User talk:Arbitrarily0

Hello, Arbitrarily0! I recently edited a page on Tiger Muskellunge (a species of fish) because the image in the taxonomy section was of the wrong variety of muskie. The image I replaced it with is found in the same exact book on the same exact page (Fish of Michigan Field Guide by Dave Bosanko, page 88). Even though both images are from the same source, I am not completely sure if I correctly followed copyright procedure. I'd like your opinion on this, but I am fairly certain this maneuver was fine due to the fact that multiple images from this book are circulating the Commons. Thanks!

BenitoJuarez98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenitoJuarez98 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benito! This is a good question! Your reasoning is great, but there is something strange: if both of those images come from that book, probably this website does not own that image either. If the book publisher owns those images, sadly we probably cannot use either one. I gave a look around different

tiger muskie drawings online - I do not see any which are freely available. Perhaps the best route is to replace this drawing with a real-world picture. What do you think? Feel free to consider any pictures you yourself have taken. In general, let me know if you need a hand uploading your own shots! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the feedback - I will remove the existing drawing and see if i can find a decent real tiger muskellunge for the box, as that is the best option readily available. And thanks for the help offer, but as long as I follow copyright rules, I think I'll be in the clear! Thanks again! Benito 21:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great! Keep in touch, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to

]

My, that was quite confusing. Should be all set now, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to request WikiProject tagging from Arbitrarily0Bot for

]

Scratch that, just realised that category is organised in a problematic way. I'll get back to you with a list :) --Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 12:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings my friend! Unfortunately I am no longer operating Arbitrarily0Bot - I need to remove that from my userpage. There still should be, however, some active bots at Category:WikiProject tagging bots. Good luck to you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations, Arbitrarily0! I hope you are doing well.

I'm working on what has become (due to sheer length) a series of articles about the history of

, and the three target pages are as follows (with the inclusive revisions to be moved noted in parentheses):

1. User:Michael Barera/sandbox/History of East Texas Normal College (from here to here
   , inclusive)
2. User:Michael Barera/sandbox/History of East Texas State Normal College (from here to here
   , inclusive)
3. User:Michael Barera/sandbox/History of East Texas State Teachers College (from here to here
   , inclusive)

Hopefully this all makes sense and isn't too much work for which to ask. If you have any concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks in advance, and all the best!

Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael! Great to hear from you. Should be taken care of now. Grace to you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! It is much appreciated! Greetings from Texas! Michael Barera (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you maybe help me with some deleted pages on wikipedia? Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdafis (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I am happy to help, although you may find faster response by submitting your request to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request to say if you can add Wikiproject pashtun to category:pashtun/relevant categories. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

]

Thank you! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Arthur (philosopher) 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/John Arthur (philosopher) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

My page, Tyler Barnett, which I have worked very hard to ensure is correct and proper, was deleted. Can you help me? I don't know why this happened and I am upset about it. Thanks! -Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6273:AF00:90C7:9710:C82D:A85A (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I'm a active user of Wikipedia. And I have requested for permission for helping Wikipedia for a safer place and help fellow Wikipedian's. If you feel I need more practice though, I'll be happy to gain more experience. So, I would like to grab your attention. Im extremely sorry if I words are rude towards you sir. Thank you for taking the time to review my case, and have a nice day! AR.Dmg (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0/: since you started the article and still seem to be active, just to inform you I came across some images on commons and I was thinking of creating a separate category Commons:Category:Warramunga Tribe, or would Commons:Category:Warramungu Tribe be more appropriate? Descripton of this image reads: TREE BURIAL, RAKING THE BONES FROM THE PLATFORM - WARRAMUNGA TRIBE - CENTRAL AUSTRALIA Do you have some advise? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: sorry I missed this message. I suppose it's best to use the spelling which appears more frequently in the literature, but I'm not sure which one this is. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca Fan Company appears to be owned now by Hunter Fan Company. Yet I can find no information online as to when that happened. After Burton died, did the company go into decline? Did sales fall off? Did product quality suffer? Was the Hunter acquisition hostile or a rescue? Do you or anyone know? Wikiceej (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiceej, I do not know about this. Perhaps there will be a press release soon, if not already. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am sorry to bother but I wonder if you could help tagging all pages under

]

Hello Elias. I am sorry I no longer operate User:Arbitrarily0Bot. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbitrarily0,

I saw that you also undid the revert on Arameans that was not the intention actually. There already took 2 RFC's place on the page with both RFC's going about the same thing and the consensus for it was reached. There was a rough consensus for a seperation between modern and ancient Arameans.

