User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/January

New Administrator?

Sir, some buttons have come up on some pages that I view. I recognize these buttons to be administrator only buttons. I need you to tell me if I may have been made an Administrator. Veraladeramanera (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright UKCCW template scrapped

Hello again. I have noticed that the template you created, Template:Copyright UKCCW, has been replaced with a redirect to Template:Non-free Crown copyright. I do not know if the reason is that the waiver is not considered to apply, or that the user responsible was not aware of the waiver. The user in question is Carnildo, who seems to be an expert on the subject of copyright. I thought I would let you know, in case you were not aware. All images that used the template have now been deleted. Best wishes, Labalius (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
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) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

incorrect and over-hasty speedy

Saying that a person is the Attorney General of a country, even the acting attorney general, is enough of an indication of importane to prevent speedy, and, in fact, almost certainly to prevent deletion altogether. Can you please explain the speedy on Salahuddin Ahmad At the time you speedied it, the article may have been unreferenced, but first of all that is not reason for speedy, and second, it had just been created only two minutes previously. Please don't BITE the new contributors by over hasty and incorrect speedies. The proper tag for the article would have been "unsourced". I will look here for your reply. DGG (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do no more than plead insanity. Despite reading the article through twice, I clearly missed the word "general" and saw just another of the steady drip of bios of non-notable baristers, programmers, etc. etc. Had I seen the word general, I wouldn't have sent it to any kind of deletion process. Sorry! Mayalld (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

aha! I was trying to think of what had gone wrong, because your work is generally very reliable, but this particular misreading didn't occur to me. Everyone is susceptible to such things, which is why alI wise admins just place tags and let some other admin delete. Please feel free to delete this whole exchange if you like. DGG (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete it? Hell no! If I make a mistake that I shouldn't have made, it stays here until it gets archived. I pride myself on being both fast and accurate when patrolling new pages, and if I do make a mistake, it does me no harm to have the fact of the mistake there to remind me to take more care! I fully agree that admins should very rarely (safe for VERY VERY blatant vandalism or attack pages) speedy untagged articles as sole judge. At the least, two pairs of eyes ensures that one persons silly mistake can be caught by somebody else. Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Quarterdeck Investment Partners

I couldn't tell whether you received my request to review the speedy deletion of Quarterdeck Investment Partners.

This is my first post so I may not have completely followed the rules. I included a post about Quarterdeck Investment Partners because:

1) You already have posts for all its investment banking competitors (I could list for you if helpful); 2) You have a post for Jefferies & Company, Inc. which indicates that they purchased Quarterdeck but there is no link to the company to explain what it is; 3) It is of historical significance as it is: - The first investment banking firm to focus exclusively in the aerospace & defense industry; - It is ranked #1 globally in the number of transactions completed in the sector;

Is there something that wasn't properly communicated or data I need to further provide? I'd appreciate the feedback so I can properly submit other posts.

Thank you

Dataseas (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your argument in favour of the article seems largely to amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX, neither of which carry any weight in retaining articles.

Each article has to pass the notability test in its own right, and comparison with other articles doesn't help (it may be that those articles ought to be deleted as well).

If your contention is that the company is notable, then it may be that an article is appropriate, but such an article should be written from a neutral point of view by somebody who doesn't have a conflict of interest. The article as written appeared to be promoting the company.

Mayalld (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL!

[1] Am afraid he needs a banhammer to fall on his noggin'. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't be long before it happens! Mayalld (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Earth's Twin Cores

I'll probably be re-creating something along these lines (in my Copious Free Time), although with an article title closer to MOS. It's a serious theory, not OR, and is emminently referencable. It may not be correct, but a theory doesn't have to be - they are by their nature speculative. This one is serious and interesting, far from crackpot science and actually less "weird" to the status quo than plate tectonics appeared in the early '60s. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Trade ideas

Hello. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind withdrawing your nomination for deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade ideas. As a number of people have pointed out, your belief that it was a made up neologism was incorrect.

