User talk:SoWhy/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Non-free Images

National American Greek Council

What happened? I got the notification about the deletion. I put a hangon petition and added a response about its purpose and the page was deleted without anybody responding to my explanation. Can you at least userfy the page? It was not an orphan page, but part of a project about all the diferent National Greek umbrella organizations. I think it could meet the notability requirements after I had finished working on it. I had already created the navigation template with the orgs. I was working on the articles for the org members. I mean, the article received the deletion notice not one minute after I saved it.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case, I had already contacted the previous admin that had deleted the original page and he/she told me to go ahead and create the new page as long as I did not violate any copyrights. I was trying to eliminate the redlinks from the original page.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the page because your reasons for placing the hangon-template did not address the reasons why speedy deletion was proposed - i.e. that the article did not say why the group should be considered important or significant in any way (and from my own Google searches, I couldn't find any such indication as well). I have restored and moved the article, including talk page, to User:Coquidragon/National American Greek Council though, so you can work on it. Before restoring it to the mainspace, you really should add reliable sources to establish why this organisation should be consider notable, otherwise it will most likely be deleted again. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it. I also apreciate the feedback. I will do (or at least try to do) as you say.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a favor to ask, that is if you can and if you are willing. I don´t know how this would work. I would really apreciate if you could userfy to me the deleted Fraternity Leadership Association article so that I could improve on its notability and sourcing as well. I left a message at Soumyasch talk page, who was the admin who deleted the page, but there is a message there that says "I am no longer actively editing on Wikipedia, though out of sheer habit, still check my watchlist regularly and sporadically fix a mistake/vandalism or two." Thanks in advance either way.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You can find it at User:Coquidragon/Fraternity Leadership Association. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xenotalk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. :-) Regards SoWhy 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Seth Sabal

Hello, I am making an effort in good faith to add photographer Seth Sabal to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I noticed that I could not Add my article because of a preceding article having been deleted. I have a new article that I wish to write on this artist. I think that he unquestionably falls into the nobility of the photographers in the section and has esteemed credibility in the world of fashion, based on sourced information avaib. via many sources. I really would like to sink my teeth into this one he should be included in the list


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Model.com website has him listed shooting editorial for Vogue Italy in 03/2010, Vogue Brazil, with direct links to the clients webpage and photo credits. at this link: http://models.com/work/vogue-italia-curvy-interview-with-lizzie-miller-for-vogue-italia-curvy http://models.com/people/seth-sabal

The Fashion Database Directory has him listed as a Vogue Brazil contributor along with Mario Testino and others at this Link: http://www.myfdb.com/editorials/39053-vogue-brasil-editorial-atualize-seu-guarda-roupa-july-2009/credits

He is in Videos on YouTube shooting Victoria Secret Supermodels; that are in the Forbes list as the top earning supermodels in the world, clearly establishing his credibility - by having access to these models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyP0X93zMMc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Kerr

He is agency represented in New York City & Los Angeles http://www.eightby10.com/

Winner of Surface Magazine Avant Guardian Award, Celebrating the Best in American Fashion Photography. http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/10/winners-of-avan.html

Fashionhound1985 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia with your additions. We appreciate all the help we can get. Then, about your new article: Have you read the notability guideline for people and checked whether the subject in question meets the requirements? If you think he has received enough coverage, was this coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Remember that this explicitly excludes any sources that are affiliated with the subject (agencies, personal homepages etc.) or that are of uncertain reliability (YouTube, blogs, user contributed databases and wikis like Wikipedia or imdb etc.) and that having access to super models for example is not a proof of notability (many people have such access without being notable). If you can find enough reliable sources (You can use this custom Google News search for example), you can use your userspace to write a draft of your proposed new article. Wikipedia:Your first article can help you with that. Once you did so, you can request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV, submitting your draft as a proposal to replace the article.
If you need further assistance, you can either ask me at any time or request it at any time by adding {{helpme}} on your talk page together with a question or using the help desk. Regards SoWhy 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am obliged at you taking the time to address the prerequisite and essentials needed to make this article "Wiki-Worthy." I took all our advice into account and found it very helpful. Some of the sources that I wanted to use are clearly out. In-particular the video, it seems to be posted from his personal studio making it a bias opinion. (gone) Unsourceable blogs, (Gone)...

What I found that really can bite my teeth in, are the direct photo-credit and links to both Vogue Italian and the Fashion Database owned by Style.com- they show Mr. Sabal as a contributor to two of the best fashion magazines in the world. Also the Models.com website is an industry standard for both the fashion coverage and editorial database show the Vogue contributions. He seems to have the fashion creditably as a "notable" fashion photography contributor. At one time the "Seth Sabal" article was clearly ill-considered and seemed even by my accounts as self-promotion, that is not the case in present-time with bona fide sourcing. I wish to adhere to the reliable facts on the artist, and rewrite the article. Thank you for your help, how should I proceed? Fashionhound1985 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think recreating is possible, you best continue with a userspace draft, for example by creating the page User:Fashionhound1985/Seth Sabal (all pages starting with "User:Fashionhound1985/" are within an area of the project we call your userspace. It's a place for you to work before adding content to the project or to keep notes, lists etc.). Create the page by clicking on the link, adding some text and saving. You can create and write there as if you were working on an article (and if you are successful, it can simply be moved to the correct place). Once you think you have done everything possible and think that it should be made accessible as an article, head to WP:DRV and create a request to reconsider the deletion. I am happy to help you with that last bit of course, just come back here and ask. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Im back! :-) Please take a look at this, it's to the point, referenced well and I'd love your advice and critique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fashionhound1985/Seth_Sabal Fashionhound1985 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I need your help sowhy, I am confused on how to nominate this article to be undeleted. Fashionhound1985 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy yesterday. I checked your attempt and while it is a good attempt, I don't think the sources you included demonstrate that he meets the notability guideline for people. I have to admit though that I am not a skilled article writer myself, so you might want to get some feedback from others as well - the best place to start probably is Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I suggest you do so before requesting undeletion. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the time on this article. 

I surmise, written correctly this article should fall easily the guideline for notability.  I will continue to source and move forward, like you have suggested.

Sabal, most importantly a contributor to Vogue and major advertisements. (This is very well documented.) I highly respect your opinion and would love to understand your reasoning behind not finding him notable enough for the article. I really would like to make this article something all "Can bite their teeth into." I have looked at the history on this artist, and found quite a bit of contention to this article. I was actually a little bit shocked to see how contributors have not really given this article a fair shot, It seems that I can find so much on this artist. Much, much more than many photographers in the section. I am hoping to come to a middle ground and understand how I can make this work, the artist merits the section. Fashionhound1985 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am mostly a maintenance editor, not an article writer, so I won't say that what I think is necessary the standard the community currently has (hence my suggestion re. Wikipedia:Requests for feedback). Imho, an article about any subject, especially a living person, requires sources that are both reliable, third-party and that talk about the subject in a significant way.
For example, examining the five references you added to your draft:
  1. Models.com and MyFDB are databases like IMDB and thus fail WP:RS
  2. The Nordstom page does not seem to mention him at all
  3. The YouTube video, as well as not being a reliable source, is about Miranda Kerr, not Sabal
  4. The agent's website is a primary source at best.
What you will want to do is to find interviews and newspaper/magazine articles about Sabal, i.e. sources that are about the subject himself and not about the models he photographs. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I am starting to understand what you are saying, I will find what you are asking for. The Miranda Kerr thing is shot by Sabal, it shows him in the video credits, and so is the Nordstom Advertisement. I will find articles about the photographer. The IMDB database is edited by subscribers and could say anything you are totally right on that. Model.com and MyFDB are independently owned and only reference accredited magazine editorials like Vogue and others, and show the links to the magazine and where they are sourced from. Maybe its best to source the Magazine webpage directly. Like Vogue Italia's Link showing Sabal's work. http://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/02/lizzie-miller If you go to the studio images, and click the downarrows you can see the photo credits to Sabal. If you have the magazine you can actually see his credits in print. I am going to work on this as best I can, thank you for the guidance and support. Anything else you think I should include? Fashionhound1985 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, the problem is the following: A lot of people are credited in magazines (as well as in films for example) without them being notable for this fact alone. If a photo I took is included in a notable magazine, that's probably something I'd be proud about but it does not make me notable. On the other hand, if a few notable magazines wrote a story about me and my photography, I'd most likely be notable. As WP:BIO puts it, someone needs to receive significant coverage and simply having your photos appear in a magazine is not "coverage" but "credits". Regards SoWhy 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I got it thank you very much for the assistance, I will gather exactly what you saying it totally makes sense and I will find these types of references. Fashionhound1985 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Article about GSG 9 tactical boot

Good evening, I'm thinking about recreating the article of "GSG9 tactical boot by Adidas". This article has been deleted in 2009 due to advertising. Would that be o.k. to give this article another chance? And do you happen to still have any information about that article?

Thanks!

--Der rikkk (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You refer to GSG9 Tactical Boot I presume? Sure, go right ahead but don't forget that the article will have to satisfy the notability guidelines of course. The previous article was a pure 1:1 copy of some Adidas promotional flyer or website so I can't restore that for you but you won't be able to re-use that kind of language anyway, so I think a completely new article will be the best choice here. Regards SoWhy 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax or not

I see that you deleted Santa's Village (Santa Cruz County, California) a while ago as a hoax. Such a place certainly did exist at one point; see [1], [2] and [3]. I wonder whether you'd consider looking into the article's history to see whether any unvandalized version existed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tthere was only one revision in that page, and that was pure nonsense. The first line was In the beginning was the Pelican, and the Pelican was with Kenneth, and the Pelican was Kenneth, and it went on like that. Feel free to write a proper article on it, if so inclined. :)
Cheers, Amalthea, talk page stalker, 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I think that the specific location of this defunct theme park chain has only borderline notability, but there was hidden text in the nearest city's article about the park. I've 'unhidden' the paragraph's worth of comments, which I think is probably all that Wikipedia needs to say about this defunct business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there SOWHY, VASCO from Portugal here,

I sent a message to User:NuclearWarfare regarding some issue, and he politely redirected me to you. Without further delay, i explain to you like i did to him. There is this highly annoying user, Zombie433. Not a vandal, no sir, but i feel he has the approach of treating WP as his personal site, with as little interaction as possible. I have sent him messages about overlinking, other users have addressed him about unreferenced BLP's, he does not care, he removes messages and does not respond. How to find that? Easy as you very well know (blessed be EDIT HISTORY - in this case that of a given user talkpage, and also that of user who sends original message).

He also claims to be a "LEVEL 4" in English, he is not (a 2 would be most generous!), so he continues to engage in overlinking, writing appalling sentences in articles, and when people try to (politely) address him, he does not care. Ah, he also writes ZERO edit summaries.

I had the idea of contact another polite German user, Hubschrauber729, but he has vanished into thin air - no edits in nearly four months. It consisted of sending ZOMBIE a message in German (i can speak a little, but i want no errors nor misunderstanding in what i want to convey) and see what he had to say (although i believe he CAN understand Simple English, he just cannot be bothered to interact).

Can you please send him a message (obviously saying it's from me)? Basically, to tell him that he should refrain on his overlinking and talking on present tense in an encyclopedia (i am not worried at all about the lack of summaries, as long as the work is neat, not the case from him, at all). I want to make sure it's just a matter of language barrier, although i am sure it is not.