The page you undid was actually going about the modern people, while I was busy with Draft:The history of the Arameans

I hope you can revert the edit back and protect it so I can finish the page about the history of these people and put an end to all the discussions that have been going on for 6 months.

Best regards & stay safe! :) Kikkererwtje (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kikkererwtje. Unfortunately I do not know much about the controversy, but it should be decided on the article's talk page. I protected the page because of edit warring, and restored it to the last stable version, as is the usual practice. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update the "result" statement to show that the page was moved to a different page, not the one in the original discussion? Seeing that redlink without the actual name is going to confuse people. Also, since page move requests wind up in various archives, consider making what would otherwise be a pointless/unnecessary redirect from

]

Thanks; addressed. Feel free to redirect that page if you feel appropriate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. I assume you meant "without disambiguation" rather than "without hatnote" in your clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! Corrected. :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And corrected correctly at that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article was previously deleted because it was Article for deletion. I understand that he may not have been an encyclopedic person before, but he is now an encyclopedic person. The singer is currently known in Turkey. I also corrected the mistakes in the article. Please help to return the article. If you have any suggestions for further improvement of the article, I can do it too. Reliable news about the singer were also published in Turkish sources. There are multiple and independent sources in the matter. The only problem is that the resources in the article are in foreign languages.Please bring the article back. If you return the article and give it 10-15 days, we will do our best to improve the article. Thanks —

]

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. There was very recently a consensus to delete this article; if you think there is sufficient reason to overturn that decision, you may make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review, providing the foreign language sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

]

DYK for Anton Colella

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page I created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but I want to save the content from it to use for a user draft. Can you please copy it to my user page.

I also want to add the filmography that was on the page previously back on and to update it with current credits.

I want to also add current news articles to this page for Caitlin Dulany - from 2019 and 2020.

I would like to add a picture from the news as well.

The page is Caitlin Dulany

Thank you Caitlindulany (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure I understand. The page hasn't been deleted since 2019. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arbitrarily0! Thank you for your advice ~ Yes, Wikipedia editing is quite a new thing for me so I'll do my best to familiarise myself with how things work here - your edit was particularly instructive. Thanks again! Illuminana (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Keep it up! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you've deleted the article

]

Hello! Please request at

WP:UND to get a second opinion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just going to ask you for your opinion about draftifying the content. I'm willing to if you do not object. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Shinnosuke15, 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks @Muboshgu:, no objections. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arbitrarilyo,

I agree with relisting the Afd for Brown. with no other input, why not? Then again, I will be surprised if there will be more input. I probably should have PRODed this one. Have a nice day. RemotelyInterested (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RemotelyInterested. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Arbitrarily0! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arbitrarily0

Thank you for creating Saint Paul's Outreach.

, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating mate.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Celestina007 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You relisted the AfD but there are seriously no sources providing him significant coverage. Can you delete it instead? GenuineArt (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GenuineArt. If there is no change to a discussion following the first relist, it is standard practice to relist it once more. But if you are correct, then I trust the page will be deleted in a week. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - would you be willing to elaborate on the policy-based grounds for your closure? I don't see any refutation of my nomination concerning the failure of the GNG - all the weak keep !votes were of the

]