I made some recommendations for redirecting it. Since then, I have done some more research and now think I can put together a pretty good article at Alpha capture system into which trade ideas could be merged and redirected. However, I don't want to mess up the deletion process by starting to move things around now.

If you withdraw your nom, I'll make some changes and let you know when I've finished and invite you to nominate the resulting articles again should you still believe that is the correct thing to do. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to withdraw. However, there was something of a fuss about withdrawing AfDs where more people than the nominator had !voted delete last month, and there is another delete on the AfD. If you can get them to strike, I will certainly withdraw. Mayalld (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The other delete !vote was struck, so withdrawn. Mayalld (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll see I've now redirected trade ideas to the newly expanded and sourced alpha capture system. Feel free to weigh in and improve it! GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing

Hi, I noticed you closed several AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade ideas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bloody Aria. When you close an AfD, please don't forget to use {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} and to sign your name after the closing statement. Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 05:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Misguided warning

Hi. Please do not add misguided warnings. POV disputes do not amount to vandalism. Secondly, I have sourced the information about Czech tourist industry. Do not blindly revert sourced material. Also refrain from personal attacks - telling someone that he is vandalising, while at most you are dealing with different POV (sourced at that), is certainly not appropriate! 78.30.163.113 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The section added goes well beyond what can reliably sourced, offering trite generalisms about the attitude of the entire Czech people. Several people have objected to the POV tone of the paragraph, and your determination to re-add the information in the face of objections from several editors is disruptive. Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleton of supported information is not appropriate response. If you like to change the tone, that is certainly another issue, but you are deleting info about mayor taxi ripoff (he posed as a tourist because of the problems in the first place), exchange rates at street exchange boots, surcharges and rude restaurant staff etc. You cannot just censor information that seems unlikely to you. It might not seem like that to you, but every thing mentioned is a fact, just read a bit through the links provided. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Add the information WITHOUT putting your own POV spin on it, and it won't get removed. Add it with POV spin, and it will. Don't expect other editors to fix the tone if you aren't prepared to do so yourself. Mayalld (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but based on information I have, the way it is presented is most accurate way I can state it. If you see any problem, tell us about it on the talk page. Noone is expected to read other people minds, so if you have any objections, rise them on appropriate place. Deletion of entire sections of sourced material is not the answer. In fact, it is removal of sourced material that constitutes vandalism. Rephrasing it according to your tastes/biases is not. If you have different way you like things presented, have another POV, then go ahead, but you cant expect other people to write from your POV or share your bias (that you might be unaware of)- neutral POV can only come from people discussing the issue, not by blank reversions and deletions. So, use talk page, and we can work on the version acceptable to all sides in the dispute, that is how one can move forward here. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on the issues. Per WP:BRD, if people have an issue with what you want to add, the default position is that the article stays at the status quo whilst the change is discussed. You seem intent that the article should remain as altered whilst it is discussed. Mayalld (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

re: jid sames page

hello. i believe you have submitted the page i created for deletion. not sure i understand why. i'm a fan of the artist page i have created. i have bought three of his official releases and noticed there was no info about him on wiki, hence me starting his page. thanks Boobydavro (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion, because I don't believe that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

re: SunniPath

You have requested deletion of SunniPath. I am not sure why you feel that this Organization is not a significant religious Organization. The organization has been in existence for 6 years. Have a successful Islamic Education program which are recognized by accredited Universities. Can you give me your reasoning for recommending for deletion?

