User talk:Colonel Warden/Archive 3

Bikers Bell

(talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) In 2 reliable sources: Gremlin Bell Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guardian Bell searches Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Commercial credit reporting

An article that you have been involved in editing, Commercial credit reporting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial credit reporting. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

colonel, without any prejudice to what the community may decide, the move you made to Epistemology of religion is not really appropriate during an AfD where this is one of the questions at issue--I think it would count as a major move. I've reverted it. Please don't take it as a reflection or as the expression of my own opinion--I merely think the move would have just further confused an already confusing discussion. By all means continue to discuss the correct title at the AfD, or, if the article is kept under whatever title, afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of good faith efforts to improve the article seems improper, especially when you have opined for deletion. I do not consider the move a major one as the essential nature of the topic is unchanged. The main point is for us to focus upon the potential of topic rather than the minor details of the term epistemics and the naive status of the original author. Editors in the discussion already seem quite confused as they seem to be judging a book by its cover. Changing the title to conform to the usage of most sources still seems a sensible move and I shall continue to work upon the article with this in mind - see the rewrite of the lead which resulted in an edit conflict. I shall retire for now as it is unsatisfactory working upon an article when edit conflicts result. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: why not simply start the new article at the new title? Much as I've been tempted to do so, I;'ve never radically changed a title in the middle of an AfD unless it was blindingly obvious to everyone, or purely technical . I'm sad to see this quarrel with someone whom I agree so much 99% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That would be a content fork and they are usually deprecated for the good reason that they scatter our efforts rather than concentrating them. And if I were to take ideas from the first article, that might also be plagiarism. If I were to credit the original author as a source, then we have licence issues for which it seems simplest to keep the original edit history. And, most importantly, building upon the work of the original author shows some respect and courtesy for it and him. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader, save the...

Why have you done this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It did not seem to be a constructive edit. And so to bed; more anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now, hope you don't mind. I removed unsourced statements and replaced all the external links with a single link to DMOZ - as is recommended in policy, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what it is you object to! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• My objection was to the suppression of information about the UK body but this will keep. I shall attend to it later in my copious free time ... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Colonel. Having just come across Loving You Has Made Me Bananas, and then realising that you have been submitting articles since you can't have been more than a subaltern, I was surprised to see you weren't already an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Buzz Cut

Hi. I missed the bit where you explained why you reverted my edits. I thought that I explained fairly well in my edit summary why I had made them. I'm confused as to why you saw fit to undo them. Thanks. danno 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the matter, please start discussion at the article's talk page so that other editors may participate. See WP:CYCLE for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (3rd nomination)

Hi Colonel Warden. I added that one source only after TPH had made the AfD nomination. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well done. I had a quick look myself and it didn't seem an easy type of source to hunt for. How did you find it? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm having most success with a search strategy of TV "show within a show" but there is a lot of crap to wade through. Searching for "fictional TV show" or for ("TV" or "television") + "metafiction" wasn't getting me very far. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Corruption in Ghana

Removing the tags does not make the issues go away. When you have addressed the concerns - that is rewritten the entire article so that it no longer reads like the dissertation it is, and have put in inline cites, and chased down the sources to establish that this is not original research, then the tags may be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the matter, please start discussion at the article's talk page so that other editors may participate. See WP:CYCLE for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of bow tie wearers

Your interest was expressed a long time ago, but are you still inclined to help getting this list featured? There doesn't seem to be a "good list" option.--~TPW 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the 2nd and 11th incarnations of Dr. Who to the list. Nice addition!

I enjoy the image you added, but I was dismayed to notice that it is a copyrighted image. Although there is justification for using it in the article about that particular Doctor, I don't believe that we can justify using it in List of bow tie wearers. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did not add an image; I added a link to a file which was stored elsewhere by some other editor. Please see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. in which it was ruled that hyperlinks do not infringe copyright. If the image stored in the file currently seems improper, then you should please make representations at that location as I currently have no better image with which to replace it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a compelling argument in light of that court decision, but it's probably a good idea to confirm that the WMF powers-that-be concur with your interpretation of its application to Wikipedia. I will look around for an appropriate noticeboard to ask about it. If we continue the discussion, however, I recommend we move it to the article's talk to reduce confusion.--~TPW 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Fair use review doesn't appear to be the appropriate venue to ask about this particular image usage - they only deal with whether the media belong on the site or not. (However, the page notes that "uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content.") I asked Daniel Case if he has an opinion, since he's done a considerable amount of image work.--~TPW 12:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The image file needs to have a separate fair-use rationale for each page on which it is used. Use on the page about a TV or cartoon character is typically justified by the need to identify the character visually and the lack of free images. That type of rationale does not apply to this list. I'm going to remove the image. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Case's opinion

The Perfect 10 opinion has no relevance to our fair-use policy, which is considerably more restrictive than US law. At least not without an explicit change reflecting that, and I get the feeling that if we felt thumbnails of an image elsewhere were a permissible use under that policy, we'd have changed it in that direction a long time ago since it's hardly a new case.

Images must have a separate fair-use rationale if they are used in more than one article (And believe me, it's very hard to justify two uses). There are no exceptions.

I think the solution here is for CW to use {{external media}} if he thinks the image of the Eleventh Doctor is relevant to this article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Credo Reference

As you are keen on sourcing, you might find this offer useful. - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

technical terms

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) you used the terms wp:speedy keep and wp:forum shopping, but neither of them are really appropriate there. (It's not really "forum shopping", because prior discussions had been inconclusive. Afd was a valid step (though i agree with the admin that prodding it was not appropriate). "Speedy keep" has particular circumstances for usage, which were not applicable here). Hence you've confused the issue greatly. Please be careful when using technical terms like those, in the future. Thanks. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion or merger, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course"
2. "bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession"

Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the timeline, of when the talkpage sections were created, and when that new article was created, I hope you'll see what I mean. The original discussion of a possible future split was in December, then in mid-February this new article was created, and then in late-March this discussion about whether a split was really wanted. There was disagreement from 3 editors and agreement from 3 editors (One of whom thought we had been talking about merging the episode lists in). Even the Guy M's incorrect prod, had the rationale "Looking for a larger pool of voters." This was simply a next step, in actually getting anyone to talk about it. And nobody is objecting to the consensus that has obviously formed at the afd.

Your use of the wikipedia-equivalent of fighting words was, I feel, unhelpful to the discussion. You were the editor to introduce the idea of "forum shopping" to the discussion, which nobody had previously accused anyone of. (It led to Mr. CC mistakenly accusing me of forum shopping, when I had nothing to do with starting the prod/afd!) In other words, please don't be so quick to reach the conclusion that 'Drama!' is occurring (or to egg it on, by "calling it out"). Sometimes people really are, honest to god, just having a calm discussion. (Hard as that may be to believe around here, some days...!)

