User talk:Lethaniol

Thanks for the adoption!

While I value what a 14 year old could tell me, since he knows more about his generation than I do, I am also looking for an older person. Thanks! Mr Spunky Toffee 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great that you're a pharmacist. I'm interested in getting into healthcare, and am going to attend university starting in January to study biochemistry and get a second bachelor's degree. I'm open to being a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, or research scientist. I look forward to your guidance. I've read lots of medical books and have taken allied health classes at my local community college, so I know how to draw blood, take vitals, do CPR, take Standard and Universal Precautions, assess lab results, etc. I also aced a pharmacology test. Talk to you later! Mr Spunky Toffee 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll work on Lyrica (pregabalin). It's a new drug with plenty of uses, and there's lots of literature on it on Google Scholar. I take it myself; it's a miracle drug for nerve pain. I won't include original research, of course. Mr Spunky Toffee 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Abaana

Hi there, Rob gave up after all his work was deleted :-) This is Scott, I found the whole think quite amusing when Rob filled me in. I asked him to link Abaana, after we found the make povery history. I think he maybe misunderstood what the site was for. I myself am having probs figuirng our what is going on but I will bear with if..

Firstly I was a little confused about what was deleted, and why... Rob tried to copy format of other simiar charities but that didn't work. Also he used text which i wrote for the Abaana site with my permission, and it was deletd with not discussion and just a comment. To be honest i am a little disheartend and really do not want to spend alot of time adding to the content for someone to remove the word I have put, becuase I wrote them on another site!

How many people where actually editing and arguing over it? Who are they? Are the all like me and volunteer?

Scott

The arguing has finished - do not worry the article Abaana will not be deleted now - you can spend your time bringing it up to a decent level. On the copyright issue see my answer at User talk:Abaana. I hope you two don't give up wikipedia - it is great once you get into it. Any problems then leave a message here Lethaniol 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Or and dont forget to sign you r comments with four ~

I am still worried, as I would like to use stuff from our site, as it has been edited, will this not be deleted also? I was on a similar org and they have many link from categories, but I was unsure of how to get on them. for example we are very like tearfund.Abaana 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically do not worry. You can use any information (facts, figures etc...) but you will need to rewrite it (not just moving the words about or rephrasing). You can put quotes from the site on the page though (use : or blockquote) - though not to many please. Does that help?? Lethaniol 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (Dont forget the four ~ please)

Ok will give it a go, is there info/help on adding to a category? you can't simply edit a category page? (four ~ used )Abaana 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia Users - Adoption

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I'm also looking at all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. To this end I would like to speak to you about your participation in the "Adoption Program". If you are interested in participating, please email me at brianwrites@gmail.com FFFearlesss 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yossarian and Catch-22

Your edits to both articles have been most productive. I must get around to doing some stuff on those pages myself. Very well done, sir. Cheers! --Yossarian 06:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

North Dakota Geek Appreciation Day (or hour, or minute, or.....)

Thanks for adopting me - I'm trying to be an asset to the Wiki crowd, but my sheer ignorance is limiting me, I think. Actually, I don't know for sure - it's tough to be sure about something that you don't know, you know? <g>

Anyway, I've got some stupid questions for you, and some not-so-stupid questions. Let me know when you're available, and we'll chat!

Again, thanks for showing me the ropes (in advance, that is....)

NDCompuGeek 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kewl - works for me! ;-) The first question (kind of stupid) is how do I add sub-pages under my userspace? The reason is for me to save some custom userboxes I'm thinking of, and to have a few templates I think would come in handy. I haven't been able to find anything about managing my userspace.... NDCompuGeek 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, another question for you: how do I mark a part of an entry as a comment (not to be seen by the general viewing, but the code is there hidden and not activated)? NDCompuGeek 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

filth - foul - filth - foul - #$%$%*@#@#$&(~!.... Another question from your motivated but ignorant adoptee: how do I get a picture into the userbox template (specifically the one I'm working on at <.../userboxes> in my userspace)? Grrr-rr-r-r.... TIA, NDCompuGeek 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm being obnoxious.... Now I can't figure out how to delete a temp page I made in my userspace! HA-ALP! (TIA) NDCompuGeek 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Be Nice to Noobs

Hello there, sorry for the delay, I have been pretty busy everywhere. You recommendation sounds fine, but I don't think it may be accepted. The CSD category is usually filled with articles, most times over 100 articles. And because few admins actually work there, having to spend some more seconds to slap the correct tag in the deleted articles can be considered, under some opinions, a waste of time. Personally, I always put the correct tag in the user talk page, and I notice that about 80% of the users who put a speedy tag in the article also warn the user about why the article is being deleted.