I see absolutely NOTHING, other than your claims. WIkipedia requires EVIDENCE from reliable sources. (and as you have a significant conflict of interest, this is particularly true) Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio on Sort big number

You placed a {{db-copyvio}} on this article, but failed to note the URL from which it was copied. This makes it difficult for an admin to verify that the copyright violation has occurred. In the future, please remember to specific the URL on a copyvio tag. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The code that was pasted contained a copyright assertion! Mayalld (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I missed that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	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) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasty AFD notices

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Adams (Game Developer) and other notices on your talk page have shown that you are incredibly hasty at nominating new articles for deletion. By repeatedly attempting to destroy articles less than 2 minutes after they have been created, your actions are only serving to discourage new editors from using Wikipedia. Had Thabin been like any other new user, the article would likely be wrongly deleted based off your false and weak rationale with zero research. Please cease nominating brand new articles for deletion. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominate a fair few articles for deletion, and very occasionally, I make a mistake. Where I do so, I will withdraw the AfD. Given that an AfD runs for 5 days, I see zero risk of an incorrect deletion. Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We probably lose relatively few articles by this process, but we lose a lot of new potential new editors. Can you imagine the effect this has on them? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

People claim this, but I see no evidence. Mayalld (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because they quit. Evidence is common sense. If I were a new user and I created a new article on Wikipedia, only to see someone attempt to delete it two minutes later, I would have no idea what to do. I'd have no clue what to do. "What is this big red template? What can I do? What are all these weird terms? WP:NN? WP:BIO? WHAT? If this is going to happen every time I make an article, what is the point?" This is a common reaction from many new users. All it takes is the incredibly hasty AFD notice alone to get rid of the new user forever. It's very telling that you wouldn't even acknowledge the impact on the editor in the first response. You truly don't know the effect of your actions. I am asking again: Please stop. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And your evidence for this is? Nothing. Just bald assertion. There is zero evidence that new editors who find their first articles survives an AfD are any more likely to quit than any other new editor. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry if this is in the wrong place but this site is too confusing) HERE is some evidence: You have flagged my article on Pixie Lott for deletion and I believe this is very unreasonable. She is signed to a major record label and is working with many very famous songwriters. If you think she is not notable, you should do more research! Obviously your knowledge of pop music is very little, and you should leave judgement as to which pop artists are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages up to people who have the knowledge you clearly lack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.132.106 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia inclusion policy is designed so that personal knowledge is not needed. WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS will explain it. Mayalld (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate & Necessary Information (viaficable)

Dear Mayalld:

I don't understand your opposition to this information as "inappropriate" for Wikipedia. Exactly what critria does this organization use to consider proposed articles. Or, it Wikipedia articles criticed by special interest organization?

Have you, personally, ever prevailed in any legal litigation Jury trial, or otherwise, without assistance of counsel. I have!!!

Should you require detailed documented proof, I stand by to forward the same to you via facsmile, immediately. Or, are your considerations of a more personal nature?

I await your response

Kenneth S Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your message seems to indicate a fundemental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has minimum standards of notability that the subject of an article must meet for inclusion. It requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view by editors who don't have a conflict of interest

It is not a soapbox for people to trumpet their own achievements. It is not a provider of webspace for anything that you want to post.

Our policies on article inclusion are linked above, and I suggest you start with WP:N. I would also point you at WP:AGF, and suggest that flinging accusations of "special interest organisations" when your article is nominated is a spectacular failure to assume good faith.

You should note that creating the same article under 3 different names is not the way to do anything, and particularly not where the article is of dubious notability.

Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'very' trumpet achievement of prevailing against State of Alaska Attorney Generals Office Department of Law, is coincidental to the even more important "fact" of deliberate indifference to African American Muslims in Federal and State Penal Institutions. It is not me, or the proposed article that fails here, it is a "want-to-be" editor who has ffailed, and shall continue to fail endeavors for such employment with any organization except wikipedia. What were your writing compensation deposits last month?

Sorry, but it is extraordinarily difficult to accept that your response is actually written in the English Language!

You clearly have a burning need to tell your story. All well and good, tell it! Create a web site about it. Just don't presume that Wikipedia will provide a home for your soapbox.