I'm not trying to chastise or get in an argument or anything like that at all; I'm just trying to say something along the lines of: "From my perspective, I think you (metaphorically-speaking) threw gasoline on the candle, right over here." in as friendly a way as possible, in the hope that "other people's perspectives are sometimes useful" kind of thing. mumble mumble :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• AFD is a serious business - the editing equivalent of capital punishment. It should not be used lightly as a way of continuing an existing content discussion. The RFC process is more appropriate for that. Also, please see WP:SAUCE - if it is reasonable to criticise an article and demand that it be deleted then it is reasonable that the nomination should likewise be open to peremptory closure. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• There may just be a teensy weensy bit of a lack of perspective there, CW: if an article is deleted, nobody dies. In fact, nobody even gets locked up or roughed up or handcuffed or even required to attend a hearing.
  Deletion is a similar process to what happens every day of the week in hundreds of editorial offices: text is not published. And you appear not to have noticed that AFD is not a death sentence, it is a process, only one of whose possible outcomes is deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Bill Shankly#Quotations. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's not my religion, but it's a classic one-liner.
  Still, hyperbole doesn't help editors with a difference of opinion reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see analogy which explains the usage. The essential point is that deletion of articles is a last resort, reserved for hopeless or pathological cases. By speedily closing nominations which lack the due diligence described at WP:BEFORE, we make the process run smoother. The option is there for this reason and follows the general principle of this place that all edits are open to challenge. See also The Golden Rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please do take some time to read WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on wikipedia; if you had done so you would not be labelling good faith deletion nominations as "frivolous and vexatious". I did due diligence on the articles I nominated, and out of more than 25 such articles, there are I think only two or three where there is any plausible evidence that I missed any substantial coverage. (That doesn't include the likes of the #72 bus, where you produced a few utterly trivial mentions which are irrelevant to WP:GNG).
  Like Jeni's hysterical accusations of disruption, your bad faith leads you to assume that the subsequent discovery of sources for a small proportion of the routes indicates that no checking was done at all, which is simply wrong. All that happened was that I missed some, and because any of us can miss things, we have a process whereby other editors have time to review the nomination. That's exactly what is happening: the process is working as it is supposed to, with different conclusions being formed on different articles. It's a great pity that you show so little concern either about the actions of editors who have created so many unreferenced under-referenced articles on topics where there is little or no evidence of notability, or about the actions of editors on the bus project whose "notability" completely ignored the community's long-standing criteria at WP:GNG. I see nothing in anything you have written which expresses a hint of criticism either of those who created these articles ignoring WP:RS and WP:V, and instead you chose to proceed directly to character assassination of an editor who has tried to get some of the chaff removed.
  The Golden Rule is an important one, and it would be nice if you were to reflect on it, particularly before leaping once again to your cheap and nasty slur at ANI that that this AFD is some of nationalist attack. You could also consider the possibility that someone who you disagree with is acting sincerely, and has just reached different conclusions to you ... but on what I have seen so far, I'm not holding my breath. You appear to be quite happy to launch straight in to a series of personal attacks rather than discussing the substantive issues, and I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly how you think that the trivial mentions you found of route 72 meet the GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For your interest

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian soldier WritersCramp (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest of flattery

— Charles Caleb Colton

so many thanks, Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

London Bus Route AfDs

Much as I would love to see these articles kept (I'm the one adding sources to the more marginal routes), your argument of Speedy Keep for disruptive nominations doesn't really stack up. I agree that too many were nominated, for example London Buses route 73, but I also feel that it's the user's right to nominate any article which doesn't show notability at AfD. I appreciate your efforts to rescue the articles, but it would be nice if you made an argument which the closing admin is more likely to accept. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement is more productive than argument. I plan to work further upon the number 74 when I have a free moment. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well deserved barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Colonel Warden, for his hard work in referencing and working on the bus route deletions.Okip 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving a barnstar to you, who already commented in a AFD, is now considered "canvassing". Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing What a complete joke, worse this baseless harassment is by an admin. Okip 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Your facilitation and encouragement is much appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For researching and rewriting Pontnewynydd Primary School thus saving it from deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Your own efforts in this case were most helpful too. I look forward to working with you again. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounding board

You will be happy to know that I accepted jclemens offer to help and offer advice. :) thanks for your comment :) Okip 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. On investigating the reference, I found that our coverage was quite inaccurate and so have taken the opportunity to rewrite it. It is an ill wind that blows no good. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett

You should take great care not to be seen as a sockpuppet of the banned User:HarveyCarter here. Even though Brett is dead, that does not absolve us from the requirement of reliable sources, and it's oh so easy to publish negative material, although it may impinge upon his still-living descendants. For that reason, I suggest you do not replace deleted material without impeccable sources, unless I might very well conclude that you are a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of User:HarveyCarter, and that can go only one way. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added multiple sources to the article both now and previously. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have. I have only deleted sections that had no sources. However, when evaluating sources, a major consideration is whether they are self-serving, or objective. A former wife's opinion (and it can be no higher than that) is bound to have an inherent bias. However, I haven't removed that, despite that I am unable to verify it for myself; that's a result of assuming good faith, but if I ever come across that book, and it does not support facts cited in the article, go it must. Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, your reverts of my deletions of unsourced content put you on thin ice indeed, and I would advise that you find other articles to edit. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Matters of this sort are best resolved by references to additional sources and reference to more editors. I shall return to the matter tomorrow. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Green exercise

Thanks for your help with improving this article and saving it from deletion. -- Jtneill - Talk 06:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. A good prompt to walk down the garden, inspect the spring blossoms and feed the worms... Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Boston Housing Court from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words which are much appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Parliamentary Portions cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parliamentary Portions cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Thanks for your revert. Please see the article's talk page where I have put forward a suggestion to improve the article by removing flagcruft and rewriting the tables into prose. Your thoughs are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When you make a revert of something that isn't blatant vandalism you are supposed to explain why on the talk page. I look forward to seeing your explanation. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have responded at the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. The revert goes unexplained. This is a violation of WP:BRD, and pretty much a form of edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's figure out a good redirect...

I hope you've seen my comments at the DRV. What are the reliable sources calling the campaign gaffe? A quick Google News search shows a lot of "Gordon Brown's bigot gaffe". Any other ideas? I can fix the GFDL problem in a jiffy if there's a good-quality spot to place a redirect... — Scientizzle 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• This morning's Independent starts its front page headline, "Floored by Mrs Duffy ...". Inside, we read, "There was only one topic of conversation ... Following what had predictably become known as 'bigotgate', ...". But we should not rush to judgement. We have a discussion now at DRV - let's see how that plays out. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Bigotgate" (ugh, that "-gate" suffix is so worn and flaccid) does seem to be getting some traction. I'm not in any rush, but I do want to make sure the GFDL requirements are met in a reasonable timeframe. I'm heading out on vacation, however, so I might not be able to do anything more in this vein for a few days...however, I think enough clueful people can help if a reasonable solution can be agreed upon. — Scientizzle 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jon Stewart has objections to the -gate usage too and labels it a clustershag but that doesn't seem to be catching on. Funny though. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for dropping by

at the Paola S. Timiras article. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was Paola S. Timiras's co-researcher for more than ten years and as a result of a disagreement regarding the term "Phenomics" the user Crusio has decided to remove large sections of information from Paola S. Timiras's page. As I stated in an open letter to wiki users, this action began a day after our disagreement began. I would ask you to help me keep her page from being vandalized by the user Crusio. Sgaran (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added some sources to the article about Paola S. Timiras and am now doing the same for Phenomics. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In that vein, this might be useful. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Streets of St. Louis

• Thanks. Although we sometimes disagree, I respect you for standing up, not only for what you believe in, but for the proposition of defending other editors who come under fire in the (in my opinion, vicious) AfD Forum. There are many who talk about improving Wikipedia, and you are among the few who do something about it.

I'll readily admit that I am, sometimes, a jerk, and I apologize if I've said anything that appeared to be insulting. You fight for what you believe in, and I admire that. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't recall you ever being uncivil and your position on these matters generally seems reasonable. There is too much extreme opinion at AFD and it is good to have swing voters like you. I'd vote delete more often myself as there's certainly plenty that we don't need but I rarely see much point in bothering with that aspect. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cat Sins

You might want to find a little better support for the definition on this before you go on rolling this out to every page you can think of. It's problematic to do in a way that doesn't introduce sectarian POV. If you wish to list everything that any religious sect considers to be a sin, it'll be a large undertaking. If you wish to exclude some sects, it'll be controversial. Then there's the problem of needing a balanced WP:NPOV WP:RS to support each inclusion. I'll grant murder is likely to make the cut in most sects, but covet might get some debate from those who admire free-market capitalism. Immodesty sure won't be unanimous. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I just put a few pages into the category so that it is populated. It seems similar in scope to the category Crimes. There are numerous crimes which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from time to time but such difficulties are inevitable in a global encyclopedia. Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Right. Just suggesting a little care could save you some grief later. Let me know how you make out with concensus-building on the inclusion or exclusion of contraception from the category ;-) Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl 04:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Frazer Diner

Please take a look at Frazer Diner and see if you can make any improvements before someone decides that this 1929 diner is not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work. You have a book on PA diners I have not seen. Too bad the owner/manager does not allow interior photographs. I do have photos and can get more of the Mayfair Diner on Frankford Avenue, but I don't have time to create the article now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambig

Hi. I'm going to post here, so as not to send the actual discussion at WT:NOTDIC off on a tangent.

