User talk:Biwom

Hi could you please explain what policy or guideline allows you to state the following ambassadors of big(gish) countries will always pass WP:GNG. I could find nothing that supports this statement. I'd also be very interested to know what a big(gish) country is. --Domdeparis (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It's the second time in 3 days that you post a message on my talk page that makes no sense to me. I am thinking you may be totally unfamiliar with WP:PROD. Can you please take the time to read WP:PROD thoroughly and attentively?

After what:

1. Going back to your previous message, there are not "quite a lot of criteria for PRODDING". The only criteria is that "no opposition to the deletion is expected". It's very hard for me to perceive how someone may expect no opposition when proposing the deletion of an article about a former Prime Minister. And since WP:PROD is "an English Wikipedia policy", your PRODing of Anton Luckievich was from my perspective a violation of an English Wikipedia policy, so I reverted you.
2. For Eric Walsh (ambassador), take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanine E. Jackson, it will give you some perspective.

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Biwom, I left a message twice because I see that you De-Prod a lot of articles I have a couple of questions about your comments when de-prodding articles I am fiollowing. In my first message I may not have been clear so I apologise for that. If you read the WP:PROD page you will see that Prodding is part of the deletion process it is for articles that don't meet the CSD but probably will not meet opposition but this is not the reason (or criteria) for prodding this is a supposition. The reason has to be explained when prodding and before prodding the following has to be considered (extract from the guideline)

Before nomination:
1 Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion. Consider alternatives to deletion like improving the article, merging or redirecting.
2 Review the article's history to confirm that it has not been recently vandalized.
3 Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it:
* has not previously been proposed for deletion.[1]
* has not been undeleted.
* has not been and is not being discussed at AfD.
4 Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process.[2]

If you take the time to click on the highlighted words "reason for deletion" you will find the different criteria that I noted which are the criteria that are not linked to the supposed notability of the subject. An article about a supposed Prime Minister where it is impossible to find sources meets DEL7 so can be PRODDED, an article about a Prime minister that is clearly vandalism or defamatory could be PRODDED. I'm more worried about your De-Prodding of the ambassador. You haven't replied about the fact that your reason for de-prodding is that ambassadors of big(gish) countries will always pass WP:GNG. Can you please explain where you dug up this policy or guideline or maybe it is the result of a study of deletion discussions. i have searched everywhere and i could find nothing. Thanks for your reply. Domdeparis (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Answering your many questions is going to take me a few days. You are raising some interesting points but I am getting the feeling from this and from other people's PRODs that there is some confusing in the role that WP:PROD is supposed to play in WP:NPP. I will come back to you soon. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi don't worry about all the questions just the one about where you found the guideline about ambassadors of big(gish) countries always passing gng. The rest is really just remarks to be honest. Shouldn't take days I imagine. Domdeparis (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might like to read this which should help with the confusion you have with the role of PRODDING in the NPP. WP:New_pages_patrol#Deletion. cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi have you managed to get round to finding the information about the ambassadors always passing GNG? Domdeparis (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazneen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chalte Chalte. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein

Hi, as you de-prodded this, can you please look through the references and tell me which you think are reliable sources. Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, no. And to be clear: I didn't "look through the references" before I de-prodded the article either. My edit summary was "unPRODing - easily passes WP:GNG". GNG has nothing to do with the references present in the English Wikipedia article on 13 March 2017. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

GNG has everything to do with reliable sources. I think you're thinking of speedy deletion.

I looked at all the references, I also searched for better ones; I couldn't find any, hence what I said in the PROD. I'm not convinced by " An Anecdotal History..." etc, or things like "AMAZING, WEIRD AND ODD PHENOMENA".

I've asked for opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Disappearance_of_Dorothy_Forstein. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any sources. J947 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Can you see "Biographies of living persons without any sources (reliable or unreliable)
or links
to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added."?
It's " an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."
Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Biwom,

Thank you for unPRODing those two articles. I was looking into deletion and tumbled through a blackhole of confusing links and pages describing deletion but never talking about how to do it. Somehow I ended up there. I have asked a question on teahouse so everything is good. Thank you for letting me know that that was not the way to go.

Regards, Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Kindly stop removing the deletion proposals. Like you did here. Your talkpage is full with similar issues. It is disruptive to the process.

