User talk:Davewild/Archive 8

MfD nomination of User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious

User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Anthem 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps for London

Hi, I've uploaded the full set of blank maps for London now - see commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Requests#London borough maps. Glad to see you are gradually getting through the local elections maps too. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Adur

The Parish by-election had significant local coverage and it is the only one held in years. Also if you look on the Shoreham beach RA site it lists them as "their" councillors. Also the adur website lists them as independent (Shoreham beach Residents). The only reason the ballot paper says independent is because they are not a registered political party. Also why are you opposed to greater accuracy on the results and more comprehansive results.--95.147.54.95 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for replying. I am opposed to including a parish by-election in the middle of district council by-elections giving a very misleading impression that this is another district by-election and making the parish by-election seem as important as the district by-elections. If you want to try and create a page on the parish council then that could be relevant for that page but not for a page on the elections to the district council. If you check any other page on local elections in the UK you will find that none of them include parish by-elections because quite simply they are not as important and they are not what these pages on district, borough, county and metropolitan elections are about.

Secondly the council page on the by-election - http://www.adur.gov.uk/docs/elections/2005-may/election-results-2005-05-05-adc-marine-ward.pdf - makes no mention at all of Keith Fayers-Morrisey being Shoreham Beach Residents Association at the time of the by-election. Could you point to where on the council website (or indeed on the Shoreham Beach Residents Association website) it says that Keith Fayers-Morrisey stood in that by-election for the Shoreham Beach Residents Association. I cannot find anywhere on the council website any mention of Keith Fayers-Morrisey apart from in the by-election result. The only mention of Keith Fayers-Morrisey on the Shoreham Beach Residents Association website I can find is that he is as of now currently treasurer of the association with no mention of him previously being a councillor for the association.

The core Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I suggest you have a look at. This includes the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Unless you produce reliable sources showing that Keith Fayers-Morrisey was standing in the by-election for the Shoreham Beach Residents Association, we have to follow the sources such as here and here that describe him as an independent. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Dave,

I would like to promote Nemrud's wikipedia page but regarding the discussion you had already got one. I read whole discussions (Jan.2011). It turned out to be the band during the course of the past few months bands performance was televised on wellknown Turkish TV channels like TRT, CNNTurk and Dream TV. On top of this, their music and interviews with band members were also broadcasted on American, English and French radios. album "the Journey of the Shaman" is being sold all over the world under one of the most famous progressive rock record companies; Musea Records. So,should I recreate the page or may I edit the older one? Because I need to add some ather things to the page. Could you please help?

Thanks,

Irmala (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First off if your aim is to promote the band Nemrud then I must tell you not to do so. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and strongly discourages writing articles where you have a conflict of interest.

If you don't have a conflict of interest and want to write a neutral article based on reliable secondary sources then you can do so but you must address the concern from the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemrud, which was that the article did not meet the notability guideline for music groups. I would advise starting afresh as the original article had little or no useful content, but I could userfy the original article if you think it would be useful.

However I should warn you that if you rewrite the article and you do not show how it meets the notability guideline, addressing the problem raised in the original AFD, it is likely to be speedily deleted. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much for your quick reply.

I want to recreate Nemrud's page. But I am unfamiliar with wikipedia. It seems so complicated to me. Is it an easier way to edit the old one. What do you think about making a correction?

Thanks,

Irem

Irmala (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above there is little to nothing in the original article that is worth using in a proper article. Therefore I would strongly recommend starting again if you think an article can meet the notability guideline, if you need advice on doing so then you can have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article wizard which will provide help on creating articles. If you want a second opinion on whether the original article is worth using then you can take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and ask for the article to be userfied from there. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Milan Lalkovič

Hi, on 14 February 2011 you deleted page of football young player Milan Lalkovič. But now, he already played official football match for Doncaster Rovers where is he already on loan from Chelsea. See http://www.skysports.com/football/match_facts/0,,11065_3407294,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip289 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the history so it is available for if you want to use it and added a reference to verify that he has now made his debut. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional maps

I know you've been doing very useful work creating local election result maps from my blanks. In case you haven't noticed, there's also blanks for the shire county councils - File:Norfolk UK electoral division map (blank).svg could be used for Norfolk Council election, 2009 and so on.

