Jump to content

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.104.104.8 (talk) at 07:17, 1 October 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to ask me anything, but please keep things civil.

Request for assistance

I don't know how to proceed in reopening the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes dispute that was temporarily closed on 18 June 2012. Would you be willing to help us resolve this? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keahapana. I think the best course of action would be to file a new case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and link to the old case that was closed due to the conflict with the ArbCom proceedings. If we can resolve it there, we will, and if not, then we'll refer it on to the appropriate venue. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I've just left a message on PCPP's talk page, but noticed that he/she hasn't contributed since 8 August. I'll keep you updated. Thanks again for your help. Best, Keahapana (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, sorry I haven't be editing for a while, but the AE case ended and the arbitrators didn't touch the really touch anything related to DR, so I'll be happy to reopen the case and hopefully work something out with Keahapana. The old case is here [1].--PCPP (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry again is there any follow up to the case? I was really busy in the last couple of weeks but I can spare some time next week.--PCPP (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Again, let's open up another thread on WP:DRN and see what conclusions we can come to. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but should I repost the archived thread?--PCPP (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine just to leave a link to it. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, on second though I'd be leaving for China later this week, and it doesn't seem like this dispute can be solved in a few days, so is it possible to pospone the DR until I get back in mid October? Thanks--PCPP (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's no problem - there's no deadline here, after all. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. However, the article has become outdated. Since we stopped editing in June, some new CI controversies have arisen, including one involving LSE Professor Hughes. I've been waiting to update the page, but what should I do? Wait? Post the links on the Talk page? And PCPP, 一路平安. Keahapana (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

谢谢你,Keahapana. BTW feel free to include the stuff you want to add either in the talk page or your own user page.--PCPP (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good way of doing things to me. Propose a wording on the talk page, and we can work together until everyone is satisfied with it. Also, if a post on the talk page doesn't receive a response in a while, I think it would be ok to add the material to the article. We don't want to completely stop the flow of edits, especially while PCPP isn't free to participate in dispute resolution, but there's also no need to be hasty. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

RfC: natural and programming languages labels

Hello! Template talk:Infobox software § RfC: natural and programming languages labels is now month old. As you proposed the RfC and didn't !vote there, I wanted to ask you to close it formally and implement the result. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :) I'd be glad to close it, but I'm going to be busy today. Can you hold on until tomorrow? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no deadlines on Wikipedia, and I'm not in a hurry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, closed. Let me know if there's any aspect of the implementation that I messed up. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm only not sure whether it is right to remove the links per lack of consensus – as I get it, no consensus means no change. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I suppose so, but then I don't think it would make that much sense to use a wikilink with "written in" and "available in". This seems like a good place to apply IAR to me, although I'm not opposed to adding back the wikilinks if people object. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with no links. If anybody isn't, malcontent will surface on talk page, and dedicated discussion will result in some explicit consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution about minorities in Greece

Hi. Referring to this closed dispute, I see no progress have been made. I had to be absent since almost a year and user Chzz seems to have turned inactive meanwhile. Besides, unfortunately, I see no progress in the page. Do you have any suggestions as to how to solve this issue? Best regards, Filanca (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filanca! I recommend filing another case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and linking to the discussion that was closed. We can work out what the best course of action is after that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to deletion of Minetest article

In my opinion, this article should not be deleted. Of course, it may be not fitting in your "notability guideline", but really, what exactly does it mean? And why are the articles from the community-driven pages considered as "unreliable"? Seriously, Wikipedia was meant to be "free and open encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and to gather crowdsourced information. This point has been lost since, if articles like that are being deleted. According to the policy, it seems to me, every article regarding a smaller or even bigger open source projects is a subject for a deletion. My question is: why is that? You need from the article to be "notable" and it is hard for open source projects, because the projects there, especially the less known but great games like Minetest, hardly ever win some prize or are reviewed on games websites or in magazines - just because they are free and open source, and websites and magazines like that focus on the commercial projects. In my opinion, having some information about this game on Wikipedia would not be a harm to Wikipedia itself, more - it will be an enrichenment. Please reconsider your decision.Phitherek (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phitherek. Articles from community-driven sites are not generally considered as "reliable" per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as anyone is free to write anything they like about a subject. If we did not have this rule then editors could write an article about their pet subject, and then source it to sources that they themselves wrote. (See WP:SPS for the policy.) I hope that you can understand that it would not be a good idea for us to allow this kind of thing on Wikipedia. But actually, the guideline for identifying reliable sources goes one step further. It requires that sources have some sort of process of editorial oversight or fact-checking to be considered as reliable, and this is where the sources that were in the article seem to fall down. If sources that have this kind of fact-checking are found in the future, then we can consider having an article about Minetest and possibly restoring the article that was deleted. But until this is the case, we have to abide by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'm afraid. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for action in Infobox Software

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

Thanks for this edit. It was long overdue. I am glad it has finally come.

