User talk:Ethanbas

Archives

1

In the past I accepted money from Vipul Naik to edit Wikipedia; see User:Ethanbas/Paid articles. Vipul's paid content creation project has been shut down due to accusations of SEO optimization and general hostility on WP against paid editing. All payments always came directly from Vipul's personal funds.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Public image of Donald Trump 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/Public image of Donald Trump (2nd nomination) 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. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of your posts, "User:VQuakr, Slate Star Codex was made 2 hours ago." is duly noted; I can strike/update the verbage of my nomination accordingly. The rest of your statements at the MfD indicate to me that you are too emotionally invested in this subject for you to productively contribute to the deletion discussion. Vipul requested userfication of deleted articles and then added INDEX tags to increase search engine visibility, in at least one instance, because he was explicitly paid to do so. Neither I nor any neutral editor is going to care about your personal endorsement of an editor's motivations, and it is hard for me to imagine such an endorsement having any bearing on the result of a deletion discussion.

At a minimum, please keep the drama relegated to talk space. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Vipul requested userfication of deleted articles and then added INDEX tags to increase search engine visibility, in at least one instance, because he was explicitly paid to do so" VQuakr, what is this one instance you speak of? Please link me to it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse Vipul and Riceissa of doing something malicious; I want to see the proof. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a history of tag teaming the exact articles in question. Your attempt to play dumb is quite transparent. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof for your smearing attempt, VQuakr? Should be pretty easy to give, but for *some reason*, you're playing games with me! Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas: I photographed your favorite non-notable Acting Deputy Sec of the Treasury, Andy Baulol. :) Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Baukol good times eh Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you;d like to do some completely non-controversial help, you might go to the stubs you have been entering for various mostly European professors, and add at least their academic degrees, and the titlesof the books (not articles) that they have written. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I only made 4 articles on professors, and they're all Israeli Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are Ariel Merari, Esther Meir-Glitzenstein, Renee Poznanski, Gerald Blidstein (for my own reference too) Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I implemented your suggestions to a certain extend; but I'm not really interested in working on these articles further :P Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dysejaculation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a dicdef, and already in Wiktionary

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kosovo–Serbia January 2017 train incident has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very minor event with no lasting historical importance