I have a question though - Do you think there might be benefit in maps of wider areas? For example, I'm tempted to create a map like File:English districts 2010.svg to show all electoral wards in England.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of blanks on Commons (but I could probably categorise them a bit better). My main "catalog" is at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps, and if you look at the table at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/England, you'll can find <district, parish, electoral division, electoral ward and westminster constituency> in <ceremonial county> maps for almost everything.

The constituency in county is possibly most useful after the council base maps, as the politics sections of the county articles do mention parliamentary representation.

Yeah, the England-wide map would be a lot of effort. I'm tempted to put mixed wards as no overall control as opposed to worrying about stripes, but its still thousands of points. I'll have a look at it and let you know if/when I'm done.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good man on the Preston maps Dave. I was considering about thinking about doing them, and you've made a much quicker job than I would :) Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Zelda Chaos

• 16:15, 1 October 2011 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted "Zelda Chaos" ‎ (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hey Dave, please could you justify this deletion. I'm, sorry I forgot to add in that Zelda Chaos aims to be the top resource for Zelda glitches on the net and to my knowledge it is. I hope this gives you a reason to stick the page back online. Oh and just a quick question about Wikipedia, aren't encyclopaedias supposed to be omniscient whether the things in them are important or not? Regards, Curlyw42 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia requires articles to meet notability guidelines in order to not be deleted. The relevant notability for websites is here - Wikipedia:Notability (web) - and basically requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources and/or to have a won a major independent award. Without such coverage articles are liable to be deleted.

Wikipedia has also got criteria where articles may be immediately deleted here - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - and this requires websites to have a credible assertion of wider significance or importance, which I am sorry to say the Zelda Chaos article did not have and just being the top resource for Zelda glitches on the web is not sufficient to meet this. This is a lower standard than the notability guideline and an article is likely still to be deleted for not meeting the notability guideline, even if it avoids speedy deletion.

However you are welcome to recreate an article on Zelda Chaos if you can show how it will meet the notability guideline for websites. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Portsdown

I was going to create a redir from Portsdown to Portsdown Hill (to fix redlink at Defence Research Agency), but I see Portsdown has been deleted. Can you explain why ? DexDor (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create such a redirect. The original content at Portsdown was a copyright violation, which was subsequently blanked by the only author and as such was deleted back in 2009. This has nothing to do with any redirect being created now under the same name, which seems to be a sensible move. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Acanthophlebia

Yes it is a valid reason and always has been. Please read Junior homonym, Principle of priority, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and perhaps Nomen illegitimum to understand why.

Briefly, to use the word "Acanthophlebia" for this moth violates the rules of biological nomenclature, and Wikipedia accepts these rules as binding (like it uses SI units, IUPAC names etc). In plain English, "Acanthophlebia" is not permitted to refer to this moth. It is not a legitimate use of this word. The name is officially condemned.

The redirect at Acanthophlebia was only created due to editor error. It cannot be changed to redirect to Leptophlebiidae, because this would violate WP:R#Self-redirects and WP:R#DELETE #10.

There is no point in RfD. To argue for keeping the redirect, one must claim that the principle of priority is null and void; this claim violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and hence it is impermissible.

Since no claim to keep as is can be made without violating core rules of Wikipedia, speedy deletion. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should only take place when the limited criteria specified on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page are met and for redirects in particular the criteria here. This redirect does not meet either of those criteria so should not be speedy deleted. I am not saying that the redirect is correct or that it should not be deleted, just that the correct place for any redirects that need deleting that do not meet the deliberately very limited speedy deletion criteria is Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

inre The Worst Movie Ever!

As you've welcomed a possible return to AFD of the Glenn Berggoetz article, how about I simply perform a partial merge of his article to the film article and then redirect it? I think being a bit bold now could prevent wasting another few weeks of AFD in the future, and won't reflect negatively on a possible reversion of the redirect if or when Berggoetz gains more notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do this, it looks good to me. I don't think the AFD can really say much about the outcome for the Glenn Berggoetz article and this seems to be a sensible merge at this time. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I started,[1] I actually began finding sources not in the Berggoetz article that address the filmmaker directly and in detail... like this one published last June. A redirect is still on my mind, but I'll take a crack at improving it first... as another way to avoid a (perhaps unneccessary) repeat AFD. Thanks much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Karl Koch (musician)

