Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mehndiandwork (talk | contribs) at 11:48, 1 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SOWHY's talk page
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


1000th

I just reached my 1,000th edit!woohoo.Currently I have 1,007..Just thought I let you know that I am halfway till nominating myself admin.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but you do realize that editcountitis is not a very wise trait in an admin candidate, don't you?
But seriously, you should not nominate yourself just because you reach 2000 edits. RFA is a very hard process on candidates (to put it mildly) and if you are not really ready, you will fail and fail with much opposition. Once you reach such a threshold, you should rather first request a editor review and/or request admin coaching and get as much input as possible about your editing. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , I realize that, but im just telling you, No one else.And I am currently being admin-coached.Also i'm waiting on support for a wikiproject, and im involved with 2 already, because I know you have to be well rounded to be an admin.Also , I will put myself on editor review, but do you think i should do it now? , or later?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 11:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a wiki, what you tell me, you tell anyone who reads here ;-)
I think you should request an ER later, if you are near your adminship run, but you can always request more of them, like one now and one later. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... I put up an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Permethius,I would like to see what the community thinks of me right now and then when im close to running for adminship, I'll do it again, and compare the different thoughts.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 essay

Heya, I found the essay quite useful. Under the 'big mistakes' section you properly describe the practice of not re-tagging declined speedies. Is there any chance that's found in a policy somewhere? I'm only asking because I was recently quizzed by someone and couldn't find a source. Nja247 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Thanks :-)
Then: It's not in the policy as far as I know, at least not directly. WP:CSD is not talking about it except when mentioning that admins "may delete", thus implying they might make a decision not to do so. Such a decision counts as an administrative action, so another admin ignoring it willingly effectively wheel-wars against it and re-tagging is a try to make that happen. I added a general worded example to WP:PARENT a few days back as this practice is general and widespread consensus as far as I can tell (but of course WP:CANVASS is "only" a guideline and not policy). It might be a good idea to think about expanding WP:CSD with that, you might want to raise it at WT:CSD. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well I tried! I was at a loss a few days back when I was explaining this to someone who replied 'where in policy does it say that'. I'll consider brining this up, Nja247 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ignoring WP:CANVASS is not a really smart move as well, so you can use that for now. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Hey. You protected the Middle power page twice (it's sill protected) and great power page once due to a IP vandal. The vandal is back on the great power page, so I have decided to report him here. Please come and add your two cents. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's been moved [1] Deavenger (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time, please come and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need information regarding Siradel page in English

Good morning,

We carefully red the page regarding why our page was deleted first.

If we may, one page has been created in Norwegian on Siradel company and would like to create one in English too. We translated the Norvegian document into English without trying to "market" Siradel. It is approximately the exact translation.

We were informed that you deleted the page.

Could you let us know what the "right" process is please?

Thanks in advance Simon HAYE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.100.213 (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Norwegian Wikipedia might not have the same standards as the English one, so this is nothing to compare it with. Then: It was not deleted for any advertising reason but because it did not indicate why it would meet our guidelines for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Notability (companies)). If you can provide a reason why the company can meet those guidelines, I'd be happy to restore the article. Be informed that you should provide reliable sources to verify those claims of notability after it was restored (press releases and company websites are not such sources). Regards SoWhy 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the version in Bokmål (one of the Norwegian languages). It rather looks like advertising there; it's just a stub. Interestingly there's not an article by that name in any other language. - Hordaland (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assessment. The English version was not really that advertising though, more in the lines of complete lack of any indication for inclusion-worthiness. I guess that is the same for the Bokmål language one as well? Regards SoWhy 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is, year founded and lists of its products. - Hordaland (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at Omid (satellite)

The edits made to Omid (satellite) have led to a circular redirect. All the information about this satellite has disappeared. Please fix. Interlingua 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Apparently R'n'B (talk · contribs) and I tried to delete-and-move the same page at exactly the same time, thus the software did not show the updated page on my action but just deleted it again. Sorry for the mess - the page is now at Omid. Regards SoWhy 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in Iran

There is an article for Transportation in Iran, but there are also 8 articles about the specific roads. They is only a single sentence long each one, with where they go, no citations and sometimes poor spelling. I'm wondering if these articles should be deleted. They are here, and at the bottom are links to the rest of them. Thanks for the help, Shanman7 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for deletion. Instead, I suggest you merge the content (there is some in the infoboxes as well) to either Transportation in Iran or a new Roads in Iran and then turn the current articles into redirects. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mundo de Mentiras and La Famiglia dei Furfanti

