User talk:DESiegel/archive5

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

Contents

Block of User:BlueRibbon[edit]

I left a comment directed at you there on the pedophilia section. It may come off as harsh: that was not the intent, my apologies if it did. SWATJester On Belay! 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully my comments did not come off as offensive or overly harsh. My point was that irregardless of whether BC was correct in action or not, you seemed a little too passionate about the subject to be unblocking. Someone else should be doing it. Just my opinion, it makes no difference. Fred Bauder is taking action on it for ArbCom now so the substantive matter of the pedophilia is at least going through review. SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the lack of any editor willing to unblock is taken as evidence of community support, I'll unblock right now, and go to ArbCom if the block is reimposed. The discussion at ANI had been going nowhere, with people throwing the same opnions back and forth at each other. DES (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please direct all such concerns regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee. Fred Bauder 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not disscuss this sort of wiki buisness on a mailing list, or anywhere off-wiki. i will be filiong a formal RfArb, on the proper page, since you wish this dealt with by the ArbCom. DES (talk)

Hi DES. If it comes to an RfArb, I'll endorse it. --Edokter (Talk) 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any request for arbitration you file will be deleted and you will be directed to communicate with the arbitration committee by email. Fred Bauder 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TerriersFan[edit]

Hi, with reference to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TerriersFan I have now answered Q.10 and please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. TerriersFan 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{Block of User:BLueRibbon and subsequent events}[edit]

Please present evidence and statements regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Re: Block of Blue Ribbon[edit]

Yes, I'll endorse. But I'm affraid the RFC will just be deleted again. However, since Fred promised to forward the complaint the the committee, I'm already in the process of writing a lengthy email to arbcom-l with my statement. It seems ArbCom will not tolerate any on-wiki discussion, which is the core of my complaint. --Edokter (Talk) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you mediate Wikipedia:Straw polls?[edit]

Since you'd like to keep, I take it you won't mind hanging out in the war zone helping these fine editors collaborate on consensus? O:-) . Good luck! --Kim Bruning 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Full disclosure: Note that should you fail, probably the only resort left is the arbitration committee, who may well also reject)

The one remaining problem is that some people want to merge with an existing guideline (and apparently then sink both, or something). --Kim Bruning 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think this is actually a nomic-style war over the root problem that caused the ATT debacle in the first place.
In other news, lovely weather today, isn't it? :)
--Kim Bruning 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ayup, Exactly. This argument is about the nature of consensus, and on how to have a poll. ;-) --Kim Bruning 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your wheelbarrow[edit]

Please stop pushing the BLueRibbon issue. I can tell you from experience that the members of the arbitration committee are not shy; if there was any significant dissent to Fred's actions to date we would have heard about it. Removing the complaint is not a statement that the complaint was invalid, however, there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project. Since you acknowledge at least the possibility that consideration of the block might not occur publically, it seems pointless to argue that the meta-discussion over removal of the primary discussion was improper. I suggest you e-mail your concerns to any individual arbitrator or to the arbcom-L mailing list. Please do not continue to pursue this publically. Thank you. Thatcher131 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have brought this up at ANI, AN, RfArb, USER, Village pump, and a few user talk pages, all after being told to do it by e-mail with the arbcom mailing list. You concerns are being addressed by arbcom by e-mail, you can just say what you have to say there. You are not being ignored, arbcom(which represents the foundation office) has decided to do this off wiki, that is their prerogative. If you dispute that, take it to the foundation itself. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The crux of this case is whether Wikipedia should be used for purposes that may bring it into disrepute. Publicly discussing this case would not be in the interests of Wikipedia. We don't want to air the dirty laundry in public. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is nothing like aring dirtly laundry to get it clean, and there is nothing like a perception of total transparancy to improve our reputation, and there is nothing like a percieved coverup (which this is starting to look like, whether it is intended that way or not) to harm our reputation far more that the relevantion that a very few editors claimed to feel sexual attraction towards minors. DES (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Article[edit]

I got your message. In your message, you say "Now this may be inaccurate, i don't know,", I disagree with that. A good website or article states references, a bad article usually doesn't list references. A downside of Wikipedia is that people can get away with no references. We can assume that it is inaccurate because there is no references because the person didn't want to list references that weren't true (which I believe is a crime to write false references). You can disagree with me but, I don't believe this man is very notable.

Note: Thank you for putting the reference tag on.

Get back to me as soon as you can, if possible, put the speedy tag on.

Thanks! Etten Joe

Follow Up[edit]

I put on a {{subst:m1}} on the article because the reference tag says "may be challenged or removed at any time." Also, some people may agree with my opinion and could possibly be deleted.

Thanks!

Nominating for Deleting[edit]

I nominated it for deletion, thanks for the help!

gueroloco[edit]

Wow. You seriously have nothing better to do. Go ahead and delete the account. I don't care anymore. I just wanted to help out with content and now I understand why there isn't that many correct things on here. You make it too difficult to post anything and you bully the people who are trying to help. Not nice.

Reply[edit]

I added the deletion tag. Reply to me as if I nominated it correctly?