Hi, would you userfy, please? I want to see if anything is mergeable to Weezer. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, it can be found at User:Bridgeplayer/Karl Koch (musician). Davewild (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks!:-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

treatment to new users

Iron law of oligarchy You are welcomed to read this article, and understand what you do. You just took some very motivated new wikipedia users, and completly ruined their motivation. Instead of trying to explain and help us improve the article, you just led the line of deleting it, after hours of hard work. Thanks to your nice nick name I guess I will never really know who you are, but I'm sure that once you were a young editor yourself, and you hoped that the veterens will help you develop. So we tried to add relevant sources. We added some articles from the official website of one of the biggest universities in Israel, but that wasn't enough for you. And we added articles from the biggest local newspaper in the 3rd biggest city in Israel, and it still wasn't enough for you. So we added an article in an Arab web-site and again it wasn't enough. And the same with an article from the biggest newspaper in Limburg region in the Netherland. So the direct conclusion is that if it dosen't happen in English- it just dosen't happen... So I hope you are proud of yourself as the big bully of the wiki-world... --Sefishalem (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy is a deletionist. -- A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.85.102.100 (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I received a copy of the same spammy soapboxing rant, above, via email, Davewild. At least, apparently, we're 'veterens' (sic). I suggest, like me, you disregard it and just go edit something instead of wasting time on this copypasta nonsense. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that language is overly harsh. There was probably some self-promotion of the student org involved, but it seems they tried in good faith to show that their organization was WP:notable; describing the OP here as a "spammy soapboxing rant" is unjustified in my view. Uʔ (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could respond to it, unfortunately 6 years down the line I have had similar said to me before. I will always try and help if I can, but it does not look like that would be any good here. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Expired Prod

Anthony Delasco is an expired prod --Vic49 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but another admin would have got to it soon. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Public achievement (U.S. civic scheme)

Hello. You recently moved Public Achievement but Talk:Public achievement (U.S. civic scheme) was inadvertently left behind. Please match it to the article when you have a chance. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, missed it when I did the move earlier. Done now. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick!! Thanks. Station1 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Asset based welfare

Hello.

You deleted an article Asset based welfare yesterday. This is a topic that is targeted for improvement by a group of Indian economics graduate students. May I ask you to undo that deletion on Don't Bite the Noobs grounds, please?

See: Wikipedia:India Education Program/Students. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with restoring it myself, but am concerned that it would be quickly re-deleted by another admin as it just had one sentence "Asset based welfare develops an asset based approach to poverty analysis." Would userfying it to User:Mailgkhandelwal/Asset based welfare be ok as an alternative to avoid it getting re-deleted? Davewild (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely be fine. I'm not an administrator and can't see deleted material. I think the guy already has a sandbox set up. If you could leave him a note and clue him on what is going on, that would be appreciated. Thanks! Carrite (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied the article and dropped a note on the talk page to let him know what has been done. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Asset Based Welfare

Hi. I had created the article "Asset Based Welfare". It was only one sentence and I intend to continue it further. I'll surely consider your suggestion of using my sand box now. So now I'll post my article only once its ready. Thank You. Mailgkhandelwal (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Davewild! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Smith (minister)

I have a query about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Smith (minister). I think the way you phrased your closing comments was ambiguous. You said that "there is sufficient consensus that the claims to meeting WP:PROF are insufficient in this case to establish notability." Does that mean that there was consensus that he did not meet WP:PROF, or that meeting WP:PROF is insufficient to establish notability? I ask because a few people in the discussion seemed to have a low view of WP:PROF (E.g. "WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad", "Suggest changing the notes on wp:PROF 6", etc.) and your closing comments possibly hint that meeting WP:PROF is not good enough. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've revised my closing comments because I can see how they could be seen as ambiguous. I hope they are now clear enough - I was not saying that meeting WP:PROF is insufficient to establish notability - no one AFD (or closing admin) could say that. My judgement is that consensus lay with those arguing that the institution was not major and that therefore WP:PROF was not met. The arguments that WP:PROF did not matter (such as by UninvitedCompany) were given lesser weight in the closure. Davewild (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Granville Automatic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Granville Automatic. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 170.140.221.45 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Not sure why you deleted, article meets notability criteria for bands and both members have their own notable wiki pages. Went through deletion review already and was kept, then you came and deleted.

