If you need help with something, feel free to ask. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:
If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.
Administrators, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions, however I do expect you to leave a message here explaining your reasons.
If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested.
YES please help me with this by moving the article!!!
hagoole (Haggle Search)
Dear CactusWriter could you please elaberate why you deleted the hagoole page in new (lame) user terms.
In my opinion it was far from advertising as I was describing what hagoole search is, does and how it differentiates.
The hagoole tool is a NOTABLE and unique new engine as it deals with issues affecting people in the current financial crisis attempting to take on monopolistic competition where they differentiate on everything other than price. This is an important topic of interest to many around the world part of a new trend as the consumer is increasingly empowered in a highly competitive global competition.
Was it too long?
Would you be kind enough to help locate an example of what would be acceptable?
I would very much appreciate your time and any input that your experience would suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 2:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The article was deleted for being promotional and for failing to provide significant reason for the subject to be notable. For you to establish the notability of Hagoole, you must provide substantial discussion about from independent reliable sources. In other words, the article lacks references. You may wish to try using the Wikipedia:Article wizard -- it will lead you through the process of creating a relevant article. If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested. — CactusWriter |needles02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding I will try again later by using the wizard as per your suggestion.
article regarding Larissa Shasko (speedily deleted as Larissa shasko)
Hey there... cool that you deleted the Larissa shasko (small s), I was trying to create an article for her with proper capitalization "Larissa Shasko" and couldn't get past the auto-reference to 2008 election candidates...
As per the copyright infringement... I had used larissa's own website, and could easily attain her permission (we are close friends and colleagues)... The only reason I left the copied and pasted short bio was because I didn't want to edit the small s article while the large s wasn't allowing me...
Hi, Treesforourchildren. I am sorry that we had to delete the article, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the addition of any copyright infringing text -- even briefly. But I have now deleted the redirect to the 2008 election candidates page, which will free you to create the Larissa Shasko title.
I suggest you use the Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 which is a step-by-step process for creating the new article. It will be helpful in determining whether or not Larissa Shasko will meet the WP notability guidelines.
And because this is a close friend of yours, I also want to suggest that you first read the Wikipedia policy page about conflict of interest, which explains the need to write from an entirely neutral point-of-view. This is especially difficult for people writing about themselves, friends, family or colleagues. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck. — CactusWriter |needles11:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CactusWriter... the reason I had initially copied the bio was to paraphrase what others had said about her... but I have no doubt she meets notability requirements, both with her role as leader of the green party of saskatchewan and her trailblazing founding of fairvote saskatchewan and a sincere attempt to create a left-wing coalition during the last election. To ensure neutrality, I will use as many primary and secondary sources as I can find... thanks for your help, I'll read the article wizard too ;) I (heart) open-source! Treesforourchildren (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Treesforourchildren[reply]
Hi, Spongefrog. Sorry that I wasn't around. Looks like you did everything right on your own. And Tiptoey and WP can be grateful for your efforts. Have a good new year. — CactusWriter |needles09:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cactus Writer. I was a brand-new editor back last summer when an individual, perhaps using several accounts, persisted in vandalizing the The Third Man article, contending that Orson Welles had written and directed the film. Eventually he went away. 'Cept now he's back. He's been copy-and-pasting his arguments from July back into the article in the same spots. He's as tenacious as I am, and one more round of pasting-and-undoing will put us into edit war status. I'm confident in my edit skills, but not so much in my battle skills. Any chance you could help out on this? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Okay, no problem. There's no need for you to risk an edit war status -- so no more reverts. I'll watchlist the article and step in if problems persist. — CactusWriter |needles09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm impressed. He seems totally humbled. One off-stage whisper of your name and he folds up right on the spot. You're a regular Wyatt Earp of the Wiki.
