User talk:BigHaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

My Policy[edit]

Now that I'm here, feel free to put any questions/concerns/comments below (preferably in their own section) if you want me to respond. Please specify where you want any responses (if they're necessary). Unless otherwise specified - or unless there's a good reason to do so - I'll reply here. Further, I can and will reply to deliberately inflammatory remarks in order to provide context, should the situation escalate or be at risk of doing so.

If you're wondering why an article was deleted, please read this page first. It should at least serve to clarify the situation, even if it doesn't give you an answer. I'm more than willing to answer, of course, but I'll assume that you've read it through.

I can now also be Emailed if you feel that that's a better way to do things. I can't say that I'm a convert to the idea just as yet, but we'll see how it goes. If you want to guarantee a fast response, please accompany your Email with a comment here (just something like "check your Emails" or "I've commented on the such-and-such by Email" should do the trick).

Where archiving is concerned, I'll archive all "dead" discussions when the page gets too long and leave "live" ones out for a while. That way we don't run the risk of having bits and pieces scattered everywhere.

Point taken.[edit]

You're right. There's never an excuse to make a personal attack against an individual editor. So let me ask you a question your record of communication demonstrates you'll appreciate: Why can't the Australians teach their sons not to be dicks? Much love, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is now the second time this editor has referred to me personally as a "dick", and this particular instance was in the guise of an apology of sorts. Given that my initial edit summary was a vague attempt at humour, his responses seem out of proportion to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. We Yanks iz (a) senzative abowt ower kimmand of Inglish and (b) too preocuppied with more important matters to appreciate any but the most unambiguous stabs at levity. I apologize for overreacting.—DCGeist (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November 2008[edit]

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Proposed deletion of Charlie Chaplin (song)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charlie Chaplin (song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.[edit]

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


3[edit]

Yes, you were within your rights, but you made no attempts to support your view or seek consensus and you simply started what could have easily degenerated into an edit war. And I believe that source you removed to be completely viable because what is being referenced is not in the content taken from wikipedia. Not a big deal though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEiP (talkcontribs) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. If the only thing in the source I removed that wasn't cited to Wikipedia is taken as evidence, we have perhaps the flimsiest source I've seen in several years. That particular thing is the title of the page, which is something like "Prog-Archives", so all that demonstrates is that someone, somewhere along the line, believes that the band is a progressive rock act. To demonstrate the fallacy of using this as proof of anything bar an opinion, consider the bands listed on Metal-Archives - not all of the entries are for bands which have performed in the heavy metal genre for their entire careers (indeed some of them are for bands which have never performed in the heavy metal genre), and not all bands which have performed heavy metal at any given point are included. Thus, inclusion in that site simply demonstrates that someone thought they should be included there, and given what I found on the Prog-Archives (or whatever it was called) site, I strongly suspect they operate on the same basis.
Indeed, I'm being charitable by not removing more of those citations. All that they demonstrate is people referring to the band very briefly as a prog act, which again only demonstrates that certain people believe it to be true. Mercifully, there was no attempt to re-insert the claim that the band plays "experimental" music, but even the idea that it plays "progressive" music is shaky. If we take bands such as Tull, ELP, Floyd, Yes and even Rush as being unquestionably prog acts and then we listen to 3's discography (as I forced myself to recently), we see precisely no similarities. One or two songs are comparatively long, but that doesn't make prog-rock by itself. What we see is moderately skilled alternative rock music with a pop sensibility. Yes, that's my opinion only, but until there's a source out there that can demonstrate where these similarities are, I'll stick to it thanks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2008[edit]

Note: from now on the Newsletter will be "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Happy Holidays![edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Traditional Banana Boat.jpg

Dear BigHaz, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OperaSydney-Fuegos2006-342289398.jpg

Hope all is well with you B! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009[edit]

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


The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost

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

Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost

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

Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost

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

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nami[edit]

I did not add any thing improper to Kazutsugi Nami page or any other page. You must be mistaken about username etc....Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Who are you really ?[edit]