The page Old school is currently a disambiguation page, which is quite different from an "article". Moreover, from the rules-minded point of view, it is currently a poorly formatted disambig page, and the lead sentences should probably be shortened even further - per MOS:DAB#At the top of the page.

The guidelines are this way because: See for example demo and set - if we included any definitions at the top of those disambig pages, we'd have to include all (or most) definitions, which would be overwhelming.

In the case of old school there is a single core meaning, so we can (and currently do) IAR and include the definition at the top.

Hence, I think you might want to reconsider your last post at the WT:NOTDIC thread, as the old school page is most definitely not an "article" (at least for the purposes of that discussion). Sincerely, -- Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was already aware that the page in question was a disambiguation page. This does not alter my point. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yo.

Hello. It's a beautiful spring day. You do good work, so thanks, and I hope you're well.

This has nothing to do with anything else. --Kizor 00:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine — thank you for your kind words. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Office for Budget Responsibility

Hi, well done for starting Office for Budget Responsibility. I've expanded it to 1521 characters by my count, and nominated it at DYK. Feel free to suggest a better hook. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of monster movies

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of monster movies. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monster movies. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

List of castles in Cheshire

The above list is based on Salter's The Castles and Tower Houses of Lancashire and Cheshire, which in turn is based on Cathcart King's Castellarium Anglicanum, a comprehensive bibliography of the castles in England and Wales. Peckforton Castle is not included in either because it is not a castle; for the definition please see castle#Defining characteristics. If Cathcart King and Salter don't include Peckforton Castle, neither should Wikipedia. Yes, I realise that some consider it the "last serious fortified home in Britain", although whether Tollemache was meant it as a serious fortification is speculation, but there are other factors which mean it is not considered a castle. Please do not re-add Peckforton to the list. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I shall move the discussion to the article's talk page, where it belongs. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Office for Budget Responsibility

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Camerons Brewery

Camerons Brewery is the name of the company. Lions Brewery is the name of the brewing plant, and appears to have been an earlier name of the company. The sources say Camerons - [1], [2], [3], including the company themselves - [4]. If I am misunderstanding something please let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 19:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• What you seem to have missed is the article's talk page. Please discuss moves before making them. Should you choose to be bold regardless, please observe WP:BRD and not persist when your bold action is disputed. The discussion should please be continued at that talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Divine countenance

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's get this straight

Have you ever actually voted to delete an article at AFD?- Wolfkeeper 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The most recent case seems to have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Schildt. I try to skim every AFD but abstain in most cases as there isn't time to dwell on more than one or two each day. One day, I might try commenting on every discussion as this would provide a better sample of my overall preferences. But who cares? Why do you ask? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, only once, more than a month ago. Because you're almost always voting keep, even when the evidence is not really there, when there's no reliable sources in the article, and even when people have looked for further sources. You also appear to be systematically trying to remove rules that would permit deletions.- Wolfkeeper 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• That was just the most recent case. The one before that seems to be Teabagger. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really good for the Wikipedia to have badly sourced content in the hopes that one day it might get sourced? I mean, for example Dieselpunk is not mentioned by any significant reliable sources, the article is hundreds of times larger than the total of reliable sources put together. Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be a summary of reliable sources? But you voted keep on it. Note that I'm not querying your vote, I'm just trying to understand why.- Wolfkeeper 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Articles should not have to be "really good" to be kept at AFD; they just need to be above the hopeless level. The article Dieselpunk describes a recognisable genre and so needs work not deletion. I was not happy with the title and said so but that will be best corrected by move or merger, not deletion. Mulling over the topic and what might be a better title, I just independently conceived the word retro-futurism. Checking, I find that we have an article on the subject — Retro-futurism — and so I shall add this to the discussion, if it hasn't been mentioned already. Perhaps this will help. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I just looked through yesterday's batch of AFDs to see what might be deleted. The first ones in the list all have some promise as there are sources to be found. I then found Democratic socialist international which ought to be deleted but there was already a good consensus for this result. I do not like to waste my time posting me too or per nom comments and so will continue to focus upon the cases where my contributions will make more difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Re: Chinese Copy - If you had reviewed the article history you would see that the reason it is at AFD, and not already deleted all together is because I declined two speedy deletion tags on it. The article had major POV problems which I was unable to fix, which is why I took it to AFD. Rather than decline speedy and walk away as some admin do I thought it would be better to raise the issue for more eyes to look at it. Fortunately you and others have started to address some of the issues. Your thinly veiled insults based on what you perceive as my lack of experience or lack of familiarity with the deletion policy are unfounded, unwelcome, and inappropriate for the AFD discussion.  7  11:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• AFD is not a general article fix-up service. The article had tags for its debatable issues and might have been allowed more time for discussion at its talk page. The talk page has yet to be tagged for attention by a project. This and numerous other recommendations are made at WP:BEFORE to which I directed you. For example:

“ 10. If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. ”

You suggested in the nomination that the article might be redirected or cleaned up. These actions do not require deletion and so, per the advice above, the article was not a good candidate for AfD. Your recent RfA indicated that you were perhaps still unfamiliar with all aspects of deletion policy. I myself have been patrolling here for years and would not claim to know it all. For one thing, the policies and guidelines keep changing - we about to have some protection mechanism which will take some getting used to, I suppose. So, please accept such advice at face value when it is given. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agilo_for_Scrum

Hi Colonel Warden. I corrected and added links to the Agilo page. Please let me know what's missing to set it online again? Should I create the page agian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colonel_Warden/Agilo_for_Scrum Thanks for your support. Greetings Marion Teckmx5 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have added some more inline citations and pruned the external links to conform to our usual practise. I have moved the article into mainspace as it seems to have enough credibility now. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination)

Please don't make misleading claims about policies such as your claim here that WP:SALAT explicitly supports lists of fictional animals. The claim was untrue, and it may affect the validity of result of the debate. Thanks. Claritas § 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken - the claim was neither misleading nor untrue. This case indicates that you are citing policies without having read them carefully. Please see The Mote and the Beam. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words, they're scarce around here. I have a feeling I'll be able to return them sometime without digging thru diffs :) Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) And for the barnstar. Oh dear. I love all fauna and follow their fictional counterparts, so if someone creates List of fictional ants, we may meet again there :) Novickas (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey - thanks so much for leading me to Terry Pratchett. You opened a window on a new universe to this WP reader. WRT to Unseen University, do you think this John Mullan piece in the Guardian would help? [5]. Novickas (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Userified article

I've placed the article at User:Colonel Warden/Fictional military organisations, and removed the categories and maintenance tags. Let me know if I can do anything else for you. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional worms

