User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Mille congratulazioni, Maestro Stradivario!

Award archived.

Haha, thanks, Shirt58! I shall treasure it. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar archived.

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Then this

The Latin alphabet was used for the Vietnamese language since the 20th century. Those redirects are completely irrelevance. Maybe you should go to WP Project Vietnam and tell about those redirects, or maybe you should discuss this with User:DHN, he probably would say the same thing as I did. ༆ (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not saying that you're wrong about that - it's just that we can't use speedy deletion for redirects that are not new. I recommend that you list them at WP:RfD and see what other editors think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No way, a redirect from a non-native language MUST be deleted immediately. I had done many similar speedy deletion before, and those that you declined are the first to be declined. All of those redirects were created by several sock-puppets of the same person. Again, please tell DHN about those. ༆ (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, if sockpuppets are involved, then the redirects might qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G5. I'll have another look into this. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see you're right - the creator is User:乾隆帝, who is indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. However, since they were created, the pages 阮晉勇, 阮明哲, and 阮富仲 have all been edited by respected users. This, plus the length of time that has passed, makes me reluctant to delete the pages. Sorry, but WP:RfD is the way to go here, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but please tell about those redirects to talk page of WP Project VN or user DHN. ༆ (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Vu telepresence Wiki page

Dear Mr. Stradivarius i see that you have deleted VU Telepresence page. I think just like Cisco Telepresence and LifeSize Vu page also deserves a place. I agree that i may have been very fast in pushing the page up but i dont know how things work here. Plus i only got active recently on Wiki, so as the guidelines of wiki stage all you senior editors should help us rather than punishing us and destroying our work. Please let me know how can i restart the pageCyberhawk 5 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cyberhawk. I'm sorry if I caused any offence by deleting the page - I assure you that none was meant. Although I was the one who deleted it, I was merely judging the consensus that was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu TelePresence. If the consensus was that the page should be kept, I would have closed the debate as "keep" instead. My personal opinions did not enter into it. If you think that I deleted the page in error, you are welcome to bring your case to deletion review, however. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, regarding the existence of the Cisco Telepresence and LifeSize pages, I'm afraid such arguments are traditionally given very little weight in deletion discussions. You might find this page instructive here. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)

Hello, deleting the page is a mistake. Iam Iranian and when I was going in doctor's office I was meeting many MS patients who were doing the same and it was not my own experience! Please try to keep the page save and shown to people. It can help an MS patient alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

my email address is [email address removed] and I was the guy who wrote down 'Honey Bee therapy for multiple sclerosis(M)' and I please you to help keep the page and show it to people, specially MS patients, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please either send me me message on my gmail or author mjesfahani in wikipedia or gmail, they're connected togetther.please keep the page and show it to people,do not delete. Mjesfahani either in wikipedia or gmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm sorry that you felt the page was deleted in error. As it was originally deleted via this deletion discussion, then you will need to go to deletion review if you want it to be undeleted. However, you will need to show that there is new evidence that the subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines that wasn't considered in the previous discussion. This means finding reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. If you are aware of any such sources, you can link them for me here if you want, and I will take a look at them. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


A good proof to you is this link from a famous site that people with MS do this therapy: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjesfahani (talkcontribs) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A good reference NOT to delete "Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)"

MansourJE (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) The page was specifically for MS sickness that was deleted.

Hello again Mjesfanahi. I had a look at at the reference you linked above, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to pass our guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Although the MSRC claim that their information is unbiased, it doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed, and it is not clear that it is subjected to any kind of editorial scrutiny. Without any evidence that MSRC engages in fact-checking its information, then I'm afraid that we can't use it to provide evidence of notability.

Also, please note that when writing on medical topics such as this one, we are expected to adhere to adhere to strict guidelines on medical sources. If medical sources don't exist, then it may be possible to use books published by a respectable publisher, or national newspapers. However, in this case Wikipedia would not be able to present any medical claims as true - see our guideline on fringe theories for more details.

Finally, we actually already have an article on honey bees and their use in medicine - Apitherapy. Perhaps you could consider helping to make this article better, rather than trying to create a new page specifically about honey bee treatment of MS? If you do decide to help with this article, though, please bear in mind the guidelines on sourcing for medical articles that I linked above. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)I added 7 references.

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, please see my comment at User talk:Mjesfahani#Apitherapy. Graham87 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Graham87, thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Crouch


you recently deleted the article Bernie Crouch, was this because of the automated message from VWBot or did I do something else wrong?

