User talk:SoWhy

If you came here, because I deleted your article, please read here first!

Question about vandalism

Hi, how's it going?

I recently warned an anon editor for vandalizing a page, and reverted the edit as well. The editor then proceeded to mess with the code on my talk page, which I consider vandalism. Now, I didn't warn him for doing that, because I'm not sure it is appropriate. I mean, maybe it's seen as being impartial or something on my part... Is it? I'm not sure what to do. Should I warn him anyway? Should someone else?

I appreciate your input on this matter :)

Cheers –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now, I should ask for your input twice. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, warn him again. User pages are part of the project in no other way than all other pages. Thus vandalizing them is to be treated just the same as with every other page and the same measures can and will be taken. I doubt anyone will think it a biased thing to do when you warn people for obvious vandalism. After all, if someone else had reverted it, they'd have done the same. Regards So Why 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time it happens. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Match Attax

"SoWhy"? do you think Match Attax is of uttermost importance that it isn't speedily deleted from wikipedia? Does it contain encyclopedic content? Does it assert notability??? Why waste time with an AFD if we know what the Snowball outcome will be?Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. That's why I !voted to delete it. I just declined speedy deletion because it does not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion, unlike the previous versions of that article. Speedy deletions under WP:SNOW should be very very rare, because that is exactly the reason why there is a set of restricted criteria and why someone tagged it for PROD. PROD was contested, so the correct venue is AFD. Letting the AfD run its course and deciding on it, will not only allow a clean delete if the consensus is delete but, in that case, allow SALTing to prevent future recreations or allow G4 deletions of it. Regards So Why 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN CSD tagging

Hi SoWhy

Thanks for your note.

I would like to understand what you mean by "assertion of notability can in most cases be derived from the positions the person held." Do you mean that by stating any position of responsibility is claim of notability? Where is the line drawn at what positions are inherently notable? WP:BIO#Diplomats seems to believe that notability does not derive from position alone, which led me to conclude that assertions of position for most diplomats are not assertions of notability for them, as no inference of notability under that criterion can be drawn. I would be particularly interested in how positions such as Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning, Assistant Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management, or Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management could possibly give rise to an inference of notability. Could you please comment further?

Not that it's dispositive, but three other admins deleted other similar articles on my CSD nominations.

Rgds

Bongomatic (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OSE is never a strong argument, so I do not really make other admins' decisions my own.

My point here was that any person that held a multitude positions of responsibility, in one case as I pointed out in my message even vice-president of a country, can be asserted to be notable. WP:BIO#Diplomats might still be correct and so the article might be deleted later on. But when it's not completely clear that no notability is asserted, then A7 is the wrong way to go. And as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Alleyne, I could be right about those declinings.

And if I ain't, nothing is lost, because five days more for articles that exist for a month now, will not make a difference, but deleting them now when there is a chance that notability exists and is asserted, might lose us valuable information and scare away the creator of those articles. Regards So Why 12:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SoWhy

I know that "WP:OSE is never a strong argument" and that you "do not really make other admins' decisions my own", which is why I mentioned that the other admins' deletions were not dispositive.

I still don't understand what you believe to be an assertion of notability. If an article claims that X was the head of HR at one company, then another, then another, and is now is head of HR at a notable company, would you say that such claims, in and of themselves, constitute an assertion of notability?

WP:SPEEDY defines an "assertion of notability" as a "reasonable indication of why [the subject] might be notable". Your vice-president example is not apposite as such offices (as opposed to offices such as Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning is not only an obvious indication of why the subject might be notable (as well as an assertion that if true would with certainly be associated with "significant coverage in reliable [independent] sources", but is explicitly covered in WP:BIO#Politicians. Can you explain how the positions I mentioned above give an indication why the holders of such positions might be notable?

I don't have any issue with the AfD process per se, but the speedy process is designed precisely for situations such as this.

Rgds

Bongomatic (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the "beauty" of speedy deletion, the criteria, especially A7, rely heavily on interpretation. It is my understanding that deletions by admins should be an exception and admins should not delete borderline cases of notability without seeking consensus. Speedy deletion is a process for those articles that in no way should be kept, with very strict set of criteria. "Assertion of notability" is something that is always a rule-of-thumb-thing in my experience: counting that other new-page-patrollers did not nominate these articles for speedy deletion and that notability can be asserted through those positions (again, I do not say they are notable), I decided to decline it. Also, be careful with WP:BIO#Politicians on tagging for speedy deletion, articles without sources do not mean that assertion is not in the article. No sources means that the article can be deleted, but not automatically that it could be speedy deleted.