AfD: Curt Mega

Several weeks ago I had a page deleted: Curt Mega due to non-notability. I have new information or the page that I believe will push this past the criteria. He recently sang a lead solo on the Fox TV Glee. The song is currently #15 on the topp 100 iTunes download. If properly sourced, would I be able to put the article back up with this information included and it not be deleted? Thank you 70.239.1.120 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01

I don't think that is sufficient to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline, without which it would be redeleted. However I have userfied the article to User:Mozartchic01/Curt Mega so that you can work on it if you think you can improve it to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: TruConnect Mobile

I’d like discuss further the deletion of TruConnect Mobile, because I believe all of the references establish the subject’s significance as an organization meeting the needs of today’s consumers – in fact, it was even covered in TIME. Additionally, the article was written to include limited content in an effort to avoid coming across as advertising or marketing material. Please advise on how I can edit this article so that it can be reinstated. DJADave (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that article as it did not assert it's significance or importance. I have now userfied it to User:DJADave/TruConnect Mobile so that you can work on the article to establish notability per the relevant notability guideline. Once you have done that you can move it back to the article mainspace. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article to include additional references and edited text that I believe establish the company's notability. If so, can you please move the article back to the mainspace? If not, can you please advise on what my next step should be? DJADave (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it back to mainspace as requested as it does now assert significance and it has an arguable case for notability.. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dave, I saw you asking for removal of your admin right and I wanted to thank you for all your quality and quiet mopping over the last four years. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Koryu Uchinadi Page deletion?

Dave,

Like to why you deleted our page describing Koryu Uchinadi?

If there's something we didn't know, or should have used to support the contribution, would you be kind enough to apprise me/us, at your earliest convenience?

Regards

Patrick McCarthy

Sorry I'm no longer an admin, but the reason is that consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koryu Uchinadi per the reasons expressed there. I see you have taken it to deletion review where others have agreed with the decision and explained further. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Anton Singov article

Hi Dave,

Recently I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Anton Singov" has been deleted. After reading the discussion page it seems like there were both good and disputable reasons for deletion. One of reasons (lack of reliable sources) seems very reasonable to me, the reason that notability is not established is arguable. The article satisfies on point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article has consistently reached top3 and won several first places at the most notable international "electronic sports" competitions in the world such as Electronic Sports World Cup, Dreamhack, Quakecon, Intel Extreme Masters and World Cyber Games Russia. Look for the pseudonym "Cooller".

Would it be possible to restore the history so that the sources can be added?

Thanks in advance! Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Anton Singov

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anton Singov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I will let the contributors to the deletion review decide if the deletion was correct, but considering the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Singov consensus was clear that significant of this individual (not the topic but the individual) were not present so notability was not established. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

Hey Dave - hope thee will. Do you think this looks alright?

doktorb _words^deeds 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Davewild|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Davewild|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Category:United Kingdom election year templates

• Personally I prefer to keep it simpler as I have done at Template:Carlisle Council elections. I recognise your way is trying to give the reader more information, than my way which does not explain the situation, but I'm not convinced it is clearer. I'm hoping that people who are unsure will read the main Preston local elections or Carlisle local elections page and the election cycle will be explained there.
• Also I now think all the elections should be included, going back to the first election in 1973 (and this is what I have done for West Somerset and Carlisle). Having only the elections we have created from 1998 onwards could make the reader think elections to this council started in 1998, or there was some big change then. I personally will not be creating articles on elections before 1998 (for one thing I don't have records for virtually any before then), but it does not mean someone else in the future might, and there are councils, such as Manchester local elections, Wolverhampton local elections and Sheffield local elections where other people have already done this. This is a change from what I have previously been doing, but I think it is better than how I have been doing it.
• Finally, if kept, the wording on the notes might be a bit unclear - they might imply for instance that councillors elected in 2003 were then up for election in 2011, as well as 2007, when actually it is those elected in 2007 that were up for election in 2011. An alternative could be just to have two notes, one saying when the council was all up for election after boundary changes, as per a, and another just saying something on the lines of "council elected by thirds, with each councillor serving a 4 year term", but I can't think of a perfect wording that is clear and unambiguous.
• However that's just my opinion and sorry for being a bit negative. If the notes are kept in the template (and feel free to ignore my above opinions if you disagree with me) then I would prefer having the notes on separate lines as imo it makes it a bit clearer. I've removed the no wiki's from above (and below) to make a comparison easier, while ensuring they are not categorised. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Davewild|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Davewild|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Category:United Kingdom election year templates

