User talk:Oakshade/Archive 1

Pondok Indah

hey, if you can find any info on Pondok Indah, let us know. Thanks --Merbabu 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. So far we're ablet to determine it's alot more than a "housing estate," but a section of a city, with even a hospital. --Oakshade 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Oakshade/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millie's Cookies

You have taken the advert for Millie's Cookies and changed it into an article, and for that I congratulate and thank you. There has obviously been some lively discussion while I stepped away from the computer, but by now we can see something that doesn't look like a marketing pitch but like a short Wikipedia article with potential. Cheers. Ringbark 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate your appreciation! I regret even engaging that user. Wasn't worth the trouble, but improving the article was. --Oakshade 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G is deranged, I think. --72.94.157.52 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not in a position to determine the mental condition of this user, there was something very odd going on with this person. --Oakshade 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LisaNova

Hello Oakshade. If you would like, I can email you copies of the LexisNexis archives related to LisaNova (it is good to also search for "Lisa Nova" as some of the reporters have added a blank space between the name). We are not beholden to on-line material, there appears to be several print articles about this person available as well. You can change back the reference formatting if you want, I am still experimenting with that. Yamaguchi先生 10:16, 9 November 2006

Hi Yamaguchi. Thank you for improving the LA Times link/reference formatting (it's better than mine, I certainly won't change it back). I wouldn't mind the LexisNexis archives of the subject. All information on any subject is helpful. Cheers. --Oakshade 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Gladys

I'm done with the shell of the article, and your help in formatting is very much appreciated.

I'm going to add details as I go, to include construction techniques and materials lists.

Thanks for the note on the AFD - but it seems something is wrong here - I cant see the actual AFD?

How do I defend this?

Just how you've been doing it. Full disclosure and making your case. It helped with the first one. Some users are passionate about excluding what they consider "non-notable." But that's just it, they consider it that way, not everyone else. --Oakshade 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we'll see if I can keep her from the slaughterhouse--James.lebinski 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day!

I've been grateful for your assistance and advice on the AFD and appreciate your level-headed additions to the commentary. Just saw that you reverted the unsigned change to the article too, so thanks for that. In that case though I think there may be at least one image that can be remoced as a duplicate, and the source images from the paper could probably be cut too. They were there as a notabiilty bolster from the original AFD - probably an amateur mistake on my part.

Question if you have a moment:

The nom for the AFD made an SPA assertion which I'd like to more formally refute based on his using it as a negative, especially since he should have known it to be false and has not responsed to my requests on his talk page. So the quesiton is: are you aware of a wiki-policy that could help refute this, and can you teach me how to enter the wiki-magic links everybody seems to be able to use?--James.lebinski 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to my comment in the AfD about WP:SPA, as being SPA is by policy NOT a bad thing. Here's the comment: "...regarding the nom's added comment of this article being created by a SPA - First of all, OH REALLY? Thanks for the news, Woodward or Bernstien! Secondly, I've read WP:SPA and I really can't find any WP policy that prohibits or even dissuades members from solely creating and then focusing on one article. It even states, 'There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts.' Of course, you might chose to be more articluate and not as tongue-in-cheek as me. --Oakshade 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Sorry, but I've only made three reverts. I will not be reinserting the sourceless and copyvio material, and I warn you against restoring it now (in which case you will be in violation of the 3RR) or in the future without sources for the text content and express GDFL permission from the copyright holders for the external links to the videos. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was never intending on violating 3RR myself, but thanks for the notice. I really have no issue with the youtube links. It was the majority of the article being deleted that's the issue. And I particularly found that deleting the specific as of yet unverified chart positions of the song article Breaking Free that would support Alicia Pan's notability under WP:MUSIC and yet choosing to leave the rest of the equally unverfied chart positions intact, very POV. --Oakshade 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point and have further reduced the Breaking Free article. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slash n' burn articles, all the way. Under that criteria, almost every charted song article needs heavy deleting. Please start with Limp Bizkit's Rollin' (Air Raid Vehicle). Never did care for that song. Enjoy. --Oakshade 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com

Hi. You deleted the PROD tag from this article, noting in your edit summary, "Contesting prod. Notable and high-profile publishing company."

Could you add some references to support that assertion? Otherwise, I just see this article headed for AfD.

Thanks, --A. B. 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've actually been starting to work on that. When contesting a prod, I usually assume it will go to AfD, but I always try to make changes to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Stay tuned. --Oakshade 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oakshade, we have no problems with the link you put on the article. True we'd rather have different facts ;) , but the article is fine. We have had a lot of changes since then, almost no one (neither owners nor employees) from that period is still with the company. Berger peter 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berger peter. I understand and would like to put in more current references. As you might be familiar with the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia, in order to avoid deletion of this article we need to establish notability of this company and one of the primary ways of establishing notability per WP:CORP or WP:WEB is the company being written about by relaible sources. Unofortunately, as un-biased as Suite101.com's articles may be, anything from that company would be considered biased in this case. If you happen to know of actual write-ups of the company, preferebly more recent, please share them (providing a web-link would be even better) and I would be happy to insert them. Do also keep in mind that the article currently appears as an advertisement. It will likely need a re-write to appear non-point of view. Cheers! --Oakshade 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oakshade - there was quite a bit of online and print coverage between 1997-2002 (e.g. "The Globe and Mail" (Canada), Jun 2, 1998 + Jan 14, 1999 - "The Vancouver Sun", Jul 30, 1998 - "The New Zealand Herald", Jul 30, 1998 - "The Weekend (Australia) - Aug 1, 1998 - ZDNet, Netsurf and others (but the links are dead by now)). A few awards were won, including 7 awards in the Canadian Internet Awards 1997 [[1]] (but that is not an independent link). Not a lot of press coverage lately as we are in the process of re-launching. You can definitely give me a call if that helps you, the contact is on our "about us" page. -- Berger peter 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leads. I have referenced and even posted on your website before and it seems like a notable and prolific web publishing company, but qualifying it under rather strict WP:Notability standards is proving to be a challenge. I'm off for some family holiday fun for a couple of days and I'll see what I can do when I get back. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is open source and you or anyone are free to make changes or add material, including references, to the aritlce at any time. Cheers! --Oakshade 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians

They are as common as American kings for the reason read This --Gibnews

Interesting document, but as it's more a government decree on the legal status of residents of the location, it doesn't really demonstrate that Spanish people do not exist or have not existed in Gibraltar. I live in California and we have literally over a million "undocumented" people here, mostly from Mexico. While even their legal status as residents might be in question, as its unlikely most will ever be deported, they are generally considered del-facto Latino-Americans, just as the citizens of the southwestern United States were considered when it took over the land from Mexico in the late 1840's. --Oakshade 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some view Bill Gates as an American king. --Oakshade 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a debate going on on this issue. The article was deleted, undeleted and deleted again (without the adequate consensus). Could you please give your opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4

Thanks alot.--Burgas00 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Bus Station

Glad we stopped that train of argument. We were even getting a little WP:Pokémon test. Cheers! --Oakshade 05:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Sorry, for being so curt. A diet coke binge has kept me up all night (it just turned 6am here) and starting pointless arguments in AfD discussions seems to be symptom. *twitches* -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com AfD

An article that you have been involved in editing, Suite101.com, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work to date on this article. I've gone ahead and nominated for deletion, but if something notable and reliable turns up, I'm happy to change my stance. --A. B. 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. As the company president indicated above, they are doing a re-launch. Maybe they'll get some notable press then and the article can be re-introduced. As of now, it's a tough one. --Oakshade 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair High School

I had typed up my own response and hit an edit conflict with your edit. While my edit was a near overlap with yours, it sounds much better coming from someone else. Your support of these standards makes fighting these AfDs so much more productive. Thanks again for your support! I'm sure we'll meet again in future school AfDs. Alansohn 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, heh. Didn't mean to inturrupt your response. Sorry 'bout that. I was quite amazed by that user's comment and was wondering what color the sky was on his plannet. (Gender-specified because the user indentified themself as male on user page). --Oakshade 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On November 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slippery rail, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for letting me know and inflating my ego! --Oakshade 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring unsourced material

I recall going through this with you before, but please do not restore unsourced content to an article without giving it a reliable source (such as what you did at Carlsbad grimple). Additionally, (though this has also been pointed out before), policies and guidelines such was WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS are not suspended while an article is undergoing an AFD discussion. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 08:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the Urband Dictionary a reliable source. But thanks for the opinion. --Oakshade 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masts for deletion

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request

Hi there,

You seem to know something about the media business. Would you mind weighing in on this discussion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

Seems notable enough.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanlys212 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodai road

I thought you might want to express your opinion on this AfD? Tubezone 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kodaikanal is about 2 hour's drive from the Kodai Road station, see Kodaikanal and its talk page. Tubezone 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research! Thanks! --Oakshade 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

You mistakenly added something which has nothing to do with User:Mrpainkiller7 to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7. Just FYI. Your report needs to go on its own subpage. --Neurophyre^(talk) 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I though tagging it at the end of the sock puppet page was procedure. Sorry 'bout that. --Oakshade 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timecop Refuses to Remove Lies

Hello. Tony Pierce here again. I know ... *groan*. I appreciate the help that you gave me last night, so I was hoping for just one more bit of advice. In the comment where timecop posted my resume, which was later removed (thank you so much for your help on that), a libelous lie still remains, that I haven't held a job for more than a year. Although I'd normally chalk that one up to "whatevs" I got an email today from a friend who followed the Digg link to the story and then to the discussion and said "you haven't had a job for more than a year?" Unfortunately I can't have those sorts of blatant lies being linked (indirectly) from Digg. So I wrote on timecop's talk page, explained the situation and he refuses to take that lie down, or the less important, but still just as false lie that I call myself the Blogfather. I invited him to go to my links page type "blogfather" into the search box in the middle and click the radio button that says tonypierce.com but he refused to even though every time i mention "blogfather" I either correct people who call me that or say that the real Blogfather is the deplorable (politically - my opinion) Instapundit.

I never asked to be on Wikipedia. I never asked for this drama on this weird AfD, and now a front page Digg article is two clicks away from some bs that I cant hold down a job and that I think of myself as some blogfather. I am a professional blogger, what is said about me online actually affects my livelihood. Anyways, I said all of this on this person's talk page, because it looks like they were the one who removed the link to my resume (which clearly states that I have held several jobs for more than one year - it was just a super crappilly-formated resume ugh). But I have no idea if that's the correct person to ask.

Finally, doesn't Wikipedia have a rule against lying about people and keeping the lie up there after being informed and proved-to that it's a lie? Certainly there must be something. Although I've gotten a fair amount of press in the past, never have I had flat out lies about my employment history floated out on the web, let alone indirectly linked to by something as powerful as Digg, which is why at this point I feel like this should be rectified immediately.

I thank you again for your time and effort, and since I am supposedly on vacation with my family, would you mind replying to this here since my IP changes every time my computer shuts down. thanks.