Re: CSD AutoReason[edit]

I saw them, and I like them. I may incorporate all or part of them in later, I'm just too busy trying to tackle the image backlogs at the moment... ^demon[omg plz] 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Howdy! I had already announced my intention to unblock the user when you posted your response, did you miss it? It was immediately above your message. - CHAIRBOY () 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY () 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

errr[edit]

  • I really don't see any of the satemes you quote above or on WP:AN/I as a legal threat. To be clear saying "That is lible" or "In posting information X, you are libeling person Y" is not a legal threat unless there is also a statement of some sort "And I will sue you over it" or "and I will urge Y to sue". While I am ready to unblock myself, i would prefer to have you do so, adn i don't want to do so withotu discussing it with you first. As I said on ANI, ther might be grounds for a block for disruptive editing, but not for leagal threats, at elast not based on the quotes and diffs i have seen. Please unblock User:WikiGnosis. DES (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • User has been unblocked already, and this is the third message you've posted since I said was going to unblock it, I've even left a message on your user talk. (taps microphone) Is this thing on? - CHAIRBOY () 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo emil halbheer[edit]

I saw the restoration by you and was ok with it. My explanation for the speedy has been posted to WP:DRV. You can always bring this up directly to me in the future if you want. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, perfectly understandable about the DRV. Generally, I am rather conservative when it comes to deleting things under A7 but I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the original editor was trying to say. The meaning of "best painting in province" was rather confusing to me. Many admins are a little to cautious about reverting another admins actions IMO, so I wanted to make it clear that I'm perfectly fine with other admins undoing my actions, as that is something I often do for protected pages. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV about it[edit]

Personally, I rather tend to agree with you about overuse and mistaken use of speedy, but I don't think the way to go is to bring every error to DRV. I've speedied a few things in error myself, and perhaps you have also. The way to go is to discuss the use of A7 on the speedy talk page, where it comes up every few days. It's not one case alone that will make establish the need for change. See you there. DGG 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I too have my list. Repeated discussion of the subject with new examples each time can slowly persuade people; I can sense from the comments on the discussion page there (and at the DRV) that the problem is better understood than it was 6 months ago. My Email is enabled, by the way. DGG 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So is mine, but usually only for people who are blocked or some such, i normally prefer to discuss wiki buisness on-wiki. (I'm responding here now that I have read the note on your talk page about watching other people's pages.) DES (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Geuroloco[edit]

Sure, no probs. However, since you have already undeleted it, AfD is a better place than DRV. --soum (0_o) 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

QXL[edit]

Are you able to undelete QXL? I don't remember what my contribution to the page was exactly, but the company was once the largest auction website in europe and has multiple media references. I'm sure if there are advertisement like issues with the article they can be cleaned up. Timb0h 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that the version you put in my user space is copy pasted from the company website. Some of the stuff I remember putting into the article, which I believe was sourced with links, appears to be gone. It would be good if you could restore the original article with it's history, and then replace the current version with the non-advertisement stripped out version I just created User:Timb0h/QXL. Then I can use the history of the article to restore any relevent details that were taken out, like the legal troubles with allegro Timb0h 12:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule that says that I cannot recreate an article that was deleted on the basis that it was an advertisement. Given that the new article does not break any of the rules of wikipedia, I am free to follow your advice, or not, at my own discretion. Unless of course, someone appointed you king of wikipedia in my absence. The whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit, people do not have to 'check with experienced editors' before making contributions. Timb0h 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maine lottery[edit]

OK, I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies. The article should not be deleted. However, it does need a lot of work to bring it up to an acceptable Wikipedia level. I added the speedy-delete tag after doing a quick check of some state lotteries I know of (ex: New York Lottery) and I did not find a Wiki article on them, so I believed that lottery articles were not generally accepted. I have since done a more thorough search and have found some. I would expect this article to be expanded to have more noteworthy information, like how it works, where does the money go, etc. The Pennsylvania Lottery article is a good example of what this article should contain. Perhaps you could add a lottery-stub tag; I'm not sure how to do that. Truthanado 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New York school stub problems[edit]

The {{NewYork-school-stub}} is having problems. Could you please help. Take a look at the bottom of Pittsford Central School District and Penfield High School articles. The stub is not working correctly and is displaying extraneous information for the category, viz. [[Category:New York school stubs<Franklin Delano Roosevelt>| </noinclude>]]. Truthanado 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Truthanado 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notify authors about speedy deletion?[edit]

In CSD talk you argued for notifying authors, even in case of blatant vandalism. Should I put the recommended message that comes with {{db-vandalism}} or should it be a {{uw-vandalism*}}? or both? I think that {{db-vandalism}} does not count as "final warning" so the vandal could not be blocked if he persists. Rjgodoy 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Rjgodoy 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Hey thanks for helping out. The article's almost done now, but I still have 2 questions that need answered:

What's the main purpose of editing Wikipedia instead of leaving it for someone else to fix?


Do you ever believe that Wikipedia will ever be considered credible enough to cite in a research paper? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke J-School (talkcontribs) 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding WP:NPA[edit]

In an effort to prevent the NPA talk page from getting too unwieldy (yes, I know, too late), I thought I'd bring my thoughts regarding your most recent response to your talk. I'd like to begin by stating that I understand the point that you (and others) are arguing regarding site-based actions. I do believe it is a valid argument. However, I also believe that it needs to be balanced against another valid argument. I would like to try to work with you to develop an acceptable middle ground.

It is acknowledged at this point that anything resembling the "under any circumstances" text will not achieve consensus. That's fine, it probably shouldn't. But while the concern you have expressed is that even a softly-worded indirect linking clause could be used to support de facto site bans, my concern is that the lack such text weakens NPA's stance regarding indirect links actually used as personal attacks. In a way, we are both arguing based on what can or might happen when people intentionally distort or misinterpret what is written in policy.

Nothing that you, or I, or anyone else authors at NPA is likely to stop those who are removing links to the several sites that are most directly involved with this situation (an action which I remain wholly and steadfastly neutral on, for the record; I have no horse in that race). If they do not cite NPA, it will be CIV or some other WOTTA or even IAR. But an NPA policy that includes some form of prohibition for indirect linking of attacks seems to me to be a better policy -- if we can get it right.

Is there any form of indirect attack linking prohibition that you would not oppose?

