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 Jmiles1107 (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 31 July 2009 (→‎Requesting Assistance from SoWhy). 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



DYK for Collofino

Hi SoWhy, I've added some words to the article and left a note on the DYK talkpage. Thanks for your help, and enjoy the game! Drmies (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, thanks again for your help with my DYK nomination. As is evidenced also by some of MaterialScientist's comments, they were extraordinarily sloppy, and I appreciate the time and effort you all put into giving us these nice little perks. I am sure your WP paycheck at the end of the month will prove you are being appreciated, but if not, let me just say thanks again. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not problem at all. I'm always happy to help. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???

Dear SoWhy, here you pointed that the hook has 193 characters. How can I determine how many characters a hook has? Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually copy and paste the hook as it's shown on the page into notepad2 or similar (without formatting) and it shows me the length of the entry when positioning the cursor at the end of it. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SoWhy. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stäubli

Updated DYK query On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stäubli, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! My first DYK! *celebrates* SoWhy 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good communication!

I just stumbled across your communication with Shadowjams, and wanted to quickly congratulate you for your respectful and successful communication. — Sebastian 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliment. Trust me when I say that hearing this means a lot to me. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it! A similar remark helped me three years ago. — Sebastian 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Would you please indefinitely semi-protect my userspace.Synchronism (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can semi protect your User: pages but Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages restricts protection of User talk: space to cases of serious vandalism and only for a short duration. Do you still want to have the other pages protected? Regards SoWhy 11:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at what I most recently removed from my talk page, I don't take it too lightly and would like to be spared any further... whatever you want to call it. This is serious to me. It is not an arbitrary request, nobody watches my page and this guy won't leave me alone. Won't you be so kind to extend my talk page even temporary protection?Synchronism (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But there has not been any further activity that would indicate that protecting is necessary or rather would work at all. I can remove those edits from the history if you like (and they can maybe be oversighted as well). This way, the traces left by the IP will be removed. How does that sound as a suggestion? Regards SoWhy 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that over. That sounds good, except, I really just don't want any unwanted contact with him. I like the revision deletion idea though, I'd want admins to still be a able to see what has happened for reference. Do you have any advice for moving forward? When I try to clean up any of the sockpuppeteer's messes, I get similar reactions. Regards,Synchronism (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the revisions. We can re-consider semi-protection if and when further such contacts happen, for now it might just have been a single incident not worthy of paying too much attention to. Regards SoWhy 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. Thanks for all your help, especially tempering my emotional impulsivity. RegardsSynchronism (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all, you are most welcome. Just come back here when this problem persists or you need any other help. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bridgecorp Holdings

Updated DYK query On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridgecorp Holdings, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wokai

An editor is requesting at WP:EAR that a new version of this article, which is available at User:Euwyn, be allowed in the mainspace. Since you recently create-protected this page due to the article being recreated, can you take a look to see whether Euwyn's article is substantially similiar to the previous article? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted revision and the one proposed are almost exactly the same, the only difference is in two sources. More important though, neither version addresses the article's AFD. My advice would be to seek deletion review with the draft as a proposed new version of the article. Regards SoWhy 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SoWhy. I had requested deletion review with the proposed new version at Wikipedia: Deletion review. Spartaz had "userfied" the page, and the surrounding discussion seemed to indicate no dispute about getting the article back on. I'm a little confused by this process as it seems to be going in a circle :) Would appreciate any further assistance getting the article up. I believe it is in good shape with proper references. 69.86.53.89 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus there was to userfy it to allow you to complete a draft. You have done so. Now you need to start a new review and citing your draft as a proposed new version, so people can decide whether it's really in a better shape now. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a DRV for this article on Euwyn's behalf.. ThemFromSpace 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very nice of you to do. :-) The closing admin can unprotect the article if the consensus is to allow recreation then. Regards SoWhy 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE : OS election question

