User talk:SoWhy

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

Wojciech hoody

Hello again. G11? I must admit that I didn't see that one coming :) Would you mind giving an explanation?

Thanks for your time. decltype (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because of the last sentence which effectively consisted of "buy them!". Regards SoWhy 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't remember that. Is there any way you could provide me with the article text, or would that be problematic? decltype (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence was "Wojciech hoody's can be bought at Wellesbourne Market for very cheap.", i.e. advertising the intended shop to buy them. I could provide you with the full text but I don't think it's needed (although you can have it if you want). I chose G11 as it did not fit G3 as good as one might think because it sounded more like a fan/hate description of an actual product. Regards SoWhy 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, so the text is not needed. Thanks again. decltype (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi SoWhy, I've just deleted Template:User CVU4-en at the author's request, but I'm still seeing a shedload of userbox pages with user requests to delete, have I mucked something up or is it just the servers taking time to catch up - do you see 76 pages with author request to delete? I thought all the transcluded userboxes would just go red. ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Will be handled by the job queue in time. Null-editing the pages in question would remove them from the category immediately. --Amalthea 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Amalthea, Looks like someone else has restored the template and declined the speedy. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. That might speed the process up a little due to prioritization in the job queue, but otherwise it's just the same. Cheers, Amalthea 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amalthea is correct, it can happen that pages are cached and will not show changes to templates, like deletions as well. It happens. In this case we have no such problem anyway, as Juliancolton restored the template now. Be more careful with G7 though, if others have substantially edited it, the creator's request is not important. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, what I'm taking from this incident is that my understanding of a substantial edit needs resetting :-) ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:CSD G7

Sorry about that. My mistake, as I have lost experience with the WikiScript formatting. Thanks!  Marlith (Talk)  15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just remember it for the next time. :-) YhwOs 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shanman7's User Page

I am just wondering why my user page was on CAT:CSD in the first place. Was it a glitch that just "happened"? Any response would be great, Thanks. Shanman7 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was about the userbox {{user CVU4-en}} you and others have on your page. The creator of the userbox tagged it with {{db-g7}} but forgot that CSD taggings on Templates need to be in <noinclude>-tags, lest they are transcluded to all pages the template is used, like in this case. If that happens, the server takes some days to process the job queue with the changes, i.e. even if the tag is removed, it will still show up in category until it is processed anew. This can be sped up doing null edits, i.e. just loading the page and saving it without any changes. Such null-edits do not show up in the revision history. In some cases however, like in yours, it may happen that some special characters or anything like that are not correctly parsed and even saving the page without touching the edit window will create a change (for example add some blanks). The effect is the same, there are no changes visible but then it will show up because there was in fact a change, although none that can be perceived. Hope that explains it. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Hübchen

Can you please complete the afd nomination for Henry Hübchen? Not a notable actor by any standard.212.95.57.23 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be disruptive. Henry Hübchen is quite notable, especially here in Germany. The last nomination was closed just 3 days ago as speedy keep. If you want to nominate it again, although I advise against it, create an account and do it yourself. Regards SoWhy 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding Mohit Shah's page deletion

Hi,

Thanks for your comments in reference to my page, truth be told; I thoroughly read through the comments made on my page.

It has been a compilation of my secretary and a person who works on my PR management.

To address a few of the concerns brought up in both the discussions and speedy deletion messages, I'd like to preface by saying first that there may have been citation errors, when brought to my attention to review the Wikipedia my knowledge of how to code it was unknown. Not only did the posting process not make sense to me, I was getting confused on the citation process and the buttons above this window I'm typing in, didn't really make much sense.

So therefore I handed it over to staffers.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/04/News/Gw.Students.Start.Indias.First.Hybrid.Power.Plant-3011644.shtml http://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitrshah http://www.zibb.com/article/4690884/Gujarat+set+to+get+investments+in+solar+power+sector http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/sophomore_entrepreneurs_high_solar_power http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/mous_2009/pdf/sector-mous/power-renewable.pdf

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_E01189.pdf

Those are links to articles that show 1) Who I am. 2) What I'm doing. 3) Gives me the credibility.