BTW Are you Nami's lawyer ? Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Just a couple of examples of where you added unreferenced controversial material:
here and here. There's also this edit, which is a bit more extreme. Each one of those edits made by you - or at least made by a person logged in as you - had the effect of adding unreferenced and controversial material to the article. Nami may ultimately be found guilty, but until that's the case, we can't say that he is. Consult the relevant policy guide for more information on this point, or ask me if you're unclear.
I'm not "Nami's lawyer". I'm an editor on this website, and as a result I'm responsible at least in part for making sure that policies and guidelines are upheld. Moreover, I'm an admin here, too, which gives me added responsibilities in that and other areas. In other words, I've been around here long enough to know how the site and its policies work, and I'm happy to help you out if you're having difficulty as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You also may want to be careful about edits such as this and edit summaries such as this in future, too. The idea behind Wikipedia is to try to edit calmly and avoid calling people names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken[edit]

I did not add any controversial info to ANY page Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talkcontribs) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it clear[edit]

I only added " which he used to fool tens of thousands of people, defrauding away more than US$ 1.4 billion. " because it is there on almost all papers...please read it.

I never added "and attempting to take over the world" phrase, it was already there. I might have retained it while editing but under no circumstance did I put it there...

Nevertheless, I think you are right.

As about the other edits I made recently there was nothing scandlous about them. I REVERTED the name of images on SIKH page because someone had mistakingingly changed them, not knowing the difference between general text in page and image names ( please read it again )

Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Close, but not quite. The links I've added (which we call "diffs") show - in red - precisely the changes that you made to the Nami article. So, in the first one, you've removed the term "allegedly" and argued in your edit summary that "that is beyond dispute". It is not "beyond dispute" at all. At present, Nami has only been accused of fooling these people. Yes, the evidence looks rather damning, but a court has not yet said "Nami fooled these people", so neither can we.
In the second diff, you've added the claim that he "defrauded away" an amount of money. Again, a court has not said "Nami defrauded people of this amount of money", so neither can we. Until a court says that, it's not proven. The law and our policies are quite clear on the matter - until something is proven legally (rather than in the court of public opinion), it's an allegation and not a fact. Furthermore, when it is proven legally, we still need a reliable source to say that it was proven legally. In the same way as I can't go around claiming that you've done something nasty and illegal, neither can we write it about Nami or about any other living person.
The third diff demonstrates the need to be careful when editing the articles relating to living people involved in controversial activities. The claim that Nami was trying to take over the world was not in the version you edited and was in the version you saved after you finished. There is also another diff in which your edit summary claims that you're removing a personal attack, but you end up inserting another one, so again be careful.
The two other diffs I've pointed you to are different issues. Calling any other user "particularly dumb" as you did in the first of them is a personal attack, which is something editors are specifically cautioned to avoid. In the second one, the substance of your edit was very good indeed, but you referred to the previous editor as a "dumbhead", which is again a personal attack. Yes, the behaviour of other editors can be frustrating at times, but calling them names isn't a good idea.
Hopefully this explains the position a bit more than it did before. Always remember that we have to be very careful when talking about living people - particularly those accused of crimes - and always remember to avoid personal attacks directed at other editors. That way, everyone will work happily together. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

First of all let me apologize for being rude.

I am guilty of removing the word "allegedly"...Guess I was wrong. I apologize again.

But for the rest me explain...

When I saw this article for the first time it read :

Kazutsugi Nami (波和二, Nami Kazutsugi?) (b. 19 May 1933) is a Japanese businessman. He was arrested on February 4, 2009 on suspicion of orchestrating a massive investor fraud and attempting to take over the world.[1] He has invented the Enten currency which he plans to use when freed to wipe out the Japanese yen. Nami believes he is innocent. He's a sly little man


Also, kindly note the word "sly man" at end which I removed. Moreover the article had a "tag" telling that it had something to do with spaceflight, I , understandably, removed that, too. This was what I meant I said in the edit summary. Jon Ascton (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New Edits at Nami Article[edit]

Have made new edit at Kazutsugi Nami Article...have a look...and let me know if it is ok with you ? Jon Ascton (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking good to me. I know it can be annoying not to be able to add things which seem self-evident into articles, but it's ultimately for the best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost

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

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16
From the editorA new leaf
Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting
News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more
In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom
Dispatches
How busy was 2008?
WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games
Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins
Approved this week
Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - February 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »
The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of patter songs[edit]