Don't go through the trouble of watching his talkpage my friend, i will. If he, as i expect, removes your message and leaves it without answer, then we will know with what kind of user we are dealing with.

Thank you very much in advance, keep up the great work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember, removing messages from your own user talk page is perfectly allowed under out guidelines and policies, it's just discouraged. Nor is there a rule against adding content that is grammatically incorrect or "appalling", as you put it. I checked their contributions and they mostly seem to over-categorize / wrongly categorize pages but I can't find any evidence overlinking. Can you point out a few examples of such behavior? I'd not feel very comfortable leaving them a message from me without having seen any reason to do so. I can, however, offer to translate any message you might want to leave. Regards SoWhy 06:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, a good example of very poor English would be this one, brace yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordi_Figueras_Montel&diff=344686800&oldid=344010564

He also (forgot to mention that in original message to you) removes English-speaking REFS and replaces them with foreign ones (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835); whilst his ref-adding is appreciated, NONE are in English.

Today, he received another message in his talkpage and removed it again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zombie433&diff=364093603&oldid=364076446), without answering. Of course it is not forbidden per WP rules SOWHY, i just find his lack of will to engage in wiki-activities quite strange, that's all.

Ah, and the most important: NEVER did i imply i would like for you to write a message, period. No my friend, i wrote (i hope ;) clearly i would like for you to translate my message, telling exactly it was from User:VascoAmaral - me :) - However, seeing his continuing antics (no will to reply to anything, removing messages from other users), i guess i will give up, and will, like so many editors do to as many others, revert/ignore (no reason to block here whatsoever). Of course, some edit summaries i make upon reverting his stuff are showing my growing frustration because there is no way of communicating with this person (me, myself, i sent him three polite messages, ALL three removed within hours/minutes, no words added).

Thanks for your help and politeness all the same, all the best, be safe,

From Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Found another example of his WIKI-isolation, in Carlos Carneiro (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Carneiro&diff=361753588&oldid=345465112). Boxes are only (in football of course) for players and managers, not presidents and other directors. Also, that bit in storyline is not called "COACHING CAREER" - those are not coaches/managers. I also spoke with Zombie about that, does he care? NO! And continues with sentences as encyclopedical - future tense - as "Carneiro will choose the club's new manager that will sub Ulisses Morais."

I definitely nead a bridge between me and ZOMBIE, and if he refuses it, i'll stick to reverting him. Please reply once you read this, and i'll give you a small message for him if you agree. Regards, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I cannot reply in detail, I just got home after 17 hours but if you give me a message, I (or one of my German talk page stalkers) would be happy to translate it for you. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey no problems my friend! Also, upon careful (or is it careless?) deliberation, i think it's best to leave it this way. Who am i trying to fool? If you check Zombie's talkpage history, my messages are available there, and they are written in very simple English (since i always knew he knew little English), so he understood me with no problems, in 99,9% of the message. He just does not want to communicate with me (and with lots of other editors, even when receiving WIKI-love messages and barnstars), fair enough, i am not going to put you - or your "stalkers" - through any additional work.

I guess i'll go back to where i began in this case, WP provides "undo" options and, in my case, the much better "rollback", i think i can handle it more or less well with Zombie that way (he does not want to talk, why should i?). In your case, nothing more than a thousand thanks for all your dilligence and politeness! Danke sehr!!

From Portugal, keep up the great work, all the best - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is, of course, your choice to make. I'm not very experienced in dispute resolution, but maybe you can find something that works at WP:DR? If you need anything from me in the future, I'll be happy to try and help you, so feel free to ask at any time. Regards SoWhy 14:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article

I came to ask why my article was deleted. being my first article i was unaware of all of the possible criteria for deletions. i read your "read here" page and afterwards realized how my article was infringing on these criteria. is it possible to have the article restored for adjustment. i mainly forgot to include Jacob Hesters significance. I presume this is the main reason for deletion as in no way does the article suggest bad things about him. also beacause of the lack of sources. As there is next to no information stored anywhere on the internet (and i have searched everywhere) it is hard to source information except from first hand confrontations with him which for me are very rare and i have to travel a great distance to see him. if there are any other guidelines i may have missed please bring them to my attention so that my article can be appropriately edited to fit the guidelines requested by Wikipedia. Sincerely, Danredda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danredda (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: sources: The sources need to be reliable, third-party ones. Your personal experience will not suffice to establish this subject's notability nor will Wikipedia host pages about your friends and people you know just because you think they are important. I would be happy to restore the article but not before you can show me a single reliable third-party source for them (newspapers, magazines, notable journalistic websites etc.). Regards SoWhy 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Thanks for assistance

A quick note to thank you for your assistance re message on my talk - I have archived my messages and edited out the other user ID - trying to aim for peaceful co-existance with other user via comm.(Rovington (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

RE: Speedy deletion declined: MC Pressure

Sorry about that, I'm still learning. --BurtAlert (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I left you the message. If you want to learn more about speedy deletion, there is a number of essays on that topic, like WP:FIELD and WP:WIHSD and my own creations, WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. If you have any questions, you can of course ask me as well at any time. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My WikiProject

Wow, I can't believe I forgot to tell you about my plans for a WikiProject! Well, it's already been created, actually, but of course your thoughts are always welcome. Let me know what you think of WikiProject Talk pages. I proposed it back in January, and I was about to declare the proposal successful when I realized I was almost at my 1,000th edit – so I told myself my 1,000th edit would be the creation of the project's page, no matter what. And because of my procrastination on that, I ended up basically forcing myself on a 3-month wikibreak. Then one day I remembered it and decided to make it happen – and now I'm back!
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

SoWhy - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated. I was actually quite worried when I read your comments about this recent tagging because I usually have a process that I follow for copyvios and I couldn't imagine how I could have gotten that one so wrong. During the RFA I went to the user's talk page to see if I could figure out what went wrong and noticed that they had a blank userpage which they had been using as a sandbox. It is some of the revisions on their userpage that appear to be a direct cut/paste from that site.

So, the short version is that you were absolutely right - the article namespace page definitely did not qualify for db-copyvio. I can only guess that I saw their userspace edits as well and didn't notice that they had already modified the article page to be (perhaps) different enough from a copyright perspective. Anway, thanks for your support and for keeping me on my toes. Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for taking the time to personally address my comments. It's a gesture that I appreciate very much. Don't worry about the tagging too much though, as I said in my comment, we all make mistakes. The important thing is that you seem to have avoided most, or even all, of the mistakes that plagued your tagging at the time of your first RFA. I will of course try to offer suggestions if I notice any reason to do so. I noticed you expanded your monobook.js with a lot of scripts already but you might still want to have a look at mine, maybe you can find some more useful scripts there. Also, since you are new to the job, I'd be glad to help you if you have any questions about adminship in general and, of course, speedy deletion in particular. Feel free to ask at any time. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - will take a look at your scripts. I do have one question, which may relate to the pure number of tabs now at the top of my screen (including all the batch ones from twinkle)... It appears that, on certain pages (such as user talk pages) that my [user] and [page] tabs disappear completely. I can't find any conflicting tabs or js which would intentionally cause this. Just wondering if you had experienced that. Thanks.  7  23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In my experience the monobook skin has a margin to the right that hides tabs if too many are showing for the width of the browser window (thus some tabs that I could see on my PC didn't show on my Netbook); you will notice that there is always some space left to the right even if you have many tabs. As such, you might want to limit the number of such tabs to those you really need. Especially with Twinkle one does not use all its features really so it might be wiser to selectively import only those modules one really uses (for example if you use CSDHelper, you don't need Twinkle's speedy deletion module); hence I have only the warning module in my monobook.js. Hope that helps. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
That's one possibility, yes, but typically that will only make the rightmost tabs disappear (not sure what 7 means with [user] and [page] tabs). FWIW, you can make it use the full width via CSS. Best setting depends on your resolution, I use 89% width here in my monobook.css (and also remove the gaps between the tabs). Amalthea 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
95% is probably too wide and you'll end up with a horizontal scrollbar (unless your resolution is even more insane than mine ;)). Amalthea 10:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know about yours, I got 1680x1050 at home. So far I had no scrollbar but thanks for telling me. If I do notice one, I now know why that is ;-) Regards SoWhy 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It was easyblock.js causing the conflict with User:Haza-w/Drop-down_menus gadget in user prefs. I can live without EasyBlock, but I can't live without my user and page tabs. Incidentally, when I added in most of the gadgets and JS that everyone had recommended I got tabs that went to the right of the screen beyond the edit window - and I got a horiz scroll bar in the firefox browser so I could actually even see them all ;)  7  11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You may think that you can live without easyblock. But it's not true. Amalthea 12:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) All my blocks so far have been done with the block link provided in the AIV report... not too difficult to block and then warn with twinkle.  7  13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County

I am assuming that this was a challenge to the PROD you put on the above artical and the PROD2 I put on. I have started a AfD on the subject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County the nom, I shamelessly pinched from your PROD text as it seemed spot on - please edit the Nom if you wish to tweek. Codf1977 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not give me credit where credit is not due. I just used the {{subst:prod-nn}} template that generates this text automatically and offers a good way to handle articles such as this one where some importance may exist but notability probably doesn't. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson

As you have previously requested, I'm letting you know that I've now completed a nomination for James. If you think there is anything you need to add in a co-nomination, maybe suggest it on User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA and we can see what the best format is. Peter 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have left a comment on that page. Regards SoWhy 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings SoWhy – I’d appreciate it if you could just check the minor syntax tweaks I made yesterday over at Common A7 mistakes to make sure I didn’t goof in any way. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed "can" back to "are allowed to", since I wanted to emphasize that a tagging, even a correct one, does not mean that deletion is required but only an option. Other than that, I'm happy with it, so thanks for helping with it :-) Regards SoWhy 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the thumbs–ups. --Technopat (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Live scores

Well, like I said, Wikipedia is not a news service, as WP:NOTNEWS notes. Furthermore, as you must know, edits must be accompanied by a reliable source to back them up, and these are almost never available for matches while they are in play. Finally, scores are not official until the referee submits his match report, so if a match is abandoned part-way through and people have been updating the score, their edits will, in fact, have turned out to be false. – PeeJay 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not cover this situation, it refers to a very different situation, i.e. where article content is based on news reports, not where Wikipedia is used as such a platform. As Giants27, amongst others, has pointed out, there are indeed reliable sources for those scores. The article does not claim that those are the "official" scores but that they are the scores "as of" the time of the edit. Such edits are usually accepted since any on-going event might be subject to such changes. Since we have no policy or guideline that really forbids those changes, all that your edits cause is edit-warring with those who see it differently. I advise you to don't continue like this but rather seek discussion on the talk page(s) and possibly WT:FOOTY instead. If you continue edit-warring about this matter, you will risk being blocked for it, which cannot be in anyone's best interest. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I have expressed my thanks to you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson for your co-nomination, but I would like also to express them here. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Good luck, whenever you are trying to run. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Transcluded now. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-prod removed-description

Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

WikiBlame listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiBlame. Since you had some involvement with the WikiBlame redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Group F