There are several examples, so I'd just quote a recent one. This one is a bit more clear cut than some others. A set of edits were made by an editor, where by itself, are innocent-looking and legitimate on different articles. However, when the user contrib's is shown as a whole, it lines up to form a libelous hidden message against named individuals. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in that example the problem would come from combined edit summaries, not from edits themselves? Well, in that case it should be enough (but should be done!) to remove those edit summaries without deleting the edits themselves. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, I cannot think of valid article names that contain libelous claims to be honest. Such articles will probably be renamed and destroy this goal or they can be speedy deleted as G5 because noone really new will probably know how to use such a scheme. But I would not use oversight in such cases myself because that would be a case of OS policy #2 and require either advice from the counsel or a request by the subject and the latter is too unlikely to be considered here in theory because such pages will usually be handled faster than the subject will find out about exactly such a hidden message. But if they do, it needs to be assessed then because there are too many variables imho that cannot be answered in general: Have some or all of the articles been deleted? Have they been renamed, thus destroying any potential hidden message (as the software re-attributes the edit to the new name)? Etc. Sorry I cannot answer this more specifically. Regards SoWhy 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

not to be an attribution nazi or anything...

...but was this lifted from User talk:Dank? If so, you ought have attributed it somehow when templatefying it. FYI I've also lifted it from Dank (but properly attributed it) and put it at WP:TPS/banner. You can use {{WP:TPS/banner|75}} to replicate your usage, which you ought delete. (apologies if I have the order-of-operations reversed) cheers, –xenotalk 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dank took it from me. I just templifyed it on May 20, but placed it on May 5 and he added his on May 6. So if you are up to be an attribution nazi, you are free to go and hunt Dank. But I wouldn't and I don't really care. This is a wiki after all.^^ Nice work on making a more "stylish" template out of it though, I'll think about replacing mine. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DAMNIT! I am a poor wikisleuth. Sorry ;p –xenotalk 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glad to see you are happy now with the attribution and all. I decided to change my banner to your flexible template as well, I like the way it can be changed in size. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU/OS elections

Please ping the AC clerks instead of indenting the votes yourself since you are a candidate.--Tznkai (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. Regards SoWhy 06:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean whether the sandbox will be affected if Outline of rock music is deleted? Answer to that: It won't be. But the sandbox you created falls under Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses because it is treated as its own article. I suggest you move the page to your userspace for development instead (e.g. at User:Sswonk/Outline of rock music) and request R2-speedy deletion of Outline of rock music/Sandbox. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I would rather have it under WP:ROCK somewhere, is that within guidelines? Sswonk (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the WikiProject subpages are reserved for pages that are needed to administrate the project (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses). Drafts should be placed in userspace only usually to avoid cluttering up the other namespaces with them (see also the essay Wikipedia:Workpages). Is there a reason why you don't want to have it in your (or someone else's) userspace? Regards SoWhy 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None other than modesty, and wanting to avoid the perception that I WP:OWN the thing. I'll suggest it to the others, thanks for the responses. Sswonk (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Well, don't be shy or suggest to them to use their userspace instead. It's a common thing for multiple people to work on an article in someone's userspace and noone will ever think about WP:OWN when it comes to that. If you need any help with cleaning up the pages, let me know. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page created earlier Outline of rock music by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is what we want to delete and rework in a sandbox. TTH started it and made all the headers, plus populated the "subgenres" section. So he is probably considered the major contributor, even though he hasn't worked on it for several hours. He did this because he asked me if I was interested in doing the initial work on the page, and soon after I agreed to, bam! he poured in all the initial content. Is it OK for you to delete that and let him know it was sandboxed, or do we have to wait for him to request it? Sswonk (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we wait for his opinion on it, after all, there is no hurry, is there? Regards SoWhy 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

