User talk:Ikip/Archive 13

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your continued and tireless efforts to keep Wikipedia a welcome place for all editors... from your graciousness and guidence to newcomers who might feel "put off" when their own initial efforts end up at AfD... to your efforts to maintain the integrity of the project and its articles. The job is never-ending, and yet you continue... even when your efforts are sometimes considered as overzealous. Keep up the good fight, but with patience... as Don Quixote is not the only one to find honor in tilting at windmills. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved. Enjoy the ride. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, Ikip! Odessa rules :) I've only been there once myself, but absolutely loved it. Sure beats boring Kiev.

Anyhoo, with regards to your question, since the purpose of any RfC is to learn community's reaction to a situation/proposal/etc., it makes all the sense to bring the attention of editors interested in the subject to the discussion. Talk pages of relevant cats are fine, but, in my experience, the cat pages tend not to be watched by too many editors (it still wouldn't hurt to post there). Other logical places for such a notice would be WT:TV and WT:Television episodes. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich �?zhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, January 29, 2009 (UTC)

Your posts on various talk pages

I find this highly irregular that you are posting messages on various series and episodes pages in order to invite people to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). This is unnecessary canvassing and forum shopping. The RfC is listed in {{Cent}} and perfectly visible to editors interested in participating in it. Please cease posting these messages. ^LeaveSleaves 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted several additional notices after LeaveSleaves's message here. While your notices may not violate the letter of WP:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting (one may interpret it as covering individual user talk pages), around 165 notices can be reasonably described as excessive. Please consider stopping. Flatscan (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, nice to meet you, I appreciate your hard work and efforts on Wikipedia. I notice that you do a lot of repair work on a lot of pages, and I really respect that.

If you notice, your comment is sandwiched between two other administrators, of whom I requested if it was okay to post this neutral notice. Both stated that a Request for Comment notification serves the greater good of Wikipedia.

Unless editors are aware of what is going on in the "backroom", or even know that {{cent}} exists, it is highly unlikely that they would ever find the discussion that may greatly affect their contributions to Wikipedia. At the very least, it is courteous to make the existence of this otherwise unknown Request For Comment public. I have taken great pains to in all respects maintain all proper neutrality in this notice. Being neutral in any alert to editors who contribute to the articles affected by this proposal, in a neutral manner, on a neutral main talk page is acceptable. I am simply announcing. This neutral notice is not going on editors' talk pages, nor is directed to any editor specifically for or against the proposal. It is a simple announcement.

If I read the statistics posted in the discussion correctly, over 680,000 articles on Wikipedia are fiction and entertainment related and may be affected by this proposal. It is well understood that since 2004 Wikipedia has suffered from continued internal conflict between authors involved with fiction. My announcement is intended to help reach a consensus in this ongoing disruption. A proposal that affects such a great proportion of Wikipedia content requires the widest possible consensus. The purpose of this notice of the Request for Comment discussion is to ensure that editors who aren't already steeped in this proposed guideline can look at it ... fresh eyes and fresh perspective toward reaching a true and far-reaching consensus that improves Wikipedia for everyone.

As it is, there has so little response to my courtesy notice that I find myself disappointed that more editors are not interested in taking an active part in improving Wikipedia or in guiding its direction toward the future.

Thank you for your message, and your concerns. I hope this addresses any concerns you may have. Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. It is always most appreciated. Ikip (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing this after multiple requests to stop is completely unacceptable, and must stop. Now. If you do not stop on your own, the issue will be escalated to ANI.—Kww(talk) 12:56, 3 February 2009

�? Thank you for your response, as well as the pleasantries. They're appreciated. I read your question and the answers, and I think that there may have been a miscommunication. I think that Ezhiki meant the Category talk pages (3) rather than the Talk pages of the member articles (>500). I have left notes requesting clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes, I can tell you only want the best for wikipedia :) Ikip (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neutral notice of RfC

Certainly I think notifying the community is a good idea.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you piotrus so much. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

I appreciate your help - thanks very much. (I'm wondering what the change of name to Ikip is meant to be a reference to!) :) Wikidea 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was incredibly easy to type, and it was available. I hate it because when I do a search search, ikip is part of wikipedia. :) Ikip (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bling