If you want this to be accepted, I suggest to check the different templates for user talk pages, and begin writing more for every speedy criteria (in example, {{nn-notice}} is good if you are tagging an article about a non notable subject, but after it was deleted, there is no {{nn-deleted-notice}} that says something like "The article XXXX has been deleted because it lacks notability assertion..." If you create them, I will gladly use them. Right now, I just use the nn-* ones. I believe, also, that if you create them, more administrators would use them to inform newbies about the deletions, as that would be almost automatic. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back from the coast!

I clicked on your links and discovered you were on break ON THE COAST!!! Here in North Dakota, the closest thing to a coast is the ever-shrinking Lake Sakakawea. Being from Michigan originally, I know that "this ain't no coast", if you know what I mean!

Anyway, I'm glad you're back. I had a few questions, but with your absence I actually had to research the answer. I found it, but it wasn't easy (more userbox questions, see User:NDCompuGeek/userboxes to know that I got the answer)....

-Dan NDCompuGeek 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In response...

Well... I think that you're right about the adoption system. I don't want it to decay into nothing, either. But I'm busy in real life and probably won't be able to take care of it for a while... ~ Flameviper 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD question

Hi! Within the last week and a half, I have nominated a few articles for deletion via WP:PROD. The template says that if nobody objects within five days then the articles can be deleted. Nobody has objected to any of the three articles listed below being deleted, so what can I do to ensure that they actually get deleted?

Mikey Nicholls, Grudge Match, List of Grudge MatchesBooyakaDell 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Looks like Mikey Nicholls has been deleted since I first posted this.BooyakaDell 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further followup: Looks like they've all been deleted.BooyakaDell 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Hi there! I am based in on the East Coast of the US. Besides pro wrestling my interests include art (drawing), writing, video editing, golf, and basketball. I know some French too :).

Thanks for the tip about the edit summaries, that is a good point nad I will start filling that section in each edit. I usually do fill itin anyway but looking at my past edits the PROD ones are virtually all lacking edit summaries so from now on I will make sure each edit has a summary as well!BooyakaDell 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Adopt

Hi there; yes, if User:Flameviper is otherwise engaged, I would certainly be interested in being more active in the WP:ADOPT project. What I am less definite about is how to do so. Do you think that the powers-that-be would agree to additions to the {{welcome}} templates? I will post a request. Other ideas?--Anthony.bradbury 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've been there already!--Anthony.bradbury 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Following his original comment, I too would like to help but don't know a definate plan as to how. —¡Randfan! 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Lethaniol, hope all is well since we last corresponded. I wanted to get your opinion on a dispute between me and another editor, Curse of Fenric. I have been trying to clean up many of the non-notable pro wrestling articles on WIkipedia (and there are a lot of them) by putting some up for deletion and adding "importance" and "notability" tags on others. I added "importance" and "notability" tags to three pages (Kiwi Pro Wrestling, Action Zone Wrestling, and Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)]]) because they look to be little more than advertisements. This editor claims on my talk page that I am nominating the articles for deletion even though I have told him that no, I am not nominating them for deletion, I am simply expressing concern about their notability and importance.

On another note, I have been adding "edit summaries" to my edits since I last heard from you.BooyakaDell 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! again

Lethaniol, adopter, thanks for the third opinion on my page, I appreciate it! I changed my vote for Pete Wilson to null, it is not a big deal to me whether it stays or not.

I don't really know what to say as far as the sockpuppet accusation. I am not a sockpuppet so other than drawing more attention to the situation I don't know what responding to it would accomplish.

Also what can I do in this situation described below?

As I told you a few days ago on your talk page above, Mikey Nicholls was deleted and now somebody has recreated the article. What happens next? Is this where speedy deletion comes into play?

Thanks for the feedback and quick response time!BooyakaDell 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to what I said in last post

Hi again Lethanliol! I wanted to add that after thinking about it some, I want to reiterate that I don't think these three Australian pro wrestling promotions are notable by Wikipedia standards. I came across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged

Those three promotions are all less notable than Pro Wrestling Unplugged, and the arguments that are being brought up by Curse of Feneric are identical to the arguments brought up at the above link, and that promotion was deleted.