Tommytoplad (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tommytoplad. I deleted the page because it didn't indicate how Crouch was important - that is, why he should have a page in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we require subjects to pass certain "notability guidelines" before they can have a page. Have a read of the notability guidelines for biographies and this quick explanation of notability and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:V -- wow!

Dear Strad -- I missed your AfD but looking over it I saw reference to your work on the WP:V mediation. Wow! That must be the best handling of an extremely contentious mediation that I've ever seen. Thanks for giving a gold standard that the rest of us can look up to. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It was a team effort, though. Most of the credit belongs to the mediation participants, who stuck with the process right to the end, and the admins who monitored and closed the RfC. And I wouldn't call the mediation a "gold standard" - there were quite a few things that I could have done better, and I'm still learning a lot about how to mediate. Although of course, I'm delighted that the RfC went so smoothly and that we have a consensus on the issue now. Thanks for your vote of confidence. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
By AfD, I of course meant RfA -- which did go about as smoothly as is humanly possible. Looking forward to working with you more.

Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami

Dear Stradivarius,

The undersigned is the supposed infringer of his legal right to inform, objectively and with documented references to late Sri Syam Sundar Goswami.

The idea of creating an article about one of the major pioneers of contemporaneous Yoga came to my 82-old year mind when I incidentally found an article of the patronym Goswami and bearers of the name but not that of the above person.

Whatever the policy prevailing with Wikipedia, I found somewhat peculiar the so-called speedy deletion of an article drafted most objectively in yogic spirit, that is it faithful to the principle of truth.

The pragmatic man I am now asks: how to proceed to straighten out this anomaly by either creating a one-line edit to the existing Goswami article, or, preferably by dedicating a quite new article to Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami?

Bests regards,

Basile P Catoméris Catome (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Basile, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry if I distressed you by tagging the page for speedy deletion. The problem is that the text was copied word for word from this site, and therefore counts as a copyright violation of the original authors of the text. (See the copyright FAQ for more details, and also the notice on your talk page has a good overview.) Copyright violations cannot go in Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

If you are able to prove that Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami passes the notability guidelines for biographies, though, you are welcome to create a new article about him. Make sure that you use your own words, however - further copyright violations will also be removed or deleted. Also, please note that you don't have any right to free speech on Wikipedia. Your articles and edits must conform to Wikipedia policies if you want them to be included. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Second language acquisition

I've re-raised the hyphen issue but I didn't think to notify people. Please see Talk:Second language acquisition#Hyphen and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12#Category:Second-language acquisition. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've reverted the move for now and left a comment on the talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, what did you mean when you said I needed to find sources that would indicate the website passes? That I needed to find websites that say the same thing I said on my article? Because, for example, the Survivor Sucks article only has references that link back to the part about the American Idol scandal, and none about the rest of the article. So, if I were to find a few pages that link back to a certain topic on the website, would that make it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiquidDiamonds (talkcontribs) 20:11, 14 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello there LiquidDiamonds. You need to find multiple reliable sources that are both independent of the website and cover it in detail. Stuff about the website in general is best, although individual events may make the website as a whole notable. See WP:WEB and WP:EVENT for the relevant guidelines, and I also highly recommend reading this short explanation of notability on Wikipedia if you want an overview. Finally, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why arguments about Survivor Sucks and other similar websites are not generally very good ones to make. If you need any clarification about any of these, feel free to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The obsidian wall

Thank you for the note. However, I'm a bit confused. Guy marches in here, and puts up an article about his own e-book which he just e-published, and it gets to stay for 7 days? Seems that meets A7 to me. Totally non-notable.

Then again, I'm not admin. Been editing for a good long time and I do tend to get one wrong every now and then. I usually just grin and say "thank you" and move on. But this just seems like such a blatant advertisement of a self-published e-book that there has to be some criteria of speedy that would fit it.

Your call. I noticed you re-tagged it with a PROD. Only problem I see there is the author can simply remove it. Thanks for listening to my ranting. Appreciate what you do. Just questioning this decision. Kind regards, --Manway 06:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Manway. I totally appreciate your concerns here. The article is promotional and of dubious notability, so it's totally understandable to want it deleted. However, the text of CSD A7 is pretty clear on this point: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works". And although it's promotional, I don't think it's quite at the level of being a G11 candidate. If you don't want it to stick around for seven days, then you could try sending it to AfD where it might be SNOW-deleted. It would probably be a good idea to edit the article to remove the worst of the promotional material as well. In fact, I'll make a go of it now. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. AfD done. Appreciate the backup. Regards, --Manway 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

article deletion question

Dear Mr Stradivarius

I'm not quite sure if I'm messaging an appropriate person about this - I've occasionally edited Wiki articles on contemporary classical music for the last year or two, but still haven't managed to work out a lot of the talk-related stuff. However, I just happened to notice this page and am a bit concerned about it, for a couple of reasons ...

