User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901

Please don't spam me with stuff like newsletters, and GA reviews, I will ignore it. Also because of long standing harassment from ED, my user talk page is semi-protected. If you are a IP or a new editor and need to speak to me, leave me a message here. Also note if you come only to vandalize or harass me, it WON'T WORK, and I'm more than willing to give a nice block and contact your IP server (depends on how severe it is)

Your opinion

Hi Secret - I see that you speedy deleted this article under A1. The same author (User:Owen the Kid) has been creating several articles over the past week, most of which have been speedily deleted. Two articles remain, I'm Landing and Ben 10: Back to the Alien Force, both of which are completely unreferenced and unwikified. I'm not sure how to proceed with this user. They have a welcome template on their page with all the relevant links for creating an article, but the sub-par article creation continues. I think we may simply be dealing with a young user who doesn't understand or perhaps is not yet capable of creating a proper wikipedia article that meets notability and referencing criteria. How should one proceed in such a case? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I killed both articles, I think it's a young user in this situation (looking at the subjects), the best thing to do is to fix his edits, prod or AFD if nessarry. Secret ^account 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has since created two more inappropriate articles, with the edit summary "nothing". Their user page is littered with speedy deletion notifications and none of their articles have survived without someone having to take the time to speedy, prod, or redirect. Is there no way to stop the user from creating bogus (but good faith) articles? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted one and warned him. Nothing much I could do other than blocking him. Secret ^account 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Barton

Hallo Secret,
this page should be deleted, (not the discussion page) to make room for David Barton (Missouri politician) who is the person which is meant in the majority of articles. Unfourtunately not all links can be changed as they come from navigational sidelines like senators from Missouri. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew and threats of being blocked for bringing up Jack Merridew's behavior

User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_closing_of_the_ANI Ikip (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda, whoever is right about this, it would be good to get some consensus among the admins before you go blocking him for it. That might make Ikip happy, but it's unlikely to "stick" or resolve anything. Please talk to Future.--Chaser (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geonotice

Please update Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 with some provisional ideas about a meetup in the next couple of months, and I'll be glad to post the geonotice.--Pharos (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hornell Dodgers

the Hornell Dodgers were a minor league affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1950-1956.. thus they meet the guidelines for inclusion and shouldn't be summarily deleted without discussion.Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article didn't mention that, it only mentioned it was a team in a college league, I'll be more than willing to undelete if you are willing to mention it. Thanks Secret ^account 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was originally about the minor league team and someone changed it. If you put it back, I'll rewrite the article to focus on the professional team.Spanneraol (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested....

I have posted this as I think it is one way of really promoting core encyclopedic content. Anyway, if you have some spare time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared out the old discussion, I really want to promote it. Secret ^account 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. This should be a key process in collaborative edtiing round here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have the correct editor

Hi, we don't know each other at least I'm not aware of any contacts. I just noticed you withdrew from the election. (If you are not the editor then please except my apologies in advance, this will be quite embarrassing too. :) ) Anyways, may I ask why you decided now to withdraw? I mean with the ballots being secret, :), how do you know if you are doing good or bad in the election. I would really have preferred you stayed in the race for arbcom. I haven't voted yet. I am still researching and reading about editors I don't know. I'm sorry you felt the need to withdraw. I hope it's more for personal reasons than anything else. Thanks for the time, feel free to ignore this. I was/am curious about why you chose to leave the election since I was rather impressed with what I was seeing about you. Again thanks, happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it's more of a time reason, I knew I was doing poorly in the elections, and after getting advice from a former member of the committee, I don't have the time to dedicate with the hard work it brings. I rather get the experience I need in the dispute resolution and run next year, when my studies will be more laid back. Thanks for thinking about supporting me, I really apprichiate it. 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have a question on an article, and I was wondering if you would help me know how to proceed. I was patrolling newpages when I came across Anthony Santos (entertainer), which seemed to be an article on a well-known musician, so I attempted to help out with a few copy edits and adding references. Afterwords, however, I checked out Anthony Santos which redirects to Aventura because consensus found that it was not sourced well enough for a BLP. It appears the article was created as a content fork to avoid consensus, but I am not sure what to do with the new content. Mrathel (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did good, the article still has some poorly written cruft, but usually head musicians of major bands get their own article. The original article was redirected with any discussion. I just history merged both articles. Thanks Secret ^account 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Napolis

Hi. Would you mind please explaining what "BLP concerns" made you "err on the side of caution" in the closure of the Diana Napolis AfD? Thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also mind explaining this User:Secret/BLP?PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're here, I'm also concerned about this, where doesn't seem apparent at all what policy are you referring to. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? --Cyclopia ^talk 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the first I agree, was a bit borderline, but the subject was a marginal BLP. She was only known for "stalking" celebs, and an article like that would always have serious BLP issues. It cause no harm in deleting the article on a person who isn't notable anyways. The second AFD the consensus was as clear as it could be, it's true there's a bunch of google hits, but WP:GOOGLEHITS aren't everything. The article has concerns with reliable sourcing and original research that weren't met in the AFD. Consensus is formed by reading the debate promptly and check if the discussers apply by policy, not by a simple vote count. Secret ^account 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much. Nothing to say on the second close, now that you explained it (it was just unclear what was the policy you referred). On the first I disagree on the rationale, and I am considering DRV (want to check the AfD thoroughly before however), but thanks nonetheless for your explanation. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