The reason I suppose my story is interesting, is because I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'm 21 years old, I do philanthropic work, I served the community countlessly, I've left college to pursue a environmentally friendly project. Why I'm different is because I'm 21 years old, because I signed an agreement with the Government of Gujarat for a project worth 1 billion dollars. Why I believe it's different is because I've spent my entire youth career as an advocate for education, leadership, and now I'm changing the world at a time when not many people wanted to. 1 year + ago no one cared for alternative energy, and now the boom! I'd associate myself as a part of that reason.

To be honest; I thought it would be motivational for other people who don't know my story and don't have the ability to speak with me in person to learn it. Regardless of whether you decide to stand by your decision or, reinstate my Wikipedia page, I respect your decision. I just know whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, I will make my story heard.

I thank you for your time and patience and consideration, hopefully it all works out, if not -- next time. If you choose to keep the page, maybe you could help me with the formatting of it, and I'll do it myself with assistance to meet your criteria, I feel it's all there, just up to you guys.

Thanks you. OH and sorry for the terrible formatting.

Mshah14 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)mshah14

First of all, I did not delete that article, in fact I declined to speedy delete it on grounds of the possible notability of the subject. The deletion was a community decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Shah (a so-called "AFD"), which I cannot undo. If you disagree with the deletion, you can request a deletion review, pointing out your new evidence. Before you do so though, I suggest you read the following pages very carefully:

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

If, after reading those pages, you still genuinly believe the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia and that this can be verified using reliable sources, then and only then you should try to overturn the deletion. You might want to contact the administrator who closed aforementioned AFD, Cirt (talk · contribs), first, to see whether they think a recreation of the article with your new claims and sources is compatible with that AFD. Regards SoWhy 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for pointing that, its my mistake, but as you can see, some others did the same, even cluebot did :-), anyways, sorry and I ll be more careful, and thank you for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed, but I seem to have misplaced my bot-slapping-gear.

Anyway, no problem, we all make mistakes, it's just important to learn from them. :-) SoWhy 07:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You have mail. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Template deletion filter

I'm going to try and make the filter you requested. Can you give an example of an edit that got it wrong that I can use in testing? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks in advance. For example this edit. It showed {{db-author}} on all userpages with the userbox and put them into CAT:CSD where they remained even after the speedy was declined. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Thorn Birds Musical

Hi SoWhy, Thanks for picking that up for me. In the future, should I tag musicals as {{prod}}? I've seen a couple tonight, and wasn't sure what to do with them. Also, I see you have a mighty awesome template above this 'New Section' page, can I ask how you accomplished something so great? Or is it a trade secret ;-)? Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think they should be deleted, yes. CSD is very strict and if something does not fit the criteria, you cannot speedy delete it. As for the template, are you talking about this one? See Wikipedia:Editnotice how to do it, basically you just need an /Editnotice subpage that has the desired content. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. I've been on a pretty extensive Wikibreak and have just returned, and I'm noticing all these cool little new things. Goes to show, even with some 3,000 edits under your belt, there's always room to learn! Thanks SoWhy! — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I got still things to learn at 5 times that number of edits SoWhy 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter-organizational systems‎

Hello. You declined my speedy request for Inter-organizational systems‎ on the grounds that it does have context. Can you find anything in the article that explains what inter-organizational systems‎ are? It's all a specific story about Walmart, and provides no context for the purported topic of the article. It's as though someone created an article titled "Literature" and then wrote an article that didn't contain the word "literature" once and was instead all about some business issue facing one of the major booksellers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The article title does not have to be explained in the text, because otherwise A1 would apply to perfectly written articles that happen to have an incorrect name. It just needs any context and it does have it. Use WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Maedin/Emily Eavis

I should have looked further down the list! I missed the user pages templates. Thank you for taking care of the deletion, anyway, :-) Hope all is well with you! Maedin\^talk 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We live and learn ;-) You're welcome. Yeah, it's okay, haven't slept well the last days and I have to work but otherwise I'm fine. Hope you are, too :-) SoWhy 12:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sucks that you're not sleeping well, I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully it won't last long! You should drink camomile tea before you go to bed, it's supposed to help you nod off, :-D I am doing well and am really happy that spring is finally arriving! Busy, but enjoying the work (mostly!). Take care, :-) Maedin\^talk 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I might try but I don't think I have any at home and when I leave university today it will be after the shops close. But I hope it's not needed.