I can't actually work out whether the deleted article is archived somewhere, so can't judge how useful it was in its state immediately prior to deletion, but I'm a bit surprised by both the content and the tone of some of the discussion (particularly from users J04n and The Blade of the Northern Lights).

(a) Keeley has at least two albums out - I know this because I own a copy of one which is not the one mentioned by user J04n. (It seems you can find them both by googling "rob keeley chamber music". It could be the variation between Robert and Rob causing the confusion, maybe??) (b) It's certainly not true that the album J04n does mention has not had a single review. I've read two if not three reviews of it - not sure they were all online but at least one was in The Times (should be online but behind a paywall). (c) Both users J04n and The Blade of the Northern Lights talk about "releasing an album". But that can't be expected to be a condition of notoriety for a classical composer. (Composers don't release albums; performers record their music. The composer isn't even necessarily involved in that process.)

I'm not really disputing this particular deletion decision - I'm heavily involved in this field, and while I think Keeley's reasonably well known I wouldn't claim he's one of the most important people working in the field - but I'm concerned (a) that classical composer entries seem to be being deleted by people who are judging them by criteria more relevant to pop/rock ("releasing albums" etc.), and (b) that they're being deleted on the grounds of statements which are demonstrably untrue (e.g. only one album of his music; album has received no reviews).

Grateful for your advice, or if you can tell me who else I should be raising this kind of worry with ...

Many thanks! worldisnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldisnow (talkcontribs) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Worldisnow. You raise good points - let me go through both of them. As you may already be aware, we have guidelines on how to judge the notability of subjects on Wikipedia. The guideline that many of the participants in the deletion debate pointed to - WP:NMUSIC - actually has a section specifically for composers and lyricists. This is a result of multiple discussions about the need to have different notability criteria for classical composers etc. than for other kinds of musicians or ensembles. The talk about "just one album" is a bit of a red herring here - the real reason for deletion is that none of the criteria on this page are met, not that the album has any special significance. If you have any evidence that he does pass any of the criteria on that page, please let me know, and I may well un-delete the article if the evidence is good. (I can also email you a copy of the deleted article if you want to take a look.)

As well as the music-specific guideline, you should be aware of the general notability guideline, which applies to all articles (also see this simplified explanation). If there is any significant coverage of Keeley in reliable sources, then we could use that to prove his notability independently of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. As a general rule, we would need to see newspaper or book coverage about him or a significant part of his career for this to apply. Again, if you are aware of such sources, let me know, and we can discuss the possibility of un-deleting the article.

The closing administrator at articles for deletion will usually ignore comments that aren't based on any of the notability guidelines or other valid reasons for deletion, so there really isn't much need to worry about users who get the guidelines muddled up or who comment purely based on personal preference. You can usually trust the admins to know what they're doing. :) Of course, sometimes admins make bad decisions, but for that, we have deletion review. Hopefully this has cleared things up a bit, but do let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - Many thanks for your reply above. I'm obviously being very stupid as I can't work out how to reply directly under it!
Thanks for the clarification, and I agree - it's not your decision that concerned me, just the reasons put forward by other users for it. I was particularly worried that inappropriate notability criteria might begin to be applied across the board to composers working in this particular "contemporary classical" field. Having looked at the specific guidelines for composers which you directed me to, I actually find them still largely inappropriate for this field (they seem more written with musical-theatre composers in mind ... the only guideline there that could be applied in many cases for instrumental composers is the competition-winner one, and the definition of "major competition" is so debatable that I don't think that's particularly helpful ...). I would actually suggest, for what it's worth, that the criteria under "Other" [the section directly below Composers on that page you linked to] - and particularly criteria 1 and 5 there - are more appropriate for this particular field (which is really a non-commercial "subculture" of classical music, and thus fits the "Other" description fairly well).
But as said, I'm not actually disagreeing with this specific deletion decision!
Anyway, thanks for your help and advice. Worldisnow (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)worldisnow
Hello again. To reply directly underneath, just press the "edit" link to the right of the section heading. About the notability critiria - I'm sure they can be improved, yes, but unfortunately I'm not the one who holds the keys or anything. :) If you can think of a good, objective criterion that you would like to add, I suggest starting a discussion at WT:NMUSIC, the talk page of the notability guideline. If people generally seem in favour, then you can start a request for comments and it might just make it into the guideline. On reflection, I think that most classical composers with Wikipedia articles are included because they fulfil the general notability guideline. There are lots of subjects where we don't have specific notability guidelines, after all, and the general one seems to work pretty well for them. As I say, though, feel free to start a discussion on the music guideline talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, My name is Will Weaver. I'm a national speaker in the Real Estate industry. I'm trying to add myself to Wikipedia and place articles & Press Releases on the site but I keep getting flagged for deletion. I've authored hundreds of articles for real estate publications, Real estate comunity, local publications. I've had senators, mayors and congress men & women attend my seminars. I'm real and not a fictional person. What I posted is news for the Real Estate industry.