Hi Secret, just a note on any possible RFA timing: did you see the comments from SoWhy? Given that it's only been 3.5 months since the original RFA it may make sense to wait till Jan or Feb. Let me know what you think. Good luck with exams. (BTW - what kind of blackberry do you have? I'm dying to get the 9700, but the 9000 only just came out here in Japan). 7 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I won't spam you with my template, per your request, but still wanted to thank you for such a glowing nomination. I appreciate your support, and will probably bother you several times over the next few weeks with questions about various admin activities. Thanks again! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen

Please explain why you deleted the page Alison Rosen. It was clearly a case of the people not know who Alison Rosen was. I rebutted every single point made by those calling for the deletion of the article and not one person responded to my rebuttals. I feel this deletion was completely unfair to me and Ms Rosen. Did you actually read any of the discussions? Karpaydm (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Karpaydm, for not replying to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Rosen (3rd nomination). I must have missed your post while I was browsing through my lengthy watchlist. My deletion rationale at the AfD was that there lacked significant coverage reliable sources that discussed Alison Rosen. Most of the references in the article may have been reliable, but they contained no more than a passing mention (one or two sentences) about Rosen. Also, many of the sources were written by Rosen herself. For an article to meet WP:N, the topic must have received coverage from someone independent of the subject. Furthermore, a WP:BLP requires reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. If you can list at least three reliable sources (which excludes blogs and tabloids), each of which devotes an entire news article about Rosen (these articles cannot be written by Rosen herself), I will help you return the article to mainspace. Otherwise, the article will remain deleted until she receives coverage in reliable sources.

Secret closed the debate as delete because there was no other way he could have closed it. Save for yourself and an IP, there was a unanimous decision to delete the article. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmarks in Las Vegas

Please add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmarks in Las Vegas. Note that I do not disagree with your closure, did not participate in the debate, and have no position on whether or not the article should have been kept. However, I found the debate in the AfD logs and found it interesting, so I watchlisted it to see how the discussion would play out. There was a significant number of differing opinions, so I believe that a closing rationale could help those who participated in the debate understand why you closed as such. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a closing rationale that sums why the article was deleted. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for nominating me for admin, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals.

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline

One of my main concerns is that I want to make sure that I am correctly interpreting policies regarding AfD's. On culture-related topics such as this, I find that many will argue that the standards for WP:NOR are somehow different than for other subjects. If you have a moment, I would appreciate if you could look at my argument in this AfD and assess it to see if I am correctly reading policies on OR and whether I am missing something that would help me make a better assessment, a "suggested reading" if you will. I'm not really sure if this falls under coaching, but I figured I would give it a shot:) Mrathel (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas gangs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dallas_gangs If every single entry can be found in major newspapers, as having activity in Texas, then does that not count as reliable sources that they are in fact a gang and operating in Texas? The article can be verified. Any entries that did not appear in a reliable source were removed already. The only question was whether to put the news sources in the article, or to simply link to the main gang articles where sources are already at. Additional sourcing was found and discussed on the article talk page. Dream Focus 16:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh none of the entries had a source next it. I'll be willing to userfy if you plan to source it and rename list of gangs in Texas. Secret ^account 16:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy it for me so I can finish working on it. Dream Focus 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I get the talk page too? I had found some valid references already for some of the gangs there, and was discussing how to improve the article with other editors there. Dream Focus 21:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Hello, RenamedUser jaskldjslak901. You have new messages at Coldplay Expert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Which ones? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them, one sentence answers aren't impressive, especially with an editor as experienced as you. Secret ^account 20:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination)

From what I can see, you closed this early by several hours. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll close this in two hours, consensus is rather clear here anyways. Secret ^account 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Napolis DRV

Deletion review for Diana Napolis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diana Napolis. 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. Cyclopia ^talk 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

I've never seen an edit like this before, but I'm a relative newcomer (compared to you). What does, for example, your edit to Oregon do? (Import log); 10:49:05 . . Secret (talk | contribs | block) transwikied Oregon (2 revisions from nost:Oregon) —EncMstr (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page importation, I was just importing edits from the earlist version of wikipedia. History from when Wikipedia first started in 2001 that managed to be recovered from a harddrive crash years ago and placed on a wiki. Secret ^account 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So where do those 2 revisions show up? Are the two earliest edits here from the import? —EncMstr (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. Secret ^account 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Thank you. For the record, I did not intend to say that I would stay away from the article, but that I would not revert it. I do not intend to edit it; but one reason I want to be able to edit is to revise a hasty comment on the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Xandar

In view of the latest unblock request, I am inclined to unblock this user. However, I wanted to get your input first to see if there were any outstanding issues of which to be aware. Thanks! TNXMan 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okashina_Okashi_-_Strange_Candy

I really don't understand your close here. There were arguments made that the sources met WP:N. And they clearly do in fact. Given the !vote count and the quality of sources, I really don't understand your delete result for this. Could you identify why you feel the largest newspaper in a significant metropolitan area isn't a RS? Do you have some insight into why Tech News isn't a RS? My sense is that you expected the keep !voters to hunt down the paper sources and explain each one of them. I don't think that's realistic or proper. We have many articles on historical figures (for example) that have only paper sources. If no one can provide quotes from them in 7 days, does that mean we should delete them? I'd ask that you reexamine this. (See [1] for the AfD).