And no matter how many ways I try to tell him, he will nto have any of it, and either deleted my comments or reverts my concerns that were expressed. So I am not quite sure how to go about making up with him when he refuses to achknowledge official Wikipedia policies.BooyakaDell 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethanliol, I have come on here to make a few points regarding your adopted Wikiuser above. Firstly, he is acting in bad faith because his tag usage has been widespread and verging on wrecking the grass roots of the knowledgebase in pro wrestling. I have taken umbrance to this with regard to the wrestling promotions because I am actually involved in the industry. There is no "one size that fits all" rule to notability. It entirely depends on the context of the article, and this is what BooyakaDell is not understanding. The fact that he is not listening is the reason why he has been reported as a vandal.

Secondly, only one promotion that he has tried to get deleted (and he can deny that if he wants - the tags he used are part of the process for deletion) is Australian. That's PCW. I also made none of the specific claims of the above linked deletion article - and the reason it was deleted was because of the lack of activity in the nomination. Which somewhat jades the process, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. BooyakaDell did refer to this in a message to me, but his language was considered by me to be destructive and I deleted it instead of reporting the personal attack because I believe the combination of the vandal complaint and the sockpuppet investigation will take care of this.

Finally, the user that BooyakaDell appears to really be was doing the exact same thing. Throwing these tags onto wrestling articles seemingly just for the heck of it. So I support the tag at the top of BooyakaDell's talk page 100 percent. The note about "knowing the rules of Wikipedia" - as I have already said - insinuates that everyone should stick hard and fast to one interpretation. That is impractical and common sense per article needs to be applied. That is what I have been doing.

Hope I have covered everything. Curse of Fenric 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has personally attacked me on several occasions and failed to assume good faith repeatedly, in addition to saying things that are straight out false and never happened. It's amazing how this user thinks he can be so ignorant to Wikipedia policy and yet insist his standards are any more valid than mine.BooyakaDell 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a look at Booyaka's contributions will tell a different story. And I'm not the only one who agrees with that. Curse of Fenric 06:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

Right first things first - I think we all might need to sit back and chill for a few moments. What I suggest is that for the next few days is that BooyakaDell refrains from putting up anymore PRODs or AFDs on Aussie/Kiwi wrestling articles and that Curse of Fenric does not try to remake any articles that have been deleted by PRODs or AFDs that BooyakaDell has initiated.

Does that sound broadly fair to you two? The idea is that it will stop any edit warring and allow everyone to come to some conclusions - and prevent BOTH of you getting into any serious trouble which you are heading for. Obviously this is a voluntary request only. Say yes below if you agree. Cheers Lethaniol 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right am going to break this down into a number of Issues to try and separate the issues - say you think something is missing:

Please excuse me if these comments below seem a little impersonal - just trying to get things straight and stay objective

BooyakaDell sockpuppet allegation

First please read the Checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. If you don't know what checkuser is, it is used to check the IP address of a user and so check if a suspected sockpuppet is using the same computer as a previous banned user.

Now my feeling is that as the Checkuser request was unfortunately not possible, it will likely prove impossible to be sure if the sockpuppet allegation is correct, unless BooyakaDell admits it. Therefore I suggest forget about it - and concentrate on the current issues at hand.

Also when I first took on BooyakaDell as an adoptee - I thought about the problems that may be associated with the sockpuppet allegation (especially as my first adoptee was found out to be a sockpuppet of a user who had been banned for using death threats! - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brian G. Crawford). I was less concerned about this as the ban on User:JB196 as if you read User talk:JB196 the ban was only going to be originally for a short time, it was only when JB196 got upset that he/she was banned indefinitely. I suspect if there was a ban review the ban would not be indefinite as the vandalism/trolling was not all the bad (in comparison with others) and it was a first ban.

Anyway, this leads me to repeat that we should forget the sockpuppet case and sort out the problems at hand.

On this note I think BOTH of you have to be careful - hence why I think you should follow my advice and have a rest from deletion/undeletion etc... Otherwise the effects might be more disciplinary action. Lethaniol 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith

I think this is what the issue really comes down to - and maybe you would both agree. You have both left inflammatory remarks on each other pages, I think the best examples are use of templates nn-test on Curse of Fenric and test-4 on BooyakaDell. Though I think you have both been good not to let the issue get out of hand as of yet.

I think part of these issues come from Curse of Fenric believing that BooyakaDell is a sockpuppet, and therefore feeling that all of BooyakaDell's edits are in bad faith. Also BooyakaDell probably believes that Curse of Fenric is trying to push his point of view that certain articles are notable - this might be to with Curse of Fenric actually being involved in wrestling (therefore conflict of interest is definitely possible).