When 3 articles are created at the same time and one of them goes to AfD (La Luce di Vita), what should we do with the other two? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the same reasons are valid, just list the other two with the same AFD. Template:AfD footer (multiple) lists the way to do that (in case you don't know). After all, if they are related (and hoax Italian soaps is the same motif for those three), it's useful to have people comment on all three. And if they are not, people will !vote to split the AFD afterwards, so nothing lost. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that's best. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If you want to, I think Jaula de Lobos should be added to that as well. Regards SoWhy 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CSD rules

Hi SoWhy - I know you're a CSD buff, and wondered if you could help me with my understanding of the rules. I'm looking at Ariella kashi. It was deleted earlier, but the author's contesting the speedy by asserting that the article's subject is notable. By my reading of the notability guideline, the assertion is wrong: there's no coverage of this person in third-party sources. So does the assertion of notability rule out CSD, or does the criterion need to take into account whether that assertion is correct?

There's also a COI thing going on here, but let's leave it out for now :) Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per A7, the claim of importance or significance (this is a standard that is much lower than notability!) needs to be credible. A7 clearly states that this is enough "even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". Whether there really exists notability or such sources is something that should be determined in other processes, A7 is only to weed out those where there is no possibility at all that they might meet the guidelines for inclusion. My essay Common A7 mistakes tries to clarify this criterion further (including multiple examples). Hope that clarifies it. If you have any more questions, do not hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Seeing that the page you refer to was now deleted, this was an example where there were some claims of importance but they were completely non-credible (a 16-year old girl with "only" charitable services to her credit is never going to meet any guidelines for inclusion). Regards SoWhy 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and thanks for the pointer on the essay. That's all clear. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Excellent Userpage Award
Show off :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-D SoWhy 07:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj

Hi. I kept coming across the name Nicki Minaj, so I did a "what links here" and found about 30 articles, so I thought I'd create the page. Then I saw the deletion log, and that you and Orangemike had both deleted it within an hour of each other about 10 days ago. And I thought: "What's going on here? It looks like I'm walking into a minefield."
Would you mind giving me a brief summary of what IS going on, and advise me whether I should go ahead with the creation, or stay well away? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicki Minaj, so both Orangemike's and my deletion were procedural deletions for recreation against that consensus. If you want to recreate this article, you should do so in your userspace, complete with reliable sources that verify that the artist meets the notability guideline for musicians (because being not-notable is the reason it was deleted in the first place). If you manage to do so, you can move it at its correct location (I suggest you add a comment that this is a new version that is not a recreation of the deleted version when moving) although I suggest you make sure you addressed the previous AFD's concerns before doing so (you could ask someone familiar with such articles to assess this, maybe a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music). Hope that answers your questions, if not, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions and warnings; they look like good advice. The "deletion discussion" didn't seem to involve very much "discussion", did it! The deletion log suggests it has beeen deleted on 5 separate occassions - how can I determine if they were they all the same article, or five distinctly different articles, or something else? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't, not being an admin. To allow you to understand the previous deletions, I have userfied the article to User:Pdfpdf/Nicki Minaj with all revisions restored. You can see the different versions by checking the creation and deletion dates in the history of the article. Basically, except the spammy version, all articles varied a bit in tone and style but none of them established any notability, which is why the previous consensus could be applied to them as well. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Thanks - most appreciated. And thanks also for the potted summary and explanation. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.

This award is given to editor Sowhy. Thank you so much for your efforts to defend the defenseless. You are not only a good example of a wikipedian, you are a great example of an administrator. Thank you for all your efforts. Wikipedia is a better site because of you. Ikip (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but remember what I told you about the language. You are not completely without blame. While the latest incident was indeed based on another admin's incorrect interpretation of guidelines, you need to tone down your rhetoric a bit to avoid that people even think about you this way. You do a good job at ARS - just be careful to view editors with different viewpoints as "the enemy". Regards SoWhy 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child Abuse

