User talk:SoWhy

User

He has been blocked for warring against four editors at the same articlee about two days ago. After the block expired, he came back to do the same. That's why I thought page protection would force him to communicate. Squash Racket (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but protection per protection policy should be used only when other methods fail. Here we have an editor who is clearly unwilling to talk and get the hint from the block, so I do not see why they would start talking in case of protection. It is rather more sensible to block this single editor from editing than to block all editors from editing the article just because of one user who wanted to disrupt. Otherwise such people could get the whole project protected by edit warring. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

With quite a false edit summary too. Well, he doesn't break 3RR, but is being disruptive. Squash Racket (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANEW can be used for such cases as well. It is edit-warring, no matter if they break 3RR or not, so I'd suggest you take it there (I am not that familiar with WP:ANEWs modus operandi). Regards SoWhy 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sponto Page

Why was this page deleted?!!! Sponto was an iconic man who just passed and his memory deserves to be documented. BRING IT BACK! ~Amy Hamaoui, Citizendium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.11.142 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CSD#A7. The article did not indicate why the person it was about would meet the notability guidelines for biographical articles and Wikipedia is not a memorial so the fact that he died is not enough reason in itself. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection request

I can't see where you have fully looked into my quesiton at Requests for page protection yet. Pages being "edited" and deleted at least twice today include Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe), Talk:Matt Lee and Talk:Matt Lee(guitar player). Until they, or the user (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99 as I had asked because it relates to the reason for the mainspace block/lock), are blocked I don't see it changing. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I only decided on the three you listed last, all of which were only created once. I see your point, but I think we should just let the DRV finish and the CU case become resolved. Once that is completed, we can decide further steps - which are hopefully not needed if the user in question is banned for SPing and those articles all re-deleted. I see no point in taking further action now when there is no further creation of those articles. Regards SoWhy 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Marve

g6 is inapplicable after a year and a half? Is that policy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I believe you refer to G4, not G6 - recreation of deleted material. And yes, it is policy - in a way. All speedy deletion requests are subject to an admin decision and the reviewing admin may decide to not delete a page even if one or more tags apply. I generally believe that consensus can change and thus an old consensus may not represent the current consensus. See also this essay on that. Regards SoWhy 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. You can obviously decided to ignore speedy tags even when the speedy tags are correct, but you cannot remove speedy tags if the speedy tags are correct. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing speedy tags if I decide not to delete an article based on the right to decide that WP:CSD gives me is the way to show that I decided to decline speedy deletion. I am sorry to have to lecture you on this, but it is common practice that any administrator can decide to decline a valid speedy deletion tag and remove it. After all, if I just ignored the tag, how will my decision have any impact? The next admin to see it will maybe make a different decision and my decision is completely ignored then. I might just delete it myself then. So please forgive me for telling you this, but I do have a bit of experience in these matters and I think I know what I am allowed to do or what not. After all, the article you are referring to has a very interesting deletion log: You yourself decided in June 2008 to tag it for PROD instead of speedy deletion, so are you actually telling me that you made a mistake that time? I think you acted correctly back then and applied a system that allows others to give input before deletion (although not very much). My rationale is that the old decision of a mid-2007 consensus might not apply anymore when it had comments "has not yet played". So when the old consensus was for deletion based on missing notability and the new article makes claims of notability, I think the old consensus might not apply anymore and thus the article should not be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you enjoy lectures, so I'll offer one myself: WP is not a vehicle for you to "to show that [you] decided" anything or for your "decision[s to] have any impact". There are greater issues here. Your language is most troubling because it sounds like this whole admin this has gotten to you head. As for experience in speedy deletion, the sites that check edit history stats are down right now, but I strongly suspect that I have more experience with speedies then you. However, I am happy to see that you retreated from your original rationales ("a year and a half has past" and "I can do what I want") to offer a more sensible and policy based explanation. Indeed, since he began playing it makes sense to say that the consensus has changed. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I hate lectures, that's why I asked you to forgive me for them. I am sorry if you think that adminship has gone to my head, I assure you that I will always defend WP:NBD and that I have not and will think myself "better" than any other user just because I got a bunch of extra buttons. My explanation was not to claim any more rights to decide based on my own "ineffability" (at least I didn't intend it to sound like it). I just wanted to outline how WP:CSD offers admins a right to decline valid speedy deletion requests and that I have to remove the template to do so. Otherwise, how could I? That's what I meant with "how will my decision have any impact". I do not claim to be correct in all matters, far from it, but since you are the first user ever to tell me I do not have the right to decline valid speedy deletion requests (which I did all my (albeit still short) admin "career"), I assumed this means most people agree with it. Sure, I can be wrong, who can't?

As for the article in question, I said so in my first response above already that I think consensus may have changed. After all, I thought you read the AfD yourself and thus must know why the old consensus does not fit the current article. But I will remember to explain more in future to avoid such misunderstandings. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects of non-notable America's Next Top Model contestants

Hi!

Can you contact the created redirect user (Ryan Postlethwaite). He disabled protected titles of April Wilkner, Ann Markley, Bianca Golden, Jade Cole, Jenah Doucette and Kyle Kavanagh. They marked the redirect pages.

Reasons why they protected the page:

• Ann Markley, protected since June 14, 2008 at 14:51 UTC, schedule to expire on June 14, 2009 at 14:51 UTC, see log
• April Wilkner, protected since July 4, 2008 at 00:01 UTC (indefinite), see log
• Jenah Doucette, protected since September 10, 2008 at UTC (indefinite), see log
• Bianca Golden, protected since October 10, 2008 at 20:20 UTC (indefinite), see log
• Kyle Kavanagh, protected since October 13, 2008 (indefinite), see log
• Jade Cole, protected since October 13, 2008 at 13:06 UTC (indefinite), see log —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.118.168 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you telling me all this? And what exactly do you want me to do? Regards SoWhy 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan created the non-notable ANTM contestants as a redirects in their cycles. Ask the redirect creator. Protect them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.118.168 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I protect them? And why do you not ask Ryan instead? I do not understand your reasoning here. Regards SoWhy 17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I know, I'm a bit late... However, let me wish you all the very best for the new year. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? ;-) Best wishes to you as well :-) SoWhy 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor

I know pre-emptive protection isn't encouraged, but seeing as the new Doctor is announced tomorrow (5:35pm), and given how excited Doctor Who fans get, it may be prudent to keep an eye on the articles... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Edokter (talk · contribs) semi-protected it until May 1, 2009 already. I got it watchlisted but I think most of the regular DW-contributors here will not change that content without a good source, so I think we can leave it like that for now. I'll have a look at it tomorrow evening and I am sure one of the admins working at WP:DW will protect it if necessary. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm quick enough, I will add the actor first, and then reference the DWC episode. Hopefully my clout extends so far as to get away with an unreferenced fact for a few minutes. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can pre-write the <ref>-tag today and then copy+paste it. Another question is, do you plan on turning the redirect into an article? I mean apart from the actor, there is nothing else to add. Also, most activity will probably be at Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who). Regards SoWhy 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Although I could talk about "Journey's End" in the article... mind you, I already have Jackson Lake (Doctor Who) and Doctor Who transition specials to source and write... Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection request (Stuart Campbell)

Refusal of protection for reasons given accepted, but please do warn the user in question (88.108.243.214), who has continued to repeat the same malicious edits (now four times) while refusing to enter any debate on the Discussion page. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)