Where else can we put the prose about the matches occurring during the World Cup? I can't think of any other articles we have where it could fit other than below the match summaries. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that prose is more encyclopedic than lists of information arranged in diagrams. Jolly Ω Janner 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what Wikipedia is and is not; but the current consensus and manual of style does in fact contain a page called WP:STANDALONE for such pages where content is not presented in prose form but as lists and the pages for individual World Cup groups are such articles. You will notice that not a single other page like this has a match summary on it.
The question you should ask yourself is this: Do those articles really need a prose summary of the facts that are covered in list-form already? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so information like "Camoranesi played horrible (again)" might be of interest to the fan but in a few months/years, no one will care about details of the game such as those that were in the summary.
If you still think they should be placed on this page or a related one, you might want to ask for feedback at WT:FOOTY first since it would be changing the way those pages are currently handled and thus might benefit from such discussion. Regards SoWhy 22:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, it might help if I inform you of a bit of background as to why I tried adding prose to matches. I'm trying to encourage users to write some sort of prose about every match that is played at the World Cup. It mainly stems from the in the news section on the Main Page, because there is some opposition to the World Cup being linked via there, due to the lack of updated prose. See talk:Main Page#Where is the World Cup today bring back the World Cup petition. I admit, the prose is poor, but I'm not a very experienced editor in writing about football games and I'm more so hoping that it will catch on and encourage users to write better summaries. I am aware that games like this do not write prose, but I noticed that for the World Cup final last year, there was a match summary and for other notable sports matches, there were match summaries. I felt that these matches were each notable enough to have some prose written about them and the group stage articles appeared the most convinient at the time. I will see if I can get a discussion going at WP:FOOTY about the matter. Jolly Ω Janner 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand your intentions but you will also notice that only finals and similar important games have such summaries and those are never placed in the group-stage-sub-articles which serve as a quick overview for the facts. Unless something extraordinary happened in such games, they are imho only of temporary notability and thus should not be included per WP:N#TEMP (which explicitly mentions sport reports). But I'm no expert on how to handle those articles, I just know that such prose sections were frowned upon in the past, so it would be best to get some input from experienced editors in that field before adding them. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thanks for your co-nom. As I said on James' talk page, I thought it was "very complementary (in the going well together sense) to mine", and I'm sure it helped. Cheers, Peter 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You are both welcome. Since a number of people I trust voiced concerns in this RFA, I'd advise you to consider those concerns always when using those new tools. Congratulations are in order anyway though, so congrats. If you ever have any questions regarding adminship, my (metaphorical) door is always open. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Déja vu

Re. [4], please see [5]. I answered the latter before seeing that you'd answered the former. Erm. Can I leave this one with you? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*  Chzz  ►  15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see that request. Sorry I was offline to deal with that, seems like Muzemike got it. Regards SoWhy 17:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Regarding VIASPACE article

Hi, I added a "hangon" tag to my Viaspace article because somebody incorrectly flagged it for speedy deletion. I was just wondering, am I supposed to keep the "hangon" tag on my article each time I reply to a response in the discussion section of the Viaspace page. Or, since I already added the "hangon" tag once to the article, now that you removed it, it is implied that I am objecting to deletion and that it is no longer necessary to have that tag?

Also, someone in the Viaspace view history section has a "declining db-spam" message. Does this mean they are in the process of removing the mark for deletion flag?

How do I take action to get this removed from my article? Thanks. CleanFuture (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The template {{hangon}} serves to inform the reviewing administrator, who decides about whether to speedy delete the article, that the creator or another user do not agree with the proposed deletion. As soon as an administrator, in this case Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), declines to delete the article (which he signified by removing the {{db-spam}} template and the edit summary "declining db-spam [...]"), this decision is binding for all other administrators, so the article cannot be speedy deleted for those reasons anymore. As such the {{hangon}} template is not required anymore as well. Please keep in mind that declining to speedy delete does not mean that the article cannot be deleted using the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. You should address the concerns raised by the tags on the article in order to avoid this. If you need any more help, you can use the help desk or place the {{helpme}} template on your talk page with a question. You can of course ask me directly as well but I will be offline for the next 1.5 days. Regards SoWhy 06:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at ArcAngel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Decline of SD against Alessandro Ferrara

Hi. I just checked back through my records and discovered that you had declined a SD against this article, as it seemed to be a notable person. I just wish to clarify with you that the Speedy wasn't placed due to notability issues, it was placed because it was a BLP where the entire article was plagiarised from a website about this guy. It was up for CSD as G12, Blatant Copyvio and CorenSearchBot had also tagged it. It was also, at the time, unsourced, other than the copyvio article it came from. I do AGF, but I'm not entirely sure reduce to stub was the best course of action in this case. Thanks anyhow. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that and you are free to disagree of course but I think the project is better served with having this article as a stub rather than hoping that someone re-creates the article some day (GBooks alone yields more than 2000 results for this subject). Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 15:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

deletion of a person

I'm not sure if you are the person that I should be writing. Although I'm a huge wikipedia fan, I'm ignorant with regards to proper protocol. I thought you should know that I recently went to the Los Angles Film Festival LA premiere of a documentary titled Climate Refugees. Before the screening the filmmaker Michael Nash was honored with "The Conservation Champion Award" by Senator Barbara Boxer. The film really illuminates what I have been researching for over a decade. Once home, I wanted to do research on the filmmaker Michael Nash, found plenty of really solid data online. Then, I was surprised to find that wikipedia had cancelled his name. Perhaps there is good reason, I don't know...you might want to google "michael nash climate refugees" or "michael nash fuel" or "michael nash climate refugees reuters" or "michael nash copenhagen united nations" or "michael nash sundance climate refugees". As a researcher myself, thought you would welcome my findings. Best JY —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackYipps (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I deleted a page about him back in 2009 because it had no indication at all why Nash should be considered important or significant. The first deletion however came from a community discussion at articles for deletion. You can read it here. Basically, the problem was that there were no reliable sources to back up the claims in the article and as such a decision was reached that Nash does not satisfy the notability guideline for living people. A short GNews search lets me think that this might have changed since then ([6], [7], [8] for example).
What you can do is this: Read Wikipedia:Your first article for good tips and then use the article wizard to create a new article about Nash. In the last step, use "Create a userspace draft" though, since the page was already deleted once and if you simply recreate Michael Nash, it might be deleted again. Once you did so and are happy with the draft you created, return here and I will help you start a deletion review. If you have any other questions on how to create the article (read the guide first though, it's pretty good ;-)) or about anything else, feel free to ask me. Of course you can also ask at the help desk if you want an answer faster (since I'm not online all of the time. Regards SoWhy 08:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Hi SoWhy. Thanks for reverting the latest bit of vandalism to my user page! Favonian (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome :-) Regards SoWhy 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I told him

I informed ratemouth my feelings he reverted, he won't talk to me what am I supose to do? There is no grammatical errors, and the fact that she seamiungly dies is important but certain people seam to think that it's not. I fail to see how it's not. And don't say it's in the episode guide it's done really badly. Please don't say blocked for edit warring cause I was being bullyed, and have had no trouble since, I am reaching out to you now reach back to me I am being nice. Ratemought has said previously grammatical errors which he has been incorrect of. I said to ratemouth 'Stop editing for 2 reasons. 1) The grammer is the wrong tense, and you change it and insist that it's a spelling error your wrong, everyone else is correct. And about River implied she died is right as this is the exact words about the exploding TARDIS Amy: That's River, how can she be up there? Rory: Must be like a recording or something. Doctor: No it's not. It's the emergancy proticals of course the TARDIS sealed off the control room to save her, she is right at the heart of explosion.' Implying that she dies but the TARDIS captures a moment and saves it untill the Doctor completes the savour. Stop changing it. Thank you KnowIG (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)' He reverted with no explaination. Obivously he now has no reason and is reverting for the sake of it. Thanks KnowIG (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Right he ain't taking but he is listing hopefully we will have the truth instead of BS in a moment KnowIG (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
And we have concensus! Can't blame me he had an issue and wouldn't talk. Finally something worked out, which is what I had written minus 1 sentence don't know what the fuss was about KnowIG (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, even if I risk hurting your feelings, but both your spelling and grammar are substandard. Even as a non-native speaker, I can judge this and you should really try to reflect on this. Maybe try using a spellchecker (like the one integrated in Firefox). Second, it was not only Ratemoth you reverted but also myself. You have not tried talking to me directly before doing so, nor did you use any of the talk pages. You seem to consider your edits as perfect and don't seem to consider that others might have legitimate concerns with them. Such editing will not be helpful in the long run, as multiple complaints and an ANI thread demonstrate and I urge you to review your approach to this project, which is based on collaboration. Using phrases like "BS", "bullying", etc. won't be helpful to achieve this goal. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurier

Grüß Gott! Könntest du bitte "Kurier (Austrian newspaper)" auf "Kurier" für mich verschieben? Die restlichen dab-Links usw. übernehme ich gern. Jared Preston (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Klar, kein Problem. :-) Gruß SoWhy 19:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank. Ich wünsch dir einen guten Rutsch in die neue Woche! Jared Preston (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Danke, dir auch. Wenn ich noch was für dich tun kann, einfach sagen :-) Gruß SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 08:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ja, das könntest du tun. Als wir nämlich bei Robert Scholl zusammen gearbeitet haben, hast du mir geschrieben, dass du dich für Politik interessierst – hast du vielleicht eine Meinung zur englischen Übersetzung von "Ministerpräsident"? Jared Preston (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, hab ich gemacht^^ Gruß SoWhy 09:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Totteringham's day

Hi. I placed the speedy on this redirect page.

This whole section is a Neologism that a number of users are trying to use to game Wikipedia by using Circular sourcing. The redirect has been placed by one of the users in order to further that aim. Perhaps it does not quite fit G10, but it certainly does want unlinking. Captmonkey (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but it's not an attack page. Speedy deletion is for strict cases only and G10 especially is not for anything other than real attack pages. If you think the content should be removed, please discuss this with the rest of the community on the appropriate talk pages (most likely Talk:Arsenal FC and WT:FOOTY). If consensus is then in favor of removing the section, we can remove the redirect to it. But as long as the section exists and is supported by consensus, the redirect is not problematic as well. I for one don't thionk that your concerns are correct, with sources like the Daily Mail verifying it independently from Wikipedia. Please remember that WP:CIRCULAR does only mean cases where the source is a Wikipedia-mirror. If a reliable source picks up information from a fan blog, it is not circular sourcing. There is no indication at all that the Sun or the Daily Mail for example used Wikipedia as their source. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no indication at all that the Sun or Daily Mail used blogs as their source, either. Plus, notable publications like these are *far* more likely to take a site like Wikipedia as a viable source over a blog. If you *honestly* believe this is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, then fair enough - but do you, _really_? Captmonkey (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What I personally think about it is irrelevant. Relevant is what WP:N says about such subjects and coverage in multiple reliable sources usually makes a subject notable. And those sources are reliable unless you can prove that they used Wikipedia as the source of this information. See WP:RS for details. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

St. Totteringham's day

This has just blown up on WP:ANI if you feel like chipping in - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Action_required_over_St._Totteringham.27s_day Exxolon (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Btw, if you ever change your opinion on running for admin, let me know ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Declining My request

You have declined my request to protect List of Mario series characters very quick. If you look at the history there has been a lot of vandalism to it recently. There is plenty of reason to protect it. Please explain why you declined it. --JDDJS (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To warrant semi-protection, an article must be currently be a target of vandalism that can't be stopped by blocking the users in question. In this case, the vandalism was mostly yesterday but seems to have stopped today, so we have to assume that it stopped for good. Please see the protection policy for further details. You are free to re-request protection if behavior like the one yesterday hits the article again. On a side note, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this one and on request boards like WP:RFPP by using four tildes (~~~~). Regards SoWhy 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I'll wait for it to get vandalized again before resubmitting it. And I don't why I keep forgetting to sign my posts lately. JDDJS (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have problems remembering to sign, you could try the user script qSig which will remind you to do so. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalized again. JDDJS (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Thanks for the Welcome!