What am I doing wrong? Could someone be so kind and assist me?

My user name is WillWWeaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Will, and sorry to hear of your frustrations. The reason that the page you wrote got deleted was that it was promotional - Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes. We try and cover things from a neutral point of view, and if you come to Wikipedia with the objective of promoting a product or service, then it's inevitable that you will run into problems. If you want a Wikipedia article for something that you have a conflict of interest, you will have to get used to the idea of showing the bad parts of the subject as well as the good parts. (And also, the topic must be notable for us to have an article on it.) I highly recommend reading the plain and simple guide to having a conflict of interest, which will tell you everything you need to know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PDF Printer for iPad

You where correct while I don't think it merits inclussion into wikipedia, I admit I used the wrong CSD tag. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's no problem. It's easy to think that articles about companies and products are promotional, because they will help to increase the profile of the subject, even if written neutrally. The important thing is to concentrate purely on whether the tone of the article is promotional, not on the overall picture of how the Wikipedia article may affect the subject's standing. And in this particular case, the tone seems fine. Not so sure about the notability though - that would take some more searching for sources. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Db-notice changes

I see that you recently changed the behavior of {{db-notice}} and all the child templates. I don't think your changes are working. For example, if I start a new section, give it a subject and include the template, I get a double header as seen here. Your automatic inclusion of a welcome message was also unexpected and is not in the documentation. Was there a discussion about the changes that I missed? Can you please check the double header? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gogo Dodo, and thanks for letting me know about the problem. Sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused. I've reverted my changes while I figure out what's going on. There wasn't any discussion, no, but that was because the changes I made weren't supposed to actually affect the end result that appears on user talk pages. They were aimed at standardizing the |header= parameter, which behaves differently in the warning templates that use {{db-notice}} then the old ones that don't use it. Give me a second while I look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd. I see that a double header is not the result that you intended, but it looks like the exact same behaviour that you would have got from the old {{db-notice}} code. I can't see any difference between the results from the old code and the results from the new code if the only parameter you use with {{db-spam-notice}} is the article title. The same with the automatic welcome using {{first article}} - that was in the old template code as well. The only differences should be if you start using the |header= or |header-text= parameters. Did you notice any behaviour that was different from before I updated the header code on August 1 other than using these two parameters? I think the real problem here might be bad documentation, which is the reason I started updating all of these templates in the first place. I'm in the process of fixing that, but it will take a little while. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I discovered something new and perhaps you can help me figure out why. The templates are a bit too complex for me to understand at the moment. If you look at my sandbox, you will see some interesting quirks on some of the templates that I don't quite understand. On all of the edits, I started with a new section. In the first one, I used {{spam-warn-deletion}} and as you can see, I got the header at the very top, which is bad. On the second one, I used {{nn-warn-deletion}} and the "Speedy deletion nomination of..." header did not appear, which is what I expect. In the third one, I used {{nothanks-warn-deletion}} and the extra header line appeared, which is also bad. So why is {{nn-warn-deletion}} different?
When I think about it, I think has been the behavior of either {{spam-warn-deletion}} or {{nothanks-warn-deletion}} for a long time. I do recall that one of these did act unusually for me, but I think when I asked about your changes to {{db-notice}}, I get confused over which one was weird.
I hope all of this makes sense to you. Sorry to trouble you with it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I just worked out what happened. Let me explain. The default behaviour of the templates that use {{db-notice}} is to include a header - the reason that {{nn-warn-deletion}} doesn't leave a header is because it doesn't use db-notice. Like I said above, the changes I made to db-notice don't change its behaviour in this regard. However, last week as I was making {{speedy deletion notices}}, I redirected some of the older notification templates to the ones that use db-notice. It must have been one of the templates that I redirected that you used and which gave you the unexpected results. Sorry about that - I should have discussed that before I went through with it. If you want me to revert my redirects while we discuss the changes that is no problem, and you are more than welcome to revert them yourself if you want. You can find the relevant changes in my contribs here and here.