Please don't revert my edits without explaining why. It's not civil, and you should in the future place a comment either on the talk page or in the edit summary. In the meanwhile, I'll restore my last version of the list. Thanks. Claritas § 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:BRD which explains what to do when your bold edit is reverted. Repetition is not recommended. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden, you've been here long enough to know that reverting without an edit summary is usually treated as an accusation of vandalism. If you revert a good faith edit, please have the courtesy to include an explanation as to why you are doing so.—Kww(talk) 12:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Edit summaries are for explaining what is done while the article's talk page is the place to explain why. Please see WP:ES#Use of edit summaries in disputes which explains the reason for this: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!". In this case, User:Claritas has made repeated attempts to delete or amend this article but has failed to establish consensus for his views. In this case, there is no active discussion but he makes bold edits without consensus. In this circumstance he should not be surprised that the removal of sourced content is reverted and the onus is on him to start discussion. My edit summary was quite neutral and no accusation of vandalism was made or intended. Your suggestion that there was no edit summary is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:REVERT#Explain reverts clearly applies: It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. You left only the auto-summary pertaining to the revert, and have left no informative explanations in your edit summary. As I said, you've been here long enough to know that that is normally done only for vandalism reversions. If your explanation is so weighty and detailed that you can't fit it, please leave at least a "see talk page" addition. I guess that wouldn't have been appropriate in this case, because you have made no edits to the talk page, either. As I said before: if you revert a good faith edit, it is only courteous to explain why.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The section you cite applies when the editor being reverted has done some work. This is not applicable in this case, because User:Claritas was not doing work — he was, in fact, reverting the work of other editors. This work is sourced infomation about Beowulf, one of the most ancient and reputable pieces of fiction in the English language. Moreover, I have certainly posted to the talk page of the article in question and to other related discussions besides. Your complaints therefore continue to be counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I missed your one edit to the talk page. It did not address your reversions or address Claritas's edits. Your assertion that removing material isn't work is simply a personal issue with you: editing includes both addition and removal. Use edit summaries in the future when this situation arises.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The talk page comment does indeed address Claritas' edit, being a continuation of the same point on which Claritas keeps harping. Claritas keeps pushing the line that this article should not include dragonlike worms (aka wyrms). He made this point in the recent AFD where I rebutted it repeatedly. He failed to make his case and the AFD was comprehensively closed against him. He then started up another discussion on the same point on the talk page and also failed in this case with the discussion being closed against him. His edit ignored these closes by multiple admins and attempted to remove high-quality sourced material from the article without any supporting consensus and with a deceptive edit summary. My opposition to his line that dragonlike worms do not belong has been stated repeatedly and the idea that there is any confusion about the nature and basis of this opposition seems absurd. But, for avoidance of doubt, let me state it clearly: Claritas has no business making these edits which have been repeatedly opposed by multiple editors and admins without preparatory discussion and the obtaining of consensus. The material concerning Beowulf is well supported by the source, e.g. "Beowulf with ebbing strength, drew his dagger and cut the worm in twain." The work in question is a classic of English literature and is much studied for its educational value. Removal of such well-sourced, educational content is damaging to the project and contrary to our editing policy. Claritas' refusal to accept the verdict of other editors and to make such edits regardless is disruptive. I do not spell out the details of this disruption in more detail in my edit summaries because I prefer to make simple neutral statements about what I am doing in my edit summaries and leave the whys and wherefores to discussion pages. As and when Claritas starts yet another discussion of this matter in the proper place, you may be sure that I will comment there repeatedly and at length. Be careful what you wish for ....

Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not whether "wyrms" should be included in the article, but whether that worm is sufficiently notable and also widely known as a worm as opposed to as a serpent or whatever to be added to the list. The fact that it doesn't have a name with "worm" in the title is my main issue - it doesn't seem to be commonly known as a worm, even if it is referred to one in some translations of Beowolf into modern English. I can't find the description of it as a "worm" in the original text - [6]. However, the major issue is that you're not assuming good faith, and you're violating guidelines on edit summaries. Claritas § 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• That text is incomplete as it only seems to go up to chapter XXXV. The wyrm features in the latter part of the tale and so you won't find much in that truncated version. As for use of the undo feature and its default edit summary, this is a matter of convenience and no special significance should be attributed it. There are those who have contended that the feature is undesirable but their attempt to deprecate it was unsuccessful - see Wikipedia:Limit the undo function. As for AGF, per WP:AOBF, by imputing a lack of good faith to use of the default edit summary, you yourself display a lack of AGF. Please see the Sermon on the Mount for traditional advice on the matter such as The Mote and the Beam and judge not lest ye be judged. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society Userify

Hi ! I have rewritten the article AfD'd last spring, and am working with the administrator to repost. Could you review and offer suggestions? It is HERE. --Cmagha (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll take a look and do what I can. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If you check the article history and the talk page there have been serious questions raised about the sourcing which means that the article has still not overcome the notability concerns raised in the original AFD. In particular there have been suggestions that sources have been puffed up and mischaracterised . As such restoring a recently G¤ deleted article to mainspace was not necessarily the best move you could make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• * * Thanks ! Just got back from a festival up in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, and this was great news! Can't seem to find the article, please vector me in ! --Cmagha (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to be back at User:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Wow; just read through yesterday's comments on Spartaz's user pages; please accept my apology for asking you for comments. Emotions seem to be high on this one, and I need to keep Spartaz neutral as he is the administrator. He/she has a complicated record at this point. Thanks for the read through; we'll soldier on --Cmagha (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your disruptive move of List of renamed Indian public places

If you had actually read the comments above mine in the AfD, you'd realize that the idea to move the article to List of renamed Indian cities and states was not even mine, it was suggested and agreed upon by several editors. The move to that name had far more consensus than your reckless and disruptive move to List of renamed Indian places. Your edit summary on your move indicated that you wanted the article name to be "more general". My original move was actually a calculated one, in that it was an attempt to make the article less general, in the hopes that we could get it to a state where it would be a useful article. There was consensus for such a move, as opposed to the move you made. I actually withdrew my nomination for deletion, but I guess even that wasn't enough for you. Now, since you had to boldly move the article against consensus, we will have to wait for the AfD to end, then start a move request, and waste everyone's time by debating it all over again.

It seems clear from your actions and from the multiple complaints on your talk page that you are more apt to revert or boldly change something you don't like rather than starting a discussion about it. In the case of page moves (which are not revertable without admin attention) you should seriously consider starting a discussion (or at least reading and contributing to the one that was already in progress) before considering such a disruptive action. SnottyWong ^confer 16:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to state that as the user who suggested the move in the AFD debate, I don't think it was warranted to move it to List of renamed Indian places without any consensus to do so. Although in an ideal world, we'd wait until the AFD debate to close until moving, giving the list a clear scope is an obvious stage in rescuing it from deletion - I myself believe that deletion would be entirely unwarranted, but it's just the vagueness of the list which made it violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO at the previous location. I hope you understand. Claritas § 18:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• My action was taken in response to Snotty's bold move. The principal objective was to restore to the status quo ante as there seems to be no reason to limit the scope of the list specifically to an arbitrary selection of cities and states. I restored to the title of List of renamed places in India per User:Shyamsunder who had sensibly suggested that we follow the precedent of List of renamed places in the United States. This action was therefore neither disruptive nor without support from other editors. Now that the AFD is out of the way, we should continue the discussion about the scope of the article and its title at the relevant talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• You have attempted to move the page yet again, and you are now move warring. Your actions are so disruptive that the admin who closed the AfD had to protect the page so that you couldn't do further damage. You are seriously out of control. SnottyWong ^spout 06:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Orlady states that "discussion may lead to adopting a new name". At the continuing discussion, I seem to be part of the developing consensus while your position is unsupported. The score there stands at 3:1 against you. Your contention that I am an isolated maverick is therefore false. I shall continue to make constructive edits in this general area as seems appropriate and time permits. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Orlady's edit summary: "Restoring the name that was adopted less than 24 hours ago as a result of AfD. Maybe it needs a different name, but frequent moves are disruptive", and Orlady also lists the reason for page protections as Move warring. The "score" (assuming this is some sort of contest now) stood at 3 to 1 after only 3 hours since the discussion was started, but there are other opposing votes now. Surely you can't be delusional enough to believe that consensus had been established after 3 hours. So the AfD didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. Does that mean you have to go on a unilateral rampage and disrupt the process? You've been clearly warned by multiple editors that your actions are disruptive. Your input is welcome in the discussion, but if you continue to be overbearing, unilateral, and/or generally disruptive, I will seek further punitive measures. I respectfully ask (but do not demand) that you put forth your opinion on the article, but refrain from judging consensus and taking action. SnottyWong ^chatter 13:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 4 Girls 4 Harps