Further comments to come Lethaniol 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it might be a whole lot late for this mess now as it has ended up on the Admin incident board see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest BooyakaDell makes a civil response there - Curse of Fenric already has. Lethaniol 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually sorting out wrestling notability issues

Well I think this is out of my hands now with the Admin incident but for what it is worth -

I think that unless obviously un-notable or very badly written an article should be kept - I am leaning towards inclusionism. If taken in good faith BooyakaDell is leaning more towards deletionism with respect to some wrestling articles. Note not all of his edits are notability tags or requests for deletion, his has been doing some good copy editing too.

What I would like to see happen is for those interested in Wrestling to sit down and come up with notability criteria (maybe via AFD or the previous one done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged as mentioned by BooyakaDell) and then apply it with some common sense.

At the end of the day we are all trying to improve Wikipedia. Comments please Lethaniol 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the BooyakaDell/JB196 issue

Lethaniol: I'm sorry, and I'm trying to WP:AGF of BooyakaDell, but after having dealt with JB196's ongoing and continuing vandalism (the stuff on JB196's talk page is just the tip of the iceberg the size of the one that sunk the Titanic, across 9 or 10 different Admin pages (forum shopping, etcetera) and the fact that the IP Vandalism of the articles only started to stop when BooyakaDell's account was registered (and the articles targeted are the same).. Well.. what's the old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? SirFozzie 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not know the latter about the IP vandalism starting once BooyakaDell was registered - will check it out myself - thanks for bringing to my attention. What I will say though, is that BooyakaDell does not appear to have gone a rampage across users/admin pages as of yet - nearly all comments seem to have been civil - whether this is because he is a different user or learnt his lesson - I don't know. Personally I think without a Checkuser it is hard to be sure of sockpuppetry and so would prefer to concentrate on the current issues and getting any user to assume good faith WP:AGF and contribute effectively. Cheers Lethaniol 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lethaniol

Hi Lethaniol. I agree with having everything on one page (in this case yours). I understand you can't come out "all guns blazing" nor do I think that would accomplish anything. And finally, I also am in accord that at the end of the day, we are all trying to improve Wikipedia at the end of the day. It's just difficult to maintain that common ground when some people refuse to assume good faith which sounds like arguably the most important part of Wikipedia, and then have the need to accuse me of not assuming good faith is ridiculous. I strongly disagree with a lot of what Curse of Feneric has said, but don't see the point to making it into more of an issue. Fact of the matter is that at most I have vandalized once and no more than once, and that is when I removed Curse's nonsense warning from my page only to revert it back within five minutes. Other than that, contrary to what he continually insists, I have stayed entirely civil, have maintained good faith, and have not vandalized once with the *possible* exception of that one time, so you got this random guy insisting that I'm vandalizing yet as demonstrated already he clearly doesn't even know the standards for notability on Wikipedia, and he insists that his personal judgment of a promotion's "local notability" (his exact words) holds more power than official Wikipedia policy....that being said Curse of Feneric is fine by me and lets put this thing on the backburner permanently. I will also say that anybody who wants to investigate is welcome to look at my contributions list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BooyakaDell) and contrary to what Curse and Sirfozzie said I think all concerns would dissipate as soon as that is done, because I have remained civil throughout this process which in my opinion hasn't been reciprocated...Sirfozzie ties to claim I'm vandalizing specifically the Death Valley Driver Video Review article but if my points were made in bad faith like he says they are why would it be marked for deleting now? As for what the rest of Sirfozzie said, I don't really have any opinion one way or the other, he's fine by me as long as he this nonsense stops.BooyakaDell 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My response

Firstly, it's very hard to ignore the JB issue as the editing (as in the tags - not what happened next) is identical. As Sir Fozzie has also observed. But as a show of respect to you, Lethaniol, I'll leave it alone for now.

Now BooyakaDell has stated that his contributions list says little. Look again at the number of articles he has tagged. It's an unusually high number. I don't know where he lives, but the majority of feds he tagged were outside of the US. I went through all of them and left some of the tags alone because I agreed with them - not because they were not notable, but because they lacked content (which one could argue is the same thing in a way). I didn't touch the individual wrestlers because I don't know them.

Lethaniol I take a bit of an issue with your comment about POV pushing because I'm involved in wrestling. The issue in general is the notability of pro wrestling as a whole. I see Booyaka's tagging efforts as attacking the notability of all pro wrestling - particularly the one with Australia's PCW, with which I am familiar. In fact - for personal reasons I'd love to see that page go, but then that WOULD be a POV push. So I don't do it. And besides, the controversy referred to in the article is hugely notable and anyone who saw it unfold in the media down here would agree.

I have referred to "grass roots" wrestling. Without it the business would collapse. Anyone who is involved would understand this, and the notability of it - hence the relevance. I wouldn't describe that as POV pushing. If you asked anyone in WWE or NWA TNA (especially the latter) they would agree. All the big stars started their careers from feds like the ones Booyaka has been trying to get deleted.