Please do not keep reverting this article. What you are expressing is your point of view, and not an established fact. I read you comments on the talk page with interest but am not convinced by them. If you have a reference to support your claim then please provide it on the article's talk page. Blind reverting is not acceptable here and we work by consensus. The consensus is that it is a patter song. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, what I wrote on the talk page is evidence. If there are criteria to make something a patter song, and this given song doesn't meet them, it's not a patter song. That's the way these things work. If you want it to be a patter song, you have two options. The first is to broaden the definition of the term so that it lets this (and presumably others) in, and the second is to demonstrate that it actually meets the definition as laid out already. Calling it "blind reverting" is false, since there is a clearly-articulated rationale behind it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - April 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - July 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators[edit]

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Western Civ[edit]

Hello, I had gotten an e-mail from one of Western Civ's fans asking why they don't have a wikipedia page. I remembered that there had been one at one point in time so I traced it back to you. I am not an active wiki user, so I do hope you forgive my lack of knowledge on how this works. I have read the reason for deletion and I have also read all of the criteria that must be met by a band to be considered notable. If I read the deletion log correctly I see that the reason for deletion was listed as "expired prod - borderline db-band" That said, I am including (as references) in this message links to their three published albums, a list of press garnered and links to some of their fan pages online. If you google the words "Western Civ" the band is the second and third return on google. I do believe that these elements are all examples of "Notability" [1] as Wikipedia defines it for music. Since the page "Western Civ" [2] is simply being used to redirect people to the "Western Culture" article at the moment, I do hope you will reestablish this page to it's original form, as a wiki for the band "Western Civ"

References: Link to Western Civ's published works: [www.cdbaby.com/all/westernciv ] Link to Western Civ's media press kit which includes 10 (of over 100) published reviews and articles about "Western Civ" as well as a partial list of FM stations that are playing Western Civ's music: www.sonicbids.com/westernciv

Links to Western Civ's websites: www.myspace.com/westernciv www.twitter.com/westernciv www.westerncivrock.com

Please let me know where to go from here. I'll be looking forward to speaking with you further.

Thank You, Lessaun (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC) manager, Western Civ <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>

I'm hardly the most active user here these days either, but since you asked for a response it's the least I can do. Firstly, I'd point out that notability can and does evolve over time. A band may well not have been notable at the time the article was first added, but they may have become notable since then. If that's the case, there's no obstacle to an article being re-created.
That said, we need to look at the criteria carefully. The golden rule, as you've probably seen, is that the band needs to have been mentioned in independent, verifiable sources. MySpace and Twitter pages, along with the band's main page, are not going to count here. Fan pages are a bit of a challenge too, since they're not the most independent of things. However, we're talking about some reviews and things as well, so we may still be in business.
A quick skim of the reviews you've linked to suggests that they may qualify. Not being American myself, I can't speak for the scale of the newspapers etc mentioned, so we may still be in trouble if they're small local jobs.
I'm not seeing any evidence of anything charting nationally or any massive tours, so we can ignore those parts of the criteria. The same goes for notable members.
The fact that a number of radio stations play their music may also count. Again, I'll have to defer to someone who knows more on this topic than I do where the scale of these radio stations is concerned. I know that if I were to go for a drive here in Australia, I'd be able to choose from bigtime radio stations right the way through to local ones with not much range, so I'm hoping some of those listed are bigtime stations.
Label-wise, we can probably agree they're not on a notable one.
So, as for where we go from here, I'd say there are two options. The first is to re-create the article using the independent sources you have and hope for the best. The second is to wait longer and see what happens, particularly if the band continues along its merry way and becomes more notable. Frankly, I would be inclined to take the second option here, generally because you're the manager of the band and therefore have a bit of a vested interest in the article. I'm not saying you're lying or anything, of course, more just that it's better not to be connected in this way here.
I'd also point out that the lack of a Wikipedia page is far from a terminal disease. Several of my favourite bands don't have pages, since they haven't yet cracked the bigtime (or the "bigenoughtime", if I can put it that way). By the looks of things, if Western Civ aren't there yet, they will be one day. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for responding. However, I am at a bit of a loss here still. The level of their notability is not really what I had questions about. There are many bands on wikipedia who have much less notability than Western Civ. The main thing I need is to know if you are personally capable of reinstating the Western Civ page that you deleted? I mentioned their notability to illustrate that they do indeed meet the requirements. I believe that you may have been mistaken in your assessment of the band's level of exposure, so to clarify I will give direct examples.