By the way, you needn't have used {{nowrap}} because of |labelstyle=white-space: nowrap that is already in the code.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good point. I'll go and remove it now. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Just Decided To

Can you share more about why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Just Decided To? Something beyond the boilerplate in the discussion of "generating more discussion". Is there anything in particular you see missing from the discussion? Please be specific, I'm trying to understand why this was relisted.--RadioFan (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I decided to relist basically because there weren't any new convincing arguments presented since the last relisting. At the moment the discussion seems to be leaning towards redirection, but I saw it as borderline as to whether there was a strong enough consensus for it to be closed. As it was borderline, I thought I would err on the side of caution and defer to the previous relisting admin's decision. Hope this explains things well enough. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. I get a bit concerned when I see multiple re-listings. They generally drag things out and rarely produce much additional productive discussion. Occasionally it does happen though.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Radha Thomas

Hi. I have created an article about Radha Thomas and am contemplating it to move it to the AFC space. Before that, I'd really appreciate if you could have a look and give me some inputs, suggestions and advice and hopefully a green signal :-). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas Varunr (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Please comment on Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps

It was a trial template that I forgot to delete - thanks for pointing it out Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about you behind your back ...

Just wanted to let you know I mentioned your name to someone seeking advice about dispute resolution in a particular protracted article naming issue, at Tenedos/Bozcaada. Maybe you could offer some advice on the basis of your mediation experience. Current thread here. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as FP mentioned I'm, and possibly few silent others, are seeking information on mediation concerning the title for Tenedos/Bozcaada article. Currently, there is a move conflict that seems to have spilled into a various sections of Wikipedia. The question I'm looking for an answer is what kind of formal actions can we consider to resolve this and avoid it for a longer amount of time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TDLS! First of all, we need to wait for the move review discussion to be closed, as dispute resolution processes usually won't take on cases that are already under discussion in other venues. Then I think it would be a good idea to wait a while for the results of the move discussion and the move review to sink in. A minimum of three months is the general accepted standard, as it is usually seen as disruptive to start new move discussions very soon after a previous discussion has been closed. Personally, I think six months may be a more appropriate figure, to give everyone some breathing space. After that, we can reassess the mood at the page and see whether another move discussion, or perhaps a request for mediation, would be worthwhile. However, if the move review ends with no consensus and the title is still in active dispute, it may be worthwhile to start a request for mediation straight away in order to prevent the dispute from becoming further entrenched. Send me another message here when the move review is closed, and I'll be able to give you a clearer answer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My gut tells me that it will be less than 6 months that we'll see an other move request but let's see how the move review ends. I'll inform you when it does. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto FC photo

I do understand why consensus is needed. A user requested a photo. I have one to add. Kingjeff (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The problem is that another user also objected to including the photo in the article, so there is no clear consensus for including it. This means that more discussion is needed - if more discussion results in a consensus, then we can include it. If there is no consensus for inclusion, though, then it should stay out, I'm afraid. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adminship

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius - I don't think I'm quite ready to go for the mop at this time, but I am genuinely flattered that you would think enough of my contributions here to ask. If I reconsider in the future, I'd hope to still have your support. Thanks again for the nice words! Cheers,  Gongshow Talk 02:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would pass an RfA easily, but it's your choice, of course, and if you don't feel like running now then I'll respect that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship, part II

Thank you very much for the offer, but I just can't see going thru the vetting process just so I could delete the odd redirect page - that's about the only thing I'd like to be able to do that I can't now. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were active at AfD, so I thought you might be able to help out there. There's always WP:RM as well if you like dealing with page moves. The offer is always open, so feel free to mull it over as long as you want and let me know if you're ready to go for it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

I was impressed by your detailed close of Template talk:Infobox software#RfC: natural and programming languages labels. Would you consider closing the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure in addition to the AfD discussions you already close? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's probably about time I had a look at those! I did say I would help there in my RfA, after all. I'll close some when I have a spare moment. And thank you for the compliment, by the way. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice you had volunteered to help out at ANRFC in Q2 of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for volunteering! Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Mr. Stradivarius. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Beatles notifications