No, that all makes sense. The notes were supposed to be in a straight line, I thought the stars would do it, hah, that's my Wiki-ing knowledge failing rather than a conscious decision! I am not sure about having so many red links though I do get your point. What is annoying to me is that I *do* have a lot of election results going back to the 70s but the laptop is dead and I just need someone to hoik out the hard-drive! Anyway, now I know how to list the notes, I'll correct that bit! As for the wording, again, you make a good point, it just makes sense to me. I'll go back and have a fiddle. doktorb _words^deeds 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheffield Council elections

The templete for Sheffield Council elections is good and useful but I always find the squence boxes preferable as they are not hidden and therefore easier and quicker to use when the year I am most likely looking for is the year previously or year after the year I'm looking at. veganfishcake (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. it's nice to see someone from the Fylde coast working on local elections.I'm from Poulton-le-Fylde and have created Wyre Council election, 2011 (which I stood in), Wyre Council election, 2007 and Wyre Council election, 2003 veganfishcake (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and nice work on editing the templates from collapsing - that was a bit of an annoyance.

I can only return the compliment - it's good to see another user dedicated to updating wiki's woeful local elections coverage, especially one who'll create new designs I can pilfer. ;) HeadlightMorning (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Swings

I was wondering if you'd weigh in on this discussion me and Doktorb are having on the correct way to do the swings for Mets voted yearly in thirds, as it'd be good to get a consensus. :) HeadlightMorning (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Davewild. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Carnism

Hi Dave,

I just read all of the discussion that lead to the deletion of the article on carnism, and would like to discuss it. I think it's very surprising considering that the Joy's work is discussed all over the animal rights movement, referenced in psychological publications (including Psychology Today, June, 2011)in philosophical theory (Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (2007)), in The Guardian, by a journalist for the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, and was even discussed in a beef industry journal.

I was unable to identify any other arguments in favor of the deletion of the article beyond the lack of citations in media and validity of the concept, both of which I believe the above links address. Are there any other concerns interested users should be aware of?

Thank you for taking your time to work on this.

Biocentricegalitarian (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Carnism

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carnism. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Kameelion (musician)

Hey Dave,

You are the admin that "closed" the discussion. I am asking for an "un-deletion" of this page. If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up and he now has released his debut album which got into the Independent UK charts. Please restore so it can be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackersTeam (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because there was no evidence in reliable secondary sources that it met the Notability criteria for musicians. If you show me some reliable evidence that this notability criteria has been met then I should be restore the article for you. Is there such evidence available? Davewild (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Picture_Perfect_(Roll_Deep_song)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kameelion%20Boy%20Who%20Made%20Sounds&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=667&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&ei=82HfT9HDH_SZ0QXUmvTPCg — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackersTeam (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how either of those two links show how Kameelion meets this notability guideline. The first link is to a page which is a copy of the wikipedia article on the song, so definitely not a reliable source for wikipedia, and anyway that song charting would show notability for the group Roll Deep, not for Kameelion. The second is just a google search (so again not a reliable source) which indicates he has released an album, which again would not meet the notability guideline. You need to read the criteria on the notability guideline which I have linked, I cannot see how Kameelion meets those criteria. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dave, hope you're well. I am asking again for an "un-deletion" of this page. If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up. Kameelion is now verified on Twitter and will be touring Europe in 2013 as his album charted in the dance charts in Europe. He also got "placed in rotation" on BBC Radio - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMY4bfu6cA

Please restore to a major clean up can occur. Thanks... 2.220.126.73 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither twitter or youtube are reliable sources. You need to show some evidence in reliable sources showing that Kameelion meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/walesmusic/2011/07/adam-walton-playlist-show-17-july-2011.shtml and http://www.truefamous.com/verified/KameelionMusic 2.220.126.73 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:Music and you will see why a blog and a self published page are not reliable sources and cannot demonstrate notability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dave,

I am asking yet again for an "un-deletion" of this page. If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up. Kameelion is now verified on Twitter and is touring Europe in 2013. He also got played nationally on BBC Radio 1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f7cd46df-bea2-4739-abc8-7b7d58b8b732 & http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rq9h1

Please un-delete the page so a clean up/restore can take place.