The article I requested is about a politician who is not notable enough, thus doesnt deserve article on an encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran[talk] 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies Biwom for jumping in here but no, Usernamekiran you are completely wrong and your language is improper. That WP:PROD tag you added was not valid at all. Per WP:NPOL anyone who has served as a member of a national or subnational legislature is inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @AusLondonder: I just came across your comment I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, WP:NPOL does not say that the politicians that meet the different criteria are inherently notable. It is a subsection of WP:BIO which states at the top of the list of Additional Criteria that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Notability is never inherent nor inherited. The topic specific notability guidelines are there to avoid Prodding and speedy delete of topics that are probably notable according to certain criteria but this is not a guarantee of their notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The PROD tag was invalid because this article had already been discussed at AfD. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Biwom to avoid these kind of messages I would suggest that your edit summary include the reason why the Prod is invalid. regards Domdeparis (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe you will be finding references for the article, Hosokawa Harumoto since you removed the proposed deletion template I added? Plum3600 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I added a reference, otherwise I wouldn't have removed the UNREFERENCED template. As for the proposed deletion template you added, and since you appear to be a fairly new user, let me try to set a couple of things straight.

1. We (on the English Wikipedia) don't delete articles simply because they are unsourced.
2. If you keep on PRODing articles on notable topics just because they are unsourced, you're going to end up in much trouble.
3. Hosokawa Harumoto is a particularly notable topic, so PRODing it was particularly ill-advised.

And by the way, when you add a PROD tag to an article, you MUST say so in your edit summary. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Biwom: Let me just tell you that I am no new user. I have improved a lot of Wikipedia pages. And I will take your advise even thought I already know the consequences. If a Wikipedia article person/thing is notable but there aren't any references even though you have tried to find them, can the article be deleted? Thanks. Plum3600 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am glad to hear that you have improved a lot of articles, especially since (from my perspective at least) that is what matters the most here. However according to this, you have never !voted at an AfD. I would strongly encourage you to participate in many AfD before you start PRODing articles. This way you will familiarise yourself with our deletion procedures, with our notability guidelines, and with the way they are interpreted differently by different people. And after some time, you will know which articles can be safely PRODed. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

When you say it's "invalid", do you mean to say that the "Bibliography" section of the article counts as sources? Considering that none of the statements in the article are specifically sourced to anything, I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, if so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You should read WP:BLPPROD. "the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography". There are external links in this article. They definitely support some of the statements made about the person. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend two things, in this case, then. The first is - as I can see you've been suggested to do before - you indicate in your edit summary why the tag is/was invalid, rather than just simply saying "it's invalid". This will save time for both you and anyone else wanting to achieve clarifications in a situation like this. Additionally, I would suggest that your tone in your response may need some work. Saying "You should read the policy" implies that you believe that I have not, where in this instance I simply slipped up in relation to a policy I know well. The perils of multitasking, you might say. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have just reverted you for the same reason on another article. This is the 4th time in 8 days that you put a BLPPROD tag on an article that is clearly ineligible for BLPPROD: 5 July, 6 July, 10 July, 13 July. Whether it is multitasking or not, you are going to have to find a way to stop this, because it is getting disruptive. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm intrigued that you're using the word "disruptive" here, given your edit summaries or lack thereof, as discussed by several users above. Due to your lack of interest in responding, I'd not watchlisted your Talk page, but happened to see this in passing, so I'll respond. In relation to the 4 you cite: Feir: The external links didn't support any of the claims (such as they were) in the article, and the reliability of IMDB is questionable at best. Cervantes: As for Feir. Podbrey: Discussed above. I accept that this was an error on my part. Saienko: The article was tagged when I found it as a BLP "not including any references or sources". It had a collection of external links entirely in Ukrainian (Saienko's Facebook page is irrelevant), and on seeing a situation like this, it is my working hypothesis that the external links in Ukrainian didn't support any of the statements in the article, hence the BLPPROD. As I'd mentioned on the Talk page for the article, I'm more than happy with a reference in any language, as Ukrainian isn't one I have any abilities in. I'm assuming that you can tell me which statements are supported by which of those external links? In the interests of seeing your response, I'll wachlist this for a couple of days. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

• John Feir (5 July): the article says "John Fair is a ... comedian"; this is supported by the first external link
• Carl Cervantes (6 July): the article says "Carl Cervantes is a(n) ... actor"; this is supported by the IMDb link

At that stage, let me address your statement "the reliability of IMDb is questionable at best". WP:BLPPROD says explicitly that any source is valid, whether it is reliable or not does not matter. "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that support any statement made about the person in the article, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added." Please stop assuming that BLPPROD is "a policy you know well", it is not.