I have nominated 4 Girls 4 Harps, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Girls 4 Harps. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:DTTR and WP:HARASS. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you create articles on subjects of questionable notability is the reason why they get nominated for deletion. You're not so interesting to me that I go out of my way to annoy you. Claritas § 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree tht this article should be kept, and in relation to this you can cite airplay just like anything else (see how the episode itself is cited at "Partners in Crime" for instance). Incidentally, I'm not sure why you alleged harassment above? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel special, I've been accused of harassing the Colonel because I nominated one article he created for deletion. SnottyWong ^comment 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional Scots

Sorry Colonel, here is another one! List of fictional Scots, has been listed for deletion, since I don't think it is likley to be a useful list. Please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Scots. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:USELESS which explains that this is an argument to avoid unless backed up with reasons. Working on the list did seem useful to me, as it happens. It highlighted that the corresponding category was poorly populated and I found that James Bond is Scottish, which I feel the better for knowing. I have commented further on the policy-based considerations in the relevant discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) - if the category's underpopulated....WP:SOFIXIT. Claritas § 22:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another warning for disruptive edits

You are clearly and purposefully trying to disrupt this AfD discussion with these edits: [7][8]. Please stop. You've been warned. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And you have tried to do it yet again: [9]. One more time and I will be forced to seek administrator intervention. The {{ARSnote}} template is not a "heckle", as you imply in your edit summary. I don't care if you delete the comment underneath which specifically names you as the editor who tagged the article for rescue (which was added by your partner in crime, MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), as seen here), but repeatedly trying to remove the {{ARSnote}} template is getting quite tiresome, and is beyond disruptive. SnottyWong ^confess 14:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• These annotations of yours seem improper and extraneous to the main discussion. When I tried adding a similar annotation, you removed it and so your complaints lack symmetry. Either these annotations must be neutral and comprehensive or we should not have them at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The ARS page itself encourages you to add notices (such at {{ARSnote}} or {{Afdrescue}}) to the AfD page when tagging an article for rescue. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Instructions:

As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers.
You can also add the template {{subst:Afdrescue}} to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue.

Your own organization created the template that I'm adding to the rescue-tagged AfD's. The notification template is not improper. Adding similar notices for cleanup tags, however, is completely unprecedented and has no purpose other than to be pointy or to start some kind of a war with me. I know you are aware of the discussions at both Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Follow your own instructions, as well as the attempted deletion of the template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 30#Template:ARSnote, because you contributed to both, so don't attempt to feign ignorance. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the above and have no idea who wrote it. People constantly come up with well-meaning ideas of this sort but, per WP:CREEP, they must be resisted if they have no obvious value. What might be useful is some annotation indicating significant changes to the article - the addition of sources or a substantial rewrite. I sometimes provide commentary on such improvements in a freestyle way. I shall consider whether annotations might be useful, providing details of the sources added, in particular, as these are often decisive. But we must be careful that the tail does not wag the dog - we are here to write articles and it is they they should get the significant editing effort. It is quite absurd that AFD leaves a great trail of elaborate discussions which are never deleted while numerous articles of good value to our readership are censored and otherwise mutilated. It is a great waste of effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and it is not shared by everyone. I am not responsible for the creation of the template either, but there is clear consensus for its use, as evidenced by the recent TfD. It is true that we are here to write articles, but there is also a great need for a balancing force to ensure the continuing high quality of the encyclopedia and its articles. As many editors are apt to create articles on subjects which are not useful or which degrade the overall quality of the project, XfD's are a necessary administrative function, and are absolutely not a waste of effort. However, I have no interest in arguing with you anymore, because our views are clearly not aligned, and no amount of writing messages back and forth with you is going to change that. Just keep the discussions civil, leave the {{ARSnote}} templates alone (or add them yourself when you tag the article for rescue), and we won't have any problems. This thread is a warning to you regarding your actions. If your actions continue and I need to start an ANI thread, I will be referring to this discussion. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that if you disagreed with the template, why not voice your opinion at the TFD? I have the same concerns over the template but in the end, there was a consensus supporting it. In my view, you should treat that template the same way you'd want people who voted against an article that you supported that was ultimately kept to act. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AfDs? Sigh. "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

Hi Colonel W,
Consider her ways... - I wish I had written that. Neatly summarises most of WP:BEFORE, and as a bonus highlights the fact that if you don't have at least a passing knowledge of the KJV and Shakespeare, you can't really grok the English language. I propose that WP:SLUGGARD becomes an official policy guideline for AfDs.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly Billy

I'm a big fan of your article. Have you thought of putting it up for a Do You Know? Bob talk 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words - how did you find it so quickly? I did wonder about DYK but I'm never quite sure how to tell whether it's big enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I can't quite remember why it's on my watchlist. I have a feeling that there used to be a short article about it as a catchphrase (Mike Yarwood, etc) that must have been deleted at some point, and that it used to get a lot of people adding things like "my brother Dave" and so forth! I never knew all that about the Victorian clown, etc, though - very interesting. Bob talk 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to see someone doing prod patrolling.

I think a lot of stuff slips through the cracks without anyone noticing till it's too late. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 09:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

News raiding

I've said my piece on Paul Yarrow, I'll leave that AfD alone now. As for the general topic of 'news raiding' (or whatever it might be called), there might be scope for an article. We've got some underdeveloped articles on Attention seeking, Publicity stunt, Media circus, Media prank, Photo op, Culture jamming, and Media event, which all touch on this area, but nothing that I can find that covers this particular angle. Another example that springs to mind is the kid who made a "gun gesture" behind David Cameron during his "hug a hoodie" tour of an estate. Fences&Windows 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's some weak sources:[10][11]. The general phenomenon of inserting yourself into a photo is called "Photobombing" (the redirect Photobomb to Practical joke is up for deletion right now). Fences&Windows 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr Blofeld

Blofeld's sig is within policy, as it links to at least one of his user page or user talk page. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is going to get changed. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Dr. Blofeld ^{££££££££££} 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There really is nothing wrong with balck and white, its pretty plain really. You think mine is bad, check out User talk:Pilif12p. At least I use classy colours. Maybe you are right and its time for a change, its not something I really think about.

Try that:

Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Silly Billy

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this article got over 5000 views when it was on the main page, so that was certainly worth doing. Bob talk 15:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, it seems to have been my best DYK yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Anish Kapoor - Svayambh detail.jpg

We need a source and more information about this picture. It was taken at the Royal Academy in London? If you took it then the source for the template is {{own}}. Without a source filled in there it may be deleted. It's also being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Anish_Kapoor_-_Svayambh_detail.jpg, in case you wanted to know. — raekyT 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gloom

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I must admit, although I'm a mathematician, I did do college botany long, long ago. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Fæ (2)

Raising your comment about WP:BEFORE in my editor review seems odd as to do so would imply that you believe there is a sustained pattern of me failing to apply the BEFORE guidance in AFD nominations. In the only one that I have raised that I'm aware of you commenting on, Elfwood, there is a mix of keep and delete opinions, the article was previously raised for deletion with no conclusion and I took pains to explain what searches I had already done before nominating the article.

The two book examples you have raised in the AFD do indeed mention Elfwood, however as with most of the other sources discussed they use the forum as one example of such forums and say little to make notability unambiguous. It is clear from the nomination that I did not do a book search, but did check the sources and ran a Google News search and well as a general Google search. I also pointed out that in the 3 years 7 months that the article has had to improve since the last nomination no citations had been added to make notability unarguable, making fresh ground-breaking citations unlikely in the near future. Running all possible variations of searches for sources is not a requirement of BEFORE, only that reasonable efforts have been made in good faith.