No, the sources did not meet WP:N as the user Spartaz has shown in detail. Therefore I support the deletion although it was against the majority of commentors until better sources can be found. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you userfy the deleted article to my user space? That'll give me a chance to continue improving the article as I find better sources and such. Dragoneer (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure requested

Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryum Jameelah (3rd nomination) early (it's been withdrawn and there are no votes for deletion) ? I would like to nominate the article for DYK, and don't want to close the AFD myself, since I voted keep and have now become the main contributor to the article, Maryum Jameelah. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of TJ Spyke

How many times are we going to block this guy for 24 hours before we realize that a longer block (possibly indefinite) is needed? iMatthew ^talk at 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RenamedUser jaskldjslak901. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, RenamedUser jaskldjslak901. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketcetera

Can you explain your decision on the deletion of this page. I felt that the consensus was not clear, with only two users joining the discussion with the opinion to delete, one of whom making no real arguments at all). Can you please review and consider re-listing. Thanks. Wikiphile1603 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment

See here. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importing pages from the Nostalgia Wikipedia

Hi Secret,

I've undone your import at Current events because the non-imported history of that page only goes back to 2006. I'd already imported that history to the correct place, which is at the page October 2003, because the "current events" page used to be moved to a "<month year>" title, and that started in November 2003.

I've just created User:Graham87/Import to record my thoughts on importing pages from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I've used your import at "ocean" as an example about underlined usernames. I know I've made a few similar mistakes myself, but they involve username changes so I really shouldn't link to them.

Dont feel bad about the mistakes . It's a new tool and everyone is still learning the ropes with it. Regards, Graham87 07:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the diff relating to your import of the ocean article at User:Graham87/Import with my own recent mistake at x-ray astronomy. Whoops! Graham87 08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP3RR

Please have another look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Japheth_the_Warlock_reported_by_Vidkun_.28talk.29_.28Result:Stale_.29. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, please see this--user has again reverted. Drmies (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Express Air

Hey Jorge, just wanted to let you know that I'm going to re-add the article for Island Express Air, which was an article you had previously deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm not associated with the airline (or any airline or aviation entity), but I'm one of the main contributors of aviation-related articles for Western Canada. I think I've got a pretty good rep for quality articles that are well-referenced and not spammy. Although it is a very small airline, it's notability comes from the fact that it now makes Pitt Meadows Airport scheduled service, and that makes it qualify for $3 million per year towards a new terminal, which will allow it to gain additional scheduled airlines. Thanks. Greg Salter (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Congrats

Speedy Deletion Yeshivish Jews

Hi secret. I am not sure if this is the correct forum to voice my frustration over your deletion of the informative and important wiki page regarding yeshivish Jews. My objection is not soley based on the assiduous research I contributed for the page but also for my realization and fascination will the nascent sociological category which yeshivish jews occupy. They are an important sociological phenomena and deserve or attention. I think the page should be reconsidered and you speedy deletion was hasty and uncalled for. Do you have some personal vendeta against yeshivish jews. Did they stain your shirt with the delicious chulent they so often possess. Don't take it personally. My shirt is replete with chulent stains. And I wear them proudly. --Dcashmoney (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

Hi,

as you se, there has been reverts after you gave your warning, so i updated the request at the noticeboard. Was that a technically bad thing to do, as i can’t see any block has of 94.192.246.167.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.192.246.167_reported_by_User:segrov_.28Result:3_reverts.2C_no_block.2C_other_party_warned_.29

Segrov (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review request - Steve Yegge

Noticed his article was gone, I see him mentioned regularly and have read his posts before, and wanted to glance at WP to determine who he was again, compare/contrast Zed Shaw and a few other regular blogging developers from Category:Computer programmers ... He's had MSM mention repeatedly over the past half-decade when I skim Google News Archive. I realize that PageRank is not sufficient in itself to attribute notability, but he's on the second page (third individual blogger) if you Google 'programming blogs' ... he seems to be at least as notable as others that merited inclusion to me.

Cheers

—Hobart (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the season!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Please contact ArbCom

Hi Secret:

Secret (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators Risker, FloNight and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret, your message today has been noted. I've put up a "break" template for you, and I hope that things go very well in the coming weeks. When you're ready, touch base with Arbcom, but no rush at all. Best, Risker (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy

Good God, man...I'm so very sorry to hear about your illness. You're in my thoughts and prayers, and I look forward to your return. Best wishes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. All my best as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamshidAwal

Hi there I believe you have disputed the neutrality my article about hon.Ali Mirzad. I agree with your findings and did the necessary edits . please remove your Dispute Stamp at your earliest convenience. thank you --JamshidAwal (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]