Regards, Serpent's Choice 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. in fact, several of the proposals that I have indicated a willingness to support on the NPA talk page include provisions for dealiong with indirect links to attacks. My views on this are fairly simple: any link that is clearly being used as an attack can be dealt with just as any attack. (Note that WP:RPA is controversial.)Any link whose primarly or sole purpose is to publicize personal identifing information about one or more wikipedia editors in ways that are unwelcome to thsoe editors can be removed, just as posting the info on-wiki would be removed. Any provision that allows all links to an entire web site to be removed on sight must provide for community discussion and may only remove links to sites for whcih ther is a clear consensus to do so, muich like a community ban. Failing that, any provision for removing links that go to sites posting private data or other attacks must specify that the validity or propriety of suh links is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the mere fact that elsewhere on the site outing or attacks are visible is not gounds for an automatic link removal. I would be ok if the burden of establishing that a link to such a site had a legitiamte purpose fell on the person addign or defending the link, and that in the absence of reasonable justificatiom fo the link, it coulf be removed. taht is as far as I will go, and i think it is a larger concession than i have seen made by the "nuke 'em all" editors. I hope this is of value to you. DES (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Very much so. Let me spend a little time evaluating how best an appropriate compromise stance might be written. Serpent's Choice 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to our exchange[edit]

Hi, DES. Thanks for your input. If you wanted to email me, I could reply with a few links you could have a look at so you could judge for yourself whether the particulars in this case are consistent with the relevant policies. --Rrburke(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(DES wrote):
Frankly i'm not really interseted in any such links unless you are askling for my help as an admin in dealign with the matter. Mon concern in our exchange was with teh general principle, not the specific instance. And I almost always prefer to discuss wikipedia matters on-wiki, not by email. DES (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, again. I made this suggestion merely because you had written, "Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken." And yes, I was asking for your help as an admin, but also for your advice as a more experienced user. This is also why I suggested email: I was trying to be circumspect and not have an allegation of improper behaviour appear together with the editor's username on any Wikipedia page until a more experienced user had judged whether the behaviour actually was improper. I wasn't trying to do an end-run around Wikipedia; I was just trying to avoid making an inaccurate accusation. It's the same reason I didn't name the editor in any of my posts to the thread. --Rrburke(talk) 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a sampling of some diffs where I don't see that the substituted image necessarily improves on its predecessor or enhances the article, and so don't understand the rationale for the substitution:
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
Here are a some relevant off-wiki links: [10],[11],[12]
To be fair to the editor, there are also several other instances in which the articles either previously had no image, or else the earlier image was clearly inferior. --Rrburke(talk) 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weigh Down tried their first wiki edit today[edit]

Copied from the message I left on the talk page for [Gwen Shamblin]:

The user that deleted the information on the Spirit Watch website - 64.221.243.178 - is an employee of Weigh Down. The evidence of the email addy associated with this ISP can be found at http://osdir.com/ml/mail.spam.spamcop.help/2002-09/msg00654.html can I get an admin to block?

Please advise or pass it on. In a way I must admit I'm flattered they even tried :) Efkeathley 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now here's an interesting policy I didn't tell you about before[edit]

Long long ago, you and I clashed over my apparent application of WP:IAR.

What you couldn't know at the time perhaps, is why I was so certain that consensus would support me. After 2 years, I think it's safe enough to undelete and show you this particular page: Wikipedia:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007.

I can only hope you'll take your time to re-evaluate some opinions. :-) --Kim Bruning 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (You might be especially pleased that I evidently ignored the WikiWikiWeb:ParkingLotTherapy provision. ;-)

Ah excellent. But now an additional element comes into play. This policy was actually heavily supported, as you can see. So you can't quite claim I was following just the IAR rules. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, seeing your comments, note that CSD does not override all other wikipedia policy. (Despite some CSD regulars pretending otherwise... each subproject has one or two people like that. If their numbers grow too large, the project typically lands on MFD, like happened to Esperanza or AMA ).
So CSD does not override other policy, and this particular policy explicitly authorized me to stomp. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
*Sigh*, well clearly something was going on, since Angela eventually took over from me (she didn't do that regularly anymore, even back then)... and like the next day, TBSDY approved of my actions as well, in no unclear terms. I guess you just missed it all, somehow. --Kim Bruning 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You mention things starting out with 9 pages, and then you decided to add perhaps 9 more to the list, didn't you? :-) In 20/20 hindsight, I might have blocked for blatant WP:POINT violation (in strictest interpretation of that rule), but I wasn't quite as cynical back then as I am now. ;-)
You mention meatball and wardwiki having no relevance because they happen to not be wikimedia projects. That's quite blatant NIH syndrome, which I don't buy into one bit. Especially since meatball and wardwiki do discuss guidelines and best practices to do with wikis, including input from wikipedia.
As we were working, our ideas on best practice evolved. The best wiki practice at the time discussed deleting pages, and telling people to go to one central location. Later on in the same day, other people remembered this new fangled feature called redirects, which could serve much of the purpose of both, and soon they were using redirects, sending people either to deletion policy, or to DRV. The situation was eventually resolved at the latter location.
To this day, our current best practice for dealing with discussions spinning out of control is to use redirects, links and refactoring to ensure that discussion stays in one location as much as possible.
Now the thing I'm wondering is how you define consensus. It was pretty obvious to me at the time, that if I did this, that any later test or RFC or what have you would state that I had acted correctly. In the end it came out at a DRV, which, following my actions, in fact did state that I had essentially done the right thing.
My question to you is: how did I know the DRV outcome in advance?
--Kim Bruning 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale[edit]

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

Arthur Wesley Wheen article[edit]

DES, thanks for your help and comments re the above article. I have another question: In the footnotes, there is a reference to the Aus Dict of Bio. Before the author's name, the alphabet (a-w) appears in superscript. Is this code for something, or have I left out some vital bit of information? --Kirst68 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! There is a lot I still have to figure out! thanks for getting back to me.