I would appreciate a bit more detail of what you think I have fundamentally failed to do in applying or understanding BEFORE that makes it worth complaining about on my editor review page and declaring it as a poorly judged nomination rather than, for example, approaching me on my talk page or using the article or deletion discussion pages. Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

List of songs about Oklahoma

Expecting the house to build itself, are we? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see house-building for a simple account of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

• Unisex Dress (AfD discussion)

I have a bit of a backlog at the moment. But this is rescuable. Unisex was a well-documented fashion fad of the 1960s and 1970s. There's a feature by Helen Carlton in the 1968-06-21 edition of LIFE, an article on the fad in Marum's and Parise's Follies and foibles, and an article in Hoffmann's and Bailey's Fashion & merchandising fads. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I had already glanced briefly at the AFD. You're right about the potential, of course, but I would call the article Unisex clothing or Unisex fashion. The current title seems open to confusion about whether one is talking about an actual dress like a muumuu. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional currencies

Thanks for flagging up those sources at the AFD. I've added material from Greenwood, and the limited amount google books preview allows in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, but I don't have access to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Is there any chance you can integrate information from there into the article? Do you think anything here (from The Guide to Writing Fantasy and Science Fiction by Philip Athans and R. A. Salvatore might be worth including too? TheGrappler (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, kudos on this AFD comment! "Why should we work on an article when editors like you say that it should be deleted? It is more sensible to wait until this disruptive threat has been waived. In my comment above, I provide a link to a source and more may be readily found by using the search links at the head of the discussion. Editors who simply look at the current version of the article are failing to consider the topic properly." I worked my socks off to rescue The CIA and September 11 (book) once, but just as many times I've thrown work at an AFD article and seen it vanish off to join the great red links upstairs ... it's a matter of picking such struggles carefully, I fear. TheGrappler (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re RfA

Comment much appreciated. It's nice to know at least one person got my name. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Purl

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Connormah's RfA

I just saw your oppose and had a slight frisson of concern, because when I was more active you and I seemed to have the same instincts, yet I've supported this RfA. Have I missed something important here? I did a quick due diligence and AFAICS Connormah has sufficient content skills, even though he doesn't use them much. - Pointillist (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing important. The candidate just seems to lack bottom. Most of his edits were made this year and seem quite narrow in scope. His content creation seems to be of a rote, box-ticking sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks - Pointillist (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I am honored to present you with the Barnstar of Recovery for your work improving the article Memories of Murder (film) in the face of its pending deletion. Just goes to show just how important a truely diligent WP:BEFORE is to the project. Well done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• When I placed the rescue tag, I was thinking of you as you seem to specialise in saving movies. Glad you like the work so far and thanks for the barnstar. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic probation (2nd nomination)

Please identify with proof the subcase of WP:SK#2 that you accuse me of violating by nominating the above AFD, or withdraw your accusation forthwith. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly 2.3 with elements of 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5. 2.3 is "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". The previous nomination was a Keep in which nobody agreed with your proposition that the article be deleted. Your claim that "I must therefore conclude that the sources which users alleged must exist are not in fact available" seemed counterfactual as Abductive had pointed to a specific source in the previous discussion. Please check the previous discussion more carefully before making repeat nominations as our deletion policy indicates that such action may be considered disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

collapsed section

on BigDom RFA may be going to cause some issues as I posted below your comments and the numbering was disturbed, perhaps you know how to format it correctly? Just a note, I moved my post above yours to keep the numbering correct. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re [12], you don't get to keep your rambling discussion on the main RfA page when it is disturbing the structure of the nomination. In line with previous practice, I have again moved the discussion to the talk page where it is perfectly visible but will not break the numbering and formatting of the page. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Your action seems improper so I have reverted and started this discussion of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wine humour

-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Tongue-in-cheek from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, CodeHydro, award you, Colonel Warden, this barnstar because of the special role you play in the Article Rescue Squadron. While your efforts to improve articles that are up for deletion have been acknowledged many times in the past, you deserve at at least as much recognition for your watchful eye patrolling the Articles for Deletion and flagging the Rescue Squadron countless times for many a worthy article that would not have otherwise been saved. On behalf of Wikipedia readers and writers, I salute you. —CodeHydro 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I try to check every AFD and your encouragement of this work is appreciated. Your own efforts seem significant too. While we will no doubt get our reward in heaven, it's good to have little on account too. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, do you think we should push to expand the article for promotion at WP:DYK? It's really not that far off from reaching the 5x expansion criteria. It would be like a sign of defiance against deletion or something ;) —CodeHydro 15:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm working on another article for DYK and the clock is ticking but I'll see what more I can find for the distance article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

Thanks for listing that one for rescue. I noted the extent of coverage this subject has seen historically in the deletion discussion. This really was a huge deal long ago.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. The topic clearly excites opinion here too. I may start a more general article to widen the topic, if we don't have one already, as it seems quite fruitful. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It drives me crazy when editors assume something isn't notable with absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter! when this happens among folks who are supposed to be interested in knowledge, its frightening.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please practice collaborative editing

Hi there. Writing revert per talk in an edit summary suggest that you have participated in some discussion on the article's talk page. You have not. As a matter of fact, you have never explained yourself in edit summary or on a talk page during the 3 or 4 times you have reverted my edits. That is inappropriate. Do I really have to ask for intervention when you could just discuss the issue?— TAnthony^Talk 07:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Muad'Dib#Content. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, but when are you going to explain why you think these items are appropriate for the article? That would be refreshing.— TAnthony^Talk 07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Patience, Ed Gruberman" ... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature

My signature has evolved further...Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's rather cold and clinical now but this perhaps suits the Blofeld character. But I'm not sure what effect you seek to achieve. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Air Training Corps squadrons

You recently removed the PROD tag from the above article without stating a reason why. "tags" is totally insufficient. In future please do not remove tags without good reason and refer your comments/justification to the talk page.

With regards to this article it has been given plenty of time (over a year) to be edited to a decent standard, this has not happened, the article as its stands does not meeet Wikipedia standards so hence the PROD. Any further action on your part which removes such tags in the future will be taken as vandalism and be reported. Pandaplodder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:CONTESTED which explains that PROD tags may not be restored. They are only for unopposed deletion and this is not the case here. This list is quite proper, being comparable with List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. As for vandalism, please note the OED definition: "ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, the list does not conform to Wikipedia standards, the deletion of the ATC list is backed up by others, You have added nothing to this list, it is a list for list sake and it has no real value, the Army Cadet list is far worse in that it is badly edited. Both articles have been given ample chance to be corrected. the ATC list is due to be removed today, the tag remains, if you have a valid opinion please use the talk page. The list of Royal Air Force Squadrons link to articles about individual squadrons concerned, the ATC list links nothing more than to place names that have nothing in common apart from locality and do not mention the ATC. Pandaplodder (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The distance (boxing)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Email disclaimer

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society article review

Colonel, thanks for the help last year as Cmagha and I were userifying the article. We are now at DRV; Spartaz gave us the green light to post it for comments. Would you review and comment? You can find the DRV here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Active_discussions Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an organ that one plays in one's house, surely?

I'm rather torn between writing tactical reload (AfD discussion) (which is under a single umbrella with speed reload in what sources I've found so far), Directory System Agent (AfD discussion), and something outwith Wikipedia that I really should be. In case you missed it, there's a DYK up for grabs. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I saw your post at Bongomatic - that's what got me to check out the AFD - I usually work a day in arrears. I might have a go but my muse hasn't really twitched yet and I doubt that it will be deleted now. Also, there is the issue of whether there should be more than one article - one for internal publications and the other for external. They are usually quite different in focus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fully endorsed at DRV"

• "keep in mind you can still merge it if you feel like it."
• "merge is still a valid editorial option not needing AfD/DRV oversight"
• "This, of course, doesn't preclude a merge to EAN."
• "the fact that this close doesn't proscribe a merge doesn't preclude one"
• "no view on a merge"
• "Per others above, you can still merge"

So assuming that you actually read the DRV, please explain how the decision to merge is against consensus? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I will actually be asking you to explain your position on this, otherwise your refusal to engage in discussion will preclude your position from being upheld. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You've edited twice since I left you this message. If you don't respond before your next edit, I will be redirecting the article as per the above consensus in the morning. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• If further discussion is required then this should be done at the article's talk page. I shall be offline for some time but currently oppose merger, as you see. Your earlier action in claiming to merge without actually doing so seemed improper and so was reverted as disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  Can you please explain to me how the above comments don't qualify as consent to a merge? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you !