As to the last part, I am not employed by Wikipedia, and my writing compensation deposits last month were zero. I don't do this for a living! Mayalld (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you do not write, or edit, for compensation, and you most likely never will because you fail at logic and reason as well as academically flawed in areas of information logging. The proposed article is little more than important informative facts regarding our Country's judiciary indifference to definitions of torture and mal-treatment of "Naturally" born citizens of whether African American, or Muslim. The proposed article is reflective of the "U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS" a Constitution underminded and virually destroyed by ignorance an beauracatic individuals with priniciples contrary to intentions of the founding fathers. I insist you keep your interpretations of Wikipedia policies out of consideration here, make no acceptions to the rules and withdraw your unfounded recommendation for deletion of the proposed article. I, myself, am more knowledgible than you to suggest what is or is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Quite apart from the fact that your response is a breach of our policy on no personal attacks, I find it vaguely amusing that somebody whose written style, and spelling, is such as this would dream of telling anybody hat they can't write or edit.

You say "our Country's", which shows very clearly that you don't understand that this is the English Language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia (English is a language spoken in other countries that the USA, such as England).

Whilst I am sure that that you know best, and that the hundreds of people who crafted Wikipedia's policies on inclusion are wrong, I think (on balance) that my recomendation that the article be deleted will stand. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And my objection stand as well. In as much as your comment(s) on my use of the English language is concerned, hast in responding to idiotic stubborness is indicative of just another judgemental individual lacking the ability to see content rather than purpose. Furthermore, The Modern Language Association have included "'s" after a 'noun' to mean "plural" or "possessive". Indeed, I am in doubt of Wikipedia for allowing your recommendations. Or, perhsps you are simply being clever. In any-case, although I am unaware of international policiees of Wikipedia, you obviously have mis-interpreted what you claim to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments on the use of the English Language stand. You make frequent spelling errors, you construct sentences in such a way as to make them near impossible to understand.

My comment on "our Country's", however, is not related to any question of correct use of the posessive, but to an apparent assumption on your part that the USA is also my country. I am not a US citizen.

Please take a look at the AfD discussion. Multiple editors are agreeing with my conclusion that this article does not meet inclusion criteria.

You say that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, and in the next breath you tell me that I have misinterpreted it. Priceless!!!! Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You insist on convincing me of your so called "neutrality" I never indicated that you were a U.S. citizen. Who you are, or, whatever, you nationality is unimportant, to me!!! As in my previous comment, your failure to understand what is written is indicative of you lack of exposure. Were I to offer a scientic formula you would most likely be too dumb-founded to offer even a comment. this is a common disability germaine to the truly unexposed. You are "someone" in your mind, only!!!Kenneth Alexander (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
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) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea for you

How about focusing on more important things like vandalism or non-free images WP could be sued over, rather than trying to delete a legitimate article i just spent 20 minutes creating. Wilkos (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And here's an idea for you

How about focusing on ensuring that the articles you create are about notable subjects and demonstrate it.

How about not posting a whinge on other users talk pages when they legitimately noninate an article for deletion.

How about not presuming to tell others what they should or should not be doing.

Have a nice day. Mayalld (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

seven seconds or less

Stop putting tags on this article. I gave my reason for removing your tag in the edit summary. It says I'm going to put references. Read the edit summary before you revert a change. Look at the notice you just put on my talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Seven Seconds or Less. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

--MrShamrock (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Once you have added adequate references that show notability, feel free to delete the template. Until that time, the template should remain in place.

Such templates are removed once they no longer apply, not when somebody says they will no longer apply soon. Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just pay attention to what you're doing. Read what I said and read what the tag says and understand it. When you undid my removal of the tag you undid 4 edits that I had made to the article. That is vandalism. Leave the article alone. --MrShamrock (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits that you made before removing the template addressed the notability issue, so you shouldn't have removed it. If you go round wrongly removing templates in a rash of edits, please don't expect me to wade through them all to work out which one to undo.

It isn't vandalism, and please try to remember WP:OWN.