I disagree very much[edit]

I do understand the difference between content and context. It's not that the original articles were short, it's that all of the information provided is meaningless. Those are also not reasonable redirects because the main work of fiction makes no mention of them due to their insignificance within the work of fiction. There's no chance of accidental linking and with no content on the topics anywhere on Wikipedia, the redirects don't actually benefit searching. Jay32183 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for dredging back the deleted Vanity gallery. I don't understand how it got deleted, but I'm glad it's back (even if it is, as I had said, only so-so). Artemis-Arethusa 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1240 3WC[edit]

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator tha tit had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is stongly encouraged, and this is mentioend in the variosu speedy deelte templates themselves. please consider notifing article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notify authors about speedy deletion? where this issue was discussed. DES (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hang my head in shame...Thanks for the reminder.Shoessss 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I actually intended that message for someone else. Apologies. ^^;;

I'll go post it there now.

Sorry once again for the confusion --Kim Bruning 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He sure will ;-) --Kim Bruning 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Executive Sessions[edit]

I think it is very important for people to understand each others' philosophy, especially when they have to work together. I hope you're patient with me ^^;;. You brought up municipal executive sessions in your local area, presumably becuase something that happened there was very important to you. Can you tell me more about what happened? --Kim Bruning 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're a big proponent of openness. Even to the point of being called a gadfly! Excellent. :-)
Though that does now mean that I'm scratching my head over why we're not proving to be allies then.
--Kim Bruning 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so you would like to see more accurate written policy, I would like to see more accurate written policy. Now just to work out how not to work at cross purposes. ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I parse part of what you just said as "Wikis cannot possibly ever work, and we must abolish them". <blink> --Kim Bruning 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If what you are saying is that the success statistics of the "proposed" method are skewed, can you provide more accurate statistics?
--Kim Bruning 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

Cutting the filmography from IMDB and pasting it directly into an article, and retaining the formatting that obviously shows it's a cut-and-paste is a copyright violation. There is no clean version to revert to so I deleted again. --Steve (Stephen) talk 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never any question of an edit war, and I apologise for missing your subsequent wikification of the article and reference to the legal precedent. I've added some content to the Deletion Review for clarification. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's good advice, that I will take to heart thanks. Now, back to the case in hand, I would like to contend that the IMDB list is not a simple statement of facts, but also contains "creative expression", which according to O'Connor is copyrightable as "the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc." --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Need your input[edit]

An editor who has been potentially stalking my edits for the last one year see others who noticed it has begun to vandalize some pages that I have created of late that I put if up for neutral DYK set of editors to look at. One has been potentially maliciously taggedsee diff here and another article title changed to aversion that has no citationssee diff here, it is all based on a charge that one of the sources that I used British refugee council publication on Sri Lanka fails WP:RS. You have the expertise to intervene and resolve these issues. Can you help please.Taprobanus 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you may This is the location to reply about the RS status of British refugee council publication. Thanks Taprobanus 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is British refugee council's research and publication work information [13] 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It is getting really ugly in the article all based on whether Sri Lanka monitor by British refugee council can be used or not see hereI will be out of town for fe days. My research says that it is a Primary source that is based on British refugee council directly interviwing refugee claimants in Sri lanka and Britain and direct input from other NGO's. Given the POV of all concerned including myself the resolution can only come from a neutral Admin like yourself like you did in the Tamilnet article. If you dont want to get involved or need time to research I understand and please let us know know and I or some one else will post it in ANI next.
About the stalking of me by some ditors, now I have enough evidence including other violations such as civility, vandalism, mis use of tags that I will present to ANI whem I come back. That will be a seperate matter altogether. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taprobanus (talkcontribs) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Template:NewYork-school-stub[edit]

I apologize. I was not trying to vandalize that stub. I was just trying to add a school in NY. Again, I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.180.247 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 11 May 2007

PCE[edit]

I have responded to your request for diffs on PCE at WP:AN#User:PCE if you would like to review them. –– Lid(Talk) 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the DRV wording[edit]

The discussion was clsoed early by User:Daniel Bryant

I didn't close it early — the debate had been going for eight days. I relisted it because further information had been brought up, which I felt merited a relisting to get a better picture of consensus.

I actually have no opinion about whether Drini's closing was correct or not, but I redeleted the article because the undelete was so horrifically out-of-process. The reason I had to remove the comments after the closure was that, as per current general practice, the state of the debate at the closure is preserved. I hope you can appreciate this.

Cheers, and thanks for the note, Daniel Bryant 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing Down Significantly.[edit]

DES, I will edit down the J.R. and Babe article even further. It's true that I don't feel that it's any longer than some other soap couple articles, but as you know...I am willing to do whatever it takes to save this page.

  • My experience in writing this page has made me a much better editor, which I owe in huge part to you. And this page is what I have the most interest in as of now as I continue to grow and expand as a Wikipedian editor.

I'll also love to contribute to other topics I'm interested in, such as sci-fi topics, primetime drama, horror topics, and science (though I've kind of lost my passion for science), in which I am sure to have a whole host of sources available apart from the production company.