Thank you so much for trying to save Numeracy in Latin America from the people who want to throw it away ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

On Sourcing

Heh, your post on Uncle G's talk page reminded me of his essay which directly addresses the point you are making: User:Uncle G/On sources and content. I recommend giving it a read --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G's opinions are always worth considering though I might differ on some details. Regarding the AFD, I'm not sure why you've quoted me in bold in the middle - was that a mistake or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustine: The Decline of the Roman Empire

You removed the prod on Augustine: The Decline of the Roman Empire without comment or. Can you provide more information on why you are contesting this proposed deletion?--RadioFan (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page where I have provided links to sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you added a template that will search for sources, but I dont see any sources. How do you see this article meeting notability guidelines? Please be more specific.--RadioFan (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• You click on the links to see the sources. In this case, News is best because the series is a recent one. Most of the sources seem to be in Italian. That is not a language that I can read easily so I have not gone further. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

hi there good buddy! Thanks for putting me on the right track yet again, don't know what I would do without you!

I find it very interesting that you suddenly developed an interest in the international airshows navbox right after I made a comment at an unrelated afd that you surely didn't like very much. What an odd coincidence! And that you found fault with my additions to the navbox but did not bother to evaluate whether the other entries met the new criterion you just made up out of the blue. That is simply fascinating! Isn't that just an amazing coincidence, that everywhere we run into one another you manage to identify the fact that I am dead wrong and you have some broad declaration to make that is intended to override any actions I have may have taken in perpetuity? A person less inclined to assume good faith than myself might even think you just don't like me and are now deliberately hounding me and stalking my edits, but I know better than that... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• In one of the various recent discussions, you said that you improve articles as well as trying to delete them. I was curious and so looked at your contributions. The first contribution of a constructive kind was the air show matter. As I am interested in aviation and have been to several air shows, I reviewed the edit and then followed the link to our article about the Dayton show. This did not seem to be an international air show and so here we are.

Since you raise the matter, I look deeper to see what other sources say about this. Cities of the United States: The Midwest says "The Dayton International Airshow and Trade Exposition, one of the largest of its kind in the world, draws more than two hundred thousand spectators to the Dayton International Airport." If the show still had this formal title then it would qualify by the criteria that I suggested. But, twenty years on, it now seems to be called just the Vectren Dayton Air Show and the attendance has fallen. So I'm still thinking that it doesn't make the cut. The general point here is that the template should be discriminating as it might otherwise list hundreds of air shows and so become too unwieldy. If you don't care for my suggestion then please invite comment from the Aviation project, which is usually fairly active. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Colonel, now you are just being vindictive with the {{fact}} tag. You made up an inclusion criterion for the navbox on the spot. You applied that criterion to the latest edit by me and looked no further than that. As that was obviously wrong since numerous other shows listed in the navbox do not meet your newly made up criterion, I reverted that change and asked in my edit summary that the criterion be applied evenly or not at all. This time you don't have a policy to use like a blunt object the way you like to do with WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, you are going to have to either rationalize and gain consensus for your completely arbitrary new criterion or let it go. Your latest change has been reverted by a previously uninvolved user so it's not just me who does not see the logic of your position. And clearly you still have not bothered to even check on the numerous other entries in the navbox that fail your criterion. As you are the one who made up this new criterion, once again the onus is on you to back it up, so if you want to ask the aviation WikiProject if they support your unilateral decision to decide what goes in the navbox, be my guest. Please do be sure to be more thorough in applying it instead of just blindly undoing only my latest addition and completely ignoring all the others that also do not fit it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I could offer any advice to Beeblebrox, it would be to not waste too much time trying to reason with the Colonel. History shows that your efforts will not be rewarded. SnottyWong ^spout 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted a pointer at the Aviation project as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Un-close

Please re-open the AfD you closed. Other than responding to a straw poll a while ago, I was not in any way involved with the revert war over redirecting the articles -- and that dispute seems to have already ended two weeks ago (talk-page discussion halted, no more reverts of redirects). My nomination of the article was rooted entirely in it's failure to assert notability through references to secondary sources, an entirely valid rationale I've been using for a while. The appended dab. text makes it an unlikely search term, hence no need to consider a redirect discussion, and my nomination further explains no need to consider a merge. --EEMIV (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that you are likely to give my opinion much weight, but someone with your extremist views probably shouldn't be closing AFDs based on your own personal interpretation of policy. I would suggest you let an uninvolved admin handle it, or let the AFD run it's course in the normal fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. Please don't insert yourself into situations where your viewpoints will cause any "administrative action" to be taken controversially.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue was taken to ANI, consensus established there (and here), and NAC was reverted by an uninvolved editor. SnottyWong ^express 02:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While I generally share your opinions on episode notability, a NAC speedy closure is counterproductive. Please don't do that again; I generally use 6 uncontested keeps as a minimum threshold for SNOW closure, and strongly encourage you to keep a similarly high threshold such that it's clear that such a close is in line with the discussion rather than attempting to short cut it. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• The point of Speedy Keep is to terminate inappropriate nominations quickly so that time is not wasted on unnecessary discussion. It is therefore sensible to use the process early in discussion rather than late. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that your definition of "inappropriate" is not the same as anyone else's. SnottyWong ^prattle 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Col., thanks for barnstar, it is much appreciated! I apologize for tripping over your edits. I've merged the blurbs on Fleming, please feel free to edit it any way that you would deem fit. I do have a concern about the information added about Richard Trevithick. I'm not sure he was at all affiliated with UCL other than that his train ran in the vicinity and the plaque is near the school. It may not be appropriate to make him such a focus of that section of the article (and thus have the cited reference dismissed). CrazyPaco (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The association is made by the cited source and so seems reasonable. The plaque is actually on the lab not just near it. I was keen to have the photo as it is adds interest to the article and helps set the context of the institution at the heart of the industrial revolution. I cycled past the campus today but couldn't spot it but found an existing photo that we could use. A photo which shows more of the building itself might be better so I'll take a selection next time I get a chance. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that and do think the plaque and setting are pertinent. My concern was primarily based on the article's current level of scrutiny. I'm adding a caption to the photo that you might want to review, and switching the placement, but feel free to switch it back. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we just try to talk this out?

I know you are probably sick of hearing from me by now, but I would like to try and hash this out. I've been considering why I have reacted so strongly to your recent remarks, as I am usually fairly able to keep my cool. I don't want to get into a big blame game with you, I'm willing to admit my own culpability in lowering the tone of some of these conversations, but have you ever considered the possibility that you are maybe more than a little bit condescending to other user when you disagree with them? Disagreement is unavoidable here, but we don't have to be at each others throats all the time just because we see things a little differently. The problem is that I, like many others, don't like it when someone comes along and makes a broad declarative statement that appears to be intended to simply shut down input from any and all views that contradict it. In short, I don't react well to being given orders by someone who has no authority to issue orders. I wouldn't pretend I can order you around despiute the fact that I have several advanced permissions here and I believe I have a solid understanding of most of the more important policies. I don't know if the "Colonel" name is for real, maybe you really are somebody who is used to having their orders followed in the real world, but I'm sure you know that is not how it works here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I warned you... SnottyWong ^spout 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I must be brief as it is late. Your gesture of reconciliation is understood and appreciated. I have no particular desire for conflict but accept that I have a curt style which may offend. To help understand how this comes about it may help to know that I am British and tend to follow the formal manners of the older generation. In person, you would find me stiff rather than touchy-feely - an archetypal Brit who is horrified by the idea of hugging and affects a stiff upper lip. Online communication tends to exacerbate and encourage prickly encounters and we are hardly the first editors to strike sparks off each other on Wikipedia. Please chalk this up to cultural differences and accept my assurances that I harbour no grudge or ill will. Depending upon the next topic, we may differ again or agree - it is not predictable as I prefer to jump about rather than stick to one topic.