I've said this before but it's worth repeating. The rules of notability on Wikipedia are flexible. They have to be otherwise they won't work properly and as intended. It seems to me that Booyaka is taking either the intent literally and sticking to it, or taking an interpretation of the rules - a single rock solid interpretation - and also sticking to it. Local issues are relevant, as is the context of the article (in this case pro wrestling). Being inflexible in his interpretation was Booyaka's first mistake. His refusal to admit that and his response to that (reversing my reverts) was when he crossed the line into vandalism. And it wasn't just once - it was four times (PCW, NZWPW, Kiwi Pro Wrestling and Action Zone Wrestling).

And just on AZW, my statement regarding the Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday comment was NOT about AZW "innovating" it. The innovation is WWE's. AZW were simply the first to use the concept on the indy circuit in the US. That's not notable?

As far as Booyaka being civil is concerned - frankly I disagree. His sheer lack of flexibility (any flexibility which exists now has more or less been forced by this issue rather than chosen) is something that I consider uncivil. A classic example of this is the rubbish he put on my talk page which I removed without hesitation (and I had to do it a second time as well and he refused to even acknowledge his edit was rude until after the second revert - and I'm not even sure if that was even genuine). This whole thing is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. It's funny though - if Booyaka hadn't tried to have the PCW page deleted for lack of notability, I wouldn't have noticed this problem.

I think I've covered everything. Curse of Fenric 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much time as my internet is dodgy at home, will respond fully tomorrow. Just one point I wanted to make to Curse of Fenric. I have not accused you of POV pushing - I have not looked at the articles and your edits to see if this is the case. I was only suggesting that as you could be seen to have a vested interested in the area, some might see the potential for POV pushing, and hence why you need to take care. Again I have not seen any POV pushing, I am not accusing you of it, I just suggest care. Cheers Lethaniol 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse, you really need to take a step back from the whole situation and put your own involvement in perspective. Your insistence that I was being rude to you on your talk page (which never happened...not once) is only the start of your ridiculous judgments here. Your involvement in the wrestling business is not relevent here. AT ALL. You need to understand that and stop your denial. Wikipedia has standards and those standards don't involve your personal judgments, whether they be right, wrong, or in between.

You said - "AZW were simply the first to use the concept on the indy circuit in the US. That's not notable?" - Absolutely, positively not. With all due respect, doo you realize how ridiculous an assertion this is to make? If you read the PWU Afd, this would be obvious. Be done with this argument. This concept does not play into this promotion's notability one bit. Not even a TEENY bit.

You'd have a lot better shot arguing that the AJ/Gibson match makes it notable than this nonsense.

This in a nutshell is where you seem to be going wrong. You need to learn to pick your shots. Every single edit of mine you are dissecting. I've expressed by willingness to compromise (contrary to what you insist) repeatedly and you have ignored it.BooyakaDell 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please BooyakaDell calm down. I request that both BooyakaDell and Curse of Fenric stop arguing the minute details - only a few other Wikipedians will be able to follow (I not being one of them), and it is not helping. What I ask instead is that we talk about general notability - in the broadest sense with respect to Wrestling, only then will we be able to apply it to individual articles with common sense.

What I suggest is that instead of attacking each other you each write positive points about notability. That is what makes a wrestler or wrestling organisation notable. I will delete any negative comments. This way you can see where your differences in notability exist and then sort it out. I will start the ball rolling:

Notability

Wrestlers

1. Should be or have been a member of a notable Wrestling Organisation. Lethaniol 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Should have had a three week stay in a major wrestling. BooyakaDell
3. Should be mentioned in third mainstream publications. BooyakaDell

Wrestling Organisation

1. Should be mentioned by a non-trivial third party source. Lethaniol 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Should be mentioned by multiple third party sources. BooyakaDell
3. Should be notable in their home country. User:81.155.178.248 (this might need to be rephrased by the user concerned but this is how I read it)
4. Any promotion around more than ten years should be notable automatically - due to the usually short life of most feds, even notable ones. Curse of Fenric 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There might not be a policy on Notability but there is the following Guidelines - Wikipedia:Notability for people see: Wikipedia:Notability (people) and organisations see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)

Probably the important things to take out of these guidelines are:

For people (i.e. Wrestlers)

1. Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

For organisations

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
2. The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself.
3. The company or corporation has been in existence for an extended period of time (see above) added by Curse of Fenric 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Lethaniol 15:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments

I agree with your definition for wrestler's although I think member is too vague. There are thousands of people who have had one match in World Wrestling Entertainment on a house show in front of a few hundred people and then never returned again. As long as it's like a three week stay in a major wrestling organization I have no problem with their having a profile. I also think the wrestler should have gotten publicity from mainstream publications which are third-party to himself and to the promotion(s) which he is a part. Even if he worked for an undeniably notable wrestling promotion, that doesn't mean he himself is notable.