(feel free to remove this once you've read it)
You asked for opposers to give reasons, but the format of the election page doesn't allow them; I don't think you're untrustworthy at all, but I am concerned that you're very trigger-happy regarding RFPP. Protection should be a last resort as almost every use of it further widens the already gaping divide between content-writers and admins – despite you're being an admin for less than half the time I was, you have enacted six times as many protections in that time as I did in my entire time here – and looking at your protection log there are numerous clearly inappropriate protections in your recent history. (Protection of Friedrich Martens in response to this edit, six months protection of Jonas Brothers in response to a single vandal, indefinite full protection of Melanie Cruise…) In light of that, I'm concerned that you'd be oversighting a lot of material that doesn't really warrant it (oversighting is a last-resort measure because, inter alia, it destroys audit trails and hides patterns of bad behaviour) as you seem to have far too strict a definition of "bad content". – iridescent 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Thank you for both taking the time to write this and to make such a thoughtful decision. I will not remove this at all, I welcome any food for thoughts on my actions after all and it can serve as a reminder.
Nevertheless, I must confess, I am very surprised. Yes, I have a huge number of protections but on the other hand, I am also the most active admin handling RFPP by some margin and the amount you see results from days where I had to clear backlogs of 20-30 items by myself (thankfully those times are over). But my surprise comes from the fact that I have so far thought myself to be one of the most restrictive admins when it comes to protection, having denied much more requests than fulfilled them and having denied many that other admins would have protected. Yes, of course I made mistakes, but I do not think they are exemplary for having a too lenient stance on protection. And I somehow do not see the connection to oversight, so it would be nice, if you could clear this up for me (after all, you did support Lara who has a much more lenient stance on protection than I have).
I have always compared oversight to speedy deletion rather than protection because it essentially is the removal of content without discussion on decision of a single person. And as such, I actually expected opposition for too much strictness, not vice versa, as I have somehow acquired the image of being one of the strictest admins when it comes to speedy deletion. I share your concerns regarding oversight btw, I have said so in my response to Aitias' question: Oversight can easily destroy the admins' capability to work efficiently by removing information necessary to do so and I would never ever oversight anything that does not fall under the policy (I think OS should be an IAR free zone for as much as possible), the same as I do not speedy delete anything that is not covered by our speedy deletion policy. Please understand that I am not trying to sway your vote with this response, you wouldn't be yourself if that were possible. But I honestly do not see the connection you made between protection and oversight. The former makes it harder for editors to contribute, the latter makes it harder for admins to do their job. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, and hope I'm not coming across as hostile. My general attitude to all decisions on Wikipedia is "defend the status quo unless there's a reason to change it" (see here for a much longer explanation of the thinking behind it). My thinking on the CU/OS election boils down to: both are such potentially powerful tools, they should only be used by people with an active need for it which clearly outweighs any potential problems giving it to them could cause. (Much the same line of thought was one of the factors behind my recent self-desysopping; as there was no clear and present need for me to have admin buttons, there was nothing to outweigh the potential problems should I mess something up.) I've supported J.delanoy, Dweller and Lara because IMO they made clear cases as to what they planned to do with it, and opposed (or abstained) from all the others. I agree that Lara can be erratic, and if she was purely running on a "I think I ought to have this" stance I'd oppose – but she makes a clear case (her involvement in the bulk cleanup of Category:Living people) as to why her having oversight powers would be a positive that would outweigh any potential problems she might cause with possible misuse. – iridescent 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sounded like I wanted to compare your votes. I just pointed out Lara because she supports a very liberal approach to protection and by your reasoning you would have to oppose her, fearing she will be oversighting material that does not have to be oversighted. I did want to say anything against her though, after all, I, too, voted for her. Still, I would like to understand why you think oversight is similar to protection (and not to speedy deletion).
I understand your defense of the status quo but I cannot share it. I do not think anyone running does so for just having another power but because they want to help. For example, I have no great plans what I want to do with it - except one: Monitor requests and respond to them. And as such, my decision to run was based on the fact that while having a clear plan of what one wants to do with a tool, there simply need to be people who don't, who are just active to use it whenever the need arises (for example, most Oversighters are US-based and thus there is a shortage during times when Europeans like me request Oversight). I cannot sway you and I don't want to try but I felt the need to address this. And of course, curiosity compels me to request an explanation for aforementioned connection between oversight and protection. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the admin functions, I'd lump deletion in with granting permissions and bulk rollback, as relatively non-contentious powers; they translate as no-harm-no-foul "you violated our policies so we'll put things back the way they were before with an explanation to avoid you doing it again". While there are certainly admins who abuse the delete button, when used as intended it's a straightforward technical issue. Oversight, I'd class with protection and blocking; unlike deletion, use of the oversight/protect/block functions even when used correctly makes an explicit statement of "my opinion is more important than yours, and I have decided that you're not welcome". When used incorrectly, oversight is even more pernicious, as it's historically been used by members of Wikipedia's "elite" to hide evidence of their activities (try to find an explanation of where this diff went, for example). Both correct and incorrect usages share with blocking and protection the greatly increased probability that they'll potentially drive people off the project if misapplied or applied overly keenly. (While deletion and protection can annoy people – and sometimes does cause people to leave – as long as it's explained properly as to why it's being applied in this case and what the editor has to do to avoid it happening again, it generally doesn't cause problems. Oversight, with it's "we're going to pretend you never existed" connotations, has the same de facto effect as blocking a user – in that they make no change to the database – with all the potential problems that brings.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by iridescent (talk • contribs)
Ah, okay, I think I understand where you are coming from. Your view on oversight seems to be influenced by your view on Wikipedia as a whole (i.e. aforementioned "status quo defending") and as such, naturally, you categorize it with the admin actions that are designed to keep people out, whether individually or everyone. I cannot argue against that because that would mean I had to argue against your point of view about Wikipedia. If I may suggest something though, I think Oversight is not like protecting+blocking but rather than deleting+protecting, i.e. you remove something and then prevent others to access and restore it (something everyone admin can do if someone deleted a page). I would not make the analogy to blocking because it never is targeted at an individual user but at all users.
Anyway, I am very happy that you took the time to explain all this to me, I will try to address the issues you mentioned in your first post when protecting pages in the future. I have enjoyed this little "philosophical" exchange quite much and I would like to thank you again for making the effort explaining it. If I can do anything to make up the time you "wasted" here, please feel free to ask at any time. Regards SoWhy 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Shirukume