Thank you, I will look at Andreasegde's talk page at once, your offer to mass revert is a good offer and will take you up on that if you don't mind, there might be a couple via my phone account User:Mlpearc Phone also. thank you very much I hadn't heard anything about the controversial status. Off to catch your link. (if you could let me know if your script works, if not I'll start it manually) Cheers Mlpearc (powwow) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my watchlist your script seems to be working, thank you for your help. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think I've got all of them now (apart from the one at Talk:Rock music, which gave me a little chuckle). For some reason the script tries to revert everything twice, but luckily it seems the MediaWiki software doesn't allow that. Anyway, thank you for helping me deal with this quickly - it's much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, and thank you for the help, also I forgot about the Talk:Rock music I'm glad someone else found it lighthearted as it was meant (I wasn't absolutely sure it would be taken that way when I wrote it). Mlpearc (powwow) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 19:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poll disruption

Please remove the disruptive addition of a third option to the poll text. I agree with Piriczki. If the poll text changes during the process we open ourselves up to charges of confusion and disruption. Also, the mediators advised all parties to the mediation that the poll would not go live until the parties had reached agreement. Since no discussion for this third "option" occured during mediation, I argue that to allow it now is in fact to be in breach of the mediation agreement. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the talk page of the editor who added it, and Feezo removed it before I could get to it. Discussion about the option is now in the discussion section, which I think is probably a good place for it to go. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page to be undeleted

Hi there, I've noticed that there's no page for the UK company Amigo Loans, but there was one, before it was deleted on the grounds of lacking notability (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amigo_Loans). Reading the deletion page, I see that the only argument for notability was that the company had television adverts, which clearly doesn't make them notable, but after a google search of the company's name, I found multiple articles referencing, quoting and presenting research carried out by the company. (see: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/4305275/No-profit-loans-provided-by-credit-unions-are-on-the-rise.html, http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/money/uk-money/2012/09/04/one-in-five-give-up-on-dream-job/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9395294/Payday-loans-could-cost-you-a-mortgage.html etc - there are more but as far as I can see these ones establish their notability). I think this page should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.105.12 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I've had a look through the sources you posted, and I don't think that by themselves they would be enough to support a new page. We require a certain depth of coverage in sources before companies can pass our notability guidelines, and these sources don't seem to have that depth. The Sun article only gives a few sentences to Amigo, and the other two articles give quotes by Amigo, rather than including material about the company itself. If you have any other reliable sources that cover Amigo in more depth, you are welcome to post them here, however, and I will take a look at them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't include the main article that I found which was the main point of my post: http://www.lovemoney.com/blogs/credit-cards-current-accounts-and-loans/loans/16885/guarantor-loans-an-alternative-to-payday-loans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I agree that the article you link to above has significant coverage of Amigo, but I'm not sure about their editorial processes and whether it could be considered as reliable per the guidelines on identifying reliable sources. It is also a specialist publication, which editors may consider as having less weight than a general publication when interpreting the "depth of coverage" section in the notability guidelines for companies. If you have any other sources then I can also take a look at them, or you can submit a new article using the articles for creation process if you think that article fixes the problems that were raised in the deletion discussion. Also, if you have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to Amigo Loans, you need to read the guidelines on having a conflict of interest and declare your COI when you write the article. Let me know if you have any more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. I'm really unsure how the site being a specialist money publicist would make an impact on the depth of coverage side of things. It's one of the UK's largest finance sites, their journalists are mainly freelancers, most of them also writing for the finance sections of some of the UK's largest newspapers and the editor of the site (who also seems to have written this article) has worked for some of the UK's largest news corporations. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, deletion discussions can go either way if the sources are specialist sources like the one you linked. However, ultimately, it's not a matter for me to decide, but for the Wikipedia community. If you have an account, I can move the article to your userspace so that you can work on it there, or if not I might be able to send it to the article incubator. Once you think that the issues raised in the deletion discussion have been suitably addressed, you are welcome to move it back to the main article space. Be warned, however, that there is nothing to stop an editor from starting a new deletion discussion on the subject, so it would be wise to get good proof of notability before you try and submit it again. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. If you can, I think moving to the article incubator would be the best move. It can then be re-worked to include the article that I found which raises criticism of Amigo Loans, which should help balance the article, also I feel that article goes further than anything on the previous page to establish notability. I'll do some more digging for further sources over this week too.