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work keeping an eye on Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Final adoption as a guideline and following up with the people who have commented there. Politizer talk/contribs 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha...actually, that quotation is not my own, but something User:Peteforsyth said during a particularly embattled RfA...I don't even remember the original context. But, like you, when I saw it I thought it was a pretty perfect description of how people start out here...as for me, the first edit I made was original research, and it wasn't until some time later that I learned the guidelines better and was able to go back and re-evaluate all my original work. But anyway, it's good to hear there are more people out there who think like us! Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

keep in touch please. Wikipedia needs more level headed and intellegent editors like you. Ikip (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there working man. Glad to see someone is doing the heavy lifting around here. Your "I agree with CoM" comment, genius though that statement invariably is, seems to hang out there a little bit in the discussion. I would just remove it, or clarify what you mean. Sorry to nitpick. Is that policy going to come up for a vote eventually or what? What's the schedule? What else is shaking? Any cool articles? Did you see my masterwork at dessert bar? Peace! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They have articles on everything, don't they! This article is in RfC! It has been buried though: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I noticed the voting after I left my comment here. Do you think the policy pages are very important? It seems like the "creep" issue has rendered them fairly redundant and so complicated and contradictory that opinion and the basic notability guideline (reliable independent sources with substantial coverage) are the real keys. What would happen if they were all deleted and wp:notability was the only guideline? I wonder... Of course the fiction issue is a bit special because these are instances where there is real world notability, but not the sources and references to support it. Interesting. Anyway, enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We will have to speculate at length after this RfC is finished, right now I don't feel comfortable expounding on "big picture" speculation publicly, as it may end up in the RfC itself. Ikip (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the current RFC right now? Ikip (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see you've been busy again! Always nice to see one of the good guys on my watchlist. Keep up the good work!

By the way, for what it's worth, I'm pretty ok with the proposed guidelines as long as it is made clear that its stringent notability requirements apply only to fictional characters/elements, not to fictional works themselves. I had suggested a name change, but it looks like there's not enough support to go through with it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the little safety lifesaver tags at the top...

Which code gives me those for the articles-to-be-rescued? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

template:ARS is the template that I describe here:

• Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame#Award

template:ARS-userpage is the template within template:ARS.

I used Template:FAstar-userpage and Template:GA-userpage as a guide for making template:ARS-userpage, but with the help of theDJ, I made template:ARS myself. template:ars is superior because you don't need any coding other than {{ARS|ArticleTitle|ArticleTitle2|ArticleTitle3}}, but thus far, you can only put ARS awards in it.

Hope this answers your question.Ikip (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks! I will play with it when not sleep deprived (which I am at present). g'night. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just figured what was wrong. I was hoping that it was automatic - i.e. whenever someone flagged an article to be rescued, then you'd get an automatic little lifesaver ring at the top of the page. Is that possible? If I place it there after I know about it...well then I know about it already.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ask Village pump (technical), I don't think it is possible. The medal is an award, not a notification.

That is a great idea though.

There is this, which I created for the Article Rescue Squadron page, the list could be made to not be hidden, and to be placed on the right side of your page, it actually is a really, really good idea:

==Articles currently tagged for rescue==

Coding:

==Articles currently tagged for rescue==
{| width="100%" class="toccolours navbox collapsible {{{state|collapsed}}}" style="white-space:wrap;" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"
!<!---R1/11---------->colspan=6 style="background: #cdc" width=600px|
Articles currently tagged for rescue
|-
|align=left|
<categorytree mode=pages>Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics</categorytree>
|}

Let me see what I can do.

Ikip (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Love the box-thing (and the award :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

...and here's an honorary enigma rotor for ferreting out a good solution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I'm afraid that in the case of the particular article that you refer to there, I certainly did nothing to rescue the article (and indeed at one point in the discussion voted delete, as there was already a better treatment of the subject). I've removed the marker from my talk page and my name from the article rescue page; but that's not from any disrespect for Article Rescue, which I think is very valuable work. N p holmes (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. No one ever gets offended from getting an award, even if undeserved :) Thanks for the clarification and correction. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP Policy on Fiction

Hi Ikip - every time I go to that page it overwhelms my browser and hangs my computer. Is it a really large page or something? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

yes. :) Ikip (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rome Catholic School

Working on saving the above. Just a thought. When an editor goes to Articles for deletion, as far as I can tell, there is no mention made of how to Save an article. I only did a cursory read and observe but it seems to only be about how to cut the sapling down not give it any fertilizer.--Buster7 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, current deletion policy is really negative, and editors are ignoring policy and guidelines in which deletion is supposed to be the last step, User:Ikip/Del#Deletion_is_supposed_to_be_the_last_step

I explained how to change this: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_create_real_change_at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

It is something that many editors are working towards, but "elite" editors like the status quo.