Only about 1.5% of Western Civ's fans are based in Australia so I would not expect you to know of the band personally, but they are doing well in the US. They have charted on the CMJ radio 200 charts (which is the #1 charting company in the US for the type of music Western Civ plays) and their last album stayed on the radio charts for over 6 weeks in the US. Just to list some of the nationwide major media outlets that have written about Western Civ we would need to include reviews from some of the largest newspapers in the USA including The Chicago Tribune (4 out of 5 stars), The Orlando Sentinel (4 out of 5 stars), The Baltimore Sun (4 out of 5 stars), The Sun Sentinel in Miami (4 out of 5 stars) as well as Magnet Magazine, Performer Magazine, Crawdaddy Magazine, Harp Magazine, CMJ Music News and others. Their most recent release "Shower The People You Love With Gold" was produced by Mitch Easter (Former Let's Active frontman and producer for REM, Pavement, Dinosaur Jr. and more.) Their tour history includes playing well known venues in New York City, Raleigh (NC), Chicago (IL), Austin (TX), St.Louis (MO), Muscle Shoals (AL), Cincinnati (OH), Ann Arbor (MI), Athens (GA) and so on... The radio play they have been getting in the US includes over 80+ FM stations all across the US and several outside of the US. Those 80+ FM stations consists of a variety of large, small and college radio stations.

The wiki page that had been posted under "Western Civ" originally was not created by me, so there is no conflict of interest in my request for it to be reinstated. Just out of curiosity, why did you need the wiki title Western Civ? It is still only being used as a redirect to the page "Western Culture." It would be much appreciated if you were to undelete the page. If you are not authorized to undelete it, please direct me to whom I need to speak with next. Like I mentioned before, I've never spent time on wikipedia as a contributor or even as a logged in user, so I am not certain of the intricacies involved in undeleting a page. But unless I am mistaken, the person who deleted the page is the person who can undo it. Am I correct? Thanks again for getting back to me.

Talk Soon, -Lessaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessaun (talkcontribs) 20:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument that "there are bands here with less notability than X" doesn't really hold water. An article subject stands or falls on its own notability, rather than that of similar subjects. If there are less notable bands with articles, you're welcome to list them for deletion.
As for reinstating a page that's been deleted, the short answer is that yes, I (and any other administrator, for that matter) can definitely do that. The long answer, however, is that the original page would have been deleted because it didn't demonstrate notability at the time and in the way it was written. Reinstating that page will simply risk the same fate befalling it again. Far better, surely, to create the page afresh and provide it with better legs to stand on. Ultimately, you're going to be better off speaking with another administrator to get it recreated if you want to take that path, since I don't really play an active role here anymore.
As far as the notability itself is concerned, I hasten to point out that what I gave you before was a very quick assessment of where I felt the band stood in relation to the criteria. You of course feel differently, and it may well be that someone in a better position to judge would agree with you. If that's the case, the ultimate test is to write the article and see what happens.
To your claim that there is no conflict of interest, I still feel that there is one. The original page was written by someone else, but that page was deleted. You - who obviously are very close to the subject - are asking about getting it re-created (either in the same form that it was deleted in, or entirely afresh). That's a conflict of interest.
The deletion, moreover, was not due to a "need" (on my part or anyone else's) for the page title. The deletion was done because the article as it was written at the time did not demonstrate notability in accordance with the criteria at the time. If the article as it would be written now demonstrates it in accordance with the criteria now, then there's no obstacle to having the article. That's the way it works, as I said earlier.
If the title "Western Civ" redirects to the article on "Western Culture", clearly that's a decision that's been reached by someone (not me, I should add) who felt that that was a good thing for it to do. Not being American myself, I can't be sure about this, but I'm aware that many universities teach courses on what you and I might call "Western Culture", but which are often referred to as "Western Civ". Presumably, the redirect was created so that any students looking for an article on "Western Civ" to see what sorts of things their course would cover would end up in the right place, rather than reading about a rock group. That being the case, perhaps a better solution would be to create the article for the band as "Western Civ (band)", thus ensuring that people end up at the right place when reading about the band. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the page met all the requirements for notability at that time. That's why no one else had deleted it. (Their first album was released in 2005 and reviewed by major publications and played on radio in many US markets.) If it did not meet said requirements, in your opinion, then I would love for you to explain why in detail with examples. As per your statements, you are not American and not aware of the US publications and radio markets where the music industry is concerned. Thus making you a less than stellar source for making such decisions. I would recommend that in the future, you refrain from deleting articles when you are admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter and thus the requirements for "notability" on the articles in that subject. The Western Civ article had not been deleted before you got to it because the other admins who had viewed it considered it to be viable. So I am not afraid of it being re-deleted. That is unless you are the one to do so.