Glad to hear you are doing well and are happy :-D SoWhy 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Me again

Hey.. noticed that Interroll article that you (I'd like to say we, but you did the work :P) nuked is back again. Can you confirm if it's the same editor? I thought I warned him, but the talk page is a redlink, so either I forgot, or there are multiple accounts. Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the same editor. I deleted it again. Please remember than G4 does only cover articles that were deleted at WP:XFD, not such that were deleted through WP:CSD or WP:PROD. Regards SoWhy 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsk.. I read "covers WP:PROD and WP:CSD" but missed the "does not" in front of it on the line before! Sorry for giving you extra work :) — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle Power and Great Power

Hi, thank you for protecting Middle Power. Please can you also consider protecting Great Power, where removal of sourced material without explanation by the same IP hopper is continuing? Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a spark of vandalism today, I put a short time protection on it. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prankster's Dilemma

SoWhy - thanks for reviewing my CSD on The Prankster's Dilemma, however I am still confused by the result. This page was created on April Fools day with multiple sources listed but no inline citations. It also quotes "experts agree" but doesn't identify the sources. It also quotes the Paradox of the Gullible which has never existed. Seems to me to be an April Fools joke... but if you still disagree I'll review it from another perspective. JCutter (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also - seemed similar to successful CSD April Fools' paradox JCutter (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem with hoaxes is, that they have to be blatant to be covered by G3. In this case it lists multiple sources which I cannot review (but which exist!) and the text is phrased in a way so that it might be real. So WP:PROD is the way to go to avoid the bad-faith assumption that G3 (vandalism!) carries. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. JCutter (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Stun Gunz declined speedy

With this edit you declined my speedy deletion request, saying this band had "multiple claims of notability". The same named article has already been speedily deleted twice before, in March 2008 and in February 2009. And did you actually check out their references upon which editors are expected to verify their multiple claims of notability? One link to their own myspace page [1]; one link to a page that only offers a redirect to their own myspace page [2]; and one link where they are briefly mentioned in the last comment on a blog about some kind of flashmob event [3] - hardly solid claims to notability. Yet, they provide no evidence of any association with Abercrombie and Fitch, no evidence of having packed out a 15,000 seat venue in Texas, and no evidence of having spoken to the BBC - all events that could make them notable. Please can I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline my speedy deletion request. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to make the same decisions as other admins did nor do two previous deletions mean it was the same article. Please re-read A7: It does not need any correct references to be made nor do the claims of notability have to verifiable. To fail A7 it's enough that there exist claims that are not completely impossible, which is the case. Working with a notable producer like Marty Munsch is such a claim, so is releasing material on the notable label Punk Rock Records. Those claims are enough to fail a speedy deletion and if you still think the article should be deleted, you can use WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard L. Welch

I think you may have speedied the article under some other forms. I encountered it under yet another, but changed the name to this & did not delete it, as it didn't seem too promotional for an article to be made of it, if he;s notable, though it obviously needs much work. Just letting you know DGG (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your call is as valid as mine, so I won't say you are wrong or anything. The page I deleted was a userpage moved to a new name in article space, thus adding to the promotional-factor. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead

Thanks for protecting it in The Right Version ^TM :). Could you tweak the protection to 11 April - that's when the episode airs, and an image that doesn't fail NFCC will be available? Black Kite 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Actually forget that, see below Black Kite 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Planet of the Dead

Hi - thanks for protecting the article (though you did the wrong version :p !!) Could you, however, time-limit it to some time before the 11 April, since the current indef-level is going to cause problems as more material about the upcoming episode emerges over the coming days? It would be absolutely crippling to not be able to edit the article at all until after it's aired! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually yes, thinking about it TT is right here, the article is clearly going to expand over the next weeks or so. Perhaps insert some hidden text to warn editors not to insert random non-free images in the infobox until we've actually seen the episode? Black Kite 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indef does not mean forever. I actually hope you guys can get over that a bit stupid image dispute very soon - I just cannot predict when that will happens, so I did not set an end time. Feel free to request unprotection any time you guys got consensus over that image... It's sad to see that even long-term users and admins take part in such edit-warring but that's the world... And Black Kite: You have to realize that your view is not necessarily the correct one so adding such a hidden text would effectively mean taking part in the dispute. Yes, the article might expand but I do not think until April 11 is needed, if you guys can sort it out. I hope I can unprotect it tomorrow or so, I got it on my watchlist. Regards SoWhy 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When enforcing Foundation policy is seen as "edit-warring" then I'll agree with you. Until then... Black Kite 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Todd Donovan