I don't think that the resolution would stay that high anyway if one of the dimensions is reduced to 300px. Usually the image is rendered in the infobox at 200px anyway, so it usually doesn't need to be much bigger than that. I've been running across a lot of images that are above 300px, but I've usually been tagging only 350 and above. I believe that there is some page somewhere that talks about resolution as well, but again, it shouldn't be an issue with the reduced size. Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks for taking the time to resize them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. And no problem -- I understand that these were uploaded back when you were just learning the ropes. This kind of fair use error is fairly common. There is a big learning curve on all the rules and regs. I have marked the above for deletion. But it would be very helpful if you could review the other files that you have uploaded during the years and check them for proper use. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the comments page where the subject Himself clearly states He has no issue with text being used from His web site and in fact encourages the use. Whilst I appreciate the policies in place, surely common sense should prevail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsem (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trevorsem, because of the anonymity of internet accounts, it is unfortunately impossible for us to accept permission from any registered account simply on their word alone. This is because anyone can state that they are anyone else. Therefore, Wikipedia must use specific procedures to allow any use of copyrighted materials. The simplest method is for the website owner to replace the copyright notices on their own website with a CC-BY-SA free sharing license. Permission also can be granted by Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials through our OTRS office so that the website owner's identity can be confirmed. These methods are outlined in the message on your talk page. This not only protects the legal standing of Wikipedia, but just as importantly, they protect the hard work of the original authors of the text which is to be copied. I'm certain you can understand the common sense in that. If you have further questions, please ask. — CactusWriter |needles16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A question
Hi, I'm working at spanish version of Masada, and saw this edition you did long ago. Do you have any reference that could hold that assertion? Because I'm not sure we were talking about only one person. I really need one solid reference to prove that fact. Thanks and regards, Kordas (sínome!) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fast answer. I'm going to investigate this a little deeper, but I'm afraid the information is really poor at this point. There are few sources (e.g. Josephus) we could handle to fill this lack. Thank you so much again, Kordas (sínome!) 00:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tak, men det var så lidt. Og denne uge er jeg faktisk lang væk fra det koldt og mørkt. Jeg hygger på en dejlig strand in syd Californien -- men jeg savner en god sildemad og Tuborg. Skål! — CactusWriter |needles19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Sarah Roberson did not meet the strict notability criteria for a biography of a living person. As stated in the article: as an actress, she has had no roles and as a model she has yet to receive any significant notice. Requirements for a biography are that an individual has significant coverage in press and media. As it was, the article was written solely to promote a possible career for this young person. As such it was speedily deleted. If and when she receives significant attention for her work, than an article about her would be welcome. Regards. — CactusWriter |needles23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nefer Tweety, I don't see this as the same blatant case since I do not find any direct request from SD to Nableezy to make edits. Nableezy is not under any editing restriction that I am aware of, and is certainly permitted to edit any article of their own volition. However, I am going to ask for a clarification on something before making a response. I will let you know once I hear back about that. In the meantime, I see That SD has opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nefer Tweety to which you may wish to respond. — CactusWriter |needles21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested clarification of SD's topic ban -- which was a one year ban from making edits concerning ethnicity. I wanted to make certain that it did not include article talk pages. As you can see from Wizardman's response below, the edits at Talk:Omar Sharif are not specifically in violation. However, if SD continues to create battles over ethnicity and nationality, and stirring up fires at various WP venues, than an amendment to their topic will need to be imposed. At the moment, I am going to let this ride in hope that you and Nableezy can find common ground, and any provocation by SD can be ignored. I will try to keep a general eye out for how things are proceeding. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter |needles03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cactus, thank you for looking into this. However, this is incorrect. SD is not permitted to edit the Talk pages of biographies to influence their ethnicity or nationality. This privilege was voted down here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Proposed_decision#Supreme_Deliciousness_topic_banned. The privilege of editing the Talk pages was taken away from SD and therefore his edits on the Talk page of Omar Sharif were a violation. Moreover, it is clear that Nableezy was using SD's specific sources to edit the article for SD, as per SD's original request on Asmahan. SD did not have to repeat the request Nableezy; Nableezy is complying anyway. It is clear that SD and Nableezy have learned from the meat puppetry lesson of December 2009 when they got caught, and they are now doing it in a more subtle way. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition to the first proposed topic ban does not mean that things allowed under that proposal (such as editing talk pages) are now not allowed -- it only meant the wording of that entire proposal was decided as incorrect. Once a proposal is rejected, the specific wording becomes meaningless. The only topic ban proposal which has true relevance is the one that was finally accepted -- and it did not mention talk pages. If talk pages need to be added into a topic ban, than a request should be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Notice that this is different than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. For approval of amendment, however, it must be clear that an editor's talk page edits are disruptive to other editors. — CactusWriter |needles18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CactusWriter, I think it the initial block of SD was a mistake, but I can understand why it was made. What he did was clumsy; he should have just said I will present sources on the talk page, please read them and see if changes to the article are