Hi Goldsztajn. Thanks for reaching out. I had misunderstood your comment to Bearian, where I thought you were agreeing with his personal policy. In terms of GNG, the hotel seems to pass ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). These are articles about the hotel itself or the hotel staff, rather than events held the hotel (and I think that these articles, at least, are not press releases). But if you disagree even slightly, I will revert my close. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you considered serving as an Admin? I would need to look over your contributions more closely before nominating you, but I wouldn't proceed at all unless you're interested. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very quick reply and I appreciate you looking for alternate sourcing. Of the stories you cite, I had missed a number of these; 4, 5/6 (same story) in particular are clearly not churnalism and contribute to notability. For what it's worth, following your closure, I was able to find some sourcing regarding the original hotel [8] [9] [10] [11] (although this last one is self-published from the architects). I suspect a deeper trawl through the Ghanaian press would reveal more regarding the original structure (especially given the prior state ownership and subsequent privatisation). I think there's probably enough material for an article on the original structure. The resolution of the issue could be a move to Ambassador Hotel (Accra)? What do you think? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goldsztajn, sounds good to me. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the other issue you raise, I'm presently working on a featured list nomination and a GA nomination, let me finish those and think on your question. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, keep me posted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how happy it made me to see your classic signature at PERM just now. You’ll always be a legend in my book and I’m very glad you’re still around. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swarm, I appreciate the shout-out. It's also great to see you still around after all these years! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you are an admin, you may wish to review Justanothersgwikieditor and this new reviewer's patrols. Are they on probation? I have a couple of minor concerns, but they may be unfounded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung. Justanothersgwikieditor, can you respond to the comments Kudpong posted here? Not responding to such concerns, if legitimate, is grounds for revoking NPP. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the note and did not realise that there is a need to reply to the concerns.

@Kudpung: Hi, sorry for the lack of response, I saw the pings and did not realise I need to respond to it. To start off, I am a relatively new NPPer. I saw the merge suggestions and read the talk page on the proposed merger. Based on the discussion, I assumed with the various NPPers agreeing on the merge and not drafitying or afd, the article should be okay to mark as reviewed. I saw the notes and realise that I had made a poor judgement and archived the notes once I read them. I apologize for my poor judgement and promise to be more careful on blp requirements. I am on the NPP discord server (same username) if you like further clarifications. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

undeclared paid editing, but it will come. I suggest you find your feet with the low hanging fruit before you get involved in more complex issues. Being easier, it would also help very much with the current backlog. Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to ask for help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you elaborate on your no consensus closure here please? It's a bit puzzling to me. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FormalDude. I'm not sure what else to say, but I'll try. I'd probably have been willing to close the discussion as delete at the point which Sandstein relisted it, owing to the strength of the delete arguments. But since then, two experienced editors attested that the article meets GNG, and, moreover, it seemed the discussion had reached an impasse. Having now just searched for sources myself, I wish to stand by my assessment that the GNG attestations merit a no-consensus close. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am the current Editor-in-Chief for Reporter magazine. I recently saw you deleted our page about our organization, and we would like to return it. Can you please let us know how we can return the article back to the way it was? Thank you! Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reporter_Magazine_(RIT)&action=edit&redlink=1 DePiglio (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DePiglio, welcome to Wikipedia! The article was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. While this decision can be challenged, it probably cannot be challenged by someone closely related to the magazine (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). But there are many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia if you are interested, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good closing summary, thanks very much.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amakuru, much appreciated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see that you're pretty active on Wiki, and you happen to be in the Biographies WikiProject! I was wondering if you could review

for me? The page is to be used as both a biography, and an account on Joshua's disappearance (Note: I am getting further help on the page, soon), but it was reviewed almost 2 weeks ago, and the previous reviewer has yet to return to it. He cited that I didn't have enough citations within the page, and that issue has been fixed; The page now has ~30 citations, and counting, as the investigation into the case moves forward.

I hope to hear back from you! Thanks so much DylanJ10000 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DylanJ10000. Peace. Since there is already a reviewer scheduled, how about we let him/her take a look first? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! I'll be happy to wait a few more days, but it seems that they aren't going to be returning to the draft. I'll come back to you if I don't hear from them in the next few days :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanJ10000 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Arbitrarily0! It's been a couple days, and it seems that the first reviewer, ultimately, isn't returning. If you could take a look at the draft, it would be much appreciated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanJ10000 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but have you contacted Alexandermcnabb about this? Let's just make sure he hasn't forgotten, first. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Not sure what's meant here, I reviewed and declined the submission. There was no schedule to return to it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then DylanJ10000, I'd recommend just re-submitting your draft through the usual process. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

of this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Mastrogiacomo (2nd nomination)

Since you offer no details and no summary, I have questions. I am the AfD creator, by the way.

First off, I do not think you simply looked at the not-votes and counted 3 deletes, 3 keeps and one "weak keep". That said, how much weight did you assign to those keeps?