I'd like ask you to reconsider your decision here. I think there is easily "heavy and persistent" as Wikipedia:Protection policy says is necessary for indefinite semi-protection. Thank you. Alan16 talk 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advise, in general: Calling someone's decision "ludicrous" is usually not really helpful if you want them to reconsider that decision. On the contrary, they might feel insulted (for example if they are very experienced in making such decisions) confirm this decision to annoy you.
As for your request, I have to decline it unfortunately. The protection policy clearly limits such protection for much worse scenarios than 1 vandalism edit in 4 days. I left a more detailed response at RFPP. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly worrying that an admin would suggest their experience is reason enough for a decision, surely everybody can be wrong? I responded to your response at the page. Alan16 talk 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely everybody can be wrong. But since when does this stop people from feeling insulted? Criticism is usually healthy (I appreciate it in fact) but some choices of words are ineffective and not helpful. Yes, I don't care about such things but I bet you someone might and you will have hurt your cause if they do. It's unfortunately too idealistic to believe that noone will feel insulted if you choose such words, so better choose your words carefully if you think they might. Regards SoWhy 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be the misconception that my word choice was careless. Words can used to provoke and gauge responses, part of their beauty and their curse. Anyway, we are going of subject. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Alan16 talk 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can. But choose certain words and the only response you might get is the opposite of the one you want. My point was that you need to be careful when choosing such words because otherwise you will only hurt your cause, not help it. As for the subject at hand, I hope you understand why I made this decision in line with policy, even if you still disagree with it. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it had an adverse effect on my cause as, like most admins, you have made a decision and intend to stick to it - and that wasn't meant to sound like an insult. And I think you have reasons for your decision, however I think there is certainly a case for some semi-protection. Alan16 talk 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, that if your goal is to make an admin reconsider a decision, using such words that might make an admin/user believe that you think they are stupid (without intending it!) might lead to the user in question to stick by it just to spite you, even if they realize that they made a mistake. What we intend and what others hear is not always the same, especially on a page like this where you have many different users with different levels of skills in writing and understanding English (for example people like me where English is not their native tongue) and thus we need to be careful to choose words that are probably not insulting to any normal person.
As for the protection case, of course you can have your personal opinions on whether something needs to be protected or not. Unfortunately we cannot make administrative decisions based on personal opinions on what should be done or not if the policy is clearly against that. Regards SoWhy 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return home

Because patent nonsense is something else, not a movie that does not exist. That would be a hoax, explicitly excluded from G1. As IMDB knows at least three movies with this name, it is not completely improbable that this was a good-faith attempt to describe such a movie, which makes it impossible to delete it as a "blatant hoax" in G3 (because that carries an implication of bad faith). See also WP:CSD#Non-criteria. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke Rollback Permissions

Hello you just deleted my talk page as requested. Can you also remove my rollback permissions? --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Good luck in your real life. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Ali

I don't know why that guy singled us out, but I remember this article being constantly created and recreated a couple of years ago. I didn't even have my admin tools returned to me at the time. I deleted and salted the talk page since it seems the article page had been previously salted. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had no idea what this was about (I tagged it prod once though but nothing else) so I thought maybe one of you could make sense of it. Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Sach