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Hello. In regards to Clone Manga's recent deletion.

Today I found some more content that may (or may not) make Clone Manga's page eligible to return. It seems Clone Manga recently won an award The 5th International Manga Award. I believe it, along with the Shuester Awards it won in the past, plus the addition of the fact that Kim has published NNN and Paper Eleven, might give it the notability it may need to stay afloat. I've tried to read up on Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and I believe a webcomic with at least two of these under its belt can have an article put up. What are your thoughts? If you would like, I can provide you with the appropriate links in another PM. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Super-staff. It wasn't mentioned in the deletion debate, but I've just checked the article, and a mention about the 5th International Manga Award was inserted on September 16, 2012. That is after all the comments in the deletion debate were made, so you could be right that we have a faulty discussion on our hands. However, it looks like the award wasn't the top prize, but a "bronze award" that would put Kim in somewhere between 5th and 14th place in terms of numbers. I don't personally think that a bronze award would count much toward notability, but if you feel strongly about it then the appropriate place to bring this up is at deletion review. Let me know if you have any questions about filing a report there, and I'll help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I would like to give it a shot, if possible. I'm a little new to this, so I would greatly appreciate any help you could give me in regards to filing a report. In addition, I did find out that Kim also published two of his works. In and of itself, it's not notable, but maybe if lumped in together with the other stuff can be considered enough to bring it back? I'm not entirely sure, so maybe you could clarify that as well? As for the page, is it possible to just bring it back or would it need to be re-written from scratch? Again, thanks for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gone ahead and listed it - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 27, and please consider commenting there and putting it on your watchlist. Kim having published something doesn't count at all towards his notability - it has to be other people who have published stuff about Kim (or about Clone Manga). Have a look at the notability guidelines, and also this simple (and in-your-face) guide to notability for a better idea. And yes, it is possible to undelete the page as it was. It may also be possible to move it into your userspace, but let's see what conclusion the deletion review comes to first. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I stated my case there just now. I read the notability guideline before, but I'm going to give it a more thorough read through. Again, thanks a lot for helping me out!

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscruplous deletion of Indiavision news

Indiavision news page was indeed a perfect well researched page on wikipedia, I am surprised to see its deleted, people will think its mafia`sm is on wiki if such pages are deleted for ulterior motives, I kindly request you to put back this page or else all peoples will loose faith on wiki for your unpleasing actions.--Farhan.dastoor (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Farhan.dastoor. I can appreciate that you might be angry after seeing the Indiavision news page deleted. I assure you though that I didn't have any ulterior motives in doing so. It might help you to understand why the page was deleted if you look at the notability guidelines for companies and the short and simple guide to notability on Wikipedia. The two arguments for "Kindly UnDelete" and "Do NoT Delete" in the deletion discussion weren't based on these guidelines or on any other valid reasons listed in the deletion policy, and since administrators are only supposed to delete articles for valid reasons, I ignored those comments when I closed the discussion. After I ignored those comments there seemed to be a rough consensus to delete the article. If there are independent, reliable sources about Indiavision news, then we may be able to undelete the page, however. Are you aware of any such sources? Let me know if you have any more questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need "special" help with an image

Hi.