• Oleksandr Saienko: I don't think "it is my working hypothesis that the external links in Ukrainian didn't support any of the statements in the article" deserves any comment apart from "you are going to have to find a way to stop this, because it is getting disruptive".

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Amended, Biwom (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond to two of the points you're raising here. Allow me to quote from the BLPPROD template, which I'm assuming you've taken the time to read somewhere along the line: " If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period..." [italics mine]. Moreover, in the very section of BLPPROD you've quoted to me, you'll see the wording "...it can only be removed if a reliable source is added" [italics again mine]. In other words, the reliability of the sources absolutely comes into the matter, in precisely the same way that it does elsewhere in Wikipedia. Secondly, while you're welcome to throw around the word "disruptive", I'll suggest that it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The fact remains that another user had indicated that Saienko's article was a BLP and was unsourced. I'll remove your Talk page from my watchlist now, and trust that you'll read the policy again. Kindly don't talk down to me in future. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, "a common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag." Well, if any talk page watcher could intervene here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi I would agree with Biwom that if there is ANY source any where in the article correctly footnoted or not, reliable or not, that supports ANY of the statements in the article then a BLPPROD is not appropriate and can be be removed. If the article has NO sources whatsoever that support any statement then to cancel the PROD the source has to be reliable. That said Biwom should really explain clearly why he is deprodding in the edit comment to avoid editors having to come here to ask for explanations, deprodding sourced BLPs is not too controversial if the edit comment is clear so even if I agree that the PROD was invalid a longer comment such as "Invalid as per WP:BLPPROD as there is a link that supports at least one statement" would be helpful. However a normal PROD with an explanation that the sources are not sufficient to prove GNG would have been more appropriate. Domdeparis (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Biwom,

Kindly refrain from UnPROD-ing the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahir_Emra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agim_%C3%87avdarbasha

Or you will be reported to the higher authorities of WikiPedia.

There is a strong reason that these articles are put up for deletion, being that they lack credible outside sources, as advised by a moderator in Kiwi IRC live chat of Wiki. An article cannot be accepted with only 1 source cited, without other sources to back it up.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevillissta (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be a new user who is unhappy that the article they created about a Kosovo artist was moved to Draft space because it lacks reliable sources. So you decided to PROD a series of articles about Kosovo artists who from your perspective lack reliable sources. I would suggest you read WP:POINT: "such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban."

Here are a couple of things you can read at WP:PROD:

• "make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the page has been proposed for deletion"
• "PROD is one-shot only: it must not be used for pages PRODed before"
• "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" -

Both Agim Çavdarbasha and Tahir Emra have now been PRODed twice, with no edit summary. More importantly, both are listed in Robert Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Kosovo which is a clear sign of notability. You really cannot expect "no opposition to the deletion" when you PROD articles about people who are listed in Robert Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Kosovo.

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there.

I am certainly not new to WikiPedia and I have contributed in the 2014 Wiki City Marathon which was held in the capital of Kosovo, Prishtina. Recently I created a new account as I forgot the password and the email of the previous. The reason for putting those articles up for deletion, is that they lack sources. One source is not enough, even if it is a CNN source, let alone Robert Elsie source. A source from the Government of Kosovo and the official .edu website of the University of Prishtina is way stronger than a Robert Elsie or any other source out there. My article was put up for draft even though I provided extremely strong sources. Therefore, I decided to even things out and look for other articles who lack strong sources or lack sources in overall. An article cannot be published with only 1 source, don't even promote this kind of idea or else WikiPedia will suffer in the long-term.

I am not going to assume or make any accusation of your ties with the articles that you Unproded, so let it be in your consciousness, but whenever I will encounter such disruptive behavior from you or another person in WikiPedia, I will protest and report it to higher instances. You are not above the rules, and the moderator that reviewed the article that was set up for draft has suggested to put the others for deletion as well, so it was not done single-handedly by me, rather after discussing with mods in the live Kiwi IRC chat. Think before you act dear.