To clarify, I am not a Colonel. The account name is an allusion to Colonel Warden - a distinguished Brit who used that name as a cover when travelling incognito. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's actually pretty cool, I didn't know that about Churchill. Since we are laying our cultural identities out I suppose I should mention that I am an Alaskan, an odd breed of American with a marked tendency to bristle at anything that even looks like an order from "outside" and to sometimes act first and think about it later (i.e. our recent electoral history). I'm glad we were able to have this discussion, and I sincerely hope any further encounters we have in the future will go more smoothly now that we have a better understanding of each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Yusuf Smith

Since it is not appropriate to talk about other articles in that AfD, I am replying her about Matthew Yusuf Smith, you will see on the talk page the sources used to demonstrate nobility, none of which are in any way related. You are free to nominate that for AfD if you feel that it does not meet the standards of WP:BIO or WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• This article provides an excellent example of your behaviour. The topic does not otherwise interest me and so I leave the due diligence process to others. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I know you've already got a few of these, but please have another for what you did for Tiger versus lion - you turned what to me started as a blatantly obvious Delete into a pretty decent article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And, you've beat me to it as I was going to give you a barnstar for changing your position - would that all editors at AFD were so fair-minded. I was waiting until the close and so will do it now. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That was very kind, many thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads

Hi. :) I'm afraid you must have overlooked that the RfA in question is closed and archived when you modified its contents here. As the tag indicates, it should not be modified further; in that way, its contents are an accurate reflection of the state of the conversation at the time the bureaucrat closed it. I've restored it to the last version. You might want to take up the conversation elsewhere in an active fora if you think it's necessary. I considered moving it to the talk page, but, frankly, I'm not sure the benefit of that since I'm not sure it would ever be seen there. It seemed better to bring it to you so that you can find an "open" home for it, if needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• It will keep. I wonder why such discussions are not protected to prevent such inadvertent continuation? Both your time and mine would have been saved if this had been done. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Got me. That would seem to be the sensible solution. :) I've altered closed RfAs myself in the past without realizing that they had been archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of guard dog breeds

Apparently we are crossing swords on this one (I prodded it four days ago "as an unreferenced list that has been tagged since March 2009"). I don't like unreferenced lists but I'd be happy to help fix this one if you are serious. Do you have a reference that supports multiple breeds "Ranked as better Guard Dogs in order of suitability"? If so, I might be able to help with research: I've got a Westminster Library card (which was originally to check sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House organ) and fwiw I'm a Bodleian reader, though when I'm in Oxford I've usually got far more pressing tasks than wp research. I'll watch this page for replies. - Pointillist (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• The topic seems easy enough to improve online. I shall respond further at the article where I already placed some links to sources. Regarding libraries, I've been thinking of joining the London Library but am not sure it would be much help with this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• The redirect to Guard dog has done the trick. As for the London Library, that is an excellent idea for anyone as dedicated to sourcing as you. At present I wouldn't have enough time to get the benefit of it, but one day.... Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

TPH

What Is… Cliff Clavin?

Good find on the sources dude. How come I didn't find ANY of that in a search? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song)

Why did you remove both the prod and unreferenced tags? You didn't comment on the prod removal (which you should), and the article doesn't have a single reference. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he felt it was pretty obvious this was a notable song, and not worthy of a prod. Do you notice that a rather large number of things you nominate for deletion, end up being kept? Maybe you could spend more time going through the ample Google news and Google book results, before trying to delete something. Dream Focus 05:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be that TPH doesn't know how to search effectively. I have suggested a better technique at the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Turbulence models

Hi, I've replaced the {{prod}} template on the turbulence modeling page. Rewriting the lead and adding a single reference doesn't address the issue with the page. If you disagree with the proposal, please discuss it on the talk page, rather than deleting the request for deletion. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

{{prod}} templates should not be replaced. Please see WP:CONTESTED. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the text above it? "1. Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. 2. Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! tag on their user talk page. 3. Add or modify an {{Old prod full}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past Proposed Deletion Candidates for easy tracking. 4. Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised." You did none of these. Additionally, your action was contrary to what the template itself says: "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Please leave comments on the talk page (preferred since there is a place there for you to vote on and discuss the issue), or a message in your edit summary, if you're going to delete {{prod}}. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your comments are counterfactual as I improved the article by rewriting its lead and adding a citation. I also posted to the article's talk page and observe that you have reverted this action. In any case, this is moot as it is well established that PRODs may be not replaced as they are purely for uncontroversial cases, not contested ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Your improvements weren't even factual! You can fully solve the Navier Stokes equations, it's called direct numerical simulation. You made no improvement to the article, as you either didn't understand the reference, or communicate the information in the reference correctly. If you would like to discuss the deletion of the article, please do so at the talk page here. If you give me a well-reasoned argument why the page should be kept, and follow the steps above, you can remove {{prod}}. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• DNS is not practical in most cases. In any case, it is irrelevant because prods cease to be relevant once the matter is contested. The process you are looking for is WP:AFD. You'd be wasting your time there too though as this topic is quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• DNS is practical in some cases, so your point still does not stand. I agree the topic is notable, I just don't want to see a bunch of articles trying to cover the same thing (and all doing a poor job of it). Maybe something different needs to be done, like moving most of the coverage of turbulence models on computational fluid dynamics to turbulence models and redirecting to that page from the CFD page. I'm glad you're bringing up these points, they help the deletion discussion. Also, thanks for pointing out the difference between AFD and PROD. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of tags

If you again remove the cleanup and unreferenced tags on Amish furniture without either cleaning up the article or adding reliable and suitable references, I will be reverting your changes as vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus for the use of such banner tags on articles. Numerous editors find them intrusive and unhelpful. See Village Pump for a recent example of such sentiment.
2. Your position is contradictory in that you are proposing that the article be deleted. To simultaneously add tags suggesting improvement is disruptive as the two propositions cannot both be satisfied.
3. The ARS template provides a better exhortation to editors in improving the article in that it provides search and other helpful links. To have other banner templates too is redundant.

I shall therefore revert your action. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an unreasonable standpoint to take. First of all, the village pump discussion you linked to is about bots adding cleanup tags, not editors manually adding cleanup tags. I can't see any logical reason to remove an {{unreferenced}} tag from an article that has zero references, as you did here. Cleanup tags alert editors to problems with articles. It also allows editors to group articles by problem type. That way, editors who are interested in, for example, fixing spelling and grammar mistakes can go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Copy_edit and easily find articles that need to be cleaned up. Removing cleanup tags without fixing the problem is unquestionably vandalism. I will be monitoring your contributions to ensure that you aren't making a habit out of this behavior. SnottyWong ^prattle 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can imagine (and probably fully expected), since you have ignored my comments above and continued removing cleanup tags without fixing the problem, I have started yet another discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate cleanup tag removal regarding your behavior. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi CW, just so you know there was a recent discussion on my talk page archived here, which could possibly be of interest. I think what I'm trying to say, is that while I don't always agree with you, I'd prefer if the maintenance tags were less obtrusive. Have you considered setting up a project space page to brainstorm ideas? Or perhaps a Request for Comment on the subject? PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. I have been involved in other discussions about this and have some ideas. A good model to follow seems to be {{coord missing}}, which is nicely inconspicuous.