I think wrestling organizations should be mentioned by multiple mainstream third-party sources to be considered notable. It's not uncommon that a local newspaper will write a story about a promotion, but I think if that is the case multiple times then that warrants an article. Just because they had a notable wrestler make an appearance doesn't mean they are notable. In November 2003, Sabu made an appearance on a show for New Wave Championship Wrestling. It was the company's only show asthey folded after that. In my opinion, that promotion is not notable even though it had Sabu, a notable wrestler, on the only show it ever promoted.BooyakaDell 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited BooyakaDell's comments here and put them into single lines for above. Lethaniol 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment was made above by BooyakaDell:

he clearly doesn't even know the standards for notability on Wikipedia, and he insists that his personal judgment of a promotion's "local notability" (his exact words) holds more power than official Wikipedia policy

There is no official Wikipedia policy on notability, so such a comment is specious and capricious. BooyakaDell attempted to delete All Star Wrestling, claiming it was a non notable indy promotion. However this is where local knowledge is paramount. Any UK wrestling fan would instantly know that All Star wrestling are not as alleged, and I have outlined the reasons for this on the article's talk page. Even a cursory check of the promotion's website (linked to in the article) would have shown they are notable. If would be easier if BooyakaDell concentrated on areas which he has sufficient knowledge to make judgements such as these. "Local notability" is a highly contentious phrase in my opinion. To someone in America, an independent wrestling promotion based in the UK or New Zealand may not seem particularly notable. However the converse is also true, independent wrestling promotions based in America may not seem notable to anyone outside America. 81.155.178.248 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited 81.155.178.248's comments here and put them into single lines for above. Lethaniol 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "notable in their own country" wasn't exactly as I intended it, but it's not too wide of the mark. The point I was trying to make is it's easy to consider someone to be non-notable if you've never heard of them and they are based 1000s of miles away, so it would be better to proceed with caution under those circumstances. 81.155.178.248 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will leave it for the moment if it is not to far off - change it if you want. I suppose the idea is to try and come up with a few sentences to help define notable - instead of talking in long prose. Cheers Lethaniol 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, a situation has arisen which ties in nicely with this. Notability tags have once again been added to two wrestlers who work in Puerto Rico, Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler). I'll give you a quick outline, as from what I can gather you're not overly knowledgeable with regards to wrestling.

• There are four major wrestling markets in the world - America, Japan, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The UK/Europe could have been considered 20 or more years ago, but not at the current moment in time.
• Both wrestlers have wrestled extensively for both major promotions in Puerto Rico, World Wrestling Council and International Wrestling Association, Glamour Boy Shane having worked for approximately 5 years for each promotion.
• Both promotions have 2 different TV shows each week [1] and [2].
• These TV shows are shown on high profile channels WAPA-TV and WKAQ-TV, not shown on some minority fringe channel. A quick look at the articles linked will confirm this for you.
• On the front page of the IWA website [3] there is a list of results, I'll just use the ones from November for the sake of brevity:

1. Results: Levittown 11/25/06
2. Results: Juana Diaz 11/24/06
3. Results: Peñuelas 11/19/06
4. Results: Carolina 11/18/06
5. Results: Arecibo 11/17/06
6. Results: Carolina 11/11/06
7. Results: San Lorenzo 11/10/06
8. Results: Hato Rey 11/05/06
9. Results: Cayey 11/04/06
10. Results: Toa Alta 11/03/06

• That's more shows than any American independent promotion did in the month of November, and other months would easily show similar results. I don't have the details for WWC due to their site being in Spanish and difficult to navigate, but I'd imagine they would be similar.

As I've just shown, wrestling is popular in Puerto Rico. The promotions are shown on major TV channels, and the promotions run a significant number of shows. However BooyakaDell seems to think the wrestlers are not notable. However, when edited the article of a US independent wrestler J.C. Bailey he did not see fit to add any notability tags. This wrestler does not appear on TV, and has not appeared for any major promotions. So why did he not add notability tags to this article? I won't speculate as to his motives, but it seems any wrestler or promotion from outside America is non-notable, whereas any from America are notable regardless of how insignificant their contributions are.