All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevillissta (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sevillissta: you may not be new to Wikipedia despite the fact that your account was created 3 days ago but you are making some newcomer's mistakes and you are clearly showing a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, the guidelines and policies. First of please sign all your posts on talk pages by clicking on one of the 2 buttons dedicated to this fonction or by typing ~~~~. Secondly even if in the past I have not agreed with Biwom's unprodding here it is perfectly legitimate. You must not Prod articles that have been been deprodded already. Check the edit history or page log before prodding. If you wish to nominate them for deletion you must go through WP:AFD procedures. You are clearly sore about the decision that was taken on the article you created (and not your article as you put it because you do not WP:OWN the article). So you are looking to make a WP:POINT by attacking other articles in the same area and incorrectly PRODDING them. This kind of petty behaviour is disruptive and is not looked on kindly by the Wikipedia community and as Biwom correctly points out will lead to a block if you continue. Domdeparis (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Alright then, it seems that you too are accepting the double-standards and promoting it on WikiPedia unrightfully. Simply look at how bizarrely this case has been UnProded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esat_Valla , just view history and you can see that a person there UnProded it because he thought KultPlus.com is a notable source. Yet, the article that I published was declined because of lack of credible sources, when KultPlus AND a lot of very strong sources were put. So the double-standards all over. Besides, that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esat_Valla has only 1 source, and the person that Unproded it looked at Google to verify his notability without even bothering to add any reference to the Wiki Page. How laughable can that be? Sevillissta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sevillissta: and I am afraid this is where you are showing your ignorance of Wikipedia. Prodding is supposed to be for uncontroversial cases, you may think that the source is not a WP:RS so it uncontroversial for you but the moment that someone challenges your rationale then it becomes controversial and PRODDING is no longer appropriate. It doesn't matter whether the person who deprodded it was acting in good or bad faith it has been deprodded and you have to accept it. If you do not agree with the person then the next course of action is WP:AFD where the issue is discussed and a decision whether to delete or not is taken by an admin or sometimes in very exceptional circumstances a non-admin closure is possible. I looked at the draft article and I totally agree with User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time he very kindly draftified it rather than proposing it for deletion, it was very poorly sourced none of the sources were independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Albanianarts is an online gallery for artists so neither in-depth nor independent, the second is the artist's CV on the university web site so not independent at all, the third is just a notification about the opening of a show in a gallery by the gallery itself so absolutely not independent. The sources are credible but do nothing to prove this person is notable. You really need to read WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and also WP:RS and get over this as quickly as possible. You have prodded a number of articles saying that the sources are unreliable whereas in some the only source is one that you added to the article that you created yourself. This seems like you are acting in bad faith. I would suggest you stop this behaviour immediately as you are clearly trying to make a WP:POINT. I shall be watching your edits in the future, and I shall not hesitate to report your behaviour to WP:ANI if it is disruptive. Domdeparis (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:

The only point I am trying to make is that double-standards should not be allowed on Wikipedia.

Have a look at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esat_Valla, which is published and UNproded with the reason that it has credible sources. Then have a look at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Visar_Mulliqi, with not only similar (some the same), but even stronger sources added recently, and it is still not published in full.

I cannot accept this double-standard that some article can be published with 2-3 vague sources and another has stronger criteria imposed. Perhaps you will also agree on that. So kindly, help on publishing the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Visar_Mulliqi and do not contribute towards the double-standards being set in Wikipedia.

Thank you. Sevillissta (talk)

Lets take this to your talk page to avoid polluting Biwom's page. Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you recently removed a valid G5 tag from Riki Hashimoto stating you wrote most of the article - this was not true, and I have deleted the article. Please don't do that again -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Please check the history of the article. The initial version of the article contained no source, no category, etc... More importantly, it didn't even say that Hashimoto was a former professional baseball player. I have indeed rewritten most of the article, added sources and categories. Please restore the article. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not be restoring the article to mainspace. The version I deleted did not have any references (you never added any sources). You did not rewrite the article, though you did remove a great deal of promotional material, which is greatly appreciated. I don't consider what you did to the article as meeting G5's exemptions (namely "substantial edits by others") and therefore the original CSD tag was, in my opinion, valid -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Once again, I rewrote the article and added references. This being an obviously notable subject, if you don't restore it, I will recreate it. I would recommend the former. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to re-create the article, though I would strongly recommend you use the article wizard and ensure it is properly referenced -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello there and good job ... the BENLAV FLIGHT SYSTEMS thta you tag a deletion, is an educational startup active in Aviation and Avionics field. a new small company. if you have any suggest I can hear, and thats your nice if u help on improving. please do not tag speedy ... cheers regards Amir daryaei (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Only notable topics may have articles on Wikipedia. I don't see how this "educational startup", which was founded in 2017, could be notable. So my suggestion is, give up. Additionally, you could have a look at WP:COI. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Why u tag speedy deletion instead of helping on improving ... it is a must available article for Iranians. Benlav Flight systems regards