The reason I redirected the templates was that I thought they were redundant to the ones that use db-notice, which I now see might not be the case. From what I have seen, the first templates to be written were the ones that don't use db-notice. I'm not sure when the templates that use db-notice were written, but Twinkle only uses the db-notice templates, hence why I assumed they were the standard ones. I had foreseen that not everyone would want to include the header, and that was actually part of the code that I added to db-notice. Before, the header was compulsory in the templates based on db-notice, but now, in theory, it is possible to suppress the header with |header=no. (The individual notice templates all need to be updated before this will work, though.)

It would be very easy to change this to suppressing the header by default, but if we decide to do it this way, we will also need to update Twinkle to add a |header=yes parameter each time it uses one of the templates. I don't mind which one of these we use, but I would prefer that we choose one way of doing things and stick to it. Part of the problem has been the documentation, which I don't think was ever written for the individual templates that use db-notice. I've written {{db notice doc}} to counteract this, and I will start rolling it out tonight, together with the template updates. Maybe we can discuss whether we want headers by default or not at WP:VPT in the meantime. Whichever one we choose, it will be easy to update {{db-notice}} and {{db notice doc}} after the fact. Does this clear things up a bit? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after a few false starts I have the templates and documentation working for {{db-nonsense-notice}}, {{db-test-notice}} and {{db-vandalism-notice}}. So you can now use (for example) {{subst:db-test-notice|Test|header=no}} to suppress the header. I'll update all the other templates and docs when I have some more free time. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough explanation. It doesn't bother me one way or another if the header is there or not, just that it is consistent across of all of the notices. I don't want to try to remember that some are off and some are on. Discussing the matter is WP:UTM is probably a bit better than the Village Pump, but either place is fine. Can you fix the header appearing above the automatic welcome notice? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi again, and thanks for removing that personal attack earlier. I've started a discussion at WT:UTM#Speedy deletion notices if you want to comment about the header-by-default thing. Also, I've made the header optional in {{first article}}, so it now disappears if you use header=no with the speedy deletion templates. But again, this is only the ones that I've got around to updating, and I'm only up to {{db-repost-notice}}... I'll try and do a few more now. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Those personal attacks out of the blue are always so much fun. Better get used to it though. Welcome to the club. =)
Going back to the templates that you recently redirected, the ones listed under "CSD deletions" at WP:UTM are not quite interchangeable to what you redirected them to. Take for example {{Nothanks-warn-deletion}} versus {{Db-copyvio-notice}}. With Nothanks, the message states that the deletion has already occurred. With the Db-copyvio, the message states that the deletion has yet to occur. It tells the editor that they can contest the deletion by clicking the link, but they really can't since the article is already deleted. I've always felt that the templates listed under "CSD deletions" were like admin-only templates where an admin has noticed the article in question and deleted it immediately. The "CSD nominations" templates are for non-admins that can only CSD tag an article.
On a side note, I don't use Twinkle, so I'm not aware of what templates it uses. I'm one of these old school editors that use a very limited set of automated tools, because well, they didn't exist when I first started ("Back in the old days, sonny, we typed everything out and there were no bots..."). So if I give you a vague look when it comes to Twinkle, you can understand that I have no clue about it. :-) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I probably shouldn't have redirected those ones without discussion. I've undone my redirection of all the templates listed under "CSD deletions" at WP:UTM. I only did it in the first place because I thought it wouldn't be controversial, so now that I see that it would be, I won't be redirecting them again in a hurry. Would you mind if I converted them to use {{db-notice}} though? Maybe it's just be, but I can't stand to see all these unstandardised templates hanging around the place.:) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I've got no problem with that. After all, this conversation started with being consistent. :-) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox airport - edit request

Hi, just to make you aware, I added an edit request at Template talk:Infobox airport. Thank you! Kairportflier (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kairportfier. Could you add the relevant code to the sandbox? I can update it for you after you have it working. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I added what I saw in other edit requests at Template talk:Infobox airport, clearly I have not done this before so I might not have done it correctly so if I did not do it correctly just tell me what to do or fix, Thanks so much! Kairportflier (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to show the changes that you want to the actual template code - that is, the code that you see from this link. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I got it this time. Kairportflier (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I understand why you declined my requested deletion of Mini, however once the history merge has been completed I am of the firm opinion that the article for the Mini Hatch should not stay at this title.