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that covers global notability, or just American notability? 81.155.178.248 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Because I'm on the road right now I only just got to this. It's not a bad list. I know you said no negatives, Lethaniol, but I want to point out - and this has been mentioned here by someone else - that there are no specific notability rules for Wikipedia. To make specific rules can be fraught with problems because what is notable in one country is not in another. I would even go so far as one state (in the case of the US and Australia). Just want to ask though - what would constitute "third party" publishing? Just a general question. Curse of Fenric 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Adopt

Hey - though you maybe too bright for me - would you like me to adopt you? I am off to bed now (00:12 in UK) - you seem very keen. Cheers Lethaniol 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try with it for a little bit and see how it goes. Thanks for your interest in the adoption program. I hope it's a good experience for both of us. -- Ben 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Adopt

Applying to your edit to the talk page for Adopt-a-User: I like this idea (maybe we should have this and the thing above combined) and I have two adoptees (friends in real life, actually) and I want to help them but there never on. Should I "drop" them? This should probably be moved to that page. Oh, and it shold be called something like: wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/diary/experiences and if the proposed page above is to be created but under another name it should probably be: wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/diary/questions and answers. —¡Randfan! 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Will reply to this on WP:ADOPT talk page

Sorry, I logged out onto a shared network IP. —¡Randfan! 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Lethaniol 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This BARNSTAR's for you!!

The Welcomer's Barnstar Awarded the Welcomer's Barnstar to Lethaniol for his great accomplishments in welcoming me! NDCompuGeek 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you GREATLY deserve this! NDCompuGeek 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive adoption

Noted. I have posted a comment in the adopt-a-user talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Adopter's Area

Should we move the discussion about the future of A-a-U there? I posted it on both pages and am itching to move it. I want some approval/disapproval before I (might) move it, but I'm not sure people will see it in time and might get angry and have a big talk about it if there isn't some notice and permission. Cheers! —¡Randfan! 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For the testing I was trying to figure out a good layout for the Adopter's Area in there but it didn't work.... —¡Randfan! 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

I have cast my vote. The reason that I have been going on about autoblocks - which I see you have taken on board - is becasuse earlier this year I got hit by four of them in a period of two weeks! I was not happy!!--Anthony.bradbury 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You add {{unblock}} with reason in freetext to your talk page and an admin shows up and sorts it.

I can live with 500 edits, but would like to repeat my stipulation about home pages. I have found occasional editors who change their own page on an almost daily basis, and can rack up a respectable edit count without going much into mainspace, let alone namespace. And bear in mind that a lot of newby questions relate to concerns within the namespace/policy axis.

The two mult-adopters do not seem to relating much to their adoptees, although who, if anybody, is at fault is open to question. And to be fair, my two adoptees only asked one question each.

I think the scheme is going along just fine. it will need constant pushing - if we do not agitate the idea will stagnate.

We do need to adapt that specimen template to allow {{subst}}. If that is not done, it only takes an editor to change the message on one example, and they all change throughout the whole encyclopedia.--Anthony.bradbury 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. But the advice not to {{subst}} it needs to be removed. As I say, if we use the raw template, then any vandal who wants to can change the template on the page of every single user who has accessed it, which will cause absolutely endless trouble.--Anthony.bradbury 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued Disruption

Hello Lethaniol, I hope all is well with you in England. I wanted to let you know that this dispute with Curse of Fenric continues. He has posted warnings on my talk page advising me to stop vandalizing pages yet I have not vandalized pages. It is my wish that he would assume good faith and realize that we are all trying to improve Wikipedia. What next??BooyakaDell 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

The situation is close to out of control - I have requested help from the Mediation Cabal before people start getting blocked. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell Lethaniol 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, that is perfectly fine, although I am unclear why only my user name is in the title of the Mediation Case and Curse of Fenric's is not when he is also involved? ThxBooyakaDell 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

May I recommend that while mediation is ongoing, BooyakaDell refrains from nominating any further articles for deletion? 81.155.178.248 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol! I am willing to refrain from nominating any other aticles for deletion for the next two weeks. How does that sound? Also I posted a new response on the Mediation page.