I appreciate the welcome. I'm still working on putting together a User page (and am reading just about EVERYthing available). If you have a moment, I have a question: On the History pages, I understand most of the info in the list, but on occasion, I see (top) at the end of many lines. What does that refer to??

Also, I noticed something strange on one page (the Username policy page) and experimented a bit to figure it out. I have a couple pictures to show the before and after, but am uncertain how to send them to anyone. If you could direct me, I'd be glad to see if I can explain.

Thanks again, WesT WesT (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(top) means that the edit in question is the most current one to that page, i.e. that no one else edited this page afterwards. It is displayed on any contributions list, like yours or mine but not on history pages (since the latest edit is simply the one at the top) or your Watchlist (since it only shows the latest edits to your watched articles).
As for images, you can always upload them to the project to show to everyone. You can also send them to me via email at sowhy@sowhy.de and I'll try to help if I can.
If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to ask Regards SoWhy 07:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Joke

I take it you have never heard of JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech? Since this is the third time I've been reverted I'll just ask Jimmy if he wants it.Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have. I'm German after all. But it's impolite to add jokes to other people's pages unless they have explicitly expressed that they want it. After all, people reading the page might think Jimbo wrote it and it should be his decision whether people should think that. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled

I know from experience that you are one of the more thoughtful Wikipedia editors, willing to examine evidence rather than leap to conclusions, so I'm very puzzled by this edit. I can only assume that you couldn't understand most of the sources linked by the Google News search in your deletion rationale, but you shouldn't be presenting things that you don't understand as evidence in favour of any position, and in particular in favour of the position implied by the WP:PROD tag that this is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I used the prod tag is exactly because I thought that another pair of eyes may be needed. I think that the sources that I could find are insufficient to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines but if you disagree, you are of course welcome to do so. In fact, I am more than willing to admit that I can and will be wrong sometimes and if this is one of those times, I'm happy that you spotted it. So thanks for telling me. I'll try to take a closer look when I get home. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4

As regards your close, I'm a little confused as to how one could "allow re-listing" on a deleted article? Do we allow AfDs on deleted articles? Surely the method is to userfy, fix problems, and then go back to DRV? (Note:you didn't re-delete the article, so I did). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that we take further action to clarify the situation, can you please be a little more clear about what that action is? As Black Kite notes, we can't create an AfD on a currently deleted article, can we? My view is that the deletion should be overturned. But what avenue exists to try and obtain that result? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This was a special situation, so it might be more of a WP:IAR solution than people expect from me. AFD is the venue to discuss whether an article should exist on this project. Logically, this means that the article exists at the beginning of the process but may not exist anymore at the end of it. But just as MFD or RFA processes have been used to handle special situations (like recall or reconfirmation RFAs where a user starts as an admin but may end not being one), I think we can use AFD in this special situation for the reversed situation where an article has been deleted already.
Userfying and fixing problems are of course required but DRV is by definition created to review deletion decisions, not to review the merits of an article itself; people do often point out that DRV is not AFDv2 and they have done so in this discussion as well. Any discussion of the article's content should thus be avoided at DRV. This leaves us wanting for an avenue for those rare cases where further discussion is required but simply recreating an improved article would not be possible. I think this discussion should be held at the same place as the discussion to delete the article in the first place, a solution that both satisfies those who argued (correctly) that the deletion itself, based on the consensus in the first AFD should be endorsed and those who (correctly) pointed out that further content-related reasons should have been considered in the discussion and that further discussion (especially considering another article that was merged to the first one and where the content was now lost) is essential to reach a correct decision whether the article should exist on this project.
I could sympathize with those who argued to overturn the deletion itself but the AFD as it was held was closed correctly. As such, I think taking it back to AFD is the best way to go forward, even if the article is currently deleted. Special situations sometimes (rarely!) need a more creative approach and as AFD is the place to discuss whether an article should exist, I think it's the best place to discuss the merits of this article based on the new, content-related arguments presented at DRV. It was more of a procedural suggestion though. Consensus was clearly to re-discuss this article's existence but also that the decision itself was not incorrect, so the only question was where to have this second discussion and AFD is suited best for having content-related discussions.
(cue for trouts)
Regards SoWhy 09:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please userfy Criticism of The New York Times for me so I can address concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/New York Times controversies. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that this article is now back in main space at New York Times controversies. Do we need a procedural AfD on this or should it be deleted under G4? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion at DRV clearly showed that further discussion is desired and the fact that Richard Arthur Norton as an experienced editor probably would not move back an article that is essentially the same and thus eligible for G4 deletion, I would recommend to take it back to AFD and notify all participants at the previous AFD and at the DRV with a neutral message, so we can reach a clear and well-discussed consensus in that discussion. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably? This is the only change since the pre-AfD version. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot force other admins to act the way I think a situation should be handled. I think the clear consensus at DRV that further discussion is required because it would be beneficial to the project means that it should have been brought back to AFD but I cannot force others to do so. I probably made a mistake when closing the DRV the way I did. I tried to find a solution that mirrors consensus exactly but it seems to have failed to do so. I should have closed it as "overturn to relist", then we would have the second AFD without any fuss. Mea culpa. Regards SoWhy 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning that led to this closure. I was intending to take this to AfD but I see it has now been G4ed. I think the advice given by DGG at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#NYT is the wisest and simplest now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

user:SWM rename status

Hello, did you make any progress with your quest to claim and unify that username? The request currently remains open on Meta. Cheers, –SJ+ 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I had almost forgotten about it. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychography or Automatic Writing

In regards to your deletion of the article "Psychography", I believe you were mistaken. A few months ago, I was surprised to find such a complete article about Psychography in the english wikipedia. Positively surprised. I'm an expert in Psychography, and the article showed us the complete picture of the science of Psychography.

Last week, I search for "Psychography" again, and all Wikipedia showed me was a redirection to Automatic Writing - a very small, incorrect and incomplete article. I didn't understand what happened. What I would suggest is that wikipedia return the "Psychography" article as it was before: complete. And REDIRECT the Automatic Writing article to the Psychography article.

Allow me to explain: Psychography is the larger branch, to which Automatic Writing is just a small part. Psychography encompasses Automatic Writing, Semi-Automatic Writing, Mechanical Writing and Inspired Writing. For this reason, it is more correct to make Automatic Writing a part of the Psychography article, and not the other way around.

Not doing this would be a loss to Wikipedia, since it will deny its users access to complete information.

I hope we can get along, my friend. I respect you very much as an editor. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillippe de Angelus (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Response

I replied to you on my talk page, but also posted my reasoning on the Project page. Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me and posting to the project page. Let's see what the others say about it. Please remember to use edit summaries with all your edits, it will help avoiding confusion. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rachael Faye Hill

Hi,

I have seen that you have decided to endorse the deletion of the Rachael Faye Hill article. I was wondering how you came to this conclusion as there was no consensus to delete the article in the first place? There is also on-going, large scale media coverage that moves this article away from the BLP1E argument.

Also, in the article above this DrV, Milowent overturned a deletion with the following explanation:

Overturn: There was no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin's opinion that deletion was appropriate is a valid opinion, but the sum of good faith editor contributions to the discussion did not approve deletion - Milowent.

This is exactly the same situation as with the Rachael Faye Hill article - no consensus was reached at either the AfD or DrV stages, so how can you move to delete the article? There are numerous media references and sources that give the article notability.

I would really appreciate this page being reinstated as other editors and myself feel that the article gained a suitable level of notability and the event was of a significant level.

Please please!

Sarah x CrazyMiner (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As an admin closing a DRV discussion, I do not directly judge the merits of the AFD in question but the consensus at the DRV itself. In this case, consensus was clearly in favor that the deletion was correct within our policies and even if I were to interpret the AFD differently, it could not overrule DRV consensus.
On a side note, Milowent did not overturn anything. They just argued for overturning the deletion but so far that discussion has not been closed. So there is no reason to consider one editor's views more important than those of others.
I'm sorry that you feel the deletion has been made in error but in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, there is always a possibility of consensus not being what you think it should be. I'd advise you to accept that it did not go your way this time and see how the subject develops further. As I wrote in my closing rationale, consensus was also that her article can be recreated if her notability is based on more than a single event (= becoming one of the youngest doctors). But remember: that this single even received much and on-going coverage does not mean it's not a single event. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychography or Authomatic Writing.

Hello, my friend. My name is Phillippe de Angelus, your humble servant.

In regards to your deletion of the article "Psychography", I believe you were mistaken. A few months ago, I was surprised to find such a complete article about Psychography in the english wikipedia. Positively surprised. I'm an expert in Psychography, and the article showed us the complete picture of the science of Psychography.

Last week, I search for "Psychography" again, and all Wikipedia showed me was a redirection to Automatic Writing - a very small, incorrect and incomplete article. I didn't understand what happened. What I would suggest is that wikipedia return the "Psychography" article as it was before: complete. And REDIRECT the Automatic Writing article to the Psychography article.

Allow me to explain: Psychography is the larger branch, to which Automatic Writing is just a small part. Psychography encompasses Automatic Writing, Semi-Automatic Writing, Mechanical Writing and Inspired Writing. For this reason, it is more correct to make Automatic Writing a part of the Psychography article, and not the other way around.

Not doing this would be a loss to Wikipedia, since it will deny its users access to complete information.

I hope we can get along, my friend. I respect you very much as an editor. Thank you for your time!

(Forgive me for the repeated message! I'm still learning how this Talk works...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillippe de Angelus (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. Please allow me to explain my actions: Wikipedia is based on consensus and all actions are more or less based on a discussion between editors. In this case, the article was tagged for deletion at articles for deletion, a forum where interested editors can discuss whether an article should remain on Wikipedia or be deleted. The discussion about it can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychography. As you can see, there was unanimous consensus amongst those discussing the article that it should be deleted and redirected to automatic writing. As the closing administrator, my job was to carry out this consensus, which is what I did. The reason why people did so was that no reliable sources could be found to establish that the subject meets our notability guidelines. If you think this was in error, please provide some reliable sources (read the aforementioned link to identify them) that are independent from the work of Allan Kardec and I will restore the article for you to work on further. If you are unwilling to do so or if you believe the article met our guidelines even without it, you are free to request a deletion review. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refresh your monobook.js

Because I'm sick and tired of seeing all those underscores in your decline log :) decltype (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. They were annoying Regards SoWhy 18:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheapcycle west scot

i have been trying to do a cheapcycle west scot pafge which is receiving a lot of positive reports in western scotland and is becoming important to the people and communities thwere, i had only started it and then it was deleted, not a good way to do things, give people a chance/.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeymonsterdad69 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source about this subject? When I checked the article, the page did not indicate anything about it. Regards SoWhy 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Your assistance please

I would appreciate the userification of Al Fand training camp to User:Geo Swan/Guantananmo/training camps/Al Fand training camp.

I would appreciate the userification of the full revision history and the talk page please.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.  Done. Regards SoWhy 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonnie (Singer) Article?