I left a comment about this on User talk:MONGO's page. The responded that they'll lock the AfD page once the AfD is done (I think 5 days from the start of the AfD is procedure). Although I'm not an administrator, I'll ensure this is done.

In the AfD, I commented on the lie under the user's comment. As for requesting this user to remove the wrong information, that likely won't get anywhere as that user and his minions have a history of proudly causing trouble and has been blocked in the past.

I'm sorry that you're having this trouble. Unfortunately you're learning first hand of two aspects of the dark side of Wikipedia; Indiscriminate deletionism and trolling. Do keep in mind we're not all like that, although sometimes it feels like us earthlings are in the minority. --Oakshade 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your quick help. It's weird that Wikipedia would allow such bizarre behavior. I am all for freedom, so I can respect keeping troublemaking editors, but to also allow the deletion of entries because of the field that some of us are in goes against that very same freedom. With people like you and many of the others who I've read - including those who have voted against me - I trust that Wikipedia will iron out its problems. Nothing's perfect. Nowhere is idyllic. But for as young as Wikipedia is, it's way ahead of the game. Again, much thanks. 75.200.116.69 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad Deletion

I spent a few moments today on my User:TaranRampersad user page and made the Taran Rampersad article more informative. I don't care whether the page is deleted or not, but I would like to see it deleted for the right reasons - not for lack of effort which was a few minutes in Google. . Feel free to take a look and comment. I am *not* participating in the debate of the deletion of the biographical stub. --TaranRampersad 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting me as a sockpuppeteer

Unfortunatley for you I never registered and/or used sockpuppets, but I'm happy you requested a check on me because the result of the check will show some admins how pretextual your "evidences" are. And those are the same admins that will vote on your next RfA. - Femmina 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the "pretextual evidence" was quite accurate. But don't worry, never intended on making a RfA. BTW, Butholer? lol! --Oakshade 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see upon even further review at they've detemined at least one is different person. The review was valid still. --Oakshade 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binsk2 has been blocked for a suspicious edit pattern. Jaydjenkins is clear. Butholer simply wasn't me. Please read the results of the check again. --Femmina 08:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, Butholer was pretty funny. --Oakshade 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Dear Oakshade... Thank you very much for taking interest in my page and oposing deletion. (though you change your vote from Keep to Neutral but I respect you and your thoughts.) Unfortunately I am not a notable person, so that page should be deleted. Anyways thank you. Mubashirzaidi 5:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Afd Discussion B. Biggs on my talk page

Please refer to my talk page as I have updated it. Alan.ca 08:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Biggs entry

Hi Oakshade, Thanks for your support over my entry. It seems there's strong opposition to me doing anything with the entry, even, apparently, fixing up the concerns posted about citations etc. Since you had such a strong keep recommendation, I wondered if you'd consider getting into a neutral format. If you need a citation, you could ask. I know most of the articles written about me. If not, is there a place where I can place a request for someone who doesn't know me to fix it? Thanks Barbbiggs 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ms. Biggs. This AfD (an AfD, standing for "Articles for Deletion", by the way, is the proposed deletion process your article is currently going through) is confusing as deletion almost always occurs for "notability" reasons.. That is to say people who'd prefer to delete an article feel the subject doesn't satisfy the increasingly strict notability guidelines. Since the article is about a person, WP:BIO generally applies. What is clear is that the subject of you (what a strange phrase to type) is well beyond the Wikipedia threshold of notability and should be included. That is what the subject of AfDs are usually focused on, but in this case an editor is focusing on conflict of interest.

Sometimes articles have major issues with conflict of interest (you can read the official guideline regarding this here). Frequently people will write something that isn't perfectly accurate, but it suits that writer's interest. That's why Wikipedia discourages people to write articles about themselves; they run the risk of appearing biased towards the positive virtues of the subject without an objective point of view. Of course, it's not impossible for writers to write about themselves without the article looking like a vanity piece. I was recently involved in an AfD for author Kim Ponders who initiated her own article. Upon some research I found that there were several non-trivial works were about her, a primary barometer for inclusion, plus the fact the article wasn't written like a blatant vanity job, it was decided that the article should be kept. You can read that AfD here.

In the Barbara Biggs article case, we had an editor who felt that because of the conflict of interest issue, the article should've been deleted outright. I disagree with that as I feel that an AfD should primarily deal with the subject of inclusion worthiness and then afterwards deal with any conflict of interest in the article content. Right now I'm looking at the article and asking myself, "If an independent writer wrote this, would it look much different." I have to say no. It's quite innocuous, actually. I'm doing some clean-up, but it looks okay.

I honestly think this article will survive. If by any chance it doesn't, I'm seriously considering recreating it and writing in my own words as you are clearly a notable subject that would make this website better if there's an article about you. Since it would be written by someone who's not the writer and has no connection to them, there won't be a conflict of interest issue. Take care. E --Oakshade 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oakshade. Your kind offer is much appreciated. Let's hope it won't be needed, but if so, let me know. I'll send you a book as thanks! Barbbiggs 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oakshade, I am 'Wayland' (real name, Gordon), an Oz living in Melbourne and I know Barbara Biggs personally, have read her first book and researched the matters in paper publications. I wrote the very first entry based closely on Barb's notes. Then it was deleted, with the justification given as 'used subjects material', so I rewrote it exctensively. It was deleted again, this time due to 'insuffucient citations'. OK, sez I, this is a learning experioence for me too, so I went along with it and completely rewrote it, adding many citations. Again, the complaint, 'insufficient citations'. At this point - and having seen one comment favouring deletion as saying, 'one mainstream media citation for each event is not enough' - I sort of, lost patience, see this comment[2].