By far the most suitable article for this title is Mini (marque), and it is standard for specific car models to be titled with marque + model name, in this case Mini Hatch. As you are probably aware, there are a large number of car models which come under the Mini marque. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon11, it seems like we keep meeting each other recently. :) It looked like people on Talk:Mini Hatch weren't in agreement about what the title should be, so that would make it too controversial for speedy deletion G6 in my opinion. The best thing to do would probably be to wait for the pages to be history-merged, and then start a requested move to see what the title should be. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Understand. However in this case the page was moved from Mini Hatch to Mini without consensus despite the article title having been under discussion on the talk page, and it seems a pretty ill-considered move all in all. Essentially what I am seeking is for Mini Hatch to just go back to Mini Hatch rather than for the cut and paste move to Mini which was just done to be completed. Is this possible? Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the page should stay at Mini Hatch until a consensus to move it has been shown. Once the page histories have been merged we can move it back - I'm not so good on my history merging, though, so I'll wait until someone who knows better can do it. :) The requested move can come after that. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


why is my page for Mr.Rootsy being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkTalentRap (talkcontribs) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello UkTalentRap. The page is being deleted because it doesn't show how MrRootsy is notable. To have a page about MrRootsy in Wikipedia, you need to show that he passes the notability guidelines for musicians. (See also this simple explanation of notability on Wikipedia.) Let me know if you have any questions after reading these pages. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States

I understand if you don't want to do the task. Frankly I don't feel strongly enough about changing the code to remove a redundant parameter in the template to start a discussion on the project page. Personally I think the parameter is unneeded and makes the template less efficient but its up to you all. I can easily do the coding in the sandbox but since my RFA failed, largely due to a lack of trust from the community, I don't feel that I should be doing admin related things anymore whether in the sandbox or otherwise. I really don't mind doing the work and was happy to do it but IMO if I am not trusted to implement the change, then I shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it has that much to do with whether you have admin rights or not - if the code works, the code works. And if you get together a working version in the sandbox that has consensus, then I'll implement it for you. It's really not a big deal. It's just I can't go around working up code for everyone who makes an edit-protected request, because then I wouldn't have any time to do anything else. :) I recommend you work up the code in the sandbox and then activate the {{editprotected}} template again, and then it will be job done. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I started the discussion on the projects talk page. We'll see where it goes. I'm sorry but I don't have any intention at this time to do the work. I tried that and the community told me I cannot be trusted so now, since I can't be trusted, I'll leave a request for those who can. I know that seems like a bad attitude but IMO if I can't be trusted to implement a change its fine, but I shouldn't be circumventing that lack of community trust by doing it in the sandbox and then having an admin implement it that more often than not didn't know how the code works and I had to explain it to them first. Its better to let those that are trusted do the work that the community has entrusted to them and those of us that aren't trusted do the work we are trusted to do, if any. In this case, the template is very very complicated and there are probably less than 15 people in the Wikipedia community, myself included, that really understand how it functions so I understand if you don't feel comfortable making changes to it and I do not mean that as an insult in any way so please don't be offended at my saying that. Kumioko (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if no-one raises any objections on the talk page in, say, a week, then we can assume a consensus by silent majority. And don't forget that an editor's performance at RfA has very little to do with their coding ability. There are plenty of admins out there who have no idea about template coding, and there are plenty of brilliant template coders who would fail an RfA for completely unrelated reasons. So it's best not to let it get to you too much. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

I'm sorry this is so belated, but I just wanted to say thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciated the advice you gave me and have made a bit more of an effort to tie my rationales at AfD into Wikipedia policies; the only reason I had not done so before was because I thought it was best to demonstrate common sense in making comments rather than just linking to a page in Wikipedia space. In any case, I now feel quite a bit more enthusiastic about Wikipedia's bureaucracy than I had been before, although I still don't particularly care for rules and regulations for the sake of them.