Right now, my goal is do as you've suggested and edit down the J.R. and Babe article as much as I can without leaving out huge, important facts within the couple's life. My only hope is that you reconsider deletion of this page after I do so. Thank you for taking the time to assist me as you have. Flyer22 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source tag[edit]

Thanks for designing the {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} it looks fab - now I can tag images without p****ng everyone off (well not as much anyway). Can I just make one quibble.... you swapped the normal no source tag for the new tag on Image:Hanshaw.jpg in this case as the actress depicted was only born in 1901, and looks about 20 in the picture so doing the mathematics, this particular image is very likely to not be eligible to use the PD-art tag. The new tag is fab but in cases where someone has PD-arted something either blatentely not old or somewhat dodgy I think the original one should still be used. Do you mind if in this case I switch it back? Madmedea 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Hanshaw.jpg - as there is reasonable concern that this image is not valid for PD-art the standard more strongly worded "no source" tag seems appropriate in this case - as if it cannot be proven to be PD it should be deleted or changed to fair use. Madmedea 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thinking a little more on this one I think it may be important to make sure that copyright and source information requests/tags are kept separate. I think it would be more useful to have a separate "no sources" tag similar to the current one but without threatening almost immediate deletion, as from the debate last night it is clear that this is not well tolerated by the WP community. Source is about far more than copyright verification - and with many old images it is very obvious that they fit PD-art so needing a source is not related to copyright - it is about verifying if the image is what it is described as. Therefore it might be better if images retained their PD-art tag and could be tagged additionally with a "source needed" tag. Do I make any sense? Madmedea 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert either but I think it would be good to stick to the types of tags which are currently available at the moment - {{no license}} and {{no source}} - which each pointing out a specific problem with an image. Without a license an image needs immediate attention and so a "friendly" version isn't needed - but a "friendly" version of the source tag is needed as people feel that clearly PD images shouldn't be threatened with deletion. It could mention copyright but not be its primary function, just requesting a source indicating that all images on wikipedia should have a source even if they are in the public domain.Madmedea 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: the {{Template:ImageRound-Nosource}} - this doesn't quite make sense with the law as I understand it... the PD-art tag is not applicable to any images of 3d works of art. I didn't think that a 3-dimensional artwork in itself could be subject to copyright per se - but images of it may be. So I can go and take a picture of a greek vase if I have access to it and upload it under PD-self or another license, but if I use a museum's non-free image without their permission then that is a problem. Whereas a 2-d image whose author died 100+ years ago is public domain in the US whatever its source.....So if someone has tagged a 3-d object with the 2-d PD-art tag this should be treated as any other image with disputed copyright status is treated, with the {{PUIdisputed}} tag, I'm not sure we need another one. Sorry to be a pain. Madmedea 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It might be an idea to hold off tagging any images with the new templates until we get a wider consensus.Madmedea 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not familiar with the copyright status of 3-d art generally.... at the moment I don't remember reading anything in the guidance on Wikipedia about this - if there is some, can you point me in the right direction - all I know is that the 100 year Corel vs Bridgeman case was about 2-d art and I'm getting confused now about copyright periods for 3-d art in itself along with images of it - when, say in the US, does a 3-d work of art's copyright expire allowing users to take photos of it? I think we just need one new template - as I've just posted at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. I've seen you're template used by a couple of other users now and I'm just worried that if I find it confusing, other people will too and a full discussion should take place before it gets used. I do think any other problems with copyright/source can be dealt with using the existing templates. Madmedea 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would be really useful if there was a decent section of the WP copyright pages dealing with 3-d art as it is something I had never really considered before - although most of what I've come across under PD-art is old so at least the copyright of the original artwork doesn't have to be worried about, only the digital image. It's mentioned briefly at Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and I've found is a discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ#Copyrighted Art].Madmedea 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Working on article to fit scope of WikiProject: Soap Operas.[edit]

I've recently joined WikiProject Soap operas, and have gotten help with the J.R. and Babe article. I'm aiming to have the J.R. and Babe article meet that criteria, and to help improve other soap articles. Flyer22 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn gallery[edit]

Just so you know, I only replaced the speedy tag on Unicorn gallery after it had been removed. I thought it was likely that the speedy would be declined later, but I'm not going to make that decision and didn't think the original author should either. --OnoremDil 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note...I have to say that I think the last line of your template is inappropriate. I don't need to be told not to re-tag an article for speedy deletion once the speedy deletion has been declined. Maybe a suggestion to try discussion on the talk page or bringing it to WP:AFD would be better. --OnoremDil 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello DESiegel. I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the removal of spoiler tags by David Gerrard. It is the heighth of foolishness to assume that everyone who comes to wikipedia's pages will have encountered these works before, no matter how long they have been in existance. It is also wrong to ruin the experiencing of these works by newcomers by having let something slip when they come to these pages. I was about to go thru the editors contributions and rvt them to but you have already accomplished this task. I see you posted a note on the users talk page but others have posted agreeing with him. If you don't get the proper response from the help desk please feel free to take your case to the Admin noticeboard also. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My banner O_o[edit]

Why'd you delete my new message thingy!?! I liked it up there.. =( Speckledorph 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If whoever gets a new message... On my page there will be two of them stacked up on top of each other. And if they get it anywhere else whoever knows to trust it, right? Oh and lets not forget about the good ol' back button! Or the fact that you can hover your mouse over a link to see it's actual name. Heh, did you actually fall for it? >_> Speckledorph 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I get the gist of it, thanks. And as for the banner I think I'll throw in an orange period so it'll be a little easier to differ, alright? Speckledorph 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Search question[edit]

I am having a great deal of trouble trying to understand the never ending links and pages on how to contact an administrator. I have no intent on starting new pages, but once I enter a word and do an internal link to something which to me would be already on wikipedia, but i spell by one letter differently it defaults to a new page ready to be made.