I will comment on Rome Catholic School now. Ikip (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

Please pardon my tardy response.

First, thank you for considering me as someone to come to for advice.

I'm happy to help (if I can, within reason).

But I strongly prefer to discuss proposals on-wiki, rather than through email. (Transparency, for one thing, and better record keeping for those of us with poor memories : ) - As such, with apologies, I haven't responded to your thoughts in email.

That said, please feel welcome to drop me a note on my talk page.

And if you feel that your thoughts are too lengthy for a talk page missive, perhaps create a subpage in your userspace, and point me there. (As User:Pixelface has recently done.) Here's an example: User:Ikip/Subpage_name.

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the neutral notification of the request for comment I was asking for your opinion about already went out, and I got a lot of positive responses from other administrators already who I messaged on wiki (see above). Thanks for responding. Ikip (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of T:talkback

I have nominated T:talkback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling banner

I would like to get a 'dont bite the newbie' banner for my talk....but im comp illiterate. Can you do the installation? or better, explain how....--Buster7 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...also for the lesson. tech support is always a learning situation. Check out Vulva Original. I gave it a SHOT OF vIAGRA!--Buster7 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL--Buster7 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail

Regarding your recent question, you've got mail. --Pixelface (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Ikip (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For later maybe

You have been advocating for this guideline for about a week now. You have participated in almost every discussion, supported a main page posting, added this page to WP:CENT, defended the major author's dispruption, alleged without evidence that this guideline will not cause thousands of articles to be deleted, opined about inclusionism, and so forth.

Undelete request

I am sorry, I can't do that. I mostly have no problems emailing or userfying deleted articles, but this is a page in a user space deleted at user's request. I cannot re-publish it without explicit permission from the user, as it would be a privacy violation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich �?zhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, February 3, 2009 (UTC)

To a modern Paul Revere

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		have noticed the announcements at several pages and applaud your courtesy in sharing the news that such a discussion is going on, as thousands of affected editors would otherwise have no idea that the fates of so many articles was being determined or where to even look for such a discussion. Well done. I am surprised that others have not themselves been as proactive in seeking a wider consensus for such an important and far-reaching proposal. This thing could impact nearly three quarters of a million articles. Good job!!! Wow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Award from: ARS Hall of Fame

While I appreciate the award quite sincerely, there are few things that are more satisfying than saving an article with potential by improving and expanding articles. It's a shame that AfD ends up triggering some of these efforts that should have happened before, but I am always so glad to be able to add the reliable and verifiable sources that so often exist but no one bothered to look for. I truly appreciate the recognition, but seeing the improved articles survive AfD is truly the best reward. Thanks again for your kind remarks. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for the award, but to be fair, I think I should point out than on the AFD, RHMED did not nominate it, and actually !voted keep as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

He nominated the article be in the WP:ARSFAME. Sorry for the confusion. Ikip (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. Again, thanks for the award! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nankali-post system

Dear Sir, I have had some kind comments from you and accordingly I tried to change them as you mentioned. I wondered if I could have your opinion about my article. Thank you in advance.--Ali nankali (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

un-delete previous article for 'Passionato'

Resolved

Ikip (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello lkip,

I'd be very grateful if you could please help me review the deletion of a page created back in September. The page was created to encourage contribution surrounding a classical music download service called 'Passionato' (www.passionato.com).

Please find a thread of the deletion process for your convenience here:- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Passionato

I have tried to contact the user 'seicer' who I believe may be the most appropriate contact, but have been unable to get in touch with them. My apologies if I am not going through the correct contact in this case.