Amir daryaei (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

My CU request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir daryaei isn't to confirm the sock I reported but to root out any other socks the master may have created. Given that the master had created a sock before being banned I don't think it's implausible that more socks were created. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the previous appeals from the sockmaster on your talk page I hope you're not too disappointed to receive a message on this topic without a star, pie, or kitten. :-) Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am under the impression that if the behavioral evidence is conclusive, then CU should/must not be done. I might be wrong. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

CU can also be used to find other socks where the master's behaviour suggests they may exist. This archive shows an example. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting good faith edits on poorly referenced Wikipedia pages and making personal attacks. Behaviour of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of NPA Wikipedia policy. It seems that you already have such a record and have been reported once to administrators' board: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301#User:Biwom reported by User:D'SuperHero (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please provide diffs of the personal attacks I have made? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You left message on my talk page, accusing me of being bias towards single source, removed all references and tagged page with G11. This clearly indicates that you are taking this personally and stalking my activity on Wikipedia. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is tagging a page G11 a personal attack? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No it's not, as long as it's not based on personal issues but on reasonable grounds, which was not the case this time Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You should go and tell this to the admin who deleted the page and subsequently refused to restore it in the main space.

• Regarding the message I left on your talk page, let me quote from WP:NPA: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page)".
• Regarding stalking, I would like to remind you that our first interaction was 3 days ago.

Now, if you want to keep on posting groundless accusations on my talk page, you are very welcome, just don't expect any more answers. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Biwom,

I'm here because you recently unPRODed Ralf Friberg, and I wanted to say you did a good thing. It doesn't seem like many people come here to say that and all they do is complain. I think what you're doing is interesting, and I'm sorry people get mad at you for it. :) menaechmi (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Indeed, no love lost in these parts! To be fair, I do get thank-yous from time to time. Are you aware of project WP:PRODPATROL? You may want to join. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi you recently unprodded the above article with the comment "blantantly passes both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR". Just out of curiosity and because I may have missed them but could you please explain which of the sources are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per GNG and which of the following criteria of WP:NACTOR he meets. I may have missed something that is "blatantly" obvious for you.

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

--Domdeparis (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A statement that someone has very high citation as shown by Google Scholar, backed up by a reference to that source, is not OR. So far from that, having such citations is the prime practicla consideration in notability under WP:PROF, because it proves their being recognized as an authority. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m writing this note in response to your recent decision to revert my Wikipedia edits. I reviewed the policy you cited in taking this action and while the policy itself is clear and reasonable enough, I have some questions and comments regarding your decision to invoke it in this instance.

Ventana Research has been conducting primary, independent research on business technology for 15 years. As such, my edits to Wikipedia represent our firm’s good-faith effort to participate in the definition of (and dialogue around) these topics that Wikipedia purports to foster. In each edit, the attribution and citations were specific to the topic and in our view contributed to the page’s content.

It is true that Ventana Research is a for-profit business, but I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that precludes for-profit organizations as credible sources. Of course, such a policy would be problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that non-profit research on business technology generally does not exist. In other words, analysts and research firms such as Gartner, Forrester and Ventana Research are as authoritative as sources get in this domain. Furthermore, adequate definitions of these business technology topics would be all but impossible without their contributions.

I will be grateful for any clarity you can provide here. If I can make edits in a way that is less likely to raise flags, concerning phrasing or attribution or anything else, please advise. Our firm has been producing quality research on these topics for years; it seems silly to bar us from the public conversation on the grounds that any contribution to that conversation is inherently self-promotional.

Best regards, Katie prince (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Before you make any further edits to Wikipedia, you must read and agree to our Terms of Use. There is a section titled "Paid contributions without disclosure" that I believe will be of interest to you. You also should read and abide by WP:COI. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

When us people from Tottenville say 'kill' we mean jump into the Arthur Kill to cool off or baptize ourselves. That ip was angry about the Sarah Dejong article and i thought (wrongly) my Arthur kill themed messages would help distract them from it. I made a bad judgement call. But ,no editor is perfect. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. My DYK about Carrie Goldberg got promoted, I've helped out a few editors, I've reported a ton of socks, helped get vandals blocked. I've been a net positive JC7V-constructive zone 08:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I trust you have done great things for Wikipedia and I agree we all make mistakes. But whenever I find myself making 5 edits in 11 minutes trying to explain an in-joke to an IP user, I know it's time to watch a rerun of CSI on Spike. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I actually thought about removing the BLPPROD myself, but wasn't sure about it since the link doesn't seem to actually support any of the article content: it just names the subject (which I have been told isn't good enough). I've actually had a lot of grief about this sort of thing in the past, so I thought I'd better be careful. Adam9007 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You could argue that the ISNI link supports her year of birth (refer to User talk:SoWhy#Authority control). But if you want to avoid grief, it's indeed best to keep WP:NOTCOURT in mind. The broader question here is: should this article go away? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice your reverting edit here, in art. New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. What's the problem? I just came across this novel that appears very clearly inspired (among much more) by these New Year's sexual assaults. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You should take a look at MOS:CULTURALREFS, it will surely give you food for thoughts.