I ahave tried to lookup a word phrase first as per instructions, but it usually will not let me back to where I was. Am I hitting wrong keys? I also DO NOT understand how the sandbox works and have asked friends who are more computer savy and they cannot figure it out.john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Is there something other than what is posted to help explain on another site, or in a word document?

john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upload stuff (talkcontribs) 16:21, 15 May 2007

thank you i will read this info john 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Braveheart[edit]

I was actually attempting, at least initially, to correct the inaccuracy in the description from the end of the movie, which was something along the lines of, "They killed the British and won their freedom". I edited to state that the ending is actually ambiguous, and that their fates are unrevealed. I also directly quoted Mel Gibson's voiveover narration, from which two different conclusions about their fate can be drawn. This kept being re-edited back to the initial incorrect description, and, out of frustration, I did continute to correct the page, with a less verbose description than my initial correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.47.152 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

==Spoiler warning: Wikipedia contains content==[edit]

I am pleased to see the current version of this odious and unencyclopedic template points out that sections headed "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" are extremely likely to contain plot elements, making a {{spoiler}} even more ridiculous - David Gerard 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider not having it used stupidly (sections already marked "Plot summary"? Character articles? Author biographies? Anagram?!) a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. I've added spoiler templates myself in the past, but the present situation is utterly and comprehensively on crack - David Gerard 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey up for new deletion debate[edit]

As a commentor in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Australians associated with European colonisation of Australia[edit]

I apologize for tagging this article for speedy delete - but Wikipedia doesn't support articles that are merely lists as I had understood it? This list really be a category instead of an article? --Ozgod 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. There are more WP: pages than I can keep track of at time. --Ozgod 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notifications[edit]

Per your message, I do try to inform when I tag things for speedy, but sometimes I just forget or in other cases I don't because I believe the editor in question is simply engaging in obviously disruptive behavior and I don't feel like bothering. Since it is optional, I prefer to use judgment calls there, but thanks for the reminder anyway since I do simply forget on occasion. Thanks. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

The first time I nominated one of these for deletion I was told by an admin to Speedy them - so far I've done about 20 or 30 and never had any complaints! Number 57 20:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tagging of Edugeek[edit]

Hello. This is a reply to your comment on my talk page. Thank you for alerting me of my mistake. It's just I've done many times in the past and other admins have just deleted the pages. Thanks to you, know I now I have to use {{prod}} instead of requesting it be speedily deleted. Thank you, and please forgive my mistake. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalkContribsSpread the love! 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media[edit]

Would you be interested in helping rewrite the article? Arielguzman 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your response. I moved the article (I didn't know I could make subpages on my user page). Do you think that rewritting this article (since I did basically steal it from that other website) is something that I could do? Should I work on a new one and present it to you? Arielguzman 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your help and advice. I'll be working on a brand-new article today and tomorrow keeping in mind the points you mentioned. Arielguzman 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of a speedy tag[edit]

regarding this edit [14]. The user has a high likelihood of being a sock puppet which caused this, and its basically a copy of the content over at DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_17#PGNx_Media.--Crossmr 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun[edit]

I am getting too stressed about the flagrant abuses by the camp wanting this deleted. I need to step away for a bit. I think this is best taken to ArbComm, because I expect a wheel war over this if we don't. GRBerry 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun[edit]

You closed the DRV with the note "Having a DRV discussion while an AfD discussion is going on, is fruitless. Wait until that discussion has run its full course, and then after it's been closed, if you still have concerns about process, feel free to start a DRV discussion about it. (And yes, I've read the noticeboard; various talk pages; the previous DRV; and AFDs; and was, AFAIK, uninvolved in any of them; if anyone was/is concerned."

Did I miss something? To the best of my understanding the sendond AfD was clsoed today, and had not been reopened. DRV enties filed today were in response to that closing and were filed while no AFD discussion was open, as an alternative to whewl-warring by undoign the AfD close. Am I incorrect or out of date here? If the DRV is closed, what if anything is curently open? DES (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, I had too many windows open, in reading everything, and in scrolling, I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then. My apologies for the confusion. (To show how this is easy to do, I note that it was reopened before you posted to my talk page : ) - jc37 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You say that "I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then." That sounds as if the AfD were open, but the AfD appears to remain closed. Do i correctly understand that you have reverted your closure of the DRV discussion? That's what it looks like to me. Thank you fo doing so, this is a very complex situation (made so, IMO by several unwise actions), thanks for trying to help out. DES (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's hear it for pronouns : ) - Yes, I meant the DRV. Someone else was bold after leaving me a note, and reverted the closure. - jc37 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a hand again...[edit]

... at HIPAA Compliance Validation Services? It turns out that LokiThread (talk · contribs) reinserted all of the copyrighted text which he had taken verbatim from two corporate websites, with this non-explanation. I've warned him in no uncertain terms not to reinsert copyrighted material. If he does it again, I may block him myself to prevent damage to Wikipedia, but it would be better if an uninvolved admin could look at the situation. Would you mind keeping an eye on it with me? MastCell Talk 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocked now for legal threats (although, indefinite is not infinite - when he stops ranting about taking us to court whilst trying to revoke the GFDL licensing, he can be unblocked). Cheers, Daniel 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in Starship Troopers[edit]

Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I just got through reviewing the Starship Troopers page and proposing some remedies for it. If you look on the Talk page, one of them was to bring the article down to a manageable size by splitting off things like the characters. Hence, I created a page, but did not make the actual edits to the ST entry until other editors had a chance to response. Palm_Dogg 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion album tags[edit]

Thanks, I got it now. I will edit them. -- Luigi-ish 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Shrek976 As Admin[edit]

Can you promote me to being an adminstrator I have done a lot of good deeds on wikipedia plus i had another wikipedia account where i was an adminstrator but my house went on fire and my computer was burnt in the fire along with the page that i kept so i could remeber my username so i had to make a new usernanme so can i please be an adminastrator please please please my username is shrek 976.--Shrek976Sunday May 20 5:17 Pm