I've seen that the page was deleted due to not having enough sources. So, I searched around for some and found this one source, which I think should be considered highly reliable since I have seen it used as a source on other articles. --> http://people.famouswhy.com/nonnie/ Also, I have been informed that her profile will be shortly added to allmusic.com. Does this fit the wiki guidelines and is it enough for her page to be recreated? (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Just because a source is used in other articles, it doesn't make it reliable. I'd argue that FamousWhy is not a reliable source since its content is user-generated, just like imdb or Wikipedia. Reliable sources are third-party publications that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial standards, e.g. newspapers (online and offline), magazines, blogs written by notable journalists, books, television shows etc. As for Allmusic, it depends. Just having a listing there is not sufficient but if they write a third-party biography, it might qualify. Remember though that per our notability guidelines, there needs to be coverage in multiple reliable sources to warrant an article, so it would not be enough. The article was deleted in this discussion mainly because the subject does not meet those guidelines. Regards SoWhy 08:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Motto shop

Some contributors to the motto of the day project choose mottos that they have created or mottos that they like as their mottos to live by on the wiki. Sounds like a good idea, right? Maybe you want one? Oh, darn. You're completely stumped! You know what it wants to express, but you can't find it in your head what it actually will come out to be. Well, you can rely on the more experienced users to help you! We can create a motto, original or quoted, with any subject or message that you choose. All you have to do is go to the requests page, fill out a form, and presto! Within a day or two, you will have a custom motto, delivered to you on your talk page in the template of your choice. It's as simple as that! Simple visit WP:MOTD/MS to get your very own motto! Kayau Voting IS evil 02:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing trouble from User:138.162.8.57

Hi SoWhy! You were the first of three admins to block IP User:138.162.8.57, back in November, 2008. As you'll see from the talk page for that IP, the vandalism has been ongoing, and continues to the present. I'm not sure who to disclose this to - I chose you because you appear to be the most experienced and/or active of the three admins - but I felt I should tell someone this: I looked up the whois info for the Navy Network Information Center, the "owner" of that IP, and e-mailed the two addresses that looked like admins for the Center about this ongoing problem.

My e-mail was respectful, well-documented, it disclosed that I'm just another volunteer editor without official status, was sent from the pseudonymous gmail account associated with my presence here, etc, etc. I did my best, in other words, but if I've perhaps violated some policy I'm unaware of in sending it, I'd like to know that. I'd also be pleased with any correction or criticism you might have to offer about this, as well, of course; I'm not so very experienced an editor, and am not an admin. Anyway, if you ( or any other admin ) would like to see that e-mail, please let me know and I'll be glad to mail you a copy. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a project page devoted to such actions, it's at Wikipedia:Abuse response. There is, as far as I know, no policy against contacting any organization to notify them of abuse. For the aforementioned project, there are even templates for emails at Wikipedia:Abuse response/Contact templates. As for the case at hand, it probably fails the requirements the abuse response page states for reports (i.e. 5 or more blocks) but Wikipedia is a community-based project and if you wrote them an email saying that you are just a volunteer writing this to notify them of abuse, it should be okay. In the future, you might want to coordinate such reports with the aforementioned project though. Regards SoWhy 06:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, which I've looked through carefully, and for your helpful advice, more generally. Perhaps a third and lengthier block would have been a better response at this point, and if I'd known of the documentation for this process I'd probably have requested that instead of proceeding as I did. Thanks again for your help; depending on the response (if any) from the Navy Network Information Center's admins, may I contact you again to ask for another block if the user/IP persists in the same pattern? No worries if you'd rather not: if you're too taken up with other things I wouldn't at all mind asking another admin, should a block seem advisable. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. If you need any further assistance, I'm always happy to help. :-) Regards SoWhy 08:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, no reply received from the Navy Network Information Center, so would you please go ahead and block User:138.162.8.57 again? About one-half to two-thirds of the IP's edits are constructive, but that still means he's vandalizing several times a week. Recent examples include this July 29 edit to Bureau of Naval Personnel, this July 30 edit to Nicole Polizzi, and this August 3 edit to Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. Somewhat strangely, the IP reverted that last vandalism edit three hours after making it, with what appears to me to be a disingenuous edit summary, "Oops! I must have unintentionally vandalized". I wonder if someone at his site called him on that particular bit of vandalism, becasue it affected the Navy, perhaps after receiving my e-mail? Anyway, the next day (Aug 4th in UTC), he added a link from the same article to a facebook "fan" page for its subject, the Navy/Marine Corp Intranet. That facebook page includes a photo of a toilet. I was wrong, above, btw, when I wrote of the possibility of a third block; if you apply another it will be the fourth for this IP. Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Usually, I'm not blocking IPs if they were not warned sufficiently and/or have not edited recently but I'll make an exception in this case since the IP had clear warnings that further such activity will result in a block without a warning. I used a softblock though, so registered editors from that IP can still edit. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohsen Emadi

This was sent to DRV after being deleted last month, you closed the discussion wherein it was kicked back to AFD, I closed the AFD as no consensus, and now it back at DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 3. Enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a crazy situation. Lucky for me that I don't have to judge consensus on that DRV. :-D Regards SoWhy 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robin Sage

Courcelles 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mafia II Release

Hello! I was going by the WP:VG/DATE guideline that says "Whenever possible, the release dates in the lead should be summarized to the year of release, or month and year if further applicable." - surely it makes sense to have just a summary in the intro, with more accurate details present in the infobox, no? Thanks! Fin©™ 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox should usually help the reader find information quickly, not be the only place the information can be found. Unfortunately, for many facts the infobox is suited better but in this case there is no real reason to deliberately remove information from the prose when it serves no practical purpose. My edit did not make it harder to read or more complicated to understand, yet now people know the facts even without consulting the infobox (which they might not be able to if they are using mobile phones or screen readers for example). Regards SoWhy 01:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

138.162.8.57 has socks

Hi, SoWhy; thanks again for your earlier block of this guy. He came back, vandalizing again, and another admin blocked him a fifth time, for two weeks. But I did a little more poking around, and found he has some IP socks, too, and that he used one of them to evade both your block and the current one, and continued vandalizing with it. If you can find the time, would you mind taking a look at this ANI post and seeing whether you're willing to block the socks, too? There seem to be almost no actual admins at ANI these days; a lot of users have commented, but no admins. ( The post may have rolled off into archives by the time you get this message and go looking for it. ) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a more complicated problem and might need a different approach. We can continue blocking them but apparently that's not effective. I'd like to wait for some admins to comment on the ANI thread first. Regards SoWhy 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish some admins would comment; it's been up going on two days now. But 138.162.8.58 is a huge vandal account - (see talk) - and the diffs prove that the two IPs are either the same person or two people who sit right next to one another, and are playing "table tennis vandalism". The two IPs have (literaly) finished one another's vandalizing sentences, within a minute or two. The third IP is less of a slam dunk, but ... well, you can see for yourself, of course. Anyway, thanks for having a look. It'll be interesting to see what the editor does with .58 when he gets back to work, if no one has blocked him by then. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who 2010 series logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who 2010 series logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Young Heretics

I have returned the Young Heretics page that you recently userfied for me to the main space. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum e contrario

I believe the article is DYK-ready the way you left it, however I have no idea what to write as a "hook." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: you must remove the stub tag before submitting. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I know but I feel it's a mess. Unfortunately, my knowledge in that area is based on German law books, i.e. those I read all the time the last months, so I'm unsure whether I wrote it correctly. My legal English is severely lacking I'm afraid. Also, it probably needs some more English language sources.
As for the hook, how about "...that it's also possible to argue based on the fact that something does not exist?"? ;-)
Regards SoWhy 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Adopt me:)

Hi my name is Fabiola and i am in a school proyect. it would be awesome if you adopt me.FabGalvez (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't adopt socks. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

on completing the ordeal! Favonian (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Unfortunately, having written those ~150 pages does not mean I passed. I wrote them last year already and failed. So I have to wait until January to find out whether I really completed it for good or whether I have to do it yet again. xD Regards SoWhy 13:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Roger Friedman page?

Hi SoWhy

I went to create a page for Roger Friedman and it said you had previously deleted a page for that name. I was wondering if you deleted the page for a different person and if not, why you deleted the page? He broke the story of Michael Jackson's death, covered the OJ/MJ trials and started a journalism site that has affected many different people globally. He is comparable to Nikki Finke who has a wiki page.

Let me know :) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a long time ago and frankly, I probably made a mistake with that one. The only content was though that they are on Fox News. So feel free to create a new article. Before you do though, you might want to read Wikipedia:Your first article to avoid mistakes that might lead to its deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. On a side note, please remember to use ~~~~ to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one (i.e. any page where you make a personal statement rather than an encyclopedic one). Regards SoWhy 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Monobook.js

You have many scripts in your monobook. I stole a copy of the User Indentifier. Not too shabby. Useight (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Steal what you need, that's why I added comments to it ;-) But you can't have too many scripts imho, it's just like with my browser. If I have to use Firefox "out of the box", I'd go crazy^^ Regards SoWhy 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh. I stuck with IE6 for as long as a could. Until I discovered a Firefox add-on called Tab Killer. Never going back. Useight (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

help with HTC Desire Z article images

Hello. I'm new to wikipedia so probably you already saw my message. In other case could you please help me with article images (Talk:HTC_Desire_Z)?

Thanks.

Iakov Davydov (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Android related improvements

Sure, I'll get right on it. I've actually been working on re-doing the Project's main page as well-- I've started a draft of sorts in my userspace here if you want to take a look. Nomader (Talk) 15:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to review your decision to promote this guideline?

It was promoted by a narrow consensus at the time, and you made very clear that further work was needed. This has not happened, and furthermore two or three editors have taken ownership of the guideline, refusing to countenance any change to this piece of scripture. The big problem is that for sports that haven't been worked on (most notably association football), this guideline hardens what was previously a soft rule. Articles that very marginally pass this guideline are being kept at deletion discussions, regardless of the fact that they do not meet the GNG. Example.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that all parts of a guideline should be fit for purpose. I would therefore recommend a review of the whole thing, identifying which parts work pretty well and/or fall in line with pan-wiki views, and which parts do not work well and/or do not fall into the broader view on notability, and then splitting the page into a guideline and an essay. If this course of action were taken, it might in turn necessitate additional wording here. I can state as a matter of fact that this guideline IS routinely used to override the GNG, and that this routinely succeeds, so stronger language is also needed in the lead to reinforce that this mustn't happen.

Worthy of consideration is that approximately 1 in 16 of all identified unreferenced BLPs are association football bios. That's a shocking and shameful statistic. It clearly demonstrates that the notability bar for footballers is hopelessly out of touch with the general community view on notability. For my part I have tried to raise the question of notability several times in the past at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, where unsurprisingly football editors are happy with the way that their sport is currently covered compared to other fields, and (although I accept that I have been too aggressive about it) at WT:NSPORTS, where any dissent from the legislature is shot down regardless of who is dissenting and what tone they use.