From my understanding of the process, the deletion was made due to the uncertain nature of the business at the time. I'm pleased to advise that the business has become very healthy since launch and I am able to provide a number of external references providing independent coverage. Here is a selection for you, which I hope is helpful:-

The Guardian / Top 100 sites for 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/internet-websites

CNET http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49298905,00.htm

The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/gadget-of-the-week--bach-ipod-163499-1192253.html

Gramophone http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMainTemplate.asp?storyID=3080&newssectionID=1

I would appreciate your support in considering this for the re-activation of the page, so that I can update this with the necessary un-biased citings.

Please let me know if I may be of any assistance.

Many Thanks,

Passionato (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A brief look at the admin who closed this case, makes me not care much for him, and think he will not be much help at all. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You have three options:

		The article you created was just deleted?
		All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:
		Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles‎ (empty) no pages or subcategories Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

~~~~

I think userfication is the best option for your now. ANY admin can do this for you.

Once the article is up to par, you can then recreate the Passionato page.

Also I would suggest you change your name: Wikipedia:Changing_username, as it appears like you have a Conflict of Interest.

I asked an admin to userfy your page: User_talk:The_Epopt#Request_to_userfy_Passionato

Ikip (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done: User:Passionato/Passionato Ikip (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:AfD/Tagged

Sorry about that, misunderstood what you were doing there. It's been restored. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring that template. Ikip (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Did you want the old revs back as well? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No thank you, I appreciate your efforts. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wah ni qui wah

Resolved

The above article was submitted and immediately deleted with no support. The editor who wrote it contacted the deleting editor User:Timtrent or Fiddle Faddle who called it a hoax. Rather harsh treament for a fresh editor (a freditor?). And I'm not sure it was a hoax. It would have very little, if any, written History if it was one of the Indian stories related to the White Buffalo . I'm gonna check Google and see. My question to you is ....How do I get to see and read the article? I'd like to investigate this further. BTW...A quick thanks for redirecting my WikiEfforts. I was starting to get stuck in "battles, bile and barlycorn" (I made that up). There was a build-up of tension and off-Wiki stress due to editors which shall remain nameless. Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah ni qui wah deletion.

In answer to your question:

Ask an admin to WP:Userfy or ask one of the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to email you the article. Userfying is always better, because you can work on the article on wiki, and others can help you.

Ask one of those admins to move it to: User talk:Buster7/Wah ni qui wah (userfy). I would ask myself, but I would like to teach you how to do it, and see how easy it is.

{{Findsources3}} is the absolute best tool to find sources.

Just add the name of the article after a "|":

{{Findsources3|Wah ni qui wah}}, so:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ikip (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Muʻumuʻu

I moved the "in popular culture" section to the talk page. If you want to include it, simply group the most important elements together, and find sources that talk about its cultural importance. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Category : inclusionist editor

Dude, what is the "flag" you can put on a user page indicating that one is an inclusionist? Thanks... Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PS check out my new improved user page. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

it is a template. Inside the template is a category.

If you don't want the template, you can just add the category.

Here are the templates:

{{Template:User inc}}

Adding this to your talk page adds the template:

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

it also adds the category at the bottom, Category: Inclusionist Wikipedians, if you don't want the template, and simply want to be included with the 800 strong inclusionists:

Add: [[Category: Inclusionist Wikipedians]] anywhere on your page, and then at the bottom it will show this category. Ikip (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

anonymity

2channel#Anonymous_posting

you see, if there was no identification, not even the IP one, nor the edit histories, people would have to consider arguments each time, no matter from who they come from. in non-anonymous environment, people get personal, and they quite frequently react to an edit E because it came from person P, instead of because edit E was not in tune with Wikipedia rules. i've seen this happen even by some veery intelligent editors here, who simply happen to be humans too, and then from time to time instead of reason get guided by emotions.

just imaging the time and effort that would be saved on all talk pages if people would actually argue the content of articles in relation to WP rules, instead of discussing all the other things too.

now of course there are practical issues to consider, how would you prevent an IP from making thousand of vandalism edits. i think the answer is simple, limit the number of total edits per IP range both on individual articles and on wikipedia in general, to say, few per article a day and few dozen per wikipedia in general a day? editors would then give more thought to what actually they really want to edit and contribute to.