Help:Modifying and Creating policy[edit]

Kim, Radiant, and Tony are trying to deprecate this guideline again. --Kevin Murray 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template deletion[edit]

I understand about not deleting things that are not obselete, but no user on Wikipedia is using it. If you don't beleive me, go to the template,edit it, add a nonsence link like [[testingthetemplate]] and then check Special:Whatlinkshere/testingthetemplate and it only comes up with the template which means it is not being used at all.Rugby471 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will redirect it. Before I go, can I just ask you what the meaning of TFD is ? I have seen it used but I want to make sure I know exactly what it means. Thanks anyway. Rugby471 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explainig that. BTW you might want to consider archiving your page right about now, it has more than 67 artciles ! If you don't want to do it, try using Miszabot III I have heard good things about it > Rugby471 talk 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clubsoton[edit]

Perhaps I should have rephrased that statement. I meant to say that there was no assertion of notability by the subject, and that it did not meet WP:WEB, so the article would not be kept on Wikipedia by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Mr. Geyer, I examined the article and felt that it met A7, which says an article on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites" can be deleted. I know it also says this should be applied if there is no assertion of notability or significance, but I had reason to believe the subject was a hoax. After further research, I found no evidence that this person exists. I know this is doesn't warrant speedy deletion, but given that you are asking me to restore the article, and since I have found no evidence of a legitimate subject, I don't see any point in restoring it. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As to your follow-up on Clubsoton, I have to agree with you. I know people have been using notability guidelines to make a claim for speedy deletion, but in almost every case, this is used as an explanatory method of explaining why the article is not suitable for Wikipedia, and why it is deletable under speedy deletion policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spastic Centre[edit]

As for the The Spastic Centre, I see a possible borderline CSD A7 only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register [1](NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Wikipedia. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets WP:CORP because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See [15]. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Question about CSD for WP:BK[edit]

Please see my talk page for my reply to your recent comment on this subject. —68.239.79.82 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. —68.239.79.82 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

re: 1906 film AfD[edit]

Thank you for your note and deletion correction. We have some (we believe it's just one, but it could be a small handful) enthusiastic Pixar fans who post every rumor they run across as fact without any supporting documentation, or documentation that's flimsy at best (blogs, mainly), while those of us monitoring those pages keep insisting on proper citations. It's a battle over there on occasion. cheers! SpikeJones 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. We've told them on their talk pages to review WP's style and citation guides. There have been occasional 3-revert violations (no blocking, unfortunately) as they insist on posting and re-posting info without proper credit, etc. There's not much more we can do constructively, so we just turn to trying to rein things in as necessary. (sigh). SpikeJones 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing overly recent to look at now. At the time, sure. Here was what was up at the time: 3RR Report Next time it comes up... and I'm sure it will with this user/s, we'll post it back up there.SpikeJones 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tlmallc[edit]

I had been under the impression that purposely blanking your user talk page was frowned upon. Considering the spammy nature of his edits, I thought a more firm warning was necessary. The template I used was a little too firm, I guess. :) DarkAudit 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to make a well thought out comment on the Rfc/QZ Deletion dispute. I appreciate your calm detailed description of the situation. Take care, FloNight 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stone band[edit]

Stone band was deleted earlier, so i retagged it when it showed up again. Besides, searches on Google and a few other do not turn up much of result. Additionally, I do not really consider a myspace an appropriate claim to notability. Anyway, no issues. There's no need to behave like I was on a mission to specifically get that article deleted. My repeated retagging after the original author removed the speedy tag is because there's a clear procedure when it comes to speedy tags {{hangon}}. If an admin then decides to remove that tag, fine. Andante1980 06:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. You're just contributing your bit to trying to keep this place a good one. Andante1980 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Status.gif[edit]

Thanks for notifying me of that. I've removed the image now. It's nice to know that a considerate Wikipedian is looking out for people with disabilities. Happy Editing! YuanchosaanSalutations! 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Thanks! But...do you know where I can get another good status image? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User PageMy TalkContribs) 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks! ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User PageMy TalkContribs) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article about the new invention, Quikstix?[edit]

I would like to know how the article I wrote had "inappropriate" language as per the guidelines?

It was an encyclopedic article that explained the technical features of a new invention.

In the same way to a much longer article about Coca-cola, or any other product that has been written by a neutral person.

Please explain.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhando (talkcontribs) 04:49, 24 May 2007

Re: Bot compalints[edit]

No problem at all. Since I have being doing a lot of cleanup work lately which involves tagging hundreds of pointless redirects (99% of which were created by a banned user) the bot has indeed caused me some personal inconvenience (for that other %1). I still think the warnings should be toned down but was probably mistaken in bringing it up over at CSD, you guys obviously know more about speedy deletions than me and perhaps I myself underestimated the degree to which it could be useful (still not totally convinced, but no matter). Thank you again for your civility and patience, I wish some other users would act similarly : ). shoeofdeath 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that if the deletions really can be described as "houskeeping", then you can use {{db-g6}}, and no bot notices will be sent, because it doesn't check for that template.

Is that right?! I wish I had known this earlier (it also addresses some of my concerns about notifications over very uncontroversial deletions, although most people don't use templates like g6). I prefer not to use the template because it is not specific enough but in the future I will keep this in mind. Thanks again. shoeofdeath 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was really under the impression that it was impossible to add a custom edit summary to templates. I remember trying awhile ago how to figure this out, to no avail. It's not ((db-g6|reason)), right? How would a custom note be added? shoeofdeath 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, the majority of my speedy deletion work is already finished - if I had thought of creating a new template I would have done so a few weeks ago. I think it would be good if it was possible for people to just add a sentence on to the end of template message, maybe something like ((db-g6|reason)) - this would help even more for ((a7|reason)). Just a thought. Again, thank you! shoeofdeath 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-Correcting Own Articles[edit]

WXXS article edited. I did not understand what you meant when you said it was not okay to talk about one's "own" article. Does that mean that the article may be edited by anyone excluding its original creator. Whatever the rules, I decided that I went overboard on the opinionated comments and made my own personal strides to tone the article down. I deleted an entire section, a couple sentences, and words and-or phrases I thought sounded non-neutral.