Thank you for your time. Regards, --WFC-- 17:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't decide to promote it, I simply judged consensus. Unfortunately, consensus of that discussion won't change based on latter developments, such as those you describe. If the guideline does not reflect the consensus, you can of course change the guideline to fit it. Your best shot probably is to discuss any problems with the guideline on its talk page maybe using an RFC or to invite editors over from WP:VPP and other policy-related forums to help address those discrepancies you see. Unfortunately, I cannot help you further with this area. I closed said discussion exactly because I have no experience in this area and as such was completely neutral about it. As such, I don't have the necessary knowledge to offer any valuable insight and even if I could, me taking any stance about the issue itself might make the close seem influenced by personal opinion in retrospective, thus possibly creating further uncertainty. Regards SoWhy 17:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't considered the potential ramifications if you were to later get involved. Thanks for explaining that, and for the advice on possible steps I could take next. It's much appreciated. Regards, --WFC-- 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson

I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do really. There are obviously one or more people out there who cannot accept the standards of this list and will create SPAs to request changes. All we can do is to tell them again and again that it won't happen without sources. The only thing that might stop some people is to add a list of common requests to the editnote and hope people read those first. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy here; there isn't anything that we can really do. There is already an editnotice on that page stating that sources need to be included to establish notability. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, hopefully doing this will be a start. It gets monotonous telling people the same thing over and over. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, working on this project will sooner or later put you in a situation where you have to tell people something over and over. Sometimes people are not willing to read and follow instructions but the only solution would punish those who do. Regards SoWhy 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

List of declined speedies mistake

Hi! I was randomly browsing around, following MessageDeliveryBot, and I came across your List of declined speedies. I noticed that I was on the list for Tyler Yarema - CSD A7. Actually, I wasn't the one that tagged the article - that would be User:RichardLowther. I merely reverted the original author's edit, since he had removed the CSD tag while putting on the hang on. That was about a year ago, but I'd just like to make that little correction. Anyway, please see the automated message above. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The script I use to maintain that list always puts the last one to add the tag as the tagger, so what you described is possible. On the other hand, if you revert the removal of a tag, it implies that you reviewed the article yourself and think the tag should be left in place, so in a sense, you tagged it yourself as well. Although, since by coming here to "complain" about it, I assume that you didn't want to endorse this tagging, so I will go and change it. Regards SoWhy 06:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Netalarmtalk 21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Heh... first time in several months I actually look at your talk page, I followed the link to the list and saw a G12 decline at Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008). As you will undoubtedly know since last October, GFDL-only licensed content imported after 1 November 2008 is unfortunately no longer compatible with out Terms of Use after we switched to Dual licensing last year. I took the liberty of listing it at WP:CP in the hope that we can salvage parts of it. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that but I did write that it's not the only source and thus not a G12 and I suggested WP:CP for it. GFDL-only might not be accepted anymore but such sites are more likely to agree to dual-license their content as well, if asked, so discussion should have been the better way to go. Thanks for taking it there btw. :-) Regards SoWhy 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Query

I suppose I should have taken the point better when you made it here. This is neither a challenge, a complaint, nor a whine, or an attempt to "gotcha" but a good–faith question and a related comment on which I'd like your observations.

  • Question: John Bapst Memorial High School 2005 was nominated — not by me — and subsequently deleted yesterday under A7. (I think that's the one, not being a sysop — ahem () — I can't go back to look to make sure.) The entire text of the article was something like, "Composed of people born in 1986 and 1987. Said to be the best class to ever graduate from this school." As I understand from the discussions at Talk:CSD, an indication of importance or significance is credible if it is plausible, even if it is vague and unsupported. That school's class of 2005 could, in fact, have been the best to graduate from that school in many different ways: highest GPA, most athletic championships, fewest teenage pregnancies, or in a 5–year retrospect, most graduates to be admitted to Ivy League schools. None of that is, of course, probably what the creator meant, which was probably nothing more than chauvinistic chest–thumping (but we must AGF). Was that an indication of importance or significance such that the article should not have been A7 nominated or deleted on that basis?
  • Comment: If I were to start declining A7 speedy noms by strictly applying the criteria you set out at my RfA nomination, viz "A7 simply does not apply if there is any credible indication of importance or significance", then I have the suspicion that at my next RfA nomination, if I choose to try again (and your responses here may help me decide whether or not I will do so), that I may have a hoard of opposers claiming that I'm perverting the CSD process by glibly dismissing valid CSD nominations. I'm concerned that by working on CSD nominations at all that I'm stuck between the battle lines drawn by the deletionists and the inclusionists. If I have any remaining desire for the mop, wouldn't it be better to just avoid CSD altogether?

Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) PS: I'm going to ask Frank to weigh in as well. I hope you don't mind. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire content at deletion was: Graduating class of John Bapst Memorial High School where majority of classmates were born in 1986 or 1987. Often refered to as "the best class that ever went through that damn school".
In my view, that is not a credible claim to notability, for two reasons: 1) every high school will (or could) have a class that is referred to as its "best class", but that does not confer notability, and 2) it was only five years ago; hardly seems like a high school class as a whole could be notable after only five years. When Tom Brokaw wrote about the Greatest Generation, it was 50 years on...enough time had passed to have made a reasonable assessment. And that was a whole generation, not a single high school class. So, what I would say (since you asked) is that it would be very rare for a claim of notability for a single high school graduating class to be successfully made (indeed, I know of none, but there are millions of articles around here). Therefore, this claim does not fall under the credible category and I would delete.  Frank  |  talk  14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But A7 expressly says that claims of importance or significance must be evaluated without consideration of notability: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[Continuing in footnote 4:] It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." (Emphasis added.) Again, I'm not trying to "gotcha" but instead to provide an illustration for my "battle lines" comment and query. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've also invited WereSpielChequers to comment here. Let me note that as a lawyer, I'm very willing to agree that hard cases make bad law, and that John Bapst Memorial High School 2005 is a hard case. But my real question and point is not to argue over whether it should have been tagged or deleted but to ask about my inquiry about whether working at CSD may not doom anyone from surviving a RfA. Regards to all, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Frank outlined the correct response quite well. That article is precisely why A7 requires a "credible" claim, not just any. Saying "X is the best" is not sufficient because it lacks exactly what you said yourself: "The best in what way?". On the other hand, if the statement was "X is the best swimmer in the state of Y" then that would be sufficient (barely) to pass A7 because now we have a standard to compare it to. To put it another way: If you come across an article about a subject covered by A7, ask yourself whether the article indicates in any way that the subject in question is more important or significant than the general public. If they are, don't use A7. Unfortunately, I understand your dilemma quite well. CSD is no area where one can be right all the time and I myself have both made mistaggings as a user (and was opposed in my RFA for it) and incorrectly deleted articles as an admin. It happens, so noone will oppose you just for that. It's the pattern that matters because that's the only way people can judge your understanding of policy.
But don't see it as something between deletionists and inclusionists. Believe it or not, even some hardcore deletionists agree that CSD should be applied strictly. Speedy deletion is no consensus-driven process and it's not final. An article tagged for speedy deletion and declined can still be deleted via PROD and AFD and a deleted article can usually be restored for further discussion. Some people see CSD as a regular deletion process which is where the misunderstands originate from. Instead, think of it as a set of strict exceptions of the rule (i.e. that all decisions are consensus-based) that serve to (and only to!) handle clear-cut cases in order to relieve XFD.
I'll try to summarize my rambling above: When you come across an article, ask yourself this:
  1. Might anyone (except the creator obviously) object to a deletion or is there any reason whatsoever that further discussion would be useful?
  2. If not, does it fit the criterion's wording?
  3. If so, can it be fixed some other way? (Incubation, userfication, merging, editing etc.)
  4. If not - then tag it for speedy deletion.
Apply these steps to any of the examples pointed out at your RFA and you will notice that you will not reach step 4 for any of them. That's the point people made and hopefully, you understand this now as well. As for A7, my essay at WP:A7M might be helpful for future taggings, it lists a number of common claims and facts that are regularly accepted to make an article fail A7. If it is of any help to you, I'd also offer to review your taggings if you are unsure about some of them or simply want feedback. Just leave me a note :-) Regards SoWhy 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps I am channeling Potter Stewart a bit on this one (as an attorney, I imagine the reference won't be lost on you). I just don't see that the claim is credible on its face. I'm not really invoking notability here so much as basic criteria for inclusion. It may well be true that they were the best class; so what? That is a subjective opinion. If we started an article about the "best high school football team in the USA in the 20th century", I'd delete that as well. It's not credible. I am not making a judgment based on whether or not a source was provided, nor on whether or not the class is actually notable; I am asserting that the claim is simply not credible because a single high school class couldn't be notable (at least under current policies). If I saw an article about the "best tasting ketchup" ever produced, I'd say that isn't credible either. It may well be there are sources, it may well be that people agree with it...but it just doesn't meet criteria for inclusion in the first place. And, let me add...sometimes I'm wrong. Or at least judged that way :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
SoWhy, let me take you up on that. I declined this A7 this morning. What do you think? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a great article, but a perfect A7 decline.  Frank  |  talk  15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd say you were correct. After all, being the most successful company in a certain sector is a claim of importance/significance and the links indicate that coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist as well. On a side note, I think you shouldn't say "declined" but "contested" or "removed". WP:CSD says that admins decide whether an article should be deleted or not, so technically you can only disagree, not decide. I don't really care but others might say you want to sound and/or as if you were an admin to trick them not to readd the tag, so it's probably better to be safe than sorry Regards SoWhy 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I'm conscious that my caution at CSD is much greater than some, there are many articles at CSD or at NPP which I look at and either categorise or leave so the author may have a few minutes longer to improve it. So in some ways I probably embody the hemp clad sandal wearing inclusionist stereotype so vividly depicted by one of my fellow drinkers at the London meetups. But on negative unsourced BIOs I'm very deletionist - if someone describes a lady as a pornstar or a man as a Mafiosi then I want to see a source. I believe the picture is more nuanced than a Deletionist Inclusionist divide. More importantly I don't oppose people at RFA who simply take a more deletionist line than me, far from it. I consciously try to disregard incidents that I regard as a close call, and will no longer make an issue of an isolated example. But as others have pointed out, the issue you stumbled on here was more one of process; Admins have a great deal of discretion, but one thing we want to avoid is the admin who will start speedy deleting new articles because in their judgement they are bound to fail AFD. Even if you get that right 95% of the time, you will make mistakes, and you will annoy editors who you deprive of the opportunity to make their case, and deprive them of the feedback they would get in an AFD from others explaining why there is a problem with their sources or what distinguishes a notable professor from a not yet notable one. If in the three examples that Frank gave you had AFD'd the articles rather than tagged them for speedy deletion I doubt if anyone would have raised it in the RFA - even if in all three cases the eventual decision had been to keep. I hope that gives you, and any other potential admins watching this some reassurance, but once last bit of advice, if you haven't done so already, install wp:Hotcat and give yourself the third alternative of categorising any article where you are in doubt. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
One more question on a different, but related, topic: In your opinion, is it improper (or, equally important, will it subject the lister to criticism) for an editor to submit an article to AfD with a comment which boils down to "I'm not sure whether or not this should be deleted and at this point I'm not !voting one way or the other, but this seems like something that the community might want to consider deleting."? At one time, SoWhy, you seemed to agree with a statement by Edokter that every time a non-sysop removes a CSD tag that the article ought to go to AfD. (Just for the record, DGG disagreed.) Do you still feel that way, and if so, is it okay for the tag remover to take the article to AfD even if they're not sure that the article ought to be deleted? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think DGG or I misinterpreted Edokter's comment there. What I meant (and I think Edokter did as well) is that once a speedy tag has been removed by someone who had any plausible reason at all (other than "I want to keep this article"), it should not be re-tagged for speedy deletion and the original tagger should use AFD if they want to pursue deletion. But I don't think that anyone meant to say that an article should always go to AFD if the speedy tag was removed by a non-admin. Just that speedy deletion as a venue should be considered closed once that happens. The decision to take it to AFD has to be made by those in favor of deleting the article, not those who disagreed. As such, I also think that you should not bring an article to AFD unless you are in favor of deleting it (at this point, you could change your opinion after all^^). If you are not, leave it. Maybe no one will want to delete it and maybe someone will but if you won't, don't take it there (on the other hand, if you for example think the subject of the article is not notable but that the article fails A7, you can of course first remove the speedy tag and then take it to AFD arguing to delete it). Regards SoWhy 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar situation is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Steed (Young adult novels), in which I declined the CSD and then waited for someone else to nominate for deletion. I first explained why I had declined the CSD, then later posted a delete rationale. (It was eventually deleted, though that's not really the point.) I don't think people ding you for being unsure, although I personally prefer to think of it as "developing consensus".  Frank  |  talk  17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that Speedy deletion should be closed after one attempt, though I would agree that speedy deletion on the same grounds would be odd. It is quite frequent for a declined {{A7}} speedy deletion to subsequently go as a copyvio, and rarer but in my view still valid for an A7 to subsequently be deleted G10. In particular if someone creates an innocuous sounding article, and then subsequently the same editor adds a further edit that makes it clear it is an attack page, I don't think we should hesitate to delete it because the innocuous version had an A7 tag declined. ϢereSpielChequers 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