2.220.2.123 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in what you have just said shows any evidence in reliable secondary sources that it met the Notability criteria for musicians so the page cannot be restored. Twitter is not a reliable source and the 2 links you provided give no information about Kameelion. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull Romaniacs Hard Enduro Rallye

Hi, Dave, please take care of this page because my compatriot is not really in theme. The event had coverage not just in Germany or Great Britain, but also in United States, Australia or New Zealand. They had 1,400 hours of English commentary (also involving legends of this sport), you can check the youtube. Also on google if you search more that "Biruitorul" did adding the word "enduro" you will find out that many magazines or speciality sites are covering it. I have improved the sources. Of course Red Bull sites from different countries also wrote about it because it is the official sponsor. Cyril Despres is a three time winner of this rally, he is a legend of off-road motorcycling. The event is more than notable, on its Facebook page people from all over the world are commentating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBromaniacs (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, now that speedy deletion has been declined and you have removed the proposed deletion tag the only way the article can be deleted is if an Wikipedia:Article for deletion is set up, where you would be able to put your argument for not deleting the page and the consensus of those who comment would decide whether the page is deleted or not. The best way you can ensure it is not deleted is to add more significant coverage of the event in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to show that the event meets the main wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability - which says that topics must have significant coverage in reliable sources in order to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lokpal Bill, 2011

In my opinion, your decline of the speedy deletion request here was wrong. The only reason the article gets to stay temporarily is because it slipped through the cracks 2 months ago. It is, at best, a WP:CONTENTFORK. Looking at the arguments advanced on the article's talk page, it looks like a WP:POVFORK--the main editor is essentially asserting that since this new version of the bill "will pass" the Indian legislative system, it needs to be separate. Besides the fact that we don't have separate articles for every different version of a law that's running through a legislative body, note that this is entirely speculation of the main author, and, my guess is, the preference of that author (i.e., that he supports one version of the law over another). I've indicated on the article's talk page that absent a non-POV, WP:CRYSTAL argument, I'll just go ahead and boldly redirect this fork to the original article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the article could possibly meet the speedy deletion criteria which states that the article put up for speedy deletion under the A10 speedy criteria should "not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect." The article definitely expands on areas, such as the legislative history, and the title is not a completely implausible redirect. As such it cannot be speedy deleted. I make no judgement on whether it should be deleted, redirected or kept long term, only that it cannot be speedy deleted. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your logic about how A10 doesn't clearly apply. I'll likely drop the article, but consider other means. Thanks for your detailed explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 BMW PGA Championship

I'd like to know how you get a no consensus out of this discussion.  The nominator's statement was objectively refuted, and the only other participant that objected cited no guidelines or policies, and showed no awareness of the alternatives to deletion.  I realize that my own !vote did not mention any guidelines, but am I out of line to think that if I list 30 likely sources, readers at AfD will recognize the basic concepts at WP:N?  If the first page wasn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG, here are some more sources from the second page: Greenwich Time, TheSportsCampus.com, SB Nation, PGA.com, Spartanburg Herald Journal, Golfing World News, USA TODAY, Columbia Daily Tribune.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My decision to close the AFD as no consensus was because I could not see there being a consensus to either keep, delete or merge. I agree the debate leaned more towards keep than delete, due mainly to the weak arguments made by those arguing for delete after new evidence was provided (partly by yourself). However yours was the strongest argument for keeping, given that Seasider91 added a comment after his keep opinion raising merging as an option and that both his and StephanQz argument's were almost all irrelevant to the notability guideline (like the delete opinion by WilliamJE), meant I could not give them strong weight either.

Given the weak arguments from those on both sides, no consensus, (which defaults to keep) was the best closure. The sources give coverage, but this is also balanced by the requirement in both WP:N and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage" (bolding mine). No other editors changed their opinions in the 2 days between your comment and my closure (despite them being active editors in that period) so I could not conlude that your remark had changed any opinions.