Ah, but I'm getting off on a tangent, aren't I? Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. — Congrats on your recent RfA. I was quite thrilled to support someone with a solid basis in dispute resolution. We need more admins of your calibre. Kurtis (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm actually really surprised that so many people supported in my RfA - I was expecting to get at least a few opposes. About the bureaucracy, I agree that rules just for the sake of having rules isn't such a good idea. But then again, I have always been of the school that process is important. At AfD, it always pays to remember that admins have to rely on judging how well arguments fit policy when they make their closing decisions. Usually the decisions reflect the votes that people cast, but not always - see this discussion for a good example of what I mean. Let me know if you want to clarify anything, or if you want pick my brain about anything else Wikipedia-related, and I'll be happy to help you out. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your very quick response. I'm not at all surprised that you'd gotten unanimous support at your RfA, or at least not anymore than anyone else who goes by unopposed. Goes to show you haven't made any enemies along the way, which is probably a good thing. =)
I had always believed that AfD's were judged for basic consensus as to whether the article should be kept, not necessarily just as a reflection of policies. But now I am convinced otherwise. I also think process is important, but there are certain things that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (although, alas, I cannot list any examples at the moment).
Thanks, and take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Good day sir.

I created an article with the name "Skybant" but was unfortunately deleted by you. Please I would like to ask for your permission to let this article exist as it is not a form of advertisement but an article based on the Social Network and its popularity in Nigeria. Thank you sir.. Looking forward to receiving your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorbanski (talkcontribs) 14:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Victorbanski and thanks for your contributions. Your article was deleted under WP:CSD A7 and WP:CSD G11. Even if the article is written in a neutral manner (not like an advert), the article's subject is not important. With only 23K users, the website doesn't establish notability and nor is important. You should search for a different subject as even if the article survives WP:CSD, it'll get deleted through WP:AFD as there are no WP:RS on the article which makes it fail WP:GNG. TheSpecialUser TSU 14:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Victorbanski. For Skybant to have an article in Wikipedia, you need to show that it passes our notability guidelines for websites. That is, you must show that there are independent sources like newspapers or books which have significant coverage about the site. (See also this simplified explanation.) If you are aware of any sources like this, then just post a link here and I will take a look at them for you. If you aren't aware of any sources like this, though, I'm afraid Skybant won't be able to have a Wikipedia article. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

John Donne

Thanks for your assistance with the above article. If possible, could you please monitor the behavior of User:Afterwriting (especially in his comments on Talk:John Donne) his responses seem to be hostile and disruptive rather than seeking consensus on the matter. I fear his behavior is not an isolated incident and some of his past interactions (vis-a-vis his contributions) need to be examined. The name-calling violates WP:CIVIL and some appropriate sanction may need to be considered. Please advise.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the discussion left an awful lot to be desired - when I read the talk page and the page history I saw heated words on all sides, though. I don't want to place sanctions for the name-calling just yet, as that would leave an awful lot of editors blocked. I think that the best thing we can do to resolve the dispute is to concentrate on the content and stop talking about problems with other editors - for nine disputes out of ten, if we can get the editors productively focused on the content at hand, then the dispute practically resolves itself. In my opinion, the next step is for everyone to address the points that Dmitrij Czarkoff and I have made at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread. If everyone concentrates on finding practical answers to the questions posed in those posts, then we will likely have this dispute wrapped up quickly. By the way, have you ever read WP:GLUE? It is one of my favourite Wikipedia essays and I think it would be good advice for everyone in this dispute to follow. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No prob.

Good you told me. I shall hold all my horses back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesluxley (talkcontribs) 08:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon has speedy deleted my page insistent IT systems, plz cancel it.

Mr. Vernon has speedy deleted my page insistent IT systems, plz cancel it. Irshad Alam Shaikh (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't want to overrule Acroterion's decision. Acroterion gave you some good advice, so I recommend following it. Let me know if you have any other questions, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mail Order Bride

Hello. Since you so expertly took care of the KCT to Korps Commandotroepen histmerge. I was hoping you might also be able to resolve Mail Order Bride, as I really have no idea where to actually list it to get it fixed. I believe all edits before October 2, 2007‎ need to go to a new title, so that the history can be preserved (all the individual episode articles were merged all at once to make Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 1)). Mail Order Bride then needs to be deleted so Mail Order Bride (disambiguation) can be moved there. Please let me know if this isn't going to work. All the best, France3470 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I didn't do any history merging, as there were multiple pages merged into Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 1) at the same time. Appending the history of Mail Order Bride to Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 1) would have made things very confusing. Instead I have moved the page history to Talk:Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 1)/Old history and used the {{copied}} template to provide attribution. If you have a spare moment, could you add {{copied}} or {{copied multi}} templates for all the other episode articles that were merged into Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 1)? It would be a big help. Also, for next time, you can tag articles for history merge with {{histmerge}}, or in cases like this where history merging isn't necessary you can just tag the relevant articles with {{db-move}}. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Much thanks, that is exactly what I had in mind. I'll go ahead and add those other templates. Hopefully that will be the last WP:MALPLACED item for a while with hidden surprises. All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