The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.

If you want to continue this discussion, please paste it on the article talk page, where it belongs. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The title of this page was changed to ZOO Digital, however the content refers to a group of sub-companies under the ZOO Digital Group banner so this is a more suitable title for the page. Please revert back. Thanks. Lynsey Band (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just received the notification about the speedy delete for Sam Nabil page. Wanted to understand the notability factor a bit more. The person has coverage from Reuters, Doha News, HealthMed, and the academic blogs. Will these be non-notable? Thanks for your time. Csgir (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Christine Gouze-Rénal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significance, and notability is highly questionable as there are not enough sources, FR Wiki is the only source talking about this person, no coverage in reliable sources to establish the importance of the subject of this article

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. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Biwon!

A few days ago, you redirected the article James Dodd (artist) to Dlux with the reason given as “redirecting - please expand the existing article”. Could you please revert that redirect? My reasons for this request are:

1. When I was first planning the article on James Dodd, I came across the article on Dlux. As street art is only part of Dodd’s art practice, and as he only uses Dlux for his street art, I put a request on the talk page of Dlux to change the article name to James Dodd, so that I could expand the article appropriately. That was four months ago and there was no response and no action.
2. As noted, street art is only part of Dodd’s art practice and several exhibition catalogues of his solo exhibitions use the name James Dodd and not Dlux. James Dodd is therefore the better known name and more appropriate to use. As I could not change the name of the article from Dlux to James Dodd, I elected to write a new article.
3. There is an issue with the Dlux article of insufficient line citations. As I did not have access to one of the sources used (the book Stencil Graffiti Melbourne), I could not fix that issue.

For these reasons, it would have been more appropriate to create a redirect from Dlux to James Dodd (artist) rather than the other way around. If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know. Thanks! Uberlibris (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, it is indeed sad that your message was left unanswered. However 12 years ago a user created an article for Dlux/James Dodd, and that article has been edited by many other editors since then, so out of respect for all these people's good work we are not going to just recreate the article under a different name. So what you need to do is copy your entire James Dodd (artist) article into the Dlux article. This is the part I am most concerned about.

The other part is whether the article should be renamed James Dodd or whether it should stay as Dlux. Personally, I don't care at all but I would like to state that I am not entirely convinced by your arguments above. Our rules at Wikipedia is to use as article title the most common name for the article subject, so "street art is only part of Dodd’s art practice and several exhibition catalogues of his solo exhibitions use the name James Dodd and not Dlux" is not really relevant. If he is better known as the street artist Dlux than for his solo exhibitions as James Dodd (which might or might not be the case), then the article should be called Dlux.

Anyways, once you have copied and pasted your James Dodd article into Dlux, if you feel certain that the article should be renamed "James Dodd (artist)", then just follow the instructions at Help:How to move a page. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Biwom. I agree that one should not ignore the work of other editors in creating/editing the Dlux article, although the issue of insufficient line citations remains as noted above. I will do as you suggest and copy the article into Dlux and then go to the Help:How to move a page as I would argue that he is better known these days as James Dodd and not Dlux. One reason for this is that he has more works held in collections under the name James Dodd than he does under the name Dlux (16 works vs 6 in the National Gallery of Australia and 1 in the Australian Maritime Museum). And thank you very much for the link to the Help:How to move a page. Kind regards! Uberlibris (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I nominated it at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Biwom,

I was looking at a page you tagged for speedy deletion, Ellen Nicolaisen, and for some reason you didn't post a notice about this tagging on the user talk page of the creator of the page, Demandchange. This notification is part of the tagging process, so that editors know what happens with their work. You can set up Twinkle to do this automatically (go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences) and I urge you to set your preferences to ALWAYS notify the page creator of any tagging that takes place. I need to see you do this in the future if you continue to choose to do CSD tagging. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Indeed, I am trying to stay under the radar while following the money trail. Given that it should be reasonably easy to find beans in the list of articles I have tagged for csd, I would rather this list be available only to admins. I believe the wording "there is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination" gives me some leeway. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The BrandLaureate Awards 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/The BrandLaureate Awards 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)