews are a special case. (See Wikipedia:Interview). Aside from the significant coverage issue, parts of the News24 article are sort of an interview.
• There's an additional notability that deals just with people:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (people)|Notability guideline for people

I hope this helps. Does Bushra Razack "deserve" an article? Maybe. We'd probably like to have an article about her if we get the right kinds of source material.

Does Ms. Razack get one? Not unless these requirements are met. We don't do this to be hard-nosed; it's just that we can't write very reliable or accurate articles unless our articles meet these rules. These are Wikipedia-specific rules to meet Wikipedia-specific needs; they're different from what many other web sites allow because those other sites have different objectives.

We have almost 7 million articles. Perhaps 1 million are about living people? That's just a guess. The world's got 7 to 8 billion people. That means that maybe only 1 in 7,000 people has a Wikipedia article.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I will keep on adding more links and sources until everyone is satisfied! MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't add additional inadequate citations. That's called "ref-bombing" (WP:REFBOMB and reduces the article's credibility and your own.

You only need one or two good references that meet Wikipedia's notability requirements to make this article "stick". From my own search, I don't think they yet exist for Ms. Razack, but I may be wrong.

If there aren't any, just save your work to your hard drive for future use and drop this article. This will save everybody's time, including your own. Don't embarrass Ms. Razack or yourself. Don't compromise her credibility or your own on Wikipedia. Don't get your account blocked and your other work here questioned.

It's not the end of the world if she doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Give it time; I suspect maybe she'll get the media coverage we need in the not-too-distant future.

Regards, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We both know, actually everyone knows that "(Remove PROD: 1. - 3 refs in the Ukrainian Wikipedia article. 2. - 50+ Google News articles in last 12 month searching for Badak+gas 3. - over 100 Google Scholar results using Badak+gas)" is a fallacious argument. You know also as well as anyone that not all of those hits are about the subject, and that most of them are trivial mentions. So why embarrass yourself in front of everyone. So I propose you try to embarrass me instead. Those gas fields need to meet WP:GNG or be merged or deleted. So do the work for once and explain how this gas field is notable, and why I'm wrong in thinking it isn't.James.folsom (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look at it later this week. I sense this is personal for you. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I don't get to this in the next day or two, feel free to take this to AfD if you feel strongly. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This exercise was just an opportunity for you to choose to be an adult. You've clearly opted to go the other way with that. James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James, I have a life off Wikipedia. I travel. I may deal with that article, I may not. I'm in no rush and I'm certainly not going to do anything because of your insults.

When I review PRODs and references, I'm just looking for the right outcome. There articles that don't appeal to me and some that even make me cringe (porn stars, etc) but I look at them and apply the policies and guidelines that represent the collective opinion and values of the Wikipedia community, whether I personally want them in Wikipedia or not.

This mindset is the same way I worked as an admin in prior years. My actions here are not just about me.

I'm something of a deletionist (or at least a merge/redirect/listmaker) myself. Frankly, though, I've been concerned about what almost seems like a personal crusade for you to delete whole categories of articles you disapprove of - small Georgia communities like Tennga, Georgia, gas fields, sewage treatment plants -- notability and WP:BEFORE be damned.

You've had pushback from other editors, too, with the same concerns. Your responses to them have been gratuitously brusque at times. To some readers, they may even have seemed hostile. Hopefully that's not the way you intended them.

I meant to leave you nice note with some ideas about some gas fields you might want to look at but I can see this is not a good time for this.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi A.B. You undid my PROD on 'Chuluncayani Adventist University' and suggested AfD. I am new to editing - so very happy to accept this, since you think there might be relevant information (although I looked and couldn't find any). Do I need to do anything? Should I now suggest AfD? Best wishes - Newhaven Lad

I recommend you take it to AfD. Normally there are reliable refs out there for universities but I couldn’t find any. At AfD, someone will either find some to prove notability or else folks will confirm your belief the article should be deleted. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:AFD. Thanks for your work on under-referenced articles. We need a lot more of this. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cornwall on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]