I maintain that my current nominations for deletion are entirely in good faith, as evidencing by the fact that everybody who has responded to the afds I made yesterday other than Curse and 81 have voted for either Delete or Speedy Delete. This would indicate that I was correct to question those article's notability and importance.BooyakaDell 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe just as you posted to put the afd links up I was posting them at the mediation.BooyakaDell 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lethaniol - it's too late. When Booyaka started those deletion pages the mediation was already on. His note about the number of negative votes only reflects on the majority of American users - which will turn the english Wikipedia into a farce if not nipped in the bud. For this reason, Booyaka is a threat to the database and I will no longer participate in the mediation process. I am way too angry and feel threatened by Booyaka's behaviour. Curse of Fenric 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of Fenric personally attacked me AND solicited votes for afd

Hi there Lethaniol. I want to let you know that I came across this edit in which Curse of Fenric personally attacked me ("idiot") - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Normy132&diff=93535430&oldid=93336548 . In the same exact edit he also solicited a vote for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there not policies against these two things on Wikipedia? I trust that you will know how to deal with this situation better than I do. Should I add in the PCW afd that link and point out what he did or will you deal with the situation accordingly?BooyakaDell 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you fight your own battles? He just let one of the article's creators know it was up for AfD. Sheesh SirFozzie 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He did more than just let one of the aricle's creators know it was up for afd. He told him to "get on it" as in get on making a particular vote.BooyakaDell 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's rather obvious if it's one of the page's creators, which way they'll vote? Arguing semantics is rather pointless. SirFozzie 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Have looked at the link - yes this is soliciting for attention to the AfD - put on checking the AfD policy there is nothing explicitly against it - though the AfD is not a vote but a discussion, and soliciting support may be seen as not in the spirit of the process. On the other hand if the user created the page, or inputted a lot into it, they deserved/expect to be told. BooyakaDell - I would leave this situation be - as AfDs in my experience are decided by people that are not normally associated with the article. If a massive influx of people come to try and support the article for the sake of it - then it will be noticed - but I think this is unlikely to happen - and any new users taking an interest to the AfD can only bring more useful information. So trust the process BooyakaDell please.

In response to your comment Sir Fozzie - "fight your own battles" - I am only trying to facilitate these discussions and trying not to have a particular POV. As BooyakaDell is my adoptee it is only fair to ask me a question about process (which the above is) - I will not fight his battles - it is up to him to make his thoughts and actions clear. Even if I wanted to I could not sort out this mess - it is up to BooyakaDell to help himself - the same principle as in all life. It is important for this process that I am not seen as biased - and if you have concerns on that matter Sir Fozzie please bring them up with me. Cheers Lethaniol 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I read what is below - have edit conflict on my own talk page - oh boy! Lethaniol 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean, Lethaniol? He's made an assumption on my intentions. If Normy132 knew about this even without my letting him know he'd be acting. This is getting personal now, so Booyaka needs to back off!! (If this doesn't prove the mediation has failed I don't know what does!) Oh - and note that I did not name Booyaka when I used the word "idiot". Curse of Fenric 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Idiot" was directed at me, therefore it's a personal attack.BooyakaDell 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? I never named you. Curse of Fenric 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

STOP IT BOTH OF YOU - I will ask you both to put down this little situation to tempers running high Lethaniol 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse - your request to Normy looks like you were upset with AfD, and so to was BooyakaDell upset with apparent soliciting help for the AfD. Your both looking for the worse in each other - please be civil. Such arguing is verging on petty and not going to help differences solved. Lethaniol 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethaniol, the reason I said "Fight your own battles" is because he asked YOU to deal with it for him. From above: I trust that you will know how to deal with this situation better than I do. Should I add in the PCW afd that link and point out what he did or will you deal with the situation accordingly. Again, I reiterate my thoughts that if the well of WP:AGF is poisoned in this debate, it is Booyaka who has done so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for the unsigned comment (smacks forehead) SirFozzie 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethaniol - got your message on my page, thanks for letting me know where your stand. I'm just not sure if we're ever going to get the notability issue sorted out and based on the results of these current AFDs I get the impression that many people agree with the current criteria I'm using. When you say that for the timebeing I should refrain from nominating articles for deletion does that include the subst-prod feature? I don't see the problem with that considering it says right on the tag that if anybody disagrees with it they can remove it, but if they don't and it stays there for five days the article can be deleted. Thanks for getting back to me! 'Night! BooyakaDell 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what do we have here?

This diff is rather interesting [4]. Looks like someone was soliciting support for Afds, many hours before he complained about other people doing it. The phrase "pot, kettle and black" springs to mind"! 81.155.178.248 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's nothing more than a case of my point going entirely over your head. I didn't tell him which way to vote. Curse did.BooyakaDell 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a clear example of you doing exactly what you're complaining about him doing. Feel free to report yourself 81.155.178.248 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand Wikipedia policy. Difference - I did something done on Wikipedia hundreds of times a day which is perfectly allowed. He did something that is frowned upon on Wikipedia by asking somebody to vote a particular way.BooyakaDell 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)