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dataminr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Ethanbas:Dysejaculation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dysejaculation. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dysejaculation – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Meir Einstein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About this: Yes, I know, Ethanbas, I had already checked their range. Unfortunately the range seems to be used quite a lot for constructive editing, which probably isn't the same person. So, as much as I like blocking people,[1] I hesitate to block the range (though I may, if they continue to disrupt). Blocking the individual fluctuating IPs isn't much use, I'm afraid. I can semiprotect your page if you like. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Never told you to block them; I enjoy it :) Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AG-490 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/AG-490 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. Nördic Nightfury 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on George Gigicos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, A-box 1 of insulin gene. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Insullin. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Insullin. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is time for you to add more content to A-box 1 of insulin gene. What binds to it and what effect does it have. What mutations are there? What organisms is it in? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I have overlooked some new policy consensus here, but as best I can tell paid editing itself, under current consensus, is allowed with proper disclosure and proper care taken to avoid COI esp wrt BLPs. Andrevan@ 01:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, thank you so much for unblocking Riceissa. I'm gonna tell him to stop adding primary sourced donation tables :) Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kosovo–Serbia January 2017 train incident 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/Kosovo–Serbia January 2017 train incident 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gauti Eggertsson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://voxeu.org/users/gautibeggertsson0. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have no objections to your page movie -- in fact, I think it's a better title from an NPOV perspective even if the content isn't changed. However, if you truly expect that the move will be undone, you should have followed the appropriate procedure described at WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Just a suggestion for future reference. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I'm aware of the procedure for potentially controversial page moves, I'll follow it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silver-indium-cadmium 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/Silver-indium-cadmium 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. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 May 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article May 2017 Kabul attack, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 16:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there are only 15 members on this list and 10 already on the other page. Why do you think there is a need for a separate page. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a good argument. Domdeparis (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi was an important organization, and many of its members went on to be important in Israel. The issue is that Lehi has significantly less material on it in the English language than in Hebrew. I think the main article can list the members who are important enough that they have Wikipedia articles, while the separate list article can list many more notable members who perhaps don't have anything written about them in English. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Domdeparis, http://lehi.org.il seems like the authoritative Hebrew source on Lehi, and it's what I'll be using to add people to the list. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be on the list the members have to be notable themselves as per WP:LISTS. I really feel that unless there are a large number of notable people that were members this WP:STANDALONE list is not necessary which is why I created the redirect. You have already added a person that does not have his own WP page so in reality there are just 14 notable members for the moment which is better kept on the main article page. When the list become unwieldy then a separate article is needed. For the moment the article is superfluous. Domdeparis (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting commanders who aren't notable enough to have their own article isn't appropriate for the main article, but it is appropriate for the list I created, and it's in fact one of the major purposes of the list. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to focus your time on things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_al-Qaeda_members? :P Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis I added some stuff to List of Lehi members. I'm busy with my final exams now, so that will be all for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethan I've left a comment on the deletion talk page with my POV. We'll see how that pans out. If it is redirected rather than being deleted there is the that the work that has already gone into it is not lost it is kept in the history and you can continue to work in your sandbox finding and sourcing and writing about other members as per the criteria of WP:LISTPEOPLE and then when you think it's ready edit the redirect with a discussion on the talk page to justify your changes. Happy editing and good luck with your exams. Domdeparis (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Lehi members 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/List of Lehi members 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. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvard memes 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/Harvard memes 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. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks. Booyahhayoob (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Ethanbas, thanks for creating Gauti Eggertsson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs more references to sources that provide substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jim O'Neill (investor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article June Huh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this article appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eric Katz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this article appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Katz 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/Eric Katz 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. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Frida Ghitis for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Zakhx150. Ethanbas, thanks for creating Nook in the Brain!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please include in-line citations into the article from reliable, secondary sources to ensure notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Zakhx150 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not expand that Pillows article if its so important to you? See WP:MOSALBUM for album article guidelines. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jennica, there is the issue of me not speaking Japanese, so it's difficult for me to interpret Japanese language materials. However, I generally follow an article creation philosophy of creating mostly stub/short articles that meet notability criteria and are unlikely to be deleted (because they met notability criteria, even if they are very short/stubby). Some people like this, some don't. I would say maybe 25% of these short/stubby articles become full articles within 6 months (many person articles I create do; another notable example are the presidential timelines, thanks solely to the efforts of user Informant16). I find that this is the easiest/best way for me to contribute to Wikipedia; I generally do not have the interest/motivation to write beyond a stub, even for articles on a band I'm a big fan of. A number of Wikipedians have opposed my stub creations in the past; however, most survive AfDs (not to mention speedies and PRODs), although I don't really like it when a stub I create generates a long AfD discussion. So, this is some of my thinking. Ethanbas ^(talk) 08:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example of recent stub I created that generated a long AfD: Eric Katz. This AfD isn't as bad as usual though, because it may have some value by helping nuance what WP:ACADEMIC covers. Ethanbas ^(talk) 08:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas I think you should start these articles in draft space and work on expanding them. Google translate will translate full pages. If there is no other coverage though, I am afraid it is eligible for deletion or becoming a redirect. It's not supposed to be an insult to you. There needs to be chart, sales, or reviews. Upon a quick search I cannot fin dany of those, therefore it's non-notable and shouldn't be on wiki. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything either User:Jennica, so I'll leave the article redirected. Ethanbas ^(talk) 15:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Seattle Department of Transportation a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. SounderBruce 23:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SounderBruce, Wikipedia:Moving_a_page is just an essay; as far as I know, copying a draft into mainspace (as long as attribution is provided) is considered OK. Also, following your template would lead to a redirect from draftspace to mainspace, which is undesirable. Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves are heavily discouraged because it messes up the page history function and creates headaches for administrators. Attribution is indeed required, but drafts should not be moved without consensus from the main contributors, like most cases across Wikipedia. A redirect from draft space to main space is fine by itself, but I can also move pages without leaving a redirect behind through the PageMover permission. SounderBruce 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut&paste (or copy&paste) moves are so strongly discouraged that when an admin, such as I, becomes aware of one, it is almost certain to be undone at once. There is no good reason to do one. If you think that Draft:Seattle Department of Transportation is ready to move to mainspace, you can follow the procedure at Requested Moves and start a discussion at Draft talk:Seattle Department of Transportation

Redirects from mainspace to draft space or userspace are usually deleted, but redirects from draft to mainspace are left in place routinely. They do no harm.

SounderBruce, the "main contributors" do not own a draft, any more than they would an article. Someone who thinks a move would be an improvement may boldly make one. However, if an editor is aware that a move would be controversial, or objected to by a significant number of editors, consensus should be sought from all interested editors in advance. But previous contributors have no privileged status in such a discussion.