212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I will refactor out my comments. :) Ikip (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No need. Let the message of anonymity be spread! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.240.232 (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations

July Systems Not able to figure out inline citations. I'm trying to link content in the article to appropriate media article links below. If this is what it means, I'm not able to link the number to the article.

There have several references to July Systems' technology from major brands lately.

Tx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiven (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikiven, let me show you. Ikip (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations response

Simply add :

==Notes==
<references/>

To the bottom of the page, above all of the other sections (See also, External links, etc.) [I already did this.]

Then were you want to add the footnote:

<ref>Article cited </ref>

Make sure to add the </ref> or the entire bottom half of the page becomes a footnote!

Make sure there is no space between the <ref> and the sentence cited. (a pet peeve of mine)

See: User:Ikip#Ref_tags for more complex citations, here is the page on it:Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources

Ikip (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

references

There will be some objections to using Spark Notes as an information source. Try to find something more authoritative. Even the EB would do better, or the notes in any of the paperback editions of the play. DGG (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks DGG, I didn't know that. I am not much of a shakespeare fan myself. Ikip (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/139th meridian west

The word is "cite", as in citation. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks tim, you are welcome to fix my spelling/gramatical errors in the future! Ikip (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your verbal vocabulary is obviously larger than your written vocabulary. I'm usually the other way around and have to guess how to spell things that I've only ever read. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP Encouragement

Travis - thanks again for your support and encouragement. While I am not profiting monetarily (as nobody does) from WP article contributions, something about contributing gives us a bit of fulfillment (ask Freud why that is -- or possibly Tony Robbins). Anyway, Space Communications and Navigation Program and Space Network are my most recent contributions, and without your encouragement I would not have created them, and would have given up (again, only due to deletionist badgering) -- Geĸrίtzl (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job Ikip! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some people make a little money on wikipedia: User:Ikip#Wikipedia:Reward_board_Get_paid_to_edit_wikipedia Glad I can help :) Ikip (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Camberwell Baptist Church

Tried to reference items but a cite error showed up. Can you fix? not sure what happened!--Buster7 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

looks like they were already fixed, no errors now. just remember <ref> Cite Information </ref>. I notice the article is being deleted, I will look into this.Ikip (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

smile!

Thanks for the barnstar! - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed discussion

I noticed the diff link you added at the RFC, and just wanted to point out that brunt of the discussion was actually in a different diff, here. I've added a link to this one too, within your existing notice at the RFC. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:06, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized it wasn't you that added the links, and that the other diff was indeed linked after all. Sorry to bother you. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:09, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I thought so, no biggie, it is wayyy behind me now. Thanks again for your calm and reasoned words. Ikip (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your support of Notability

You know, you are starting to remind me of Agent 13. Every time we cross paths you have a different disguise.

You're right, WP:N is misused and misunderstood quite often enough. And there are dangers -- you mentioned the Pentagon military analyst program article, where there were few sources because, well, a lot of the media was implicated in the scandal and chose to self censor, and it's problematic for such censorship to promulgate forward to our project.

There was a bio I stubbed out on an historian who is basically our "go to guy" for much of the history of Romania as far as referencing his work, but no one in the English speaking world has written about the guy, so it got speedy tagged and I had to argue about it. Shouldn't our readers know something about the author whose thoughts second-handedly inform so much of that topic?

And things get worse yet if you combine those memes. How is this notable when the only source is some Russian journalist who died two days later in an unfortunate meat-grinder incident?

But I'd rather have to argue with nits once in a while than fling open the doors to schlock. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response on Camberwell Baptist Church

I find your response on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camberwell Baptist Church, as someone who is active on the AfD circuit, I have found that you usually vote delete on almost every article, making your user name a fitting one. And yet with this church, citing no policy, you wrote: "Keep, churches tend to be notable." If you don't mind, can you explain this possible contradiction?