The workings of the speedy deletion process are too arcane for me (and likely for the vast majority of us uninitiated editors) but I think that opposing otherwise qualified candidates because of a few, or even many, mistagged articles is not a good idea. Not only because it will encourage editors, at least those interested in becoming admins, to be overly conservative in their tagging, but also because the speedy deletion process needs ambitious tagging for it to work well. The process has two parts, a tagging part and a deletion/keep part, and, if we're to get anywhere near some kind of optimum deletion zone, the tagging part should be aggressive and should send many more articles to the deletion/keep part than will actually be deleted. I would go so far as to say that, an rfa candidate with quite a few mistagged articles is probably a better candidate than one who has few or none, other things being equal. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with this quite strongly. An admin who makes the occasional mistake at AFD closes is liable to get a lot of feedback on this, but an admin can make many mistakes at speedy deletion and few notice but the bitten and lost newbies. CSD needs accurate tagging for it to work well, if by ambitious tagging you mean incorrect tags they are a drain on the system, they take longer to process, and where the appropriate tag is for BLPprod or AFD the process is made much more painful for the newbie than it need be. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but the corollary then is that, assuming that no one can be accurate 100% of the time (if there is such a thing as accuracy in an inherently subjective process), many articles that should be deleted will neither be tagged nor deleted, and, as a bonus, we'll get risk averse admins (the perfect taggers who never commit a type II error). Also, I there is a fundamental fallacy in thinking that someone who tags incorrectly will also delete incorrectly. Tagging is a request that someone consider an article for deletion. Deletion itself is rather final. Tagging will, as it should, always have a lower threshold than deletion. The same editor who tags an article as A7, may not delete that article because of that finality. We moan and complain about the lack of RfA candidates and about the difficulty in passing RfA and then penalize them for something that is inherently subjective. Meanwhile, we will 'fail' the candidates who tag aggressively because it is easy to find mistakes but 'pass' the candidates who tag mildly because, and that is the point of my 'better candidate' comment above, we do not have examples of the many articles that they reviewed and mistakenly left untagged. I think this is something that is worth thinking about. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Tagging is essentially saying "I think this article meets criterion XY for speedy deletion, so nice admin, please delete it". It's not "I think an admin should decide whether this should be deleted because I'm not sure". So I think it's fair to say that if you tag an article as a non-admin, you would have deleted it as an admin. Your argument also fails to take into account that not only a deletion can be quite bitey to a new editor but the tagging itself. Imagine, you come here, writing something with much care for some time and somebody slaps a big red banner on it, saying all your work is worthless. Even if the article may not be deleted, the tagging alone might be sufficient to leave a very negative first impression that will probably be remembered for some time. So I don't think a "shotgun"-style approach to tagging is in the project's best interest. No on expects candidates to be 100% perfect (I don't think there was ever anyone like that), a lot of people passed despite such mistakes (myself included) but there is a difference between some mistakes and a pattern of mistaggings. The latter are the candidates that we should be concerned about. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, I just think that we end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we overanalyze a candidates speedy tags. Just posing this as something that's worth a thought. That tagging inherently has a lower threshold than does deletion (because the latter is final), that an editor may tag one way but delete another way because, as humans, we pay more heed to irrevocable acts then to revocable ones, and that the unintended consequence of being harsh on aggressive taggers is that we'll have a tendency to promote conservative ones (and, presumably, tilt the encyclopedia toward the inclusionist direction-which may be good or bad, I'm agnostic about that). Your argument about bitey-ness provides a counterweight to the mix and is also worth thinking about. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't over analyse a candidate's speedy tagging. But I fear we disagree as to what the acceptable threshold is for error, and therefore what overanalyzing means. I expect the occasional mistake, and have supported candidate's whilst pointing out the occasional error, also I focus on a candidate's recent speedy tagging, if a couple of months ago they clearly weren't ready that does not mean they aren't ready now (temperament is something different - if they were blocked for incivility or sockpuppetry in the last year I would need some convincing not to oppose). Also remember that RFA is a week long process, if a candidate learns something and changes what they do, then I and others are quite capable of !voting accordingly. But we expect admins to use the tools in accordance with consensus, if editors want to shift policy then they should seek consensus to do so. I'm not concerned at RFA if an editor supports a consensus based change of policy in a certain direction, but I am concerned if they intend to use the tools to do so by fiat. As for the deletionist/inclusionist thing, I'm more wary of out of process deletion than out of process restoration, not least because I believe the former to be rather more common than the latter. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
an admin must understand the deletion criteria--that's sort of a minimum, along with the criteria for blocking, as those are the two chief activities. the best was to judge that is to see not just his answers at the RfA, but what he actually does. Therefore bad nominations for deletion, just like inappropriate warning messages, are very important indicators. I would not tag an article for deletion that I would not delete if someone else had tagged it. Of course everyone is permitted mistakes--I estimate that the accuracy of my own speedy deletion after many years of experience at it is not perfect, with 1 or 2 percent errors in each direction——so it does depend on how many mistakes, and on how bad they are--and, as WereSpielChequers says, it very much depends how recent they are. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing SoWhy/Archive 21 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Foooooor he's a jolly good fellow, … Amalthea 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
*Wipe away tears* Thank you guys, that was really not necessary. I am deeply humbled and a little surprised that it's two years already. My, how time flies... Regards SoWhy 08:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Review requested

Would you mind taking a look at my edits at Stonehouse Brick and Tile Co Ltd and Talk:Stonehouse_Brick_and_Tile_Co_Ltd/Temp and telling me if I've done the right thing in all respects? I'll watch here for your reply. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I like how you attempted to fix the problem rather than seeing it deleted. That's the spirit I can support :-) I took care of the temp page, so don't worry that it's a red link now. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I just wanted to make sure. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You are, as usual, welcome :-) Regards SoWhy 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please restore Paul Nguyen article

Hello SoWhy,

Thank you for your hard work and consistency. Can you please restore the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nguyen I have provided some links to support the article's merit:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp

http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k8YfKHV_sI

http://www.blogto.com/people/2009/06/toronto_through_the_eyes_of_paul_nguyen/

http://www.innoversity.com/roadmap/speakers/pauln/

173.230.171.37 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry but I only deleted it because it was consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nguyen (2nd nomination). If you feel that this decision was incorrect, please use deletion review instead to request the article to be restored. Regards SoWhy 06:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and getting back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy,

Here is the discussion for your review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Paul_Nguyen Directorpaul (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi. This probably seems a bit random, but can you take a look at User talk:Vejvančický#Have you ever considered... please? I'm trying to convince V that he would make a good admin, but he's concerned that not having English as his first language might be a barrier. Since you're a successful admin in the same situation I figured you might be better placed to reassure him than I am. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the compliment :-D I left him a note, also mentioning some other successful non-native speakers. Imho, his username is more of a problem than his English skills (I for one find it very hard to remember it ;-)). Regards SoWhy 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. I didn't know we had so many foreign language admins! The username could be a problem (I can just about remember it but certainly can't pronounce it!), although judging by the number of talk page comments he gets people seem to be able to find him easily enough at any rate. Thanks for your help. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We have plenty, just use CatScan to do some example searches: 18 German native speakers, 12 Spanish native speakers, 9 French native speakers etc. Although we don't seem to have a Czech native speaker as an admin, so V would be a first ;-) Regards SoWhy 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Amazing. I thought I was familiar with all the helpful user-created tools (Wikistalk, Edit Count, RFA !Votes, Page View Stats etc.), but I've never seen that one before. How did I not notice it for so long?! Looks like a pretty interesting one too; I'll have to start experimenting with that when I have some spare time... back on topic, you're absolutely right, there are far more than I thought. Seven Finnish native speakers and ten Russian native speakers is pretty high. It seems that proportionally native English speakers have less chance of becoming admins than those with another language, which isn't a result I would have predicted. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there SoWhy! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Discussion On Alexis Jordan on the List of YouTube personalities talk page

I started a discussion on her because I don't know if she should be kept on the list. I read her article and it said she was on Americas Got Talent first. So I would like some additional input so I don't make an unwarranted edit. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

UTC clock

Thanks. One last question. How often are Wikipedia pages cached? Imagine Wizard still shows 18:46 UTC. Slightsmile (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Very seldom actually. It depends on the length of the job queue but not more than once a day I'd guess. If you want to have a clock displaying UTC time, it's easier to enable a script to do so at "my preferences" => "gadgets" => "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC". Variables like {{CURRENTTIME}} are mostly used for creating timestamps, e.g. to log events or changes, and are not really useful to be used in any setting that requires the value to change often. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Industrial Quick Search" Deletion Clarification

Dear Editor,

I was wondering if you could clarify why a previous article entitled "Industrial Quick Search" was deleted and review a submission on a similar topic for me? I have a copy of the old article, though a former employee rather than myself wrote it. I'm not sure I fully understand the verification requirements as such. This is the page I would like to create in place of the original:

"Industrial Quick Search® is collection of vertical directories listing products and services representing a diverse resource for North American industrial, commercial and original equipment manufacturers and service providers. Using a patented methodology (Patent #7,483,872), both Industrial Quick Search® and the IQS® Directory provide roll-over preview ads which allow buyers to quickly and efficiently evaluate potential vendors and compare multiple suppliers in detail. Premium listings on IQS® supply buyers with the information to send a request for quote, call and link to the companies website as well as view CAD drawings, PDF’s, catalogs, videos, e-commerce, press releases, equipment, capabilities, certifications, sales representatives and distributor locations.

IQS® uses Google search technology including Google’s search appliance which provides fast, relevant searches of the many categories and companies listed on the site.

Industrial Quick Search® continually strives to provide more time efficiencies for today’s busy buyers. The site recently added company product categories and launched several upgrades such as radial search using Google map technology as well as implementing the IQS® Newsroom to improve online visibility for both clients and consumers."