I have read your article on deletion and still do feel that the page for the band Shirukume should have been deleted. It contained no vandalism, advertising, copyright violations, was encyclopedic content, and sources were cited. If quantity of sources was the issue, i or someone else can easily get a few more.

To fill you in: Shirukume are a very popular band in my area of the UK. Form a huge part of the youth culture in the Worcestershire and Birmingham areas. They are signed to Mother Should Know Records. Yes, I am a fan. Of course I am or I wouldnt bother making the page, but I ensured I kept in encyclopedic, and did alot of research to find out all the band's activity over the years, and grabbed the band after a show and asked them a few things. The rest was found on my cited sources.

The reason I made the page was simply as a concise source of information about the band, which is the point of wikipedia is it not? When I, or i'm sure anybody finds or hears about a new band, one visits 3 places. Band website, band myspace, and wikipedia. So its worth having that page to provide info, if so many people are going to view it - surely :)

Mmm that was more long winded than it needed to be - sorry about that. Anyway I hope you'll review the page. I'm pretty slow at all the markup language, im new to all this, so i'd rather make appropriate changes to the page than start again - it took me ages!

Thanks very much =]

Tom

Tomandhismathcore (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wow, that deletion is long ago, so let me see, what I can say about it. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place to publish information for the first time, although it may be well-liked as a source of information. The band you are a fan of has not achieved anything that would make them somehow important or significant? They have not received any coverage in reliable sources, are not signed to a notable label, do not have notable members etc. So here we are: Wikipedia has two thresholds: A low one for called speedy deletion which sorts out the worst new articles (and the article you are talking about was one of them) and a general one, notability (in this case notabilify for bands) which has further requirements. To allow an article to pass the low threshold, it needs to indicate any importance/significance at all (see criterion #A7) which your article did not. Even if it did, it needs to meet the aforementioned notability guidelines.
As such, what you need to do is to consider these thresholds and honestly think about whether the band can meet them (remember that sources need to be reliable). If you reach the conclusion that they can, come back and I will help you restoring the article. If not, please don't feel put off by this incident. We are more than happy if you were to continue editing and contributing here. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