Also the message wizard you have tends to be very confusing. When I click "You're replying to a comment I left on another page" the page is protected. I would suggest getting rid of it completely. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On User talk:Stifle/wizard/comment, you will see that the page suggests that if you are replying to a comment on another page, you should leave that reply on the other page, but if you think it is important, there is a link to leave me a message.

The message wizard is not intended to sort messages (and is protected so that people don't leave messages on a page where I won't see them). It's designed so that the questions I am asked most frequently are answered straight away, and that questions any admin or any user can answer are directed to an appropriate noticeboard. That way, users may not have to wait for me to come back online to get an answer to their problem. I have found it very useful and I think I will keep it.

To your actual issue, I'm satisfied with my contribution to this AFD and the admin who closes it will give it whatever weight he feels it deserves. I would have thought that the implied comments in your message are beneath Wikipedia editors. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Ikip (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Lark

My cites aren't as pretty as yours, but I did a bit of copyedit and added a bunch more. Did the nom even look? Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar Ikip :) Its nice to be appreciated. I'll have to move it to a more prominent place  The Steve  13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD study

• I've been watching the progress of the study, and I must say I'm surprised at what seems to have developed. If I'm reading your results correctly, 102 articles were kept, and 102 articles were deleted. Is that right? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Beeb, good to see you again :) You need to look at the main page: User:Ikip/AfD_on_average_day. There were 102 articles. 53 were deleted, 31 were keep, 18 were redirected. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, that makes more sense. I thought that would be an awfully big coincidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfied deleted articles

• User:Ikip/Zrada Cultural Academy
• User:Ikip/List of Boot Disks - (diff) 15:07, 15 November 2008 . . NicholasBrand (Talk | contribs | block) (756 bytes) (added boot discs from the list of live cds page)
• User:Ikip/Journal for Plague Lovers - (diff) 15:09, 14 November 2008 . . Ddddaniel (Talk | contribs | block) (1,179 bytes) (�?Created page with 'Journal for Plague Lovers' is the ninth studio album from the Welsh rock group Manic Street Preachers. The Manic Street Preachers posted this on there onli...')
• User:Ikip/Chico's (restaurant) - (diff) 14:01, 29 September 2005 . . JIP (Talk | contribs | block) (created restaurant stub)
• User:Ikip/Ulthian - (diff) 23:25, 10 August 2004 . . 24.185.212.101 (Talk | block)

I'll have to see about restoring the histories to these. Dreadstar † 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) Ikip (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting?

Hi, Ikip. You may have noticed my little scuffle with the Looney Tunes deletionists at the Rescue Squadron page. But get this: This (my own AfD) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiko Shiguri show that there have been hoax articles floating around in the Deletionist-guarded anime/manga/cartoon area for almost a year (first article), and almost two years (second article, I think-- it's gone now). There were several other articles and edits as part of these two hoaxes. These people have been so busy deleting real, verifiable content that they didn't notice a bundle of hoaxes in their own project... Interesting?. I find it so. History shows self-appointed judges of what other people should read, always get it wrong. And apparently Wikipedia is doomed to repeat that... Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I've restored three of the pages; you should find them at:

• User:Ikip/Sura (film)
• User:Ikip/Mission Prep Christmas Classic
• User:Ikip/Live USB system creator

I've also cut & pasted the deleted history for Uni5 to User:Ikip/Uni5 (history) -- I hope this is what you want, as I have no idea how to temporarily restore the history of the page! Asha Degree is problematic, as the article was partly deleted because of BLP concerns and so I cannot restore it, nor can I cut & paste the history, as there is significant biographical material in the edit summaries. There were 25 deleted edits; the creator was AllenGlines (talk · contribs) on 21:21, 27 January 2007. Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I respect BLP rules, thank you. Ikip (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barn star -- which as the pedia's least active admin, I don't feel to merit -- & best wishes for your research into the mechanics of AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I've restored all five of them and moved them to your userspace under User:Ikip/<article name>. The last three also have deleted talk pages, in case you are interested in them; the talk page of the third an fourth articles just had {{oldafdfull|page=ChalkZone characters|date=21 February 2008|result='''keep or possibly merge'''}} on them, which were added by Keeper76. The David Bouchier talk page might interest you, however, so I've moved it to User talk:Ikip/David Bouchier. Please let me know when you have finished with these histories, so I can move them back to their proper place and re-delete them. Graham87 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. You might want to fix the sig on the template you use to generate it though - it seems like you've been in some weird time warp the way the times are now! I'm not an inclusionist, except for Wikipedian historical pages, far from it, in fact. But I do understand the need for accurate page histories when doing research like this. I might clean up the pages a bit so they're not indexed by search engines, don't have