I would say that the first Keep should be discounted entirely, per my comment to that entry --> [12]. As for the other two (by 4meter4 and Banks Irk) they are also basically without substance, as per The Gnome's very thorough analysis. In short, they make claims that appears to be entirely taken out of thin air - that the article simply doesn't support.

Only the Weak Keep from Dflaw4 and the comment by DyInuge appears to be given in the spirit of our deletion policies. (Deathlibrarian too, but that's essentially a "Delete" not-vote)

But there was zero discussion around whether the article merits an exception from the "more than one" NACTOR rule.

I was surprised by your close. To me, the substantial and insightful feedback very heavily favored a delete. Therefore I would like you to elaborate on your decision - which not-votes did you put weight to and why?

Best regards,

]

Hello CapnZapp! I think both sides had arguments that were within the realm of a reasonable interpretation of policy. Some think certain acting roles are more significant than others; some think that GNG is met while others do not. No one's mind was changed as the discussion progressed. But if you still think I read the discussion wrong, please escalate this to

WP:DRV. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your friendly reply. Sure I can escalate, but my hope is that you appreciate me checking in with you before I do that. So - you talk about "both sides" and use "some" several times. But I was asking which (exact) editor argument you put weight upon. As I said, to me one side was very well-reasoned, while the other mostly just spouted baseless bluster. Can I assume you read, in detail, the very well-reasoned evisceration of these claims by The Gnome? How come this did not influence your decision?

Again, this is not personal, but a simple query. I am fully aware of the workload of you core Wikipedians, and I fully realize sometimes decisions are made quickly. I'm here to honestly ask you if you think you did a thorough job, because if you think you did, then I will simply trust you more than myself, and drop the issue. If on the other hand, say, you performed 1,234 various administrative duties the other night, you might welcome a review, and I'll be happy to start one. Hope you see what I'm getting at here, and keep doing great things for Wikipedia!

CapnZapp (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am grateful for your deferential and polite spirit. Yes, I have read the entire discussion, and I've looked it over each time you've asked about it. I still stand by my initial decision. I gave weight to all the arguments except (with all due respect) DRosenbach's. The Gnome's "delete" arguments are not incontestable, as is evidenced by another editor (Dylnuge) who, though !voting delete and hence unlikely to be biased against The Gnome, disagree[d] with The Gnome on two important points. "No consensus" does not mean that you (and Gnome) are wrong; it just means that not enough editors were so swayed, or that the hidden truth of the matter was not any more perspicuous to the closer than it was to half of the !voters. I trust that DRV will arrive at the same conclusion, although I very much welcome the opportunity to be humbled. Again, grateful for your civility, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and the same to you! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,405 views (700.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

]

How did you find consensus for this move? Srnec (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see how! I misread your !vote, as agreeing with AjaxSmack. My apologies. Would you like me to reserve the closure, or should we just open a new discussion? Could you say why you opposed AjaxSmack's alternative? That might make things clearer. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The non-superfluous diacritics should remain in the article if not the title, in which case the spelling of the title should match the standardized Arabic used. In other words, the old title should continue to be used in the body of the article, only the title of the article should be simplified, in which case the y is better than the i (since that it was the standard transliterations prefer). I have no problem adding Ali Haidar Pasha as an alternative spelling in the opening. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you respond to AjaxSmack's claim that Ali Haidar Pasha [is] a more common variant ... in English sources? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Arbitrarily0 can you help me on john kiramis article, I recently submit this article for review.

can you help me to improve this article. Ab.Haris999 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ab.Haris999! Let's let the draft process continue! From a first glance, though, it looks like the subject may not be

notable enough for inclusion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

My article has been deleted

Hey the page that I created has been deleted from Wikipedia, can you help me copy it to my user page. Souravaseelapp (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Souravaseelapp! Welcome to Wikipedia. What article are you referring to? I don't see anything listed in your deleted contributions. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you please reconsider your close of

]

Hi Garuda3, I agree with you, actually, that your argument has not been adequately addressed. Thanks for pointing this out. I have relisted the discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, appreciate it Garuda3 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Given that the talk page is kind of spiraling and hard to read—which very well might be my fault—I just wanted to flag that we did arrive at a consensus on the size qualifier for Sword of the Spirit. LinnCDoyle2 said he'd have no objection to "one of the largest" being used.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Jerome Frank Disciple, and thank you for all your work there. It would probably good to get other editors involved as well. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that there is a consensus in this discussion at all, rough or otherwise. The existence of disambiguation pages premised on