To conclude our conversation on the matter: Will you reinstate the page at this point? If not I will go to another admin.

Thanks for your time, Lessaun (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the page did not "[meet] all the requirements for notability at the time". If it had done, there would have been no "Prod" notice ("This page is proposed for deletion for the following reason") that had been there unchallenged for five days. If the page had demonstrated the notability of the subject, either the notice would not have been added or one of the other editors would have removed it, explaining how it actually met the criteria as set out. Neither event happened, which suggests that the notability (even the notability that the subject may have had at the time) was not conveyed in the article. Admittedly, you're asking me to recall the text on a page I deleted more than a year ago, so my recollection is more than a little hazy. I am, however, familiar with the processes here, and that's why I know that notability wasn't demonstrated. The fact that I personally deleted it was simply due to the fact that I was the one checking the "expired prods" (notices which had been on articles for 5 days or more) at the time.
I would counter your recommendation with two points of my own. Firstly, my policy at the time I deleted the article was that if there was anything indicating possible notability, I passed the case onto someone closer to the topic. This indicates that there was no possible notability on the page as written. I would point out here, as a side-note, that it would be quite possible to write an article about the President of the USA without indicating his notability, despite the fact that he is patently a notable individual.
Secondly, your comments are coming increasingly close to making personal attacks. It's one thing to point out that I am Australian - a fact I don't deny at all. It's quite another to draw the conclusion that because I'm Australian, I'm suddenly incapable of performing duties which the broader community of this website felt I was capable of performing, and from that to imply that I acted improperly. The fact that you are making such implications returns to my initial feeling that you have a vested interest in the article being present on Wikipedia. I have explained three times now what I did and why I did it, however you don't wish to accept my points.
In answer to your question - no. I will not reinstate the page as it did not demonstrate notability as it was written. You're welcome to consult another admin, as indeed I suggested some time ago. Any other admin, however, will be equally concerned by your closeness to the subject and the fact that the article did not demonstrate notability last time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September and October 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Could you please reply ASAP at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Manpower. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have done so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello BigHaz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 1,405 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Napoleon XIV - Find sources: "Napoleon XIV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. David Giffin - Find sources: "David Giffin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November and December 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

= DYK medal[edit]

Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
I can see you're not editing frequently, but noticed your listing at WP:DYKLIST and thought you deserved it :) Arctic Night 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · 91.198.174.201 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic exonyms[edit]

I've rejected your proposed deletion, because this is not an uncontroversial deletion - it's previously been to AFD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms. As that was a while ago, and consensus may have changed, please feel free to list it at WP:AFD. Regards. Claritas (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Team 639 Page Deletion[edit]

Hey! I'm a current officer on Ithaca High School Code Red Robotics Team 639, and I was recently perusing our web presence. Unfortunately, I found that (quite a while ago, March 2007) our page was deleted. The given reason was proposed deletion. I can't fathom any reason for deleting our page, especially since we are a FIRST Robotics Team (not alone here on Wikipedia) and already have a web presence at team639.org. It may be that the page was vandalized and beyond hope of recovery. I assure you that we now have a full-time web team which can maintain the page. The question is, can it be recovered/undeleted? I've only created my account just now to send you this message, but I imagine the most convenient way is for you to post something to my user page. Thanks for your time, please get back to me. Amcnicoll (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Thanks, got your reply. I have found other teams with their own articles, but these tend to be more active internationally and what not than we are. Perhaps if we expand our volunteering and get more than a few articles in the local news, we'll give our own page another go. For the time being, it seems many other teams are appending a blurb to their high school's page... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcnicoll (talkcontribs) 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for userifying[edit]

Hi

The version 1.0 bot has started working again, although the article alert bot has not, and I have just found that there were some articles deleted after 7 days.