main namespace categories, etc, etc. Graham87 02:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the template, LOL. I will clean the up for you right now, you have done enough, thank you. Ikip (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah I notice that you fixed the sig issues. Graham87 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, with you it is instant gratification, like talking face to face over a cup of coffee, shooting the bull. You are on top of it! Ikip (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, you seem *really* on the ball compared to me - check my user page for why I am, by some user's standards, a bit slow at getting and processing talk page messages. But it's like 12:00 here, I'm just sitting here on Wikipedia wandering around, and occasionally refreshing the page history or watchlist or whatever. :-) Graham87 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you please not delete material from my talk page and make up your mind what articles you want me to give you information on, otherwise I will not help you. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I responded at length on your talk page. Ikip (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold's lot

Looks like User:Xeno's already gotten these - the first two you've listed (Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood and Energy and American Society) weren't actually deleted, so there's nothing to restore for those; they've just been moved to new titles. If you need any more brought back up, though, let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Re: this: I did not undelete the page so it could be "updated", I undeleted it so that you could take a full look at the history. Once you have taken a complete look at the history, and saved everything you need to your hard drive (perhaps with Special:Export), the pages should be deleted, because userspace is not a place to indefinitely store deleted versions of articles. I'm also uncomfortable with this, which could be construed as spamming. A list of your contributions is accessible to everyone, you know. Graham87 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the article so it could be updated. I just felt bad for the anon. I will delete the category stuff. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GFDL concerns

Hi. I came across what looks like a copy of the deleted article B'dg at Talk:Green Lantern#FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg. Did you copy the article while the AfD was in progress?

Editors must take care to attribute copied content. In fact, TTN was warned recently for not providing proper attribution when merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Did you miss my question? I am planning to request outside input at WP:AN if we are unable to resolve this. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Copying content during AfD without attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories

You have copies of quite a few articles in your user-space - can you either no-wiki or remove the categories to stop them showing up in article space with proper articles? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

sure, I must have missed some of them. Thanks for letting me know. Ikip (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

done. Ikip (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion page is available

Ikip...check out Talk:Camberwell Baptist Church...What do you think???

• Easy to do
• a Welcome instead of a warning (Bad Puppy, Bad....WHAK!)
• opens the space up for sharing info that may save the article if presented by a seasoned editor.
• respect not ridicule
• communication not EXcommunication!

--Buster7 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice buster7 good job. Ikip (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip....My Idea could use some support @ User talk:Taemyr...Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

a/e

Please recheck the different meaning of affected as compared to effected; your recent analysis is prominent, & worth editing the typos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Crystaline Entity

Please stop restoring this unsubstantiated plot summary and trivia for a non-notable topic. Redirecting to a List of ... is appropriate for minor characters, and is the general practice/consensus in the Star Trek WikiProject. Furthermore, restoring content that fails WP:GNG and WP:RS without seemingly making any attempt to rectify these problems is disruptive. If you disagree, take it up on the article talk page and/or the WikiProject talk page. As for what I "well know" -- I know WP:FICT isn't agreed upon, but if it were, it would still suggest a redirect for this topic; and I know that WP:GNG is still alive and well, and the absence of an assertion of notability for this topic, let alone substantiation of that claim, also suggests this topic doesn't warrant inclusion here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Only on wikipedia could an editor who merges other editors contributions call another editors attempt to unmerge that material "disruptive". Talk about Orwellian. I think it is in the best interest of the project to have detailed articles like this. Yes, unfortunately, Notability is live and well, a subjective way that editors to delete or merge hundreds of other editors contributions. Despite this, there has been a severe backlash, making an unofficial exception for television episodes. Don't believe me? Try merging a Simpson article. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry about that. Are you OK with me removing the currently struck-out sentence? --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead ronz. I am sorry. I just get a little flustered when editors remove other editors good faith, well referenced contributions. I am going to leave the wikifarm and stick candy argument. Please try and find sources for the sections on stick candy before you remove them again.

I suggest next time moving the material you are going to remove to the talk page when you remove it. It works really well for me when I do this.