]

Thanks BD2412. About twice as many participants !voted delete over keep. Can you point me in the direction of past discussions on this topic? Even then, maybe it's best to allow this to go to DRV, so that the argument you just made can receive more attention. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Pearce (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Harley (2nd nomination), there was an exhaustive RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 43#RfC on change to MOS:DABMENTION, which resulted in no consensus for the rule applied to the current AfD. BD2412 T 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn here, and would like more of your advice. If there's no consensus on the question, doesn't this mean that AfD's need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis? Again, I'm also fine with bringing this to DRV, in order to attract attention to the fact that we very much need a general solution to this issue. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do we evaluate on a case-by-case basis AfDs where the outcome turns on the exact same policy issue? The sole question is whether a disambiguation page can exist where all of the listings are

WP:DABMENTION items. It should not be the case that following the resolution of several discussions to the outcome that this is permissible, we end up with one indistinguishable case where it is impermissible. BD2412 T 15:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of the !voters, especially

WP:DABMENTION says that on dab pages we may use links to articles that only mention the subject, but it does not say that we have to keep dab pages that only contain such entries, and I think User:4meter4 expanded this argument persuasively. I am inclined to agree with you, BD2412, but many other editors will not be so inclined, so please take this to DRV so we can have a more authoritative ruling than either of us can produce. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The time it would take to work this through DRV is less than the time it would take me to create articles on Charles Francis Lott and Charles Fayette Lott, justifying recreation of the disambiguation page as containing new content. BD2412 T 18:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent solution. Thank you, BD2412. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not thrilled with this solution.

WP:POINTY behavior, WP:Wikilawyering, and essentially behavior which has countermanded and worked an end around the AFD discussion without following the spirit of the close and community consensus. This to my mind is disrespectful to the community who participated in the AFD. I personally think it deserves a temporary block of editing privileges.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am frankly amazed that you consider literally building the encyclopedia to be blockworthy. I have created two articles, with substantial sources (the California Senate member was never even mentioned on the disambiguation page before), and a draft for the actor, all subjects who share this name. If anyone should be subject to sanction, it is User:4meter4, who appears to have initiated an AfD for an article almost immediately after its creation solely because the name of the subject happens to be one for a disambiguation page he prefers not to exist. BD2412 T 20:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BEFORE and found nothing promising. I still think the subject is not notable.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The AfD close had and has no bearing on what topics might be included on a disambiguation page restored with additional subjects. It serves the reader to know what subjects exist in some respect in the encyclopedia that have this name, and it serves the reader to know which ones do not have articles of their own. It is entirely plausible that a reader could come to Wikipedia looking for information on the actor, who can be seen in multiple films and has been mentioned in some sources. It is entirely plausible that a reader could come to Wikipedia looking for information on the basketball player, who was surely noteworthy in connection with their team for that season. BD2412 T 20:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 At this point I am going to let Arbitrarily0 work this out as the closing admin. It's clear you aren't going to be open to listening or working with me in a productive or civil fashion. @Arbitrarily0 I would request that you would up hold parts of the close by removing content at Charles Lott where the articles themselves do not discuss the individuals (both real or fictional) in any detail. For the most part, that would be all of the entries without an existing article. We should not be navigating readers to pages where there is only a passing mention per the spirit of the policies at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. If you are not comfortable with doing that, I would suggest putting this up for discussion at WP:WikiProject Disambiguation for active project members to give input. I would imagine, based on my experience, that they would agree that these are inappropriate entries for a dab page under our policies for those kinds of pages. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the mentions of "Charles Lott" in the associated articles do not meet

WP:DABMENTION, and have removed them. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have removed things that are virtually always included in disambiguation pages, e.g., acting credits. This does a disservice to readers. I will indeed be raising this at the WikiProject. BD2412 T 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles Lott. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BD2412 T 01:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link here, for reference: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 16. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Arbitrarily0 Sir I am thinking about this profile to write an article I see his internet presence his LinkedIn and website. He is Co-Founder and COO of Blue Ridge Capital and Arootah. I checked his profile and net worth also his profile on Bloomberg can you please tell me is he notable for and article???

here are the links related to this profile https://www.detectmind.com/rich-bello-biography-wiki-nationality-educational-qualification-career-path-and-net-worth/ https://arootah.com/about/our-ceo/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/rich-bello-arootah/ https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/18824148?leadSource=uverify%20wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab.Haris999 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ab.Haris999. At first glance, I'm not seeing any

the general notability guideline. But maybe you have some? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, thanks for being the closer for this RM discussion. Following the close, an IP editor made a comment on the talk page, claiming to be Charlie Handsome himself and urging that the move be undone. I replied asking for a Twitter post as confirmation, which happened a couple of days later here [13].