All such moves should be done via the move function, not via copy&paste. only when merging pages is copy&paste with attribution usual. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on High Five (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Formal Dude (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bitcoin Cash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. menaechmi (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say sorry about this one, when I added it to your article I was probably a touch hasty. I know it did end up getting speedily deleted, but clearly it didn't deserve that fate. I'm glad you were able to recreate it successfully. I wouldn't have nominated it if I found any of the sources that you added when you recreated the article, but it absolutely blew up hours later. Again, sorry I'm glad you got it back. menaechmi (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries menaechmi. I've had it happen before that I create a stub on something notable, but then it gets speedied for not indicating notability, so I'm slowly learning to add a bit more to why the article's subject is notable. With short stubs, the loss of labor is small anyway. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of California, Irvine rescinded controversy 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/University of California, Irvine rescinded controversy 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. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shinichiro Sato has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article August 29 North Korean missile launch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Home Lander. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hamburger problem has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable neologism; all coverage seems to be in direct response to Josh Barro.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am messaging you to inform you, as the creator of the article on the Wagner Group, that I have expanded the article quite a bit. I wanted to hear your opinion on my expansion and if you think there are any other changes that need to be made. EkoGraf (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have anything to add. Great work! Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) EkoGraf (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of C2 Education, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: text is not promotional (intent is irrelevant for G11), clearly claims significnace with 200 centers worldwide. Also, after eight years, some discussion is probably warranted. Thank you. SoWhy 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I've had no problem trying to contribute to the timeline articles, but apparently once they hit 300 bytes, in spite of each individual year not being prepared to stand as its own article, someone can just come along and split it unnecessarily and I have no input? - Informant16 September 22, 2017

Informant16, I'm sorry to hear that! Wikipedia can often be an unpleasant place to work in. However, in this case, I think the chance the year split will happen is extremely low, so I wouldn't worry! Your input of course does matter, more than anyone else's; editors just sometimes like to follow Wikipedia:Be bold, but in this situation, I think there is a consensus against splitting it up by year. Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pornography induced erectile dysfunction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a medical issue with one citations that fails WP:MEDRS. No indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Condom-associated erection problems (CAEP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources fail WP:MEDRS. Topic's notability is questionable at best.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pornography induced erectile dysfunction, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pablo Casado Blanco for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLAR I've redirected Bitcoin Gold to Bitcoin until independent notability can be established.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 22:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war has erupted over at the Wagner Group article that you created. An editor is of the opinion that taking into account some less-known/obscure sources the overall existence of Wagner is in doubt and that anything about them should be treated as alleged, while dismissing sources such as the Wall Street Journal as hearsay or "anecdotal evidence" (which he actually translated into the article's text). Your input and possible proposals on a compromise solution at the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf I saw what was happening, but I don't have time to look too much into it and form a more specific opinion other than what I just wrote on the article's talk page; hope that helps a tiny bit. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Third Iraqi–Kurdish War has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.GreyShark (dibra) 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Sun is a tabloid (see its article), Fox News is right wing and untrustworthy (article + my personal experience), and the Express is also a tabloid (see its article). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to add other sources then Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jihan Wu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No real indication of notability. Based on WP:1E I would say redirect to Bitmain but we don't even have an article for that.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better PROD over speedy! Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2]. There's consensus on talk to include this in the lede. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek  08:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind this notification. Volunteer Marek  08:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Ammarpad (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lame title for what I'm telling you about but I couldn't think of anything but to suggest a new strategy. I suspect that Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush will be completed within the next three to five months, and then the main focus will be either the Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton or Timeline of the presidency of George H. W. Bush. I have some discomfort having not edited Timeline of the presidency of Warren G. Harding and Timeline of the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, but I'll get to it eventually. Informant16 November 21, 2017

Great! Take your time! Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Justfly.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mpow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a directory: the fact that the company exists and sells electronics is not enough for an encyclopedia article, even if supported by sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace 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/Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace 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. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a blockage in every attempt of mine to make an addition on any article that isn't a timeline, and a policy to ensure I just sit back and accept it. I've been making additions to the Gerald Ford article that apparently were acceptable until November 27, 2017 - when a user determined that I was trying to compose a timeline by placing events in order of when they happened. I was hoping to spin off a post-presidency article, which has happened three times and was actually advocated for with the last article of this kind that I made additions to. This isn't my attempt to get you involved but to instead pick your brain about what should be done here. - Informant16 November 27, 2017

I'll respond ASAP, busy with IRL stuff rn Informant16 Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm back for a bit Informant16. What if you were to spin off the post-presidency article right now? That user would be fine with it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 08:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on that. He approved, putting to end my concerns that there would be some conflict on the article being made in the near future. Hope you've been well. - Informant16 December 5, 2017

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

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

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

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elite Educational Institute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Substantially different from previously deleted version. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating A. Alan Post, Ethanbas!