I would really appreciate any feedback on what I'm doing right/wrong so that this page can be created without deletion. Many thanks! IndustrialQS (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous version was deleted not because of verification requirements but because it was purely advertising and as such unfit for Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia have to be written from a neutral point of view and editors with a conflict of interest, such as yourself, are rarely, if ever, able to do so. As such, my advice would be not to recreate this page. If the company really is notable as defined by our guidelines, then someone will sooner or later create an article about it. If it fails those standards though (which I think it does based on what I read from you and in the deleted article), it will be deleted, even if you recreate it, thus you would be wasting your time. You might want to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. A company similar to ours has a page on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomasnet, that I thought was similar to what I wrote above. We are trying very hard to meet your requirements. If you could please tell me how theirs is not advertising and ours is that would be a big help in getting our article within the acceptable parameters of wikipedia. Best, Industry123 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

        • Hello again SoWhy, have you had a chance to review my comments from Oct. 8th? I see that you have posted on other topics since then and was wondering why I had not received a response? An answer as to why our page does not qualify and the Thomasnet page does would be greatly appreciated. Industry123 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I simply didn't see it. As for other pages, you might want to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which explains in great detail why the existence of similar articles is irrelevant. But to answer your question: The article at Thomas Register only states facts without any other kind of language, which is acceptable. The deleted article on Industrial Quick Search on the other hand used things like "®" (see WP:TRADEMARK) and language like "experienced". As I said before, I do not think anyone affiliated with your company will be able to create a page that is acceptable by our standards but you are welcome to try anyway. Instead of simply recreating the article, I would advise you instead use our article wizard and then submit it for review at the end of the process. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Danni Lowinski

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon – Iran relations.

thanks.Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
(message) Lilevo (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi SoWhy, thanks for all your support and help. I've replied at my talk page. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Help creating my first real article

Hello,

I am a journalism major and have been wanting to create an article for a few months now. However, I am afraid it will not "stick". I heard articles get deleted very fast. Can you help me learn the ropes so I can have my article stay strong and untouched? I don't want to put all this time and effort for it to disappear! :) Thank you.

-Alice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicemaguire (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Alice's talk page since it was asked in two places. Amalthea 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

I did this at Henderson Police Department, with a note on the article talk page about more that could go in later, in response to the A1 nom at Scandals and allegations of the Henderson Police Department which I later redirected here. Should I have done something with the talk page of the redirected page? My thought was that if the page creator really intends to come up with a laundry list of the police department's sins that the stuff I added to the department article might get moved back over there. What do you think, overall? Too much? Too little? I would value your comments. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this needs mention at all or the Police Department itself for that matter. The idea to merge the content there is a good one, true, but the question whether the PD warrants an article itself might need further discussion. You should try Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard for that. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please delete all of my .js subpages? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:23am • 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure,  Done. Let me know if I can be of more assistance to you. Regards SoWhy 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers SoWhy :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:13am • 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wolke Hegenbarth

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Victory for Bureaucracy

The first MfDs for articles that have already been deleted once have begun: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Habibi Silsila. I still don't understand how anyone doesn't think this is process for the sake of process. Gigs (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you did, you would not hold an opposing viewpoint, would you? The question you should ask instead is this: Is anyone forced to participate in that MFD? Your argument is based on the fact that articles in the incubator were deleted once but that's not true, is it? The consensus was to incubate them, not delete them, so deleting requires a consensus that says "delete". Also, incubation is not necessarily only the result of an AFD. Per WP:AI#How it works #1, incubation can happen also in reaction to speedy deletion, userfication and even at some user's discretion. For those cases, your argument is void. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In many cases there were no clear consensus to incubate them, it's very often a unilateral action, as you noted. Most of the incubated articles at MfD did show a clear consensus to delete at AfD previously, and the closing admin decided to incubate instead. Regarding speedy deletion candidates... if an article was an A7, and hasn't changed substantially, I don't see why we should have a full deletion debate on it, it's still an A7, it's just an A7 deferred in my mind.
The reason I approached you particularly about this is because I do respect you as an editor who is reasonable and not an extremist. I feel like what should have been a simple matter of documenting an existing process was co-opted and steamrolled by people who fundamentally disagree with WP:N and it's become a referendum on various unrelated things.
I'm afraid that this sort of thing will wind up destroying the incubator in the end, or at least severely limiting its growth. I don't think there is consensus to create a deletionpedia junkyard, and if the incubator becomes this, it will be killed. On the same token, the existing process of administrative discretion deletions is likewise dangerous to the future of the incubator. I had hoped that a documented deletion process could be developed that would be sustainable, not add another layer of bureaucracy, and not be viewed as an end-run around notability and CSDs like A7. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, was probably with the whole idea to integrate the deletion into CSD. It simply does not belong there. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to determine where it should belong. As I pointed out above, there are multiple ways for an article to be incubated and as such the deletion of pages in the incubator needs to varied based on the reason why it was incubated in the first place:
Incubated after an AFD closed as "delete"
Here the AFD itself is reason for deletion if no further work happened
Incubated after an AFD closed as "incubate"
Here a new discussion is required imho because "incubate" does not necessarily mean "delete"
Incubated instead of speedy deleted
Here a new discussion should be held because the fact that someone incubated the article indicates that deletion might have been controversial, thus not being a good candidate for speedy deletion
Incubated after userfication
Here the decision should be based on the reason for userfication but re-userfying might be the preferable alternative to deletion
Incubated by some user's decision
Here a discussion should always be required.
As you can see, there are too many different possible scenarios to be able to create a speedy deletion criterion, which probably explains the rejection of the G13-proposal and the "steamrolling" you described. Personally, I don't agree that keeping articles in the incubator will circumvent WP:N in any way, because all those pages are NOINDEXed and thus are outside the public's view (and thus not a WP:N question anymore) but probably the best way forward in this case would be a RFC about the deletion process for incubator articles. Before starting such a RFC though, one should consider a good argument why MFD would not work. Regards SoWhy 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you do have a good start up there. G4 for ones that had an AfD that had a pretty good consensus for deletion, but someone said "hold on let me try to fix it". I disagree on your third point... If it would have fell into the speedy deletion criteria, an objection doesn't necessarily render that speedy moot... after all nearly every author of an A7 objects to the deletion, whether they say something about it or not. Incubation is then just a sort of extended {{hangon}}, wouldn't you say? Just like with the hangon template, if the article clearly falls into the deletion criteria, then the objection doesn't prevent the speedy. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That objection only applies if the article was incubated by the creator. I think we can both agree that most new users have no idea what the incubator is, so it's quite likely that most of those incubations were made by experienced users who disagreed that the subject should be deleted. And I think there is a rough consensus that speedy deletion should not be used in those cases where one or more users (except the creator) feel that the article should not be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Legion XIIX

Hey,

Regarding this edit of yours: The eighteenth legion was indeed spelled XIIX, not XVIII, in contemporary inscriptions. I don't know how familiar you are with Latin, but the Romans did not always adhere to the same rules we learned, and in addition, many contemporary inscriptions and documents are full of errors even when one applies the "standards" of that time. In the case of legion XIIX, it was however not an error, but the deliberate, common spelling of the legion's name, and it appears that it is used that way in modern secondary literature, too ((quick books.google search). I therefore think the spelling "XIIX" should be restored. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not really familiar with Latin (anymore) but I did notice that our article on this legion is called Legio XVIII and not Legio XIIX, so my edit was made to have the same name everywhere. It might have been a common spelling but the question is whether it's the common name for this legion. You will notice that "legio xiix" yields three results on GBooks while "legio xviii" yields 113 results, so you would have to first show that XIIX should be used instead of XVIII. Anyway, that's something for discussion, not for me to decide and my edit was (as I said above) only for the sake of consistency. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I searched for an English source listing different spellings, and came across this snippet listing a few, if you are interested. I have updated the article "legio xviii" accordingly, maybe the clades variana article should have the alt spelling somewhere, too. I won't insist on changing xviii to xiix all along anymore, since when I looked it up I came across inscriptions which really spell it xviii instead of xiix, and your argument about use in secondary literature is convincing, too. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Is [9] fine with you? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I also created a redirect at Legio XIIX. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

please help

Dear SoWhy, I am kindly asking for your attention to FlexiScore matter... I am really upset over the situation the term that does not conflict with any other terms is currently in. The users are basing their decision on the fast that there is no information on google to back flexiscore term - but do all theories have to be axioms?. Thank you for your attention... Ednoror (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean when you say "have to be axioms" but all information on Wikipedia needs to have one or more reliable sources to verify the related information and to establish the subject's notability. I see no indication in the FlexiScore article as to why it should be considered more notable than other similar terms and no sources to back it up. Unless you can provide such sources, the delete !votes in the AFD are correct imho. Regards SoWhy 07:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

(insert mistakenly self-added Welcome-message here)

Would this by any chance be a Twinkle issue...? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
More like a Friendly/Firefox-issue, since the new JägerMonkey engine seems to have problems with some of the scripts. I notified Amalthea (talk · contribs) about it already, who I usually bother with JS-related problems ;-) Regards SoWhy 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

pros & cons

Hi, how do you think we can add pros & cons issue as reference ? can you provide recommendation ? we thought the best way as external link or sub section? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.33.61 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, the link needs to follow our reliable sources guidelines, which I doubt since it looks like a blog (spelling errors like "exmplae" in a header for example make it look unprofessional). Then, it needs to be useful for referencing something in the article. I don't think there is something to reference with this though since such comparisons are most likely used for deciding what to buy. Last but not least, most of the information at the link it outdated or simply wrong and as such is not very useful compared to other sources (examples: Android phones with screens as large or larger than the iPhone are common; the Android Market has more than 100k apps currently; etc.) Personally, I have to say that I do not think that pro & con list is of any use to anyone. Given the variety of Android phones, it's impossible to compare them to an iPhone or a Blackberry where the variety is limited. My HTC Desire can easily beat the iPhone in almost any area (not only because I can overclock it to 1300 Mhz) but a T-Mobile G1 will loose in almost every area, despite both running Android; so I think it's easy to understand that it's impossible to say "Android is ..." based on this fact alone. Since the link you added does do so though, it's not useful for any meaningful comparison. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stana Katic

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at Bbb23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion question (NOT requesting an UNdeletion)

I was stumbling through the AfD logs and found an interesting discussion. I was wondering if there was some easy way to view the article that had been deleted, or does that involve too many steps (or would bother too many important folks)? Just curious. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Green_restaurants.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately deleted articles can only be viewed by administrators (as a result of consensus and a veto by the Wikimedia Foundation, see Wikipedia:PEREN#Deleted pages should be visible). If you like, I can provide a copy of the deleted article to you via email though. Regards SoWhy 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow. After reading through all the legal discussion, and finding the limited list of Admins willing to provide copies of deleted pages, I am even more loathe to interfere with the process. I guess my curiosity will have to be satisfied via other means.
Thanks again for being helpful, WesT (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't be scared by the limited list. It's not really maintained. Most admins are usually willing to provide such copies if asked, it's just that not all of them list themselves in that category. So if you want any such copies, I'd also be willing to help you. Regards SoWhy 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep you in mind. BTW you've been so helpful, that I've set your talk page to show whenever I log in...just to see if there are any interesting discussions you're in the middle of.  :-)
Thanks much, WesT (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. If you need help with anything else or have other questions, feel free to ask me at any time. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_21&oldid=1145849560"