Oh, I am very new to Wikipedia so to me it feels like I am doing things wrong all the time. Than whenever I try to make things right it feels like I am still wrong. But fear not, I am not a hostile editor. More so, I am just a confused editor with close-to-average understanding of writen language. My articles are fairly simple, were not meant to be essays, and based from my special interest so sometimes I will get a little carried away.

One thing I did when I didn't know any better was remove a speedy deletion flag tag from an article that I was the author of and proceeded to edit the article. Than about 30 minutes later I skimmed a passage that said that all people other than the article's author may delete this tag. NOW I think I see what you meant when you wrote, "it is bad form to speak of [my] article". When I first read that comment, it shocked me and I did not understand it right away. I just got embarrassed and felt like I was being "yelled at".

I never really learned how to communicate with other Wikipedia users. I am not very computer savvy. I don't even know how to use Instant Messimer (IM). But I did take all your comments in stride and made my own golden rule in my own words: "Avoid using words that sound opinionated." I did away with terms such as "loosely-formatted", "broad-appeal", "extensive", as such because I do feel that those are not the best words to include in a neutral article.

I am actually crossing my fingers that you don't get mad at me and am hoping that by pure chance hopefully I have done something right. I know that's a long shot but hopefully I am on target now. If you are not still mad with me, please me some pointers to follow in the future when writing articles. If you were not "mad", just know that I interpreted anger. Again, a communication break-up. Anyhow, I hope you are satisfied with my changes.

Thank You For Your Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.183.113 (talkcontribs) 19:40, 25 May 2007

ChocOneill[edit]

Hi, I have no idea why the name of my company came up here while doing an internet search, but i was a bit astonished to see two enteries on this site - one for advertising. can you pls explain this to me. i make chocolates, and i understand that this web here is an encyclopedia?

my email is <removed> i am giving it to you as i doubt i will be able to find my way back here again.

Thank you

Jamie

Replied via email DES (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilting @ windmills?[edit]

Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on WP:NPP as a stub that I was about to tag for WP:CSD#A7:

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RS secondary sources.

I mean, I can hear the arguments already:

  1. Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
  2. Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
  3. "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you whether you want to propose deleting these or not. But, it seems to me that if it is indeed true that "Many famous and influential women have appeared on the cover [of Bust], including Björk, Cher , Sandra Oh, and Gwen Stefani." that alone would make it notable -- sales figures are also relevant. I suspect that additional sources could well be found, and you migh to better to find and insert them than to propose deletion. Stitch 'n Bitch looks sourced enough to prevert deeltion on those grounds as it stands. As for Debbie Stoller I'll bet additional sources could be found, a well-selling author and editor of a significant professional magazine is surely notable. Certianly none of these is a valid A7 -- note that lack of sources is never enough reason for an A7 -- and I think i eould vote "Keep" on each in an AfD. Any statement in an article that, if sourced would show notablility is enough to prevent an A7, whether the sources have been inserted or not. DES (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy was no longer an option for beau coup reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered it on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) —68.239.79.82 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Oldschool Danger Bennett Mallory III[edit]

Apologies - was going to flag it with db-nonsense, as checked the links cited none of which transpired to be genuine, then realised from the user talk page of the contributing editor that there had been a previous incarnation. Link is : User_talk:Davidjohnross. Hope this helps. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Given the nature of the content, will flag it with {{hoax}} and leave it at that. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, but I've looked into this a little more, so am not sure about leaving it with {{hoax}}. The template for db-repost states that speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for subsequent re-deletion under the speedy deletion criteria, but doesn't say that they aren't eligible per se. My thinking is that it would lead to a somewhat strange situation where a new post created an article of patent nonsense. If this was subsequently flagged with db-nonsense, and deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, what would be the position if someone then re-created the article with exactly the same content? Your position appears to be that if someone, as I did in this instance, flags it with db-repost, it cannot be speedily deleted, and instead should be left to go through the slower mechanism of, say, hoax or WP:music - that seems silly to me, as it seems to give an extended lifespan to the second incarnation of the same article, even if the first article was patent nonsense...or am I grabbing the wrong end of the stick and shaking firmly? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - thanks for discussing it with me. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel(Talk) 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel E.C. Dunlop[edit]

Thank you for your message on my talk page - I've read patent nonsense in detail, and note with interest that it is considerably less wide-ranging than first thought. I'll take its contents into account when new-page patrolling in the future. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

How best should this page be flagged, in your view? Army Church Parade. Thanks Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this one with {{db}} on the ground that the question could not form a proper part of any article, and if it were edited out nothing would be left. Then i left the creator a note sugfgesting that the reference desk or requested articles would be good places to ask the question. DES (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt McIntyre[edit]

Yes, I'll take care of this shortly. CJCurrie 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Vista Governors School[edit]

Hello! You closed this AfD and the result was delete. It appears a redirect was created for this page. If you follow the original link Mountain Vista Governors School you can see this. Any way the redirect can be deleted as well? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

{{db-repost}}[edit]

Thanks for the message about the amendments to the template. I do think they clarify things to an extent, but a part of me wonders whether or not there could be further clarification. It's something I'm going to be giving a bit of thought to (as a new pages patroller) over the weekend, so thanks for the heads-up. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)