While personally I would probably have argued for keeping the article based on the coverage, that does not affect my closing opinion that there was not a consensus among those who took part in the discussion. I hope this explains why I closed the AFD as no consensus. Davewild (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wigan Maps

Thanks for those Wigan maps; saves me a job. HeadlightMorning (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, will get to the ones for 2007 to 2011 soon! Davewild (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the maps! I've added some DIY ones for the 80-04 using a map I found on the council through WaybackMachine, making Wigan strangely the most mapped council on here! One thing - the Fairhursts (and Angela Bland) are actually part of the registered Wigan Independent Conservative party, despite them standing under non-aligned-sounding labels - this time Standish Independents, so it might be worthwhile seperating them in your '11-'12 maps? Andrew Teale's done so in his maps, anyway and I know they're apart from the Independent grouping on the council. I've been making use of the generic Independent Conservatives template in the ward results, which has the hexidecimal #DDEEFF. HeadlightMorning (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on those maps. I will have a look at amending the 2011 and 2012 maps in the next couple of days. Davewild (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, I think. Feel free to correct, or let me know if anything is wrong. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, looks perfect. Much appreciated. I found an old map for Leeds I'd be able to edit similarly, but sadly it looks like the copyright stated prevents me. Don't suppose it matters, only have the pre-80's results to input at present, anyways. HeadlightMorning (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Palmanova Fortress

Hi, you recently declined a db-a10 delete on this article with a comment about there being something here not in the Palmanova article. I'm not seeing it and am curious as to what you believe that to be. As the town and fort are the same and the existing article covers the phases of construction what else is there. noq (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, to quote from the fortress article it says "It consists of three rings, which were built in stages. First circle with a circumference of 7 km were built in 1593, its construction took 30 years. The second phase of construction took place between 1658-1690. Between 1806 and 1813 were performed last works. The fortress consists of: 9 ravelins, 9 bastions, 9 lunettes, 18 cavaliers." None of that was in the Palmanova article so it does not meet the A10 speedy criteria as to be eligable for that criteria it must not "expand upon, detail or improve information" on an existing article. It is also a plausible redirect to the Palmanova article, so that is another reason why it should not be speedy deleted. I am making no judgement on whether the article should exist long term, just that it is not eligable for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Matrixpets

Can you please edit the page Matrixpets for me and put it back on Wikipedia. I made the game and can help you with any questions you might have about the site. Thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermario18 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In order for a topic to have an article on wikipedia it needs to meet the relevant notability guideline. For a game on the web such as Matrixpets the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you can demonstrate that Matrixpets can meet that notability guideline then I will happily restore the article for you to use as a basis to improve on. In particular you should read the Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria section which details what coverage Matrixpets would need to have to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason for deletion of page 'Digester (computing)'

Hey Dave, May I know the reason for deletion of article 'Digester (computing)'.It would be better if the actor could inform the creator or the people having that page in watchlist , so as to discuss regarding the same. thanks.. Gaurav Pruthi

Hi, the reason why Digester (computing) was deleted was because a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digester (computing) decided that the article failed the main notability guideline as it did not have the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to meet the notability guideline. It is unfortunate that the creator of the AFD did not notify you as the creator of the page that it had been nominated for deletion, but this is not required (only encouraged). The article for deletion tag was added to the article on the 11 June and was there for 3 weeks (triple the usual time) letting people know of the discussion. Therefore unless you demonstrate that Digester does have significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm afraid the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digester (computing) is going to have to stand. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Derby (A-League)

Hi there, following your "Not yet" deletion of Sydney Derby (A-League) the main keep voter has nominated a couple of other rivalry games for deletion. Before his retaliation gets out of hand, can you please userfy the deleted article to his userspace so that he doesn't feel that all of his work is lost forever, just not until the game actually takes place and we can see how much actual coverage their is. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, have userfied to User:Macktheknifeau/Sydney Derby (A-League) and have left a note at Macktheknifeau's talk page to let him know that I have done this. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Pls move FK Shkëndija

Hello Davewild: the article should be moved to either KF Shkëndija (from Klubit Futbollistik Shkëndija), or FK Škendija. The first being the proper name in the Albanian language, which is an official language of Macedonia and the language by which the club operates, the latter the transcription of the Macedonian variety of Serbian ФК Шкендија. Currently the article is in an interesting half-way-house location - which may have been an interesting compromise after lengthy and heated discussions between well armed groupings some years ago. I am not authorised to do the moving. Cheers, Oalexander-En (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I can't just do that move myself. This is because there has been some (limited) discussion on the talk page (and previous moves have been made), so this is not just an uncontroversial move where one editor (or admin) should just make the move without discussion. You need to create a Requested move request as explained here - Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, so it can be discussed by interested editors and then a decision made by an admin who is better versed in moves than myself. Note one of the reasons for treating a move as potentially controversial is if "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page" which in this case there has been. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast and polite reply. Best regards, Oalexander-En (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

TOFOP

Hi,

On the 23 October 2011 you deleted the page about Australian Comedy Podcast "TOFOP", on the grounds that it wasn't notable enough to warrant its own article.