]

Makes sense, User:162 etc., thanks for investigating.  Done. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stable link here, for reference: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 17. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbitrarily0! I have noticed your move of the page

]

Hello Austronesier. I certainly trust your judgement here. Feel free to move the page, with or without AfD. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to update the list of buildings. I’m not very savvy with the editing portion of wikipedia but The Crowne plaza is not included in the list along with Barclay Damon tower & the upstate specialty service tower downtown, The federal building (right next to chase tower)and The civic center. If you find time please make these changes so people are better informed about Syracuse’s skyline. Thanks Joeysararar (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joeysararar! I'm probably not the best person to handle this. Would you mind placing this request on the article's talk page? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a true enthusiast of learning about the Wikipedia world, and I had also created an article about a company. However, within a month, the article was deleted by you. The reason you provided earlier for taking this step was that the article violated the "Retail store lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP" guideline. I would like to know more about this guideline and how I can revive pages that are in this situation. Kartikguide (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kartikguide! Welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you are referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic India Art. The page was deleted because it did not meet this guideline; do you have specific questions about that guideline, or do you wish to contend that the subject in facts meets the guideline's criteria? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly assert that the subject, in fact, satisfies the criteria outlined in the guidelines Kartikguide (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but can you provide your reasons for your assertion? Which of the criteria are satisfied, and how are they satisfied? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! It appears that my page meets several important criteria that contribute to its potential success on Wikipedia, If I'm not wrong. These criteria include maintaining a neutral point of view, employing an encyclopedic tone, and ensuring proper formatting and structure.Kartikguide (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the criteria under the section

here. You still need to demonstrate that the company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you identify such sources? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, The Company has significant coverage in the reliable source "The Hindu," https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/exotic-india-art-signs-mou-with-tn-to-promote-handicrafts/article66568841.ece as stated in the list of reliable sources and perennial sources.talk (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.69.15.86 (talk) [reply]

Good, we are making progress. This source seems reliable, and it has at least some significance (although perhaps not much). But before we start evaluating the significance of the sources, recall that we need multiple such sources. Are there others besides this? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think they had more reliable sources from the list. By the way, how important is having multiple sources for a brand's article page? Moreover, what if the live page doesn't have multiple sources? Is the source from Google Maps also considered reliable? talk (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yes, having more than one reliable source is necessary for the subject to be included on Wikipedia. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, based on the information I have, what should I do? talk (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as inclusion on Wikipedia is concerned, it sounds like there is nothing else that can be done. But you are of course welcome to pursue posting this information elsewhere on the Internet. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration and guidance. I truly appreciate your efforts.talk (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just one question out of curiosity: Are there any specific guidelines regarding the number of reliable sources required for an article? talk (talk) 04:43, 04 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that there has to be more than one reliable (and significant) source, but the more the better. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for moving the page CapLiber (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I've never received a "Falafel award" before -- thanks! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to drop a note to thank you for moving the Navigant article to Guidehouse. I am working on updating some of the content, so you can expect more from me. Would you be interested in reviewing the changes when they're ready? Thanks DS from Guidehouse (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danny. You're welcome. Yes, feel free to ping me when you've made your changes. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to relist this, rather than closing it as no consensus? It had not been relisted at the time you did so, and the !votes against were very weak, failing to address the arguments presented. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Sounds fine to me. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd like to challenge the no consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simfy. The only delete !vote was by a user blocked as a sock ~ A412 ^talk! 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. In these cases I usually defer to the determination of the user who last relisted the discussion: since no one commented after the relist, since the relister evidently did not believe there to be a consensus, and since there was not a strong reason to believe that the relister was in error (Deltaspace42, after all, had !voted delete), I closed the discussion as no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]