Just a question, I believe I tagged G3 after investigating, you deleted under A7. I'm not entirely sure why my reasoning for G3 was incorrect, I'd appreciate any feedback so I can be more accurate next time. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because as a rule of thumb (at least that's how I interpret G3) to qualify a hoax as vandalism, it needs to be blatant enough that it's obvious without need for research. On the other hand, the subject might exist but has no indication to meet inclusion guidelines, so A7 was clearly fulfilled. But don't feel bad, R'n'B (talk · contribs) was about to G3 delete it just when I had already deleted it, so G3 was probably justifiable. I just feel that G3 carries a strong implication of bad faith (= vandalism!) so I try to avoid it where possible. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks for the clarification. While we're at it, Obie Fernandez is on my watchlist and got PRODed. An IP with his first edit just reduced it to one line, implicitly contesting the PROD but also taking the article into A7 or A1 territory. I'm completely at loss here: revert the IP and thus re-prod? Leave it and AfD it? MLauba (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still is not A7 or A1 because being a developer of notable software is an indication of notability (see also WP:A7M#BIO) and it has context to fail A1. Since they removed the prod, you have to view it as contesting it and should not re-add it. Take it to WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sod this, I can probably source that :). Thanks again. MLauba (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's of course better than deleting, I do so myself often enough when faced with speedy-tags but it is an annoying job to do so: nice work on this - you probably established notability with that as well. If you need any further assistance, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a stub but I think it passes the GNG now. One deletion avoided :) Cheers, have a nice afternoon. MLauba (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thankyou for the grant of new page watcher, and for the comments unterneith the grant, it makes my efforts feel appreciated very muchly. Thankyou. Jamesööders (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I searched the article name in Google and found protein somewhere ans thought that it must mean protein. Sorry for the incorrect CSD. Thanks. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, exactly this text needs to exist from another Wikimedia project, because if it does not, it might contain useful information that is still missing on this or another project. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy when you speedy delete articles untagged previously do you inform the creators? -- Mentifisto 12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the article actually. Usually, I do not delete untagged articles but if I do, I'm usually checking whether the creator already created this or another deleted page and thus already has information about SD. Also, I usually warn on blatant vandalism and attack pages instead of using a sd-inform template. I admit though that I might not always have informed the creators where necessary and I welcome slaps to remind me. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I asked you because I was wondering why TW isn't made to do it automatically and whether I should ask about it. -- Mentifisto 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. You might want to nag Amalthea (talk · contribs) about that, he is both very TW- and CSD-savvy. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need, someone has asked for that already. And no, Twinkle doesn't notify at the moment if you speedy it directly, without tagging.
It would be easy to just post our default SD notices, but most of the text is kind of pointless in those cases:
  • [...] you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Is it still better than nothing? Or do we need a new slew of after-the-fact notices? Amalthea 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't we (i.e. you ) create a sort of master-template that says something like "I deleted your page XXX per criterion YYY" and the XXX and YYY are just parameters that TW fills in automatically? Of course, it would be nice if TW checked whether there is already a speedy-warning on that user's talk page, because otherwise it would be pointless. But it sounds like something that shouldn't be hard, you can borrow a lot of the text from the default notices after all :-) SoWhy 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't really just want to drop a "I deleted your page Red link per criterion A7" on a user talk page, you'll always want to explain what A7 is, basically the part
from {{db-a7-notice}}. That has to be stored somewhere, and it shouldn't be in the script (cause then only very few people would be willing to update them), so they need to be be put into a template.
What could be done however is to extract just the wording from above into a template which stores this text (and only the text) for all criteria, which could then be used in both tags. It'd need some changes so that it works both pre- and post-deletion, but that should be doable.
It might even make sense to extract the other wordings we have e.g. at {{Db-a7}}:
  • an article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
  • Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
so that if a criterion is changed, all those wordings can be updated with less risk of them getting out of sync.
I was thinking about redoing the db-*-notice templates for quite a while already anyway ...
Amalthea 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Amvymra/Moutheater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Amvymra/Moutheater. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amvymra (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the content of No Mill Road Tesco (NMRT) Campaign on the grounds of "unambiguous copyright infringement" when I had put the quoted text into quotation format (or so I thought) and the material from the NMRT website is not, in any case, copyrighted. I'm new to wikipedia so would be grateful for some help! Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if the whole article consists of text from somewhere else, even if marked as a quote, it's still copyright infringement. Quotes are allowed, but they should not make up 99%+ percent of the article. Then: Everything can be copyrighted, even if there is no © symbol or anything on it. For inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be explicitly released into public domain or under the GFDL or a compatible license. There was no sign of this on that page. You are free to recreate the page with your own words, but it might be re-deleted under another criterion, either as advertising or for not indicating significance or importance, so you might want to read Wikipedia:Your first article before considering to do so. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very quick reply! Sorry if I'm being dense, but how is something "explicitly" released into the public domain in this context? Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were lucky that I was online at this moment. Anyway: Something is explicitly released in public domain or under a certain license, if the webpage the content is on specifies as such (like this webpage has at Wikipedia:Copyrights) or a written letter or email to the Foundation by the copyright holder (detailed under Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) releases the content under such a license. With text, it's usually easier to write it yourself rather than going through these lengths because text on other webpages usually is written from a non-neutral point of view and conflicts with our neutral point of view policy. Regards SoWhy 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Mate article deletion