Growing self-organizing map which falls under the perdue of the Robotics project.

Is there any chance you can tell me please if there was any content in there and if it can be Userified for me to try and include in other articles or to be rewritten? If so there is a page ready at User:Chaosdruid/sandbox7

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March through July 2010[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.


Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of CT Cooper at 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Answer song for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Answer song, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answer song until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Cristian[edit]

Thanks for the correction, that was a genuine copy paste error. I am not yet familiar with all this talk page and discussion thing on Wiki and hence I request that please delete this entry if you find it in wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amboeing747 (talkcontribs) 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reconfirmation diff to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe[edit]

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

  1. MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
  2. MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Reason[edit]

A user User:TeleComNasSprVen decided to delete unactive subscribers without any consensus, so i reverted a large part of the bot's edits with a IRC consensus. The delivery bot has been blocked and i have reverted the bot's edit. --Zalgo (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There we go. A couple of simple sentences to explain something, rather than just simply doing it with no explanation. The world functions better this way, no? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but i was doing a mass rollback :) --Zalgo (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It takes two seconds to explain what you were doing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]


The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]


The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

John Boardman Article[edit]

Hi. In 2004, why did you create an article on a unknown physics professor, entitled John Boardman in Wikipedia? Should all university professors regardless of their contributions be included in Wikipedia? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see you're trying to fight the same battle on the talk page for the article. Considering that the man made significant contributions to the game of Diplomacy, I felt at the time that the article was justified. As you've been told on the talk page, there are other contributions he's made in other fields (ones I'm not qualified to assess). Of course "all university professors" should not be included in Wikipedia, unless they are notable in some way - either within or without their academic fields. The fact that you haven't heard of an article subject doesn't mean that the article should not exist - otherwise this wouldn't be an encyclopedia, would it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear BigHaz,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)

(Delivered by Kevin (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) via AWB by request)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]


Homage[edit]

Hello. Regarding the issue of whether to use a or an before the word homage, the site dictionary.com gives a specific example of this on the page that defines homage: "something done or given in acknowledgment or consideration of the worth of another: a Festschrift presented as an homage to a great teacher.". In some situations a is used before a word that starts with h (as on your user page...a historian) but in other situations an is the appropriate choice. This is reputable information, feel free to revert your edit on the Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid article. Great movie, by the way. Dk100 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what the word means, yes. That doesn't change my point. The rule, you'll find, is that if the "h" is pronounced, the article is "a". If the "h" is silent, the article is "an". Thus, I can be a historian and watch a hologram for an hour in a hotel eating a hot dog. The American mock-French pronunciation of "homage" is the equivalent of the Monty Python routine about "an hoop". In other words, the edit stands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012[edit]

Trivial data on Eurovision articles[edit]