Feel free to take it to another admin for review if you think my judgment is flawed but I think you should just take it to AfD to weed out those which really need deletion. Regards So Why 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't really like forum shopping. But you still haven't explained in what possible way Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning would even be a borderline case. Where, in that instance, is any indication that the subject even "might" be notable? Why won't you address the merits of even one of the specific articles? Bongomatic (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's not the one position. Secretary-General of the United Nations is notable, so his assistants may be notable as well because they do part of his work. For example, Robert C. Orr is not only Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning but was also once deputy to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and other things. As I said above, I think speedy deletion is a very strict set of circumstances and should not applied when there is doubt. I laid out why I thought notability can be asserted, don't know what else to say about it. Can you name a specific case where you think this should be reconsidered? Regards So Why 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weismann (car)

Hi SoWhy, I was just looking for sources for this article when I found it had been deleted. Surely saying that it's a manufacturer of luxury cars is an indication of importance/significance - people don't manufacture luxury cars in their bedrooms. This is the first source that I found. ~~Please could you restore this so I can get on with some constructive editing?~~ Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I just noticed the spelling mistake in the article title (which was replicated in a picture caption in the source I found). We already have an article under the correct spelling, Wiesmann. Please ignore the above. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I googled the name and could not find any reliable sources and as I never heard of them myself, despite being German, I found the deletion appropriate. Interesting to see that it was a spelling mistake, hope you continue working on the topic. Regards So Why 16:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5)

Please see my comments on this matter here. I think another opinion may be needed. Dalejenkins | 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am honored that you think my opinion worthy. I provided it as a note at above link. Regards So Why 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the welcome message! Shnitzled (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. If you need further help after reading those links, feel free to ask me. You might also want to consider adoption if you plan on staying with us for a while. Regards So Why 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency (humanities)

We both agree that research is not compatible with the other items on the page, I can't split out the section because the new target page has the same name Transparency (research) as the current (wrong page name) we are discussing. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the note I left you. From what I can see, the other editor on the subject wants to use another name instead. If he/she agrees to move it back, please ask him/her to write so on the talk page of the article and then use {{db-move}}, specifically mentioning this. Regards So Why 11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the instructions, I opposed the first move and both alternative suggestions, the discussion is clearing up that we both agree that research is the problem in the story,, so moving it out is the option.Mion (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, moving should not be a problem. I left Mietchen a note about it. If he agrees on the move on the talk page, follow the instructions. Sorry, to make it complicated, but I want to avoid move-warring in case he disagrees and moves it back. Regards So Why 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sorry, your style is correct, w'll see how it goes, thanks Mion (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a question, if the redirect is deleted, the what links here are not linked to that page, but to a page with that name ? so moving another page to that name resores the what links here links? Mion (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when you move a page, all redirects and links to the page are pointed to the new location. If there are still links to the redirect when it is deleted, they have to be removed manually.

As for this case, Mietchen opposes your proposal to move it back and split, so I will not do it at the moment, as admins should not use their "power" to further someone's viewpoint. I strongly suggest you open a request for comment on the talk page and get more community input to decide what to do. Regards So Why 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to listen to proper hints the next time -:) Mion (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD declined

Hi SoWhy, I see that you declined to delete this article, on the basis that there was no prior Afd nom. This article was in fact, up for afd - and subsequently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porscha coleman. Could you please re-review the CSD on the article. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. For some reason the deletion log of that article does not list the AfD as a reason, but I do not know why the deleting admin failed to include this. I deleted it now of course. Please consider to use {{db-g4}} with the appropriate parameter in the future, linking the previous deletion discussion. Regards So Why 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes!

Hi SoWhy! Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism to my userpage just now. And . . . where did it come from? Haven't done anything to irritate that address, not that I'm aware of, haven't even been active here for several days! Bizarre. Anyway, thanks, I appreciate it! Maedin\^talk 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Sometimes those IPs are from a blocked editor or IP that you reverted before. Just ignore it. ;-) So Why 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

[1] Most kind. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am glad to see that you are back in action :-) So Why 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCLICK

Good afternoon,

Today I submitted an article on UCLICK. I believe it was rejected because of the notability claim. I believe I can correct this. Would it be at all possible to send me the article so that I can make changes?

Thank you, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prich311 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was not deleted but redirected to Andrews McMeel Universal by the deciding admin. You can review the former revisions using the history here. Just click on the date and time of the old version where the content was still in the article. Regards So Why 18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Lions semi-protection

For the record, (1) I didn't know about the RFPP until after the user requested it on my user page and then I protected it, (2) I do not care for the Detroit Lions; I'm more of a Buffalo Bills watcher if any team; (3) sorry for over-ruling you without notice, and (4) I would still have semi-protected it, as there were continuing vandalism from 3 different IP addresses in a single day. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go with Tan's answer here. When you request it first at an admin's talk page and then twice at RFPP, you have three different admins replying. It is much likely that one of them grants it then. But I suggest you check RFPP in the future when someone comes directly to you. I do not want to sound patronizing, but I think we should try to prevent such cases from happening, because it might look as if admin-shopping works. Regards So Why 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STC

I don't understand why my edited page on the Singerling Theatrical Co. was deleted. All of the provided information was true. Please contact me regarding this via e-mail: <E-Mail removed> Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.235.99 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left to the account that created the article. The information does not only have to be true, more over the subject needs to be of some notability. The article you mention did not even indicate why the subject was to be considered notable and was thus deleted. Regards So Why 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]