Mayalld (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article "Bat Pussy"

I dont see why it was taken off and put up for deletion. It is a slang term for vagina and also the title of a film. It has yet to have more information written about it if it was given a chance. I notice Wikipedia has lots of urban talk/slang word articles and articles on porn/cult films so this one needn't be treated differently. Raepninja1 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Blaggards" page notability

Hi Mayalld,

You tagged Blaggards for notability. Only one criterion for notability is required, and as far as I can see, at least two are handily met here already. As I mentioned in my first edit summary, the information posted meets criteria 1 and 11 for notability as listed in WP:MUSIC. I have referenced several different non-trivial independent sources in addition to providing a reference as proof that Blaggards are in rotation on a national radio station (Sirius Satellite Radio).

Please be more specific with you concerns so that I may better address them.

Thanks, Megafar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megafar (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to whether several of the sources are reliable (there seems to be a lot of blog tyoe stuff there), and I'm not sure that the radio station cited is sufficiently notable itself. Mayalld (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the references I posted are from blogs. They include the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Press, and the Austin Chronicle, all of which are major publications that are published in print as well as online. By what standard is Sirius Satellite Radio not "sufficiently notable"? It is a major operation that broadcasts throughout the US and Canada, and is home to a massive amount of notable programming, including Howard Stern and Martha Stewart. --Megafar (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I did say "blog type", by which I mean that at a certain level, the press will print just about anything that people send in in order to fill column inches. WP:RS touches on this, by preferring high-end news organisations, and I don't think that articles in local newspapers really cuts it.

Nowhere in WP:RS does it downplay the veracity of local newspapers or liken them to blogs. Two of the publications I mentioned are owned by national corporations. The only sticking point here seems to be your personal opinion of local media. --Megafar (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a common theme in discussions of notability that WP:RS attaches some degree of importance to the standing of the newspaper, by preferring high-end publications. The analogy is that local newspapers must be of lesser importance. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As to Sirius Satellite Radio. Again, we need to keep in mind that the growth in bandwidth made available by digital satellite means that it is relatively easy to create a "national" station which has a tiny audience. As I understand it, SSR is NOT a radio station. Rather it is a group of such digital stations, and that the music was played on a single niche station that is part of that portfolio.

I think you are splitting hairs here. Criterion #11 in WP:MUSIC specifically says "any major radio network". The simple fact that Sirius is a digital radio network does not undermine its credibility. It is not as easy to get airplay on Sirius as you seem to be implying; i.e., we are not talking about Live365 here. Larry Kirwan was offered an opportunity to host his own show on Sirius because of his own considerable notability in the music industry. --Megafar (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Does a low-audience niche station inherit significance from its parent? I suggest not. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Larry Kirwan's show is "low audience" does not disprove notability in this case. Yes, Celtic rock is a niche market. People like Larry Kirwan help determine who is notable within such niches, and in this case he singled out Blaggards as being noteworthy. --Megafar (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this looks like trying to talk up their notability, and "over-egging the pudding". Mayalld (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't believe it meets notability, but I accept that it is borderline. As such, I tagged for notability. If the lack of notability were clearer, I'd have AfDed it. Tagging it for notability is a recognition that it may be notable, and that it may take some time to show this. I'm beginning to wish that I'd AFDed it, to save myself all the aggro. Mayalld (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel aggro'd. I am merely presenting an argument and bear you no ill will. I will continue to flesh out the article, and I hope we can come to a consensus. --Megafar (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that we will :-) Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with the sock report

I've indef blocked both accounts. As long as no other socks pop up, no need to go to the trouble. --barneca (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, something's wrong with caching; I now see you created it a while ago. Didn't show up on my computer until just now. I'll go try to figure out how to close a report in the new format. --barneca (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: what template did you use to notify the user of the sock investigation? A standard template, or a personal one? It sends people to WP:SSP/John Doe, when it should now send people to WP:SPI/John Doe. If I knew what template you used, I'd just change it myself, but... --barneca (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to take a look at that. I used TW for the report, so clearly TW isn't yet fully up to speed on the new process! Mayalld (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was {{socksuspectnotice}}, which I've just amended to fit WP:SPI (it is to be substed, so will only break the odd half dozen case where it wasn't used properly previously.Mayalld (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for looking into that! --barneca (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs

Hi, i noticed you added a Speedy tag to the above article, due to the fact that the merge was complete. But you left the tag saying a merge was needed, and the article was already put on AfD for not being merged. Could you chime in at the AfD. I would think a simple redirect would be easiest now, as the "Christina Aguilera B-sides" is a realistic search term. But even if you stick with complete delete, having both methods of deletion ongoing for opposite reasons is very confusing (for me at least, maybe it is simply too early in the morning here!).Yobmod (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LoL, too late - but thanks for your attention. Keep up the good work!Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Maylid,

I saw your note. As far as I know I DID follow the instructions (clicked the box, filled it out..etc...) That's ok. Should I feel the need to submitt...I'll read it better! Sorry! — Kosh ^Jumpgate 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Benchmarking Network

Mayallad, thank you for your comments. Not so familiar with Wikipedia so far. Can you please specify your "problem" with the GBN article: Global_Benchmarking_Network_(GBN). --Ronaldo12345 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is quite clearly an article BY the organisation, setting forth its view of itself, rather than an article ABOUT the organisation giving an impar4tial view of the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life. support. music.

Might you wish to now revisit the article in question? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	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) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Dude...

...get a bot flag maybe? :-p can't see a damn thing on RC ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken (unintended consequences and all that) I was just doing some work with TW to clean up some cases of articles that don't exist but which are extensively linked.

Out of consideration for people on RC patrol, I'll avoid doing whole bunches of these things in a single run. Mayalld (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI cases

Thanks for your response. But how do I open a new case? I use the arv tab in Twinkle, which automatically adds the data to the existing case if I use the same sockpuppeteer name. If I submit the form under the name of one of the new socks, then Twinkle seems to add the confirmed puppeteer as a suspected sock of the confirmed sock! Perghaps Twinkle needs to be tweaked here? RolandR (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use ARV in TW, it should create a new report section in the same case.

I'll do some testing in TW, and report back...

Mayalld (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange spin off of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.146.241.58

While the obvious socks were blocked, it appears that for in a bizarre twist a user they targeted is being fingered as the sock puppeteer (socks voted to keep while the user in question nominated the article for deletion...). Comments appreciated at User_talk:Terrakyte#Request_for_unblock..--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thenks for your concern....

but if you go back and look at the edit summery of the editor who is reporting me, you might see why he is getting attacked by other editors. He is the most uncivil editor that I may have ever come across, and his behavior on talk pages only makes his situation worse. I think that when this is all said and done and you all figure out that I am not that other account, it will say more about him then it will ever about me.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive hangon tag

I do not know of an explicit rule forbidding adding a {{hangon}} tag to an article upon creation, especially one that's been CSD'd before, but it is not in good faith and there is an obligation of a tagger to remove it. This particular user has done it on his other recreated articles as well, and other users have responded by removing the preemptive tag as well. I believe this is the correct response.

I suggest you do not add hangon tags back unless you have an articulable reason. Shadowjams (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst a pre-emptive tag may be a bad faith act, it can potentially be a good faith act, where a creator supposes that an article will be speedied rapidly, and has something to say. If the article is elligible for speedy deletion, a hangon won't actually stop it. As such, I can see no compelling reason to remove a hangon ever. You should also note that articles previously speedied are NOT eligible for G4 deletion. Mayalld (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hello. Firstly, thanks for your assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrumpyGuts. The checkuser has come back "IP appears unrelated," but I remain suspicious because of the behaviour involved. As someone who obviously knows his stuff, do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree? If so, perhaps I owe GrumpyGuts an apology. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehaven Amateurs F.C.