Hello SoWhy, I am trying to create a page explaining a community service for scientists called Sci-Mate, but you have taken it down. I have read your guidelines on this sort of thing, and yes I am a member of this community, but I do not stand to benefit personally from any extra traffic resulting from Wikipedia exposure. We run this site as a free community service for those who qualify for membership, and are not commercially orientated (we all work full-time in research positions). The site is also of general interest, particularly to the R&D community, which can be demonstrated by its separate coverage by Australia's major national paper The Australian, ABC's Future Tense program, and will shortly feature in the Journal of Science Communications. We might not be as notable as eBay and Microsoft, but I you might reconsider your decision to remove us from Wikipedia. I'd of course be very happy to change any aspect if you think it is too spam or ad-like. Regards, Christopher Dyer.XofD (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you forgot to mention reasons why the service is notable, which is why it was deleted in the first place. If you can indicate this, you are welcome to re-create the article (I can restore it if you need the previous text, just ask) but you should but mindful that you are in a conflict of interest and should be careful with sentences like "The Sci-Mate is a community project that will continue to develop according to the needs and wishes of its community of members." Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need further help, please just ask. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page, re-edited it- trying to adhere to the guidelines. If still not ok, please continue to be patient with me, as I genuinely don't understand some things that seem obvious to you. For example, I don't get why the sentence you quote is not ok in the context of the perceived conflict of interest. (that is just an example that you don't need to explain- unless there is a problem with what I changed it to) Cheers, XofD —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The sentence is an example of predicting the future and personal reflection, both things that are misplaced in an encyclopedia. Now that you restored the article, you should really add those sources you mentioned before (Wikipedia:Citing sources will tell you how that is done), so it will not be speedy deleted again. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Keita

but i would have like my page reverted back to my user page not be deleted. couldn't he had done that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitaadama (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page, Casliber (talk · contribs) restored the page to your userspace. The page was deleted because you moved it to article namespace from your userspace. It was not deleted because it was your userpage. Regards SoWhy 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thole kaLanga

Last time I checked notability was not inherited. Has something changed? Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked A7 was not about notability. — Sorry, but I just had to
You are right of course, notability is not inherited. But being the son of someone notable indicates that the person might be important or significant in their own right, just like children of actors are often receiving coverage of their own for example. So I think this is a case for WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Soliton

ThanX for ur advice.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srtaight Up

A couple of things as you declined the speedy delet.

1) According to the user page of the creator of the page the name of the album is actually "Srtaight Up" not "Straight up", the name you moved the page to.
2) The artist in question does not have a a wikipage.
3) According to the userpage, th album has not been released yet as the article says, rather it will be relased in July.

Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...
  1. Feel free to revert the move but in the article itself, the name "Straight Up" is used, so I guessed it to be one of multiple typos.
  2. He does not have to. A9 has two requirements, no entry and no indication of importance or significance (as does A7). If one of them is met (i.e. here the latter), it does not meet A9.
  3. Well, I have no idea, there are no sources. But that's not a reason for deletion.
Regards SoWhy 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the article is about is by an unreleased album by an unknown artist, and that is a reason for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but not for speedy deletion if it asserts importance or significance and it does that (notable label, notable producer(s) etc.) You can always take it to AFD of course. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Brand

Another editor has tagged the article Rival Brand for proposed deletion, with the concern "No notability asserted-speedy declined but ""rival brand" clothing columbus" produces no relevant google news stories." However, the article already has a reference from a magazine. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proposed deletion (PROD) does follow the general AFD criteria for a reason, just without the discussion. If you think it's an invalid reasoning, you can contest the prod by removing it and then the editor has to file it for AFD if they want to pursue deletion. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete of Gregg Valentino

Hi. The new article was speedy deleted before I could add the 'hangon' template. GSD G4 applies to content that:

is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.

I never saw the old deleted article, but read the delete discussions. The source for the sparse information is new and not self-aggrandizing primary sources like before. The guy is a minor celebrity, is in the news every few months, and neutral accounts of him are hard to find online. We can fix that. Thanks Tafinucane (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not mean that the text needs to be the same as in the deleted version but the content is substantially equal. If an article gets deleted, like this one, because there is no notability, then a new article needs to overcome this obstacle. Consensus at AFD determined that the subject is not notable just because of the documentary in which he was covered for his alleged steroid abuse. As such, you need to find reasons why the subject is notable outside this narrow context, else the previous AFDs' results are still applying to the newly created version, even if it uses different text. You might want to request that the AFD gets reviewed to determine whether the subject's notability has changed since the last AFD deletion. Unfortunately, from the source you used, I cannot see that this happened, the previous article had multiple of those sources and none were enough, even though reliable. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. The cite I provided did not exist when the article was first deleted. Basically, there was a new biopic produced on the guy since the last debate. He received a fair amount of buzz, so is more notable than he was a year ago. I see that once a subject has been deemed not notable there is a pretty substantial barrier to re-insertion. Much more so than the dozens of other bodybuilder bio's on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can see, the new biopic essentially is covering him for the same reasons as the old one, doesn't it? The subject didn't do anything else in the last year that would have increased their notability, did they? If they did, I'll restore the article for you of course. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey why are you editing my article and i study in baria college ok and my friend made t so you dont know anything ok so stop the fuckin editing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&oldid=287232635"