moranctffa96 undeletion of Daniel T. Drew & Todd G. Berch

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I have added sources to the two articles listed above and as that you don't delete my page. Thanks, Moranctffa96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moranctffa96 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 22 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi Moranctffa96. You need to add reliable, secondary sources before you can remove the deletion template. See our notability guidelines for biographies and this simplified explanation of notability on Wikipedia for more information. First-person interviews and primary sources such as don't count, I'm afraid. If you have any more questions, try the help desk, or you can leave the text {{help me}} on your user talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thank you for reviewing my request for speedy deletion. I appreciate you providing me with notice. (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Aquatic automobiles

You've touched Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad already in AfD. Thought you'd like to see this one, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Demographic evolution ‎

I tried to import a Spanish Wikipedia template upon request, copying it to {{Demographic evolution}}. The original is at Template:Demographic evolution. I'm not fluent enough in coding to figure out what's wrong with the job I did but it's not working. Please see User talk:EagerToddler39#Population graph for background. Since I was impressed with your template fluidity, I thought maybe you could help. If not, thanks anyway. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. :) You were right originally - it just needed some other templates to be copied over from the Spanish Wikipedia, namely es:Plantilla:Gráfica de evolución/period and es:Plantilla:Max27. I copied these over to Template:Demographic evolution/period and Template:Max27, and things now appear to be working. It might need some fine-tuning still, though. I should probably set up some test cases, but I might not have time today. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, it strikes me that the name of the template is a bit strange - I think Spanish evolución is a bit broader in meaning than English evolution. How about just plain old Template:Vertical bar chart? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Aha! You know what happened? When I tried to access the transcluded Spanish Wikipedia template to import it, and saw the error code "Expression error: Unexpected < operator", I misinterpreted that as the software having an error finding the template itself, rather than that being the display of the template. Much obliged. You're right about the name. I was just being literal as I was muddling through the translation from Spanish. I'm going to move it exactly as you suggested (I suppose Template:Demographic evolution/period should be moved in eqivalent manner). It does have a very dynamic display don't you think?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim

This is an easy AfD to read.  The nominator stipulates in the nomination that there is reliable primary material, and even provides a RSN discussion.  One editor points out that GNG and BLP1E do not mandate deletion.  One editor names a redirect target.  These facts are not in dispute.  Given the presence of reliable material and a redirect/merge target, only one editor makes an argument for deletion.  This argument was "delete as BLP issue".  But this doesn't actually indicate the issue.  This seems to be channeling the other Delete !votes in the AfD, with no clear understanding of why a BLP issue might be a case for deletion.  The delete !votes that cited notability are invalid, but can be rehabilitated, perhaps with reduced weight, as "redirect or merge somewhere".  Likewise, the one Redirect !vote is not a delete and redirect, but a non-delete redirect.  Between a merge and a redirect, a redirect is indicated here, leaving merge to editorial control.  I'm sure you know that AfD is not a vote count.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Unscintillating. The source that the RSN discussion talks about actually does not mention the subject at all, and that is how it was used in the article. Paraphrasing: "this US Department of Defence source purports to list all Guantanamo detainees, but Muhammad Qasim is not listed". The other two sources are primary sources written by the subject's lawyer.

I agree with you that the delete !vote citing "BLP issues" is not one to be weighted strongly at all, but I disagree about the !votes citing notability. I think these are perfectly valid arguments for deletion. If you still disagree then you are welcome to take the case to deletion review. In fact, getting some more scrutiny of the close might be a good idea, given the controversy surrounding these articles by Geo Swan. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is all very interesting, although it appears to be a WP:IAR argument that is not mentioned in the close.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Which part of my comment above were you taking as a WP:IAR argument, the first paragraph about the sources, or the part in the second paragraph about the arguments based on notability? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 22:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You've cited reasons for delete that are not present in the discussion.  You've even referred to the deleted article.  They seem to be reasonable, but there is no way someone reading the closing such as myself would have known that this was or is a part of the closing rationale.  So no further discussion is needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)