Since then its popularity has grown, and it has been referenced in numerous reputable publications, such as in the following article from Australian newspaper "The Herald Sun": http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/arts-books/podcasts-freed-the-radio-star/story-fn7euh6j-1226407876100 This article states that the podcast "attracts as many as 50,000 downloads an episode."

Also amongst its mentions is in this interview from "Xpress Magazine", where TOFOP co-host Wil Anderson cites the podcast as a major contribution to his fan-base and body of work: http://xpressmag.com.au/index.php/eye4/arts-interviews/4635-wil-anderson-self-sufficient-success

Anderson himself is one of Australia's most famous Comedians and Media personalities, as can be seen by the information within his own article. In contrast to other major projects of Anderson's such as TV shows "The Glass House" or "The Gruen Transfer", both of which have their own extensive articles, the total information available on TOFOP is a single sentence within Anderson's page, referring the reader to a now non-existent article.

In addition to this is the fact that this podcast is one of the most popular in Australia, regularly appearing around the top of the iTunes Comedy Podcast charts. (At the time of writing it is at #8, or at #3 not including catch-up versions of live-radio broadcasts)

I'm sure you will agree that, in the time which has passed since October 2011, TOFOP has garnered the notability required to warrant an article.

Thanks for your time!

Oscar Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)tiggyspawn93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggyspawn93 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the sources provide significant enough coverage to meet the main wikipedia notability guideline. The first link only has 3 sentences which are about TOFOP itself, notability on wikipedia requires "significant coverage" which is about the subject of the article, not just a few sentences about the topic. However with this, this and this the case becomes marginal. Given this marginality I'm not willing to just restore the article without wider opinions.

I suggest either expanding the coverage on the Wil Anderson article of TOFOP, or you can take it to Deletion Review to get more opinions on whether the new sources are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. If a consensus believes they are then the article could be restored. If you want I could also userfy the original TOFOP article to your userspace at User:Tiggyspawn93/TOFOP so you could work on it before taking it to deletion review. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

TOFOP #2

Hi! Thanks for your reply.

Fair enough. I'd still like to see it become an article again, so if you userfied it to my page so I can work on it, that would be great. Thanks! Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)tiggyspawn93

Deletion review for TOFOP

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TOFOP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)tiggyspawn93

Sorry had a few computer problems for the last few days so only managed to log back on just now. The offer to userfy still applies if the deletion review does not end as a decision to restore the article. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Undelete Sydney Derby (A-League).

Can this article Sydney Derby (A-League) be undeleted now. The original AFD was nothing more than people who hate football slamming the article in enough numbers to gain 'consensus' while ignoring that it completely followed all applicable guidelines and it should never have been deleted in the first place (which I don't blame you for, Wikipedia's structure allows completely ridiculous events like this to happen on a regular basis because of the requirement to follow 'consensus'). The article has today added another article specifically about the match itself which should clear up any doubt about the notability of the article, which is only 1 week away. This should no longer have to hide userfyed because of the negative opinions of a handful of AFL fans. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As an AFL fan who doesn't hate football or soccer, I think it is an OK article now and is about to be played, so I will be WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and bypass the hassle of DRV or whatever and just move it back. so

 Done The-Pope (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna. I request you follow the example of other administrators, and (1) redirect this article to Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay; (2) restore the full revision history and talk page.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Article restoration request

You were the admin responsible for the deletion of Mikkel Parlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a result of this discussion.

At the time, the article didn't meet the guidelines, but after Parlo's victory at Bellator 98 it now meets the minimum requirements of the specific guideline for mixed martial artists (WP:NMMA). Can you restore the article? Poison Whiskey 02:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, i've submitted my version. Poison Whiskey 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)