• Hi, I'm surprised that you removed the speedy delete from the above. The article is virtually empty and even a cursory glance at Google indicates little if any relevant sources/refs.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• We are crossing each others comments on this one, OK let's see what happens for 24 hours as you say. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have a gut feeling (and it is based a bit on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) that a sourced article can be found here. I've added a bare bones of a lead and a single referenced fact to at least get it out of A1 territory. Mayalld (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done what I can with it, any help appreciated! I'd still feel that it's touch and go how notable an amateur club like this can be. I do admit that it's certainly not a speedy now :-)Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Hiya - good to see that you've put yourself forward for RFA, and you have my support already. Just a quick note to say that I've put your edit count on the RFA's talk page - this is generally something your nominator would do...if it was something you were getting around to, my apologies for jumping the gun! Good luck for the next seven days...! _Gb^T/c 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA isn't going well, but the comments seemed to be focused on deletion expertise, rather than trust, competence or friendliness issues, and this is a good sign for your next RFA. If this one doesn't work out, I hope you'll run again. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As an opposer I totally agree with Dan. There is no question in my mind of your even temprament, dedication and trust; however a better understanding of CSD is needed for me to support - and clearly many others. I'm sure round 2 will be fine if you can address this issue. Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all these comments guys. I expected a rough ride because I know my deletion expertise is below par, and I'm reading the comments thoroughly, because seeing RFA as a pass/fail thing isn't particularly useful. I see it as a valuable opportunity to get feedback, and to work out what my personal plan should be to become more of an asset to the project (and it is about working out how I can do better, rather than working out how I can "pass" and RFA). It is a bit of a PITA that the RFA is probably going to fail on the deletion issue, when that is the one tool that I'm not actually seeking, and have absolutely no intention of using, but C'est la vie! Mayalld (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do feel kinda bad seeing all the "per WilyD". While I don't think you're quite ready, I also don't think you deserve the beating you're getting either. Personally, I do find people who're over-anxious to speedy a bit problematic, but the remedy is pretty clear - don't be so terrified of AFD. Apart from G10s, there's really nothing that needs to be speedily deleted. Lazily deleted usually works just as well. I hope you handle it well - I certainly found my ArbCom run a little disheartening, I'll confess. Cheers, WilyD 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've taken a lot of what's been said on board, and I'm pretty thick skinned, so it isn't giving me any pain, and I know what it will take to fix the problems. Whilst I could disagree with your 6 diffs (I count them as 3 bad, 2 debatable, and 1 good), I think its fair to say that I sometimes spend 5 seconds too little before deciding. That will be (is) fixed. I actually want to ask a favour of you (call it a penance for being the rallying point for the opposers if you want). I'm keeping note of everything that I put up for CSD/PROD/XFD from here on in. Three months down the line, I would appreciate you looking over the list. I figure that if I can convince you that I've got it, I should be able to convince anybody! Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, I'm sure I will. That said, although I probably have a reputation as quite the inclusionist, it's probably not merited. I'm probably much more like "process-wonk". The issue with CSD is that there are very few eyes that see it, and very little time to fix it. PROD, XfD solve the latter, and both respectively. I once reviewed my own history, and ~1/2 the articles I've sent to AfD have ended up being kept. CSD one has to be a lot more of a stickler precisely because you so often see things there that merit inclusion, but are in rough shape and need some work or whatever. I think the point is that PRODs and AFDs can be debateable, as there'll be debate, but speedies should never be debateable because there's unlikely to be any debate. CSDs & PRODs also attract very little attention, which means fuckups are far less likely to end up at DRV. Anyways ... WilyD 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't do labels! Some might label me a deletionist (hell, lots of people have done!), but I don't believe that I am a deletionist. I think my major issue is that I have equated (lack of obvious notability) + (COI) + (POV) to be blatant advertising. Clearly, I was wide of the mark. So, I will adjust to the way the world works. You will most certainly get a call asking for a review, probably sooner than 3 months (although I don't intend to try again sooner than 3 months).Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The blatant advertising criterion also requires that the article require a fundamental rewrite to not be so, though. Often times one can blank a bit and it's fine (especially when it's just a few superfluous adjectives). No opinion about COI, but that's entirely neutral and probably notable, right?This too, is entirely neutral - notability is hard to gauge, - google might help or whatnot. No idea about COI - but who cares? Better, I think, is to compare how it's written to how you'd write it. Has a few minor issues but doesn't require a fundamental rewrite - the third paragraph/sentence is a little marketing-y, this is probably also true of the fourth, but they're not that bad, and could just be blanked in the worst case. The Critical technology article was PROD'd and died - not surprisingly, as it wasn't good, but it's just about a bit of jargon - there's no product or service, so there's no advertising, right? Company traded on a stock exchange, article cites a "reputable" newspaper (Okay, the Sun is terrible, but it's real sort of tries. The word "provides" is kind of a marketing term, I agree, but otherwise I think that article's how I'd write a stub - one word isn't a fundamental rewrite, right?)