needed, but instead he specifically asked for somebody to make edits he wanted. But in this case I he did nothing wrong, in fact he did exactly what he was supposed to do. He posted sources on a talk page that showed the information in the article that Nefer Tweety was removing is accurate. I think that under remedy 6 of the case that Omar Sharif be placed under article probation and that Nefer Tweety receives a formal notice of the restrictions per remedy 7. Nefer Tweety's sole contributions to the article over the past month have been removing the word "Lebanese", usually while saying that there is "no source" despite several being cited. nableezy - 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CactusWriter, I have made one single post at the Omar Sharif talkpage since the case ended which I am allowed to do, a very civilized post bringing sources to the talkpage, while Nefer Tweety has reverted Sharifs background at least 5 times since the case ended misrepresenting the sources in the edit summary, not making one single post at the talkpage while edit warring with numerous editors, and you are here saying that I am the one that "continues to create battles over ethnicity and nationality, and stirring up fires at various WP venues" and that "and any provocation by SD can be ignored" What is this? I am allowed to make posts at talkpages about any topic, and I am doing this in a civilized way, am I not? Was it not civilized? Have I not been polite? So what is the problem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my view that any editor who is featured regularly at Arbcom, AE, ANI and similar pages is creating battles and stirring the embers. Among the thousands of editors on Wikipedia, the vast majority never make a single appearance on enforcement pages -- and I am including the many working who have worked for years on WP in extremely controversial areas of politics, religion and BLPs. Any editor who is consistently and regularly the subject of complaints and enforcements needs to self-examine their actions to figure out why they have such a difficult time collaborating with other editors. — CactusWriter |needles17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What did I do wrong at the Sharif talkpage? What principles or remedy's of the case did I violate? How was I uncivil? How was I disrespectful to anyone? How did I stir up a battle with anyone? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SD, edits such as this one that you made today, and your trying to rush along discussions -- whether on article talk pages or in AE/ANI discussions -- does not sit well with the vast majority of editors. Instead of pushing a specific nationalistic point of view at articles, you might be better served by slowing down and collaborating with others. In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove. --nsaum75¡שיחת!08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: clarification
If talk pages was not written in the remedy, then I would say that it's not a violation. If you feel topic banning the talk pages as well is necessary then you can request an amendment. That's how I read the remedy. WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to delete S. V. Nadkarni just like that - several readers are also responsible for that. At the same time, I had also marked one of my articles B. A. Uralegaddi to be deleted as I thought it is not worth keeping on wiki. He may be notable somewhere else.
Yes, Nikil Dutt, D. S. Nadkarni were my mistakes. S. V. Nadkarni was not understood by many. The others are marked correctly – votes are coming in. Thanks. In summary, this notable stuff on wiki stinks. I have been seeing a lot bias in that process. I’m some what close to what David Eppstein’s speaks though it differs sometimes from others.
--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines will always be a point of contention. The criteria which we each demand has a range as widely divergent as the diversity of editors here -- it ranges from those who require international recognition to those who only require verifiability of existence. Some consensus has been established through numerous previous discussions. For example, in the case of the articles which have drawn your interest, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) has some guidelines developed through consensus opinion. If you think the notability criteria "stinks", than it is a good idea to propose changes there. In the long run, though, there will always be differences of opinion here -- and some debates which you win and some debates which you lose. C'est la vie. We shrug it off, accept our disagreements, and move on. Acceptance of this is healthy (Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule) while the opposite will only lead to frustration (WP:POINT). Good luck with your editing and cheers. — CactusWriter |needles19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on wiki since February 23, 2008 or little earlier than that. My first page was on this date and thereafter I wrote almost 150 articles mainly in Bio and others. It is not that I never tried to sell my ideas on notability; eventually I decided not to argue on this anymore with anyone. All my pages are intact so far. They were written with different usernames because I want to hide myself on these. I’m not writing to earn wiki medals – I want to write about those who I met in my life and what I studied and observed. I do enjoy editing silently as and when I get free time from my work place. Definitely I learnt a lot in the process and sometimes it was tense arguing on subject matters such as notability. Yes, I made mistakes in the process of deleting Nikil Dutt, Sundar V. Nadkarni, Dayanand S. Nadkarni, Harish Gaonkar and M. M. Kalburgi and I enjoyed the criticisms by wiki admin. It is not that I did not like these people – they got slipped away in the process. But at the end, the results were good – they were much improved especially Harish Gaonkar’s page. My philosophy is that all pages except the one about celebrities should pass through the AFD process (7 days) before they are accepted. I noticed that consensus enjoy voting. Hope I’ll continue this work but with more cautions.
Thanks for the background info. I appreciate the explanation -- and apologize if I you were treated unfairly, or as a new or uninformed editor. I am glad that you took the barrage of comments in stride (I am certain they were meant to be contructive) and emerged in good humor. If you need any help, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter |needles18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cactus Writer, thanks for helping on the Drents Museum, I'm glad your dedicated to helping us!-- Cucumberkvp 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cucumberkvp (talk • contribs)
CactusWriter - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now talked with the arb drafter of the Asmahan arbitration case. He has told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points I have posted at the talkpage. I am planning on asking either Nableezy again, or some other person. I am giving you this information in advance so that no future misunderstanding will happen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