WP:ATHLETE states that an individual player is only notable if tehy have played in a fully professional game. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the notability guidelines, thank you. But speedy criterion A7 is not about notability. It's about the possibility that the subject might be important or significant, a much lower standard than notability. If you think they fail WP:ATHLETE, feel free to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete the article. Regards SoWhy 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the article indicates notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is your point of view and it's fine. I disagree and I made a decision to that extent. Even although you are an admin as well, that does not give you the right to revert my decision, which is both an abuse of revert and wheel-warring. I am open to criticism, but reverting me even before asking me about my decision is not very nice. Regards SoWhy 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to offend; I apologize.

What, then is your opinion of the statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines which says, "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable"? It would appear to me that mere statistics of playing do not infer notability. Something else must make that individual player stand out so as to confer notability. In that sense, then, if nothing indicates notability, it would apear to conform to {{a7}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines is not policy. And A7 is not about notability, not even indicating it. A7 uses "significance or importance" for that very reason. Imho being signed by multiple notable teams might make the individual important or significant. I agree that it's probably not the case but the point of A7 is to weed out the clearly rubbish articles, not those where there could be further debate on whether the article should be included. PROD and AFD handle those. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see it the same way SoWhy does. Having played for a notable team is an "assertion of importance". That's enough to get it past A7, it seperates him from all the schoolboy articles and myspace bands. In addition, he has numerous mentions at google news, so there is even the prospect to find significant coverage of him to pass WP:BIO. --Amalthea 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my tactic to PROD to eliminate the need for this discussion, and will pursue to AFD for consensus if need be, or if no one convinces me otherwise. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

A question, if I may: In the edit summary you wrote: "never ever revert an admin for declining a speedy", and here you use the term "wheel-warring". Does this mean that you consider the removal of a speedy tag by an admin an administrative action? In other words, is it different from when a normal editor removes the tag? decltype (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If a normal user removes a speedy tag, any other user can (but shouldn't without good reason) re-add it. If an admin removed it, they have made an administrative decision that this page is not speedy-deletable. If someone re-adds it, it's then forum-shopping, because they try to get some other admin to ignore the declining admin's decision. If an admin speedy-deletes it or restores the tag, they are in essence reverting another admin's actions, which is the definition of wheel-warring (the only exception are valid G10 and G12 tags which the declining admin overlooked). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive183#Questions_on_Wheel_warring_and_Admin_hopping. Regards SoWhy 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed! But I think the distinction between admin and non-admin removal is not 100% clear. Xeno states that the speedy tag probably should not be restored either way, and is supported by Protonk, who references WP:DELETE, the relevant quote being:

"Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below" (emphasis mine)

My interpretation of the policy and the discussion is thus as follows: In general, if a speedy deletion tag is removed, by an administrator or otherwise, it should not be restored. This is especially true when an administrator removes the tag, and another administrator restores the tag, as this constitutes wheel warring. Exceptions to the rule include pages that are blatant copyright violations, negative unsourced BLP's, and attack pages, which is basically what you said.