I'd avoid rerunning too quickly, yeah. People get cranky. Since it's mostly a single issue (some new user biting alluded to, I didn't look into it - a single incident? I wouldn't worry), if you work it out and demonstrate that you're on the ball, you'll probably be fine. WilyD 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My intent is that I will leave it for 3 months. That will be, IMHO, ample time to demonstrate that I've got the message. Part of my problem has been that I made some errors, and that once you make some blatant errors, the borderline cases start to stack up as errors. I would defend the Critical Technology case as a good CSD. It was a writeup about a lecture given by a non-notable motivational speaker, and was, in my view, promotional, because it was presented as a newsy write-up of his latest "thing". It wasn't a conventional G11, but it wasn't "bad" as such. As I said in the RfA, I also think the G6 of the article at AFD was right. It was AFDed, because a merge result of a prior AFD hadn't been actioned. In actual fact, the merge had been done, and the article was deletable for exactly the opposite reason to the nominators rationalle! The accusations of biting a newbie, I believe I can defend. She wasn't a newbie. She was indef blocked at de for repeatedly refusing to abide by policy, and came here refusing to abide by policy despite very clear explanations, and ended up indef blocked for block evasion. Mayalld (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The G6 point is probably the most important of them all. The licensing requires that the history be maintained - to delete that article would constitute copyright infringement. There's a technical procedure one can do to merge the histories (you delete the target, move the redirect to the target, then undelete everything), but you can't just out-and-out delete it. Critical technology, probably nobody would object, but it isn't really a G11 - if I found it in C:CSD, I'd probably decline but PROD or maybe AFD - while poorly written, it could be fixable (or maybe it's not, hard to say). WilyD 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Say, did these get straightened out?

1. Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/81.131.6.69
2. Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/Pretzky

I did a bunch of the deletions just before bed time, so I'm not sure where they left off after that. Dreadstar † 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They're currently here:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.131.6.69
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pretzky

Let me know if they need to be moved, not sure where the SPI team is on the naming standards.. :) Dreadstar † 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They are great there, cheers. Sorting out one well-intentioned bit of bold moving is taking quite a bit of effort!

Mayalld (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Unfortunately, because I happened to see the problem on a sock report I was monitoring and decided to render assiatance, I was falsely accused of "shenanigans". Oh, well, no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.  :) Dreadstar † 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Douglemeister

Thanks for the heads up User:Mayalld, I added the code letters CassiasMunch (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hey Mayalld, I was wondering if you knew what was up with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jojhutton? It's been sitting still for days while others are moving around it. Grsz¹¹ 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a mystery! I've gone over the head of the clerkbot, and moved it to the right queue. Mayalld (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsa1001 [COPY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE]

 Clerk note: When submitting reports to SPI, please take particular care to follow the instructions. The page is carefully constructed to ensure that it will work properly, and adding additional headings cause problems. Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention to this, and for letting me know - and sorry for not being competent with formatting the submission template, as this is the first time I have tried to file a notice. Kind regards--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)