How do you do? Sorry to bother you but I am looking for help about a somewhat peculiar status of an image. I feel I am not wiki-experienced enough to understand. I know all sorts of venues of review, appeal, dispute resolution and such in Wikipedia but choosing one and then saying the right thing in them is the main concern. Besides, I do not want to cause unintended harm to anyone. So, I thought maybe you would care to help me assess the situation and understand it. I'd be grateful if you did. Do you have time? (If you don't, I understand.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codename Lisa! Sure, I'd be happy to help you out. What seems to be your trouble? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I sometimes mark free files to be moved from Wikipedia to Commons. I am taking it slow and cautious for now but I am getting started. Today, I visited VirtualBox article, which is about a free and open-source product. I checked its logo and it still is on Wikipedia. But surprise: Not only it is tagged as non-free, but someone previously tried to move it to Commons and got rejected.
That pretty much concludes that matter but just out of curiosity, I decided to find out why. So, I looked up the history: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 14#File:Virtualbox logo.png and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virtualbox logo.png came up. Now, my problem is: None of these make sense. The former is frankly frightening. The latter is frightening and puzzling. Drama aspects aside, the only part of it that makes sense is "Steps to test if the image is freely licenced". (Why didn't they do it in the first place?) So, it seems they dissected the software license, decided that those part made by Oracle are GPLv2 (Commons compatible) and those parts developed by third parties are under other licenses (Commons-phobic). They started discussing whether the logo can actually belong to a third party not credited in EULA but at this point, the whole matter is abandoned. Six month later, an admin said delete. (Six month!?)
So, to sum it up, I make neither head nor tail out of all the discussions. I can tell that some people don't think this image is free and Commons-compatible but what exactly is the objection, I can't tell. I do not intend to poke the hornet's nest yet, but if I am to work in the field of images, perhaps there is probably no evading such issues.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons community is quite different from the English Wikipedia community, which is something that also surprised me when I first encountered it. From my limited experience there, it isn't unusual for a deletion discussion to be open for six months. Looking at the deletion debate, I see the salient points as follows: a) software licences don't usually cover software logos, b) no-one found any evidence that there was an exception to this convention in this particular case, and c) because there was no good evidence that the image was released under a free licence, it was deleted under the precautionary principle. If you have some good evidence that the logo is in fact released under a free licence, then I assume Commons will undelete it. I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing this, but leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page is probably a good start. In fact, I'd also go to Denniss's talk page if you have any more specific questions about why he deleted it - his answers will probably be a lot better than mine. I hope this reply helps a little bit, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the kind description. It was clear enough although I am not exactly sure if (a) is supported by current practices (consensus and policy). For example, look at File:The GIMP icon - gnome.svg, File:Avidemux-logo.png or File:Official Linux Mint logo.svg. Please correct me if I am wrong but in these two cases, there are no official statements about the logo, so they are assumed to be under the same license that covers the whole package. On the other hand, File:Blender.svg is copyright protected because there is a statement about the logo. So, I was thinking: Isn't this the case about VirtualBox logo as well?
Now, there is also another thing. Let's assume that Commons is really different. Can't Wikipedia keep this image as free either?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia can keep the image as free, and if you haven't already come across it, there is Template:Keep local for users who don't want their files to go to Commons. However, I am thoroughly unqualified to make any judgements about whether software logos are automatically covered under the licences the software is released in, and so you're going to have to post somewhere else to get a good answer. In fact, this might well be the kind of issue that needs a community-wide RfC to settle. In any case, I recommend making a post at WP:MCQ and advertising your post at WT:PUF and any other suitable project pages you can think of (in line with WP:CANVAS). If there is significant disagreement about it then I community-side RfC looks like the next step. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this speedy deletion tag correct?

Hi.

I think I need a second opinion. Today, I ran into Windows Blue (created today) whose body prose is word-for-word a duplicate of Windows 9. I put a CSD A10 tag on it but I've received an email that says it is an inappropriate tag. (Actually, the email reads like a plea not to delete the article.) Is the tag the right one?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. You are right that it is a duplicate article, but A10 only applies if the duplicate article is created at a title that would be an implausible redirect. Windows Blue is definitely something that people are likely to type into the search bar, so instead of deleting it I've redirected it to Windows 9. It's in the fine print at WP:A10, but it does take a while to get used to all those speedy deletion criteria. I recommend reading the essays at Template:Speedy deletion navbox (compiled by yours truly) if you want to get a better handle on those speedies. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I have added a note to the deletion discussion of Windows 9 article because the history of Windows Blue remain intact. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer)

Could you explain why you didn't relist this AFD. Seems a premature close given valid points from both sides still developing and the fact that those against deletion were arguing for changing our inclusion guidelines which isn't a matter for an AFD. He eithier meets WP:NFOOTY or GNG he doesn't on both counts.Blethering Scot 11:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blethering Scot. I didn't relist it as there was already a significant amount of discussion. From WP:RELIST: "If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." To be clear, when I closed the debate I didn't take into account the arguments that Rangers should be granted an exception to WP:NFOOTY. I didn't regard that as a valid reason for keeping the article, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that policies and guidelines should always take precedence over arguments made in individual discussions. The aspect of the debate which I regarded as having no consensus was that of whether the sources presented satisfied WP:GNG or not. I saw enough disagreement on this point in the debate that I thought it should be closed as no consensus. If you think that I made a mistake in judging the consensus, though, you are welcome to list the discussion at deletion review, and seeing as this AfD discussion was relatively contentious I would support you doing so. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:CBS Records

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:CBS Records. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=515429423"