Now I see that this entry has come full circle, with my own final entry being again re-posted, although 'Alan' is mentioned elsewhere as the author. I don't even know if this is the correct place for an entry of this kind - I'm a novice, more used to the printed page than the CRT.

But I am enough of a scholar (in the old-fashioned world of books) to know what constitutes 'sufficient' citation, and if information is readily available, in the public domain, then ergo, it is 'sufficient'. As a resident of Australia I know the background of the subject, the fact that her abuser (the 'barrister' mentioned) was found guilty in a court of law, and is now dead. That, from my scholastic corner, constitutes acceptable cause for naming.

Although somewhat peeved at the unnecessarily finicky nature of some 'edits', I am a believer in the concept & practice of Wikis generally, but cannot a little more weight be given to 'local' knoiwledge, and the assertions that the mainstream (hyperlinked) media quoted accurately conveys the sense of printed (vs hyerlinked) material? The very first article I created (I've only got a slight interest in editing those of others) was 'edited' within hours by a 14-year-old Singaporean who, presumably, had never heard of the subject. I found those who edited and suggested for deletion my article to be mainly US & Canadian citizens; whilst this (unfortunately trans-Pacific gulf) in itself does not disqualify them from editing an entry on a living Australian, I would have thought a simple query to Oz residents (not necessarily involved in this entry) would have been a commendably rigorous first step to esatblishing whether or not the subject's life story, and the criminal charges brought against the barrister involved, were in fact matters of public record.

I'm 'agin' sloppiness in writing, and all in favour of greater rigor being applied to the standards by which Wiki entries are judged, but please, can we not employ - as, indeed, Oakshade has done - a modicum of common sense to the debate?

Note also that, if this is done, more column-inched can be devoted to actual Wiki entries, rather than to pages of self-justifying (like this) 'history'.

In the meantime, it is at least gratifying to know that much of what I wrote has survived the edits, that someone has dug up yet more citations, and as a result - despite the rant quoted above - my faith in the Wiki has not been completely shattered.

Wayland (Gordon) - PS: can someone in the know please point a hopeless luddite in the direction of the right place for comments like this?

Hi 'Wayland' (Gorden). Scholars like you help make a resource like this website a better place. Unfortunately your lot is in the minority. I've got serious issues with the over-empowerment of people with no writing or research skills. But that's another can of worms. To answer your last question outright, a great place for this would be the Barbara Biggs Take page. This is where you can state your case for insertion of the name of the accused. I think if there is a source on the conviction you speak of, there would be no case for anyone to delete it. Now as for sources on a subject that passed away before the internet age and don't have hyperlinks to articles or books about them, this is a problem I've faced with people who want to delete articles on historic figures. They usually say something like "google count low," despite the person having been dead long before the concept of google had been thought of. You can be assured that text references are generally acceptable. Have a look under the References section of Frédéric Chopin. You will see almost all books. Old newspaper articles can be cited in the same fashion. There is more on the bureaucratic (and frequently contradicting) policy of sources here. Cheers! --Oakshade 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Breaking Free, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

Just Cause 2

Oaskshade, when I said 'recreate the article if and when reliable sources are found', I didn't mean 'what the heck, just create an exact duplicate of what was deleted two days later'.

I've speedily redeleted (WP:CSD#G4) the article, and protected it to prevent further identical recreations. As the AFD close stated, when a reliable source for the game arrives, rather than a few mentions about rumours in two online game sites, let me know on my talk page and we can recreate the article then. Proto::► 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto, those were reliable sources. That was assumption of bad faith of all three credited reporters. --Oakshade 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no. When I mean a reliable source, I mean from an official source (such as their website), and something more than just:

"Du skulle inte vilja berätta mer om Just Cause 2?

”Nej, ni får vänta i några månader till”, säger Christofer Sundberg. Just Cause 2 är i dagsläget planerat att släppas till PlayStation3, Xbox 360 och PC."

I am not casting any kind of aspersions on Kong magazine, which I, although not being able to speak Swedish or find any English language reference about the magazine, am sure is very notable and an established cornerstone of the Swedish game journalism industry. As far as I can tell, with the aid of an online translator, the entire content of this source is:

"Can you tell me more about Just Cause 2? No, you will have to wait some months, says Christopher Sundberg." Just Cause 2 is to be released on Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and PC."

That is not sufficient information (nowhere near), and no mention of the game has been made through any official sources, which is what reliable information means. When verifiable, reliable info comes out, the article can be created. Until then, just wait, the information will come along. Proto::► 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actaul CEO of the actual game maker is a very reliable source. I just don't understand why you don't agree with that. --Oakshade 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CEO is a reliable source if reported in a reliable source. Even if we assume www.kong.se is a reliable source, there's not enough information. All the article could read would be "Just Cause 2 is going to be released on PS3, XBox 360 and PC", and anything more than that at this stage would be speculation. When more information, in reliable sources (such as the company's website) is released, then the article could be recreated. Nothing in Wikipedia is final, don't worry about it. Proto::► 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some more info than that, ie, the scenescapes would be different with descriptions and what platforms it was being made for. Even though that's arguably not alot, this can be considered a standard "let it grow" scenario. --Oakshade 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perle