I don't know. I don't understand editors who delete mentality. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. For what it's worth, while I'm clearly no inclusionist, I'm no deletionist either. I tend to be mildly exclusionists except where it comes to spamming and advertising.

Yes, the act of moving the information to talk has worked well and I should do it sooner when there's a dispute. --Ronz (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy editing. Ikip (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

I'm trying to dig into rewriting this to focus it better and make it less ugly, but I don't want to change the meaning. I believe it means that deletion is generally a last resort, and that deletion is for content that is illegal or legally liable (NFCC, copyvio, libel, BLP), unverifiable or incoherent (patent nonsense, stuff that hopelessly fails WP:V, OR, arguably notability but I'm going to avoid stepping in that mess here), or redundant. I know you won't stint from telling me I'm a drooling maniac if you think I've misunderstood it. Most of the argument about conflicts with other policies apparently stem from the fact that it's how to dispose of content that violates policies, not a standard of content that needs to be dealt with. For example, WP:NOTDIR means that a directory of television station addresses in Cleveland is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but WP:PRESERVE means it should be turned into an encyclopedic list of television stations in Cleveland and not deleted (unless we already have a perfectly good list of Cleveland TV stations).

So, um. Any thoughts? There are several stabs I took at it in the history, if you want to check. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts, other than I am nervous you are focusing on it, :) I think your interpretation is incorrect:

For example, WP:NOTDIR means that a directory of television station addresses in Cleveland is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but WP:PRESERVE means it should be turned into an encyclopedic list of television stations in Cleveland and not deleted (unless we already have a perfectly good list of Cleveland TV stations).

First of all preserve is never followed. Second, if it is followed, you look at other options before deletion, like merging, or discuss the article on the talk page, explaining why it does not meet certain guidelines, and getting consensus on what to do with it. Regardless, the article gets deleted or merged. WP:PRESERVE is just there to try to make editors reach consensus and be better contributors. It says a lot about how shitty things are on wikipedia, and how little people respect each others contributions, that it is roundly ignored. 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it's routinely ignored because it's stranded in an ancient policy page nobody really reads, which is composed of a bunch of random advice, more than any culture thing. But I think we're on the same page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) wow, I am flattered. I was worried you were canvassing people, and i was the token inclusionists, with a couple of other inclusionist. I was flattered that i was the only person who you messaged.

I think it is all about editor's priorities. Preserve is in the state that it is because the priority isn't working together--it is on deleting. What do you think? Ikip (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think people tend to see what they look for.

Anyway. There's another half to this you touched on: focus on improving before deleting. For example, unverified content isn't necessarily fodder for deletion in the way unverifiable content is. Do you think this is a good place to make that point, or is WP:V or WP:DP (both of which touch on it already) a better place? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I came to ask you because you can usually ferret out holes in my arguments pretty effectively, and will reply with something other than scorn. (And I guess I can live with notability in scare quotes if you can live with me being a smarmy asshole. ¬_¬) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe"?

At user talk:Gregbard, you wrote: "You maybe interested[...]".

Please. "Maybe" is a perfectly good word, but it doesn't mean the same thing as "may be". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I was impressed with your judgement and maturity in dealing with a recent dispute. I admire the way you handled yourself and were able to de-escalate the confrontation. Party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enabled e-mail functionality per your request. Party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreating David Bouchier

The recreation didn't work. That editor who called my page 'a load of ****' (who by the way doesn't even have an account) is still at large. Although, I am going to propose to the admins that it be recreated. --67.80.57.142 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)User:GooglePedia12

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A second look

Ikip. You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that the delete template not go on the main page. I'm suggesting that a duplicate go on the talk page with the friendly notation...."Don't worry fellow Wikipedian...all is not lost...here are some ideas...etc," The point is that the inexpereinced newbie will begin searching for an answer or a friend or someone to explain to him what to do. The early steps are very lonely and can be filled with pitfalls. My suggestion was only to provide one more impovement of the way that newbies are treated. Or do we continue to bite them?--Buster7 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Thanks a lot for your invitation as a wikipedian to join the article rescue squadron. While it is unlikely that I will have the time to make a huge effort, this is something I am interested in, and hope to put some exertion in where I can. ~CortalUX^Talk? 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)