So the only question remaining is, (apart from the listed exceptions) when is it appropriate to restore a tag that was previously removed by a regular editor? I can't think of a scenario, except when the removal was done in bad faith. decltype (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is this: Any editor can remove a tag, but it's not a decision. If an editor removes a valid tag without explaining why they did it, the tag might be reinstated. You generally shouldn't and you need a good reason to do so, but you can do it. On the other hand, if an administrator does it (and usually they do so with a "declining speedy"-edit summary), they are making a decision that is binding. Other editors should not restore the tag because it is the reviewing admin's job to make that decision. Furthermore, an admin can decline a valid speedy tag if they think it should not be deleted. The difference is not very clear, but I'd sum it up as follows: A user removing a tag is a sign that the deletion is probably controversial. It may be retagged and an admin could still speedy delete it if they think it's not a valid reason to remove it or if they think it's not controversial. An admin removing the tag is a decision that this page does not meet speedy criteria, that it should not be deleted or that it's too controversial to delete. This decision is binding for anyone else who wants to tag or delete this page and forces those people to seek alternative ways for deletion even if the page might meet a speedy deletion criterion. As with everything, there are the exceptions of G10 and G12 because negative BLP and blatant copyvio cannot be tolerated, no matter what an admin thinks. Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will do. I originally asked a seemingly innocuous question and as it turns out, the short answer is "Yes". But I much prefer the longer answer :) Thanks!

Bank for International ideas

I would like to know why you have deleted my article - this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace

their is also a press release on the subject http://www.prlog.org/10207508-the-bank-for-international-ideas-will-facilitate-economic-development-created-by-leonard-johnson.html

--Bankleonard (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the examples you mention are blatant advertising. They are written in neutral tone and do not serve to promote their subjects. In contrast, your article serves to promote its subject. In fact, it's a 1:1 copy of a press release which makes it a copyright violation as well (text submitted to Wikipedia needs to be released under the GFDL). Wikipedia is not a place for you or anyone to promote their products and the article you mention was such a promotional one. Apart from the violations of our "no advertising"- and "no copyrighted text"-policies, it also had no indications whatsoever (and a short Google News search confirms this) that it's possibly notable and would have been deleted on those grounds alone. As tempting as it may be, please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. It will not be tolerated. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SoWhy/CSD

I just linked to your page there in my editnotice (I hope you don't mind) but then I noticed that there's a single individualized link at the bottom that makes it invalid if someone is reading it when I deleted their page - did you make a copy because of it? Do you think I shouldn't just link to a copy? -- Mentifisto 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I made a copy. The link is dynamically created based on the userspace the page is in (with {{TALKSPACEE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}} magic words), so unless you copy it, it will point to my user talk page. As there is no way to create a page that will change this link based on the incoming link (i.e. from which user page the user came to this page), you need to copy it as well to have a correct link. As a bonus, you can change/remove what you don't think applicable to your admin work. The GFDL attribution should be fine with the link to the users where you got it from (at the very bottom). Regards SoWhy 09:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't think that the writing makes people give up, do you? -- Mentifisto 14:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most people don't even read that page before asking why I deleted their page. But maybe some do and maybe some understand it. It's a kind of FAQ, which, like most FAQs, most people don't read anyway. Those who bother to read it, are those who are not going to be fed up by it. SoWhy 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zhao Yiman

Thanks for the save on this article. I noticed a quick speedy placed on it, just as I was trying to give some pointers to the author. I'm glad we were able to preserve the information. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's why people like me have to double-check those tags, to remove those which are incorrect. Feel free to tell the tagger about such mistakes and how they can avoid it in future. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Others have tried... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't lose hope, I am confident people are able to change their way of doing page patrolling, some just need some more reminders. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

John Carney Show

Can you please delete and block this: John Carney (radio)? It has been deleted before, it is a tiny non-notable show & there is obvious COI. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but G4 does only apply to previously WP:AFD-deleted articles. And this article indicates the notability of its subject because they are host on a notable radio station. Also, I usually think if an admin like Fuzheado (talk · contribs) creates an article that they are aware of our policies and do not go around creating incorrect pages. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Adams