Hi BigHaz, It has been noted that you have reintroduced data that has been removed from ESC 2010; ESC 2011; and ESC 2012 articles, after a discussion took place to remove these details. Both CT Cooper and myself have pointed out to Bleubeatle (talk · contribs), that these sections were never accepted as standard sections at all - there were simply mass added by another user under the radar without any consensus, which there should be for something like this. If you choose to edit an article regularly you should be keeping an eye on what is going on the talk page, which is used to allow improvements to be made, and if multiple editors are repeatedly removing a section, that is usually a strong hint that there might be something that needs discussion. These sections have been badly formatted with various problems including inappropriate links in the section headings (discouraged in MOS:HEAD), a one entry table that could be in prose, no written explanation on what these tables mean, and most importantly, no sources. As an established user I'm sure you are aware that it is requirement per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that content added to articles is sourced if it is challenged or likely to be challenged, which this is, and the burden is on those adding or restoring such material to provide sources. Could you please self-revert your actions - thank you WesleyMouse 12:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The "discussion" to which you refer seems to have been a very minor one at best, and consisted of a couple of people saying that they felt the information should not be there. That's not necessarily a "discussion" in the proper sense of the word. I know entirely what a talk page is designed for, and would appreciate not receiving a lecture on the topic if that's all the same to you. I'm not going to say that the information as it is currently presented is 100% perfect by any means, which should hardly come as a surprise in a collaborative effort such as this. Were it not late and were I not unwell, I would have attempted to format the information better and make it more useful, verifiable and relevant, and I would contend that the second of those three criteria can be fulfilled quite simply by anyone who wishes to do so, rather than simply gainsaying the inclusion entirely. As I pointed out in my edit, and as I will say here as well, the inclusion of an award winner for Eurovision is exactly as notable as saying that Player X won the "Golden Boot" award after a given FIFA World Cup. It's an award given for a performance at a major event. End of story, as far as I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
They are also awards data that are currently covered on their respective articles. What should really have happened is each Eurovision by year article, should have had links to OGAE and Marcel award articles at the bottom of their pages in a "see also" section - this is the norm on most cases like this. As it has been pointed out, another user added these sections originally without seeking a consensus on the proposal of these new sections. Communication is a vital tool, and should have been done by the user who had originally added content without seeing if they warranted inclusion - it could be that the user was unaware of that procedure at that time. However, as this content has now been noticed, they have been removed accordingly, and in accordance to several policies that have been pointed out by CT Cooper (talk · contribs). Also, please avoid negative tones aimed at other user, like you did above stating that I gave you a "lecture"; when I never did such thing. Everything I wrote was in good faith, and explaining reasons why details had been removed. WesleyMouse 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
For want of a better description, it's your "tone of voice" to which I objected when I indicated that you were lecturing me. That may be the way that you normally interact with people online, and if so there we are, but it qualifies as a lecture in my book. With regards to my example, I would refer you to the article on the 2010 World Cup, the most recent edition of the tournament. You'll find that there is a section dealing with the "awards" given at the end of it, the team of the tournament etc. It's formatted slightly better than the list of awards at the conclusion of those three Eurovisions, but there it is. If you want to suggest to the people involved in those articles that those awards are better off being moved to a separate page linked by a "see also" section, then please do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it being "verifiable" isn't good enough. If editors are going to insist on it being there it needs to be sourced and sourced properly. WP:BURDEN, which is part of a core policy of this project, is pretty clear on whose responsibility it is here. I don't think the sections should be there and I have better things to be doing. As far as I'm concerned, lack of sources is grounds alone for removal, and content which isn't sourced will be removed. CT Cooper · talk 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So if there are no sources for these awards, why do we have a page which lists them at all, as there is at the present time? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone sounded like a lecture, it wasn't meant to come across that way - I was merely trying to be helpful in explaining things. I didn't know at the time how experienced you actually are on here - my mistake. I understand your point of view in regards to the way the awards are listed on the 2010 World Cup article. However, on the nine Eurovision articles (yes, these data tables went back as far as 2003 upon further investigation); not one of the sections for Marcel and OGAE awards had a prose explaining what they were; so anyone viewing them with no knowledge of Eurovision, would start to wonder how these awards where determined, as they are never announced on the live shows. I wrote a little prose on the 2012 article - which is being used as an example towards a RfC on the layout style for these articles. Having a "see also" section would be more logical though, and again I've tested that idea out on the 2010 - 2012 articles for comparison during the RfC.
In response to the question you put forward to CT Cooper, there are articles for Marcel Bezençon Awards and OGAE Awards, and they list all the winners, and has a handful of sources to cite what these awards are about. Having the details also appearing on Eurovision by Year articles (such as ESC 2010 etc) may be excessive - but that is just my personal opinion on the matter. WesleyMouse 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So, at the risk of going further around in circles, I'll make my points one last time. If there are articles for the Bezençon and OGAE Awards which have their respective sources and explanations (the pages I referred to in my response to CT Cooper), we know that the information is verifiable, sourced and capable of being included in Wikipedia. Thus, CT Cooper's point is largely moot. "Lack of sources" is not something we're dealing with. What we're dealing with is information which needs to be included in the right way, just as post-tournament awards are in sporting events. The model of those articles seems eminently sensible - the awards themselves are included with links so that the curious can click to another page in order to find out who the devil Bezençon or OGAE is, just as people can do the same to find out exactly what a Golden Boot or a Fred Biletnikoff Award might relate to on pages that talk about someone winning either such thing. The fact that such information needs some surgery before it gets to that stage is hardly reason to remove it in the first place - otherwise there'd be plenty of articles that never got off the ground. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation[edit]

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner
Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 February 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in SEQ)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[