Wikipedia editor Famousdog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Perhaps add an infobox and a photo.

To reply, leave a comment on Famousdog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Rooney 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/Nancy Rooney 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. Corky 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 4-HO-EPT for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 1P-ETH-LAD for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethanbas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ethylpropyltryptamine for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the above two articles for deletion as copyright violations, as they were copied from Psychonaut Wiki, which is not released under a compatible license. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license per Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#cite note-2. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will just make 2 sentence stubs instead. Ethanbas ^(talk) 12:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dead cat strategy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this page contains nothing other than a definition, three external links, and a block quote. It adds nothing to Wikipedia, and would be best as either a Wikitionary redirect or nothing at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2601:643:8102:AAA0:8080:1124:175E:3ADE (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me Ethanbas‬, super excited to hear that you set up Wei Dai page on WikiQuote. I am not super familiar with WikiQuote and it's policy, I was under impression that all quoted sentences needs to be notable, or not? Xinbenlv (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xinbenlv, I did not set up the Wikiquote page, user "Issarice" did. My impression of the notability criteria on Wikiquote is that it's much more relaxed than Wikipedia. In fact, I don't even recall ever finding a notability guideline on Wikiquote. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be right but I don't know what to do.―Buster7 ☎ 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol, is no one editing the timeline now Buster7? Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sure doesn't seem like it...except for a few other editor entries Ive been the only one making entries for a couple of weeks. Which is truly amazing and disheartening that there is such a lack of interest or motivation or whatever. I myself am a reluctant participant at the timeline but if we don't keep up with the input...the info gets lost in time and its hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I just don't have the tech skills to create the next quarter especially with the above redirect which I don't know how to countermand. A lot has happened in the past week that needs to be captured. Thanks for anything you can do. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be good to work on now technically Buster7. I'm busy with IRL stuff so I can't work on it unfortunately. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was my intention to work on the other presidential timeline articles after completeing the Carter one which was about halfway done but I can say now that I see I am done. I got into a spat over some edits on the George H. W. Bush article and you can see the background on that if you go on the article's talk page. In short, I am constantly reminded of how with virtually every article I edit bar the timelines there's always someone trying to delete my material, no matter how absurd it is. In making the case for removing my material, because there was a full-article on it, the user deleted the link to the article and made it less likely to be known to someone that didn't frequent this site. So I'm out because of consistently trying to add material and basically being punished for doing so. I thank you for being one of the few users that did not make logging onto this site and contributing the equivalent of pulling teeth. - Informant16 14 May 2018

I'm feeling a little bit better. I'll probably just wrap up the timelines and then retire. At least they don't persecute over those. - Informant16 15 May 2018

Sorry to see how your additions were completely removed Informant16. I think your timeline articles are pretty deletionproof, and I think other timeline articles would be as well. Each of the presidential timeline articles you've worked on receive ~1000 pageviews each month, so it's not just me who appreciates how much work you've put into Wikipedia. Again, I think timeline articles are a good bet for avoiding the bad side of Wikipedia editing. Avoiding the big/main Wikipedia articles is also a good bet; George H. W. Bush has almost 1000 page watchers. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same trend, in regards to articles about individuals having a higher rate of deletion of my material. The biggest frustration I have is in being punished over working on articles for the site. He literally gave me a block warning after I reverted the article back to the same state as originally left by the user who deleted the entirety of what I wrote. I just want you to understand that what I added still left the page smaller than that of other presidents, the section smaller than on that of other presidents' articles, and they couldn't name anything in particular that was wrong about the additional information. Also, there's something wrong when after getting all of your material deleted, and complying with that deletion, you get charged with having vandalized the same page. - Informant16 14 May 2018

Hello, Ethanbas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SegWit2x".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 10^Eleventeen 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hostile wife phenomenon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A non-notable jargon term used by a WP:FRINGE subculture.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The article Asuka vs Rei has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the general notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Izno (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]