Hello SoWhy! I hope you are sleeping better, because I have a problem for you to help me solve, ;-) I randomly came across the article Kevin Adams, and noting that the birth date and place of birth had been removed, I re-added it on 24 March. Since then, the same info has been deleted and re-instated 3 times. Although the account that deletes the information changes, it is each time a single purpose account which only edits that Kevin Adams article once. It looks like this has been going on for a while; if you look through the history at the red linked names since 30 September, the majority make a single edit to the article to remove some information, usually the birth information. So, what do I need to do? I suspect that someone is abusing multiple accounts . . . where would I take this suspicion? Is that the major issue here, or should I focus on the perceived vandalism? Should I try to make contact and work out why they are removing the information? The information appears to be correct, so I sort of doubt that they are on a mission of accuracy. What's the best option, do you think? Maedin\^talk 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I do. Ahh, what problems some people have. One might wonder why people do such things, but it creates more work for us or in this case you. The easiest way would be to protect the article but given the slow way, that would not be acceptable within protection policy. So I'd suggest you try and contact the latest account to do that. It'll probably not work but it's worth a try. Other than that, you might want to head to WP:SPI and see if a CheckUser identifies the latest SPA as a sock of someone else (see Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Single-purpose accounts). Other than that, I'm afraid you have to watchlist the article and just continue reverting. They hopefully will lose interest if they are reverted quickly. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, so it's as unclear as I thought it was! I will keep an eye on it and hopefully it will start to seem pointless to him! Or her, of course. SPI looks like a minefield, I will lurk and read the rules and pehaps take this there shortly when I have more time. Thank you very much!! :-) Maedin\^talk 12:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Paxse's RfA

Thanks for fixing the talk page link. ;-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Nice to see you jumped right into your new crat duties ;-) SoWhy 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback examples

I was surprised by your examples of bad rollbacks. The two you provided as examples were of people making random figure changes, which is classed as vandalism by most. On vandalism, sometimes I rollback and message, others I just roll back and ignore. If I'm reverting stale vandalism that appears to be an isolated incidedent, I don't usually drop a warning message.

I do use it for WP:BADCHART issues, but if I use it there, I consistently go to the talk page of the editor that made the offending edit and leave a message. The normal sequence of messages I use can be seen at User_talk:201.209.224.71.—Kww(talk) 11:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing what the editor was thinking, you cannot assume it to be vandalism. In such cases there is a possibility that the user just wanted to update the figures to what they heard somewhere. I don't think anyone should use rollback for such changes and I would be surprised if most people classified such possibly good-faith edits as vandalism (although I agree that this might happen). It's not about warnings, it's about the fact that we have undo for good-faith edits and that one should always explain their actions in edit summaries when it's not clearly vandalism. Everything else is BITEy. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hey SoWhy. On Alice Glass a sock puppet is continually adding unsourced information to the article. It's probably better to block the IP's as they appear, over semi protection. What do you think? — R² 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's really a case of sock-puppeteering, I suggest you add/expand that to the WP:SPI case for this user and let the admins over at WP:SPI deal with it. I'm not very knowledgeable in those things and thus I do not want to give you any answer that might be incorrect. Regards SoWhy 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK will try that. Thanks. — R² 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP

It's a dynamic IP (same for one day), I don't think admins would give a range block for an issue like that. Temporary semi-protection would force him to create an account, which would be better also because of privacy issues. Squash Racket (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12

There are some IP edits from 68.6.149.9 while addition of unnecessary "spoilers" in future episodes. This is a fashion-themed reality competition with airs only two months. Can you protect it for 42 days? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I declined it because that is the only IP that was active after protection expired with another IP reverting them. Unless blocking is not a feasible option (it is at the moment), protection should be avoided. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection should be use if there is an IP spoiler information and it causes vandalism. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if the vandalism can be combatted by blocking the IP instead, see WP:PROTECT. Regards SoWhy 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a unique occurrence, any time that a top model cuycle page is unprotected during the cycle repeated cases of vandelism occur. there have been 2 in the few hours since the page was unprotected, and if iremains unprotected several more attempts will occur over the next 24 hours. Unless you plan on policing the article 24/7 yourself, and banning everyone who attempts to vandelize it, protection is needed. ... MistyWillows ^talk 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said there was no further excessive vandalism after protection expired and that was true when I declined it. As further vandalism occurred now, I have protected the article. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that NRISoft is not like any other bodyshop/consulting company. Its into activism, against h1b visa holder abuse by their Indian owned bodyshops located in the Unites States. Some of the abuses include confiscating employee passports, keeping 8 h1bs in a 1 bedroom apartment, bringing them from India by charging them money(in essence smuggling), LCA violations, disobeying US labor laws including not paying money on the bench, h1b transfers without project, an USCIS RFE violation.