Dear SoWhy,

I am sorry to oppose your candidacy, but here is my reason for doing so. My biggest concern is your CSD track record. You often create inordinate amounts of work to delete pages that need to go, resulting in process drag and allowing people to game the system. While it is good that you adhere to the policies strictly, there are a few incidents that really caught my attention, among which some are noted on your editor/admin reviews. Oversight is deletion after all. Sorry again, Triplestop x3 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for providing a rationale. I appreciate that you took the time to do so.
Then: I know that my adherence to rules that are meant to be strict does not always yield applause from other users and I do not try to convince you that it's the correct point of view (there are dozen of essays which explain why CSD should be handled strictly). But let me ask you something for my personal understanding: I quite agree that oversight is a kind of deletion; but it's a deletion that happens after things have been removed from the public eye already (as such, there is no work created by not oversighting and system-gaming is quite hard as well). As such, do you think that the oversight policy should be applied liberally, with room for WP:IAR-oversightings performed often? Regards SoWhy 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as RevisionDelete is not quite the same as Oversight, there is more room for interpretation. See Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Usage_of_RevisionDeleted. I think that there are some things, while not strictly oversightable, like egregious attacks/vandalism, that should be deleted for courtesy of those attacked, per "WP:DENY", etc. Since entries in logs and histories are stricken rather than removed altogether, one would know that something really bad occurred and the paper trail is left intact. Triplestop x3 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, I just use "Oversight" because that is the name that has been used for so long, even if the software implementation has been changed. So fair enough, I can only say that we have to agree to disagree here. Deleting revisions like you suggest would leave an entry stricken, true, but it would remove the information from the administrators, thus effectively removing the paper trail from their sight. They'd know that something has happened but they don't know anything else about it. For example, see this diff (I requested OS on the edit prior yesterday): We can assume that IP 85.25.71.227 but we cannot be sure. It could have been something else, a good faith revealing of personal information, a good faith copyright violation that the board advised has to be oversighted etc. Admins dealing with this IP later will not know why the diff was removed (they have to trust the edit summary and not all admins leave summaries anyway). On the other hand, if an admin has selectively deleted an revision, the information would still be intact to be found (like egregious attacks/vandalism) but still be removed from the public eye. In the end, Oversight is simply the question whether we trust admins to view the deleted information or not and I think we should trust them whenever possible.
Anyway, you have my honest thanks for your time and explaining your point of view, I appreciate it. If you need anything, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

No worries. Please start assembling another set, since I've moved the set to the queue area. You might also want to use the inuse tag while you are at it. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remember using it in the future. Nice work on DYK btw :-) Regards SoWhy 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Although I am not thrilled to see two building images in a row (Queue 1 and 2), I realize we have very limited choices at times. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John P. Charlton

Updated DYK query On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John P. Charlton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias

As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I will take a look tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The American Outlaws

I created a page that was called The American Outlaws. It was deleted, because it was considered a club. I am supposed to give reasons for why it should stay. While thinking about creating it I looked around and saw that Sam's Army had a page as well as a many Major League Soccer Supporters Groups. The American Outlaws are as big (if not bigger) than most of these groups. It is a well established group that is nationwide, it is growing, and I recently heard that it is incorporated. It is a legit group, and not a club that some people decided to throw together. If needed I could rewrite the page.


UsmntAO (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) UsmntAO[reply]

The article was not deleted because its subject is a club. The article was found to be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion A7, because it was an "[a]rticle about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (emphasis mine). You may recreate the article, but to avoid deletion in the future, your best course of action is to have the article assert that its subject meets the relevant guidelines for inclusion (see WP:ORG, and WP:CLUB in particular). The most straightforward and unambiguous way of doing this is to add references to independent, reliable 3rd-party sources that cover the subject. See also Wikipedia:Your first article. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Assistance from SoWhy

I am a newbie on Wikipedia and have been writing a company page for Integration Point. A couple months back you disagreed with a speedy deletion tag placed on my article and cited that you believed the article had "plenty of notablility" , but may still need to be revised as an advertisement. Because of you, I was able to work on the article - adding more credible sources and revising so that advertising was no longer an issue. Recently another admin, Nihonjoe, has placed multiple tags, including a speedy deletion tag, on the article. I included more sources at his request, but he then added the consider for deletion tag. I made some mistakes, I admit, but I am new to this and I feel that I can no longer work with an aggressive admin because his criticisms do not prove to be helpful. The point of the Integration Point page is not to advertise, but to allow someone who is curious about the company to read information about it on Wikipedia. I simply would like to create an informative company page, but I am having difficulty with tags constantly being placed. I am open to suggestions and willing to edit, but as far as the notability of the article, which Nihonjoe constantly disputes, I am not sure what more I can do. I know that my references are credible. I thought I was heading in the right direction and now feel discouraged. Can you please help? Jmiles1107 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&oldid=305274783"