I was right behind you, and was going to revert also, but I got to thinking if reverting back to "an American" was the right thing to do. This fact is basically implied by the rest of the sentence, and this is part of the lead summary. I was planning to do just that. I went back to read the article again, and found that you had already reverted it. What are your thoughts on this, do you think that "an American" is necessary? Do you think that it's inclusion acts as a sort of 'target' for vandalism? Umeboshi 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "an American", a nationality is quite a standard introduction affectation. Ie, "Thomas Pynchon is an American writer," "Max Bruch is a German Romantic composer" or "Bernardo Bertolucci is an Italian writer," etc.. Nationalities sets a basic framework of the person's background or perspective. It's not necessary, but it's quite helpful. In Mr. Perle's case, American is especially helpful to readers as he's been an important American government policy advisor, particularly in foreign affairs. I do think in this case it's particularly important to know in the introduction what nationality he has been representing. I think someone like this is a target for vandalism no matter what their nationality is. Americans don't hold the monopoly on controversial figures. As for the "jewish" adjective, you are correct that I removed a similar insertion of the word before. In that previous case, that anon user (apparently located in a large company building) was inserting the term "a jew" in the introduction to many biographies within minutes. That user has been warned (perhaps blocked?) for vandalism several times. To me, that was an anti-Semitic agenda. Introducing the subject as "a Jewish political advisor" wasn't exactly like "a Jew," but I'm sure you can understand how it reminded me of the previous case. --Oakshade 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for adding the images of the San Fernando Valley!! I added one to the Neighborhoods and districts of L.A. page. Thank you! ~j —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! I responded on your talk page. --Oakshade 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second image you pointed me too is even better. Linked it up here: List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles jengod 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

It was well deserved! You're involved in some interesting articles. frummer 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Oakshade. Re this diff: [3] Could I ask what you are suspecting? I'm intrigued! Proto::► 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know really. I've just never seen a reference like that attacked so fervently. It seems people really want this article deleted and will quickly discount anything that supports its inclusion. --Oakshade 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

You voted at the DRV on this, wanted to point the AfD listing out if you wanted to vote there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) -- ChrisPerardi 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Singil Station, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked out the page because there is another article called Charley's Grilled Subs with the same content. With your additional references, the Charley's article is now the better article.

KnoxSGT 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll probably do a move once the AfD is over. --Oakshade 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (4th nomination)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your reference to "this is the 4th nomination" as a reason for keeping this article. The three previous AfDs were closed as Delete, Delete, and Keep, which to me suggests that the multiple nominations show greater precedent and consensus for deleting the article. --02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe

you might be intereted in my post on trains project talk page when it comes to not just deletion but.... SatuSuro 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exception issue was agreed earlier - as gnangara has stated - but I think the possibility this will get taken up yet again somewhere else is always on the cards - specially for countries where sources are difficult ! SatuSuro 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickson Hill, Ontario

The Dickson Hill reference you found is for Cambridge, Ontario, but the one up for AFD is in Markham, Ontario. Regards. -- Whpq 12:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Concerning an AfD on 123 Pleasant Street

I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD

I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry

Thanks for fighting for this article. I am trying to keep it from getting it deleted too. I created it last night and one minute later it was up for deletion. I'm glad that you believe in that this is a notable rivalry and I want you to help me with this fight and I will thank you for it. Leave a messesge if you want anything at all. Thanks again. --Gndawydiak 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Added station image to 2nd page.

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added a little more detail to the paragraph about the original structure along with two references that I used in writing the California Southern Railroad article. On my initial skim of the article, San Bernardino (Amtrak station) is getting close to GA quality already. A little more fleshing out, a comprehensive lead section and more inline citations and it should get through that process easily. Slambo (Speak) 11:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm pretty busy with real life right now, but hopefully in the next couple of days I can make some improvements. I'll let you know (and perhaps the WP:Trains project) know after more work is done. --Oakshade 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on

This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bi0vo4b1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bi0vo4b1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Keeping an Eye on Gladys!

I'm still not a wiki-expert, so when I saw the changes you reverted it appeared to me that there were automatically generated by someone wtiting a script, but I'm not so sure. What I don't undersrtand is how this all works - perhaps you can help me once again.

The "fact" tags seem to challenge certain items from the article that the editor felt were not substantiated in the published articles referenced. Yet there is no comment in the discussion where the editor says something like "I read the reference material and your assetion that "X" is the case is not suported"

To me this could be an indicaiton that the editor did not actually read all of the materials to come to the conclusion. So now here, here's the question what's the best way to defend?--James.lebinski 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like someone who wants the article deleted and is trying a differenct approach rather than having a genuine concern for accuracy. I'm guesing no matter how referenced the article is, the editor still would want the article deleted. "Fact" tags are customarily added to controversial material that is unsourced. When someone "carpet tags" an article on every sentence that is in no way controversial, that usually shows an agenda of some kind. While someone can respond and actually cite exaclty which source supports the tagged sentences, it's not really nessesary when the references provided in the article do support the content and the "carpet tagging" effort is usually viewed upon negatively. --Oakshade 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm once again grateful for your advice. Enjoy your day.--204.17.67.179 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day Oakshade,

I made a quick change to address Shimeru's comments on sourcing, and noticed your policy-based defense o the article. Thanks again. Maybe I'll do a wikipedia logo cow next.--James.lebinski 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altering image source information

Pleast do not alter image source information with no basis. It is considered vandalism. Thank you. --Oakshade 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. By the way, have I ever done that before? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Bhaduri

I didn't assume bad faith -- I'm sorry if you felt otherwise. I'm an Indian, and I personally don't feel that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia as an author. If you feel otherwise, I've no problems. I hope there are no misgivings. utcursch | talk 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd

OK, it is time we had our own wiki. I am starting a wiki just on YouTube mems etc. I need ten good sysops. I've seen your contributions and would like to appoint you as one. Please let me know by emailing me. frummer 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Alan W. Clarke

Your comment that Alan W. Clarke was an attorney in several high publicity death penalty cases and a writer for the Salt Lake Tribune appears to be incorrect (on both counts), even according to the links you supply. In truth he was an attorney for some low profile medical malpractice suits and an arson defense and wrote a single guest commentary for the Trib in 2005. Please respond on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan W. Clarke page if you can provide correct evidence of notability or to correct your mistakes. Irene Ringworm 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just arguing minutiae and that's not way to get to consensus. What I'm looking for is positive, independent affirmation that Clarke is notable. You have provided (a) a footnote in a court document and (b) a brief NYT article which reports on the execution of a man for which Clarke prepared a stay of execution. (Clarke is not mentioned in the article) Do you believe that these two independent references constitute notability? Irene Ringworm 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to you (I saying this because of your "If someone can prove me wrong I'm happy to let him stay" line), it's up to WP:CONSENSUS. There are many who feel that this person's academic and judicial work makes this person worth of inclusion. If you don't agree, that's okay. --Oakshade 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about my opinion (or your opinion either). It's about the whether or not the notability criteria are met. Here's what I read at: WP:BIO

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

I am saying that - "Alan W. Clarke has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject. There is no substantial depth of coverage and no multiple independent sources exist to establish his notability." You have not given me anything (other than a NYT article that mentions a client) and a footnote in a Ninth Circuit Court Policy manual which is not substantial depth of coverage. This time please answer my question directly. Does he meet the notability criteria? If so, please explain because it seems clear to me that he does not. Irene Ringworm 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've touched on a serious issue I have with the relevency of the WP:BIO guideline (every other "notability" guideline for that matter). I'm not saying this is you, but very frequently I've observed a recent trend of when editors don't like an article subject that passes the letter of WP:BIO, sometimes overwhelmingly, they change their deletion argument to "Well, he/she might be the subject of multiple non-trival published works, but WP:BIO is only a guideline and not policy," therefore arbitrarily applying the guildeline to how that editor sees fit. While I respect your reverence to the guildeline, I'm increasingly seeing it as another confusing and inconsistant talking point rather than a proper "rule." --Oakshade 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a broader view of WP:BIO than the current guideline I'm okay with that. What I can't figure out is what criteria you are using. It doesn't appear that there is enough stuff written about this guy (other than the stuff he wrote himself) to constitute a decent article. This guy fails even the most liberal notability criteria that I've seen proposed at WP:PROFTEST (also a guideline) and elsewhere. Please explain your criteria for notability so that we can come up with some sort of consensus. Irene Ringworm 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there's enough verifiable information on the encyclopedic subject to write a comprehensive article about it, it can be included, subject further consensus if need be. Of course articles should be well sourced documenting the content. I think a public activist like Alan W. Clarke is worthy of an article under this general standard. --Oakshade 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't answering my question nor are you providing concrete information to support his notability. A google search of "Alan W. Clarke" and activist yields only six results [4], none of which refer to Clarke directly or indirectly as an activist. In other words, no external source (online) would refer to Alan W. Clarke as an activist. Irene Ringworm 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought from the beginning that his broad academic work on his subject at numerous colleges, universities and institutes demostrate worthiness for inclusion. I know you don't agree. We're just gonig to go back and forth on this. --Oakshade 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on March 12 2007 to Leeroy_Jenkins

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. Slightly moot now as the block has expired. For the future: if you're reverting vandalism, its better to report that and get the vandal blocked. Only if the vandalism is blatant enough for a block is reverting it immune from 3RR, though interpretations vary William M. Connolley 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bauman article

OK, so, regarding Jon Bauman -- if it's not correct to label the article a copyright vio, but 95% of the article is directly copied from another source, what's the appropriate way to bring this to someone's attention? Besides rewriting it myself, which I may go ahead and do. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and pruned it. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Renetto, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ScorpO 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, As much attention as renetto may gain on youtube I do not feel he is notable enough to have an article about him. If he is people such as TheHill88 should... ScorpO 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to check the deletion log of renetto at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Renetto , It has been deleted many times before. ScorpO 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of its history and it's been almost three months since the last deletion (that was deleted under very dubious circumstances [6]. The New York Times reference was from over two months after that last questionable deletion. --Oakshade 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has still not done anything that has made him notable. Just because New York Times references him doesn't mean he is notable. Lets just say that New York Times has a crime section in it. Every single one of those criminals is not entitled to a page on wikipedia because they appeared in the New York times. Now please, don't get me wrong, I love renetto, I love the videos he makes, He is just not notable enough for an article. ScorpO 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I dissagree with that subjective view on "notability". That many viewers is an assertaion of notablity and not criteria for Speedy deltion. This should've gone to AfD if you felt he wasn't "notable." --Oakshade 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you won out, Although I am not happy with the admins decision. Congratulations... ScorpO 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as myself "winning out." The process is the only "winner." There are proper methods of stating your opinion and speedy deleting an article that's not criteria for such is not one of them. --Oakshade 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment that was previously here. The behaviour I showed is not up to Wikipedia's standards. Sorry. ScorpO 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your stipulation that you didn't delete the article because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and struck that comment in the DRV. --Oakshade 06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering seeing as you went to the trouble of contesting its deletion why hasn't it been recreated yet? ScorpO 07:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These DRVs usually go on for a few days for other editors input. An admin will close the discussion and (hopeuflly) act on consensus. --Oakshade 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I have no idea what you're talking about; the tone of your message is petty and unpleasant, though, so I shan't bother trying to work out what you're talking about. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! I wasn't expecting that tone. It was for me an unpleasant surprise after you claimed you shouldn't have an article about yourself as a case to delete another and then learn you actually did have an article about yourself and knew it and supported it. I was hoping for some reconciliation of the dichotomy of stances. But, alas... --Oakshade 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straphanger

Well, I voted for keep. I'm not yet caffeinated to the point of total coherence this morning, so if there is anything else I could say thats persuasive, point it out to me. Cornell Rockey 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Rosie Palmer

Please elaborate on notability outside of context of the murder--Lucy-marie 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to. Even within "the context of the murder", this person is notable. Just because someone it notable due to one thing, doesn't make the person not-notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Notability is "Generally Permanent" not absolutely permanent as you asserted.--Lucy-marie 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally permanent. Rosie Palmer is generally permanant. --Oakshade 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Define how this is so on her own with no connection to Armstrong.--Lucy-marie 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's "notable" due to the murder. No claim otherwise. That is not a reason to delete an article about her. --Oakshade 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not deletion it is merging the information on the murder stays and so does the information on Palmer it is just grouped together in one place to provide an overview on the whole area from the victim the circumstances the murderer and the murder.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNC

Hi. Looking at your user page, it looks like we have much in common, including living in California. It looks like we might be on different tacks toward the same course regarding the notability issue. I think it might be nice to discuss our objectives to see whether we have some common ground.

My goal is to simplify the notability infrastructure by the following: (1) eliminate superfluous sub-guidelines, (2) provide as much continuity among the remaining sub-guidelines and WP:N, and (3) develop a more welcoming structure for bona fide information while allowing us to combat the flood of spam and nonsense. Clear this is no easy task and there are more than one way to accomplish this or similar goal.

I see the broad inclusion of the pnc template as a good step toward continuity. If you look at the history at the template and at WP:N, you will see that I am not a supporter of the current form which I believe to be overly restrictive and subjective, but I do believe that if the template can be put into use and then prominently discussed in the light of day, more palatable language can be developed.

Your thoughts?

--Kevin Murray 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the entire "inclusion criteria" is archaic, self-contradictory and frequently ambiguous enough for interpretations to suit an editors' purposes, having this one canned rigidly worded sentence in every genre guideline completely negates the purpose of having those guidelines. For example, for professors and academics it dawned on many editors that the "subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works" clause doesn't always apply to "notable" academics; Influential academics like Peter A. Singer and David M. Smolin have no non-trivial published works written about them (at least as far as WP editors know). This is why the guideline was created and carefully worded, albeit with disagreements, as these topics are worthy of inclusion. The common "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" line just doesn't apply to many "notable" topics and corrupts the supject-specific criterias. --Oakshade 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Singer is a good argument for a single source establishing notability. Smolin seems to be a squeaker even in my liberal mind. Several of the sub-guidelines reference the PNC (or close to it) and then offer either exceptions or cases where there is an assumption that further sources exist but have not yet been found. Centrx has been a proponent of the latter concept in many discussions at WP:N talk.--Kevin Murray 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we make the template non-rigid enough to reduce your concern? --Kevin Murray 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this lead paragraph to the special cases section at BIO, as fine tuned today:

Special cases

The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability. "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject should not be included; meeting one or more does not mean that a subject should be included."

It's not the wording of the tag, it's there should not be broad-brush tag like this. These guidelines are special cases in themselves and marginalizing them under a tag weakens the inclusion guidelines as a whole. --Oakshade 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to get your comments at WP:N talk. --Kevin Murray 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on recent AfD discussion

Hi there Oakshade, Just wanted to say that I will be looking more closely at any articles I send to AfD. I realize that my opinion of notability influences my motivation to look for sources for an article that has none and will keep that in mind.

I still think that we have to remember the readers, who comprise the vast majority of WP users. Any truly notable and worthy article that gets Afd'd will get sourced quickly or will be recreated and sourced by someone interested.

Thanks for putting up the poll, I think it brought out some good points. --killing sparrows 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Roy

Greetings. Lucinda Roy seems to have become one of the targets of self-appointed wiki-vigilantes (maybe we have a new word here: Wikilantes) who are intent upon deleting any article about any person associated with the Virginia Tech massacre regardless of their notability otherwise. This is the second time I've deleted a dated prod for her; this time I also added a further justification for objecting to the prod in her talk page. I do believe she is notable, want to extend my appreciation for the work you've done on the article to prove her notability (finding reviews of her books, for example). I'm about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks, & won't be around as much (though I will have my laptop with me); I'm hoping you have her on your watchlist in case of further overzealous Wikilantes. --Yksin 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This person should've had an article long ago and what I'm sure are sockpuppets (Anon new users who know how to establish prods? Hah!) are just looking for excuses to delete articles are trying to unjustly erase this one. It's on my watchlist. --Oakshade 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been thinking sockpuppet too. There are a couple of usernames that have been hot to delete anything they deem to be a "memorial in violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL" starting with victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, moving on to the victims of the Columbine High shootings & of Charles Whitman (the 1960s UTexas clocktower sniper), etc. Independent articles about any victim too, regardless of their notability otherwise. Lucinda Roy wasn't a victim, of course, but this seems to be an outgrowth of that. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a try on Nikki Giovanni too, no matter her article's been there for years. -- anyway, I'll keep an eye for this article when I check in during my trip. I will try to actually add to the article too. --Yksin 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG

I have no problem removing the template as my objective of generating discussion is achieved, but let's be fair and go back to where this all began. --Kevin Murray 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to delete what was there before the template and thank you for restoring that content. --Oakshade 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome. Here's too future consensus! --Kevin Murray 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy.

I have been here a very long time and have never violated WP:POINT. My nomination is in good faith. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my rationale, but please do not accuse me of malfeasance in my actions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the initial slew of these editors recently involved in trying (again) to get this deleted vote, I predict it will be another solid keep and it will end up being another time-waster. The project is doomed if I'm wrong. --Oakshade 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what does that have to do with accusing me of a serious offense without evidence and in contrary to what was written? Like I said, even if you disagree with my rationale, its just not appropriate to accuse me of disrupting Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 3 solid keep AfDs, all within the last 2 months, on a subject that clearly passes our guidelines should not waste editors time with yet another. --Oakshade 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not read my nomination closely enough? AfDs 2 and 3 were speedy closed because they were too soon after the initial AfD. In fact, there has been only one full AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and the logic is flawed. Too soon and it clearly passes our guidelines. As I said before, the AfD outcome will likely demonstrate this. --Oakshade 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Train

You did a good job on the article. If I did it, it would not have been good as yours. I did not have much to go on. Do not worry if you think that you stole my "limelight", this article was just something that I had in mind and you did me and Wikipedia a favor. Again good job on the article and if you see something that I have planned to do and you have info or want to do it, then feel free to do so. Rutke421 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 14 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hungarian Gold Train, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Gold Train

Hi Oakshade: This is a kind of article that attracts the interest of many readers. Keep up the good work! Camptown 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

You're not an admin, so you really shouldn't be removing speedy tags, but i'm happy to oblige you with afd nominations. --GreenJoe 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all editors are allowed to remove speedy tags when they think the speedy deletions were inappropriate as they were in all of your speedy tagging cases.--Oakshade 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. GreenJoe 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key words "could be bad faith nom." Besides, attempting to get me to not remove inappropriate speedy tags based on non-existant rules is a bad faith effort in itself. --Oakshade 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you accuse me of bad faith in multiple afd's, then you're not assuming good faith. If you want me to reply to your message, please leave a message on my talk page. --GreenJoe 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play that chasing game. Attempting to delete a majority of articles of candidates from a single party cannot be ignored and should be presented to other edtitors. The editors can make up their own mind. --Oakshade 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival

Hi Oak, the mention is on the 2nd page of the article, it doesn't affect the ref? Not complaining, I just do not know what is the policy in this case. Thanks!Stellatomailing 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point. Generally, the link needs to be to the article title which is usually on the fist page, but I don't think it's a problem to link to the actual page later in the article. I'm not sure on exact policy (or even if there is a policy) on this, but I won't counter if it's linked to another page. --Oakshade 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that anybody that wants to question the information can read the entire article. Let's see - there is somebody trying to change the article to reflect the organizer's views, as you see.Stellatomailing 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I would like to source it even more, but those three articles are the best of the bunch.Stellatomailing 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preparing an Administrator's Noticeboard post about this issue. The person(s), who now identifies themself as a "Publicity Event Producer Film Consultant", is being rather relentless. --Oakshade 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she is related to the festival: Briege McGarrity.

No cache for that. I wonder if we can still use it?Stellatomailing 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Btw, this is a good question. Where could I propose that we adopt a similar policy for our own movies notability?Stellatomailing 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a URL, editors can make a good case to delete the material (it's not like the source is a book). I just don't know. As far as notability guidelines for movies, the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a good place to state your opinion. Notability of films can be quite subjective and I imagine consensus on that will be pretty hard. --Oakshade 23:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what I get. [7]Stellatomailing 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Angels/Anaheim Ducks

I left a comment at Talk:Los Angeles, California stating my opinion. Please check back there and reply to my comment. Thank you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of AfD...

You obviously want to keep Vanessa Kraven, then may I suggest improving the article rather than arguing on the AfD page. I have nothing against the article other than it fell under a list of 40 PRODs that were placed there by WP:PW in an attempt to clean up the project. You removed the PROD, I posted the AfD, but I also posted 16 other AfDs. As it stand the article is poorly sourced and once other members of WP:PW begin to vote then in its current state it will end up being deleted, the consensus in the project is for deletion, just read the project talk page, and look at this AfD [8] to see how the project works. In fact other users have accused the project of "group think", which is not true, but the members to reach a consensus quickly. You have voted and I have voted so this is now up to you to make the page better or see it deleted, and it is not me saying I will delete it but me telling you the current consensus will be to delete. Darrenhusted 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not support the information on that page, find better sources, then add the information, the closing admin will check the external links, and unless they can read both French and Japanese they will not see supporting refs from those seven sources, heck I even found the Bio links on the two English pages with any information on, so there is no show of bad faith. I suggest you look for the sources, one more revert and the page will lock. Darrenhusted 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the material you attempted to delete is verifiable. Deleting all verifiable material DURING and AfD is very bad faith, not to mention immature. --Oakshade 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it verifiable? Here [9] or here [10], those two sources don't even agree on her weight. I can't read Japanese or French so who knows what those other sites say? And the other refernce take you to a shop! Darrenhusted 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable means there is information avaible, not that it's not in the article. You're confusing "verifiable" with "verified."--Oakshade 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find better sources, or translate the Japanese and French. Darrenhusted 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar in regards to Zona Norte. It's the first time someone's decided to give me one for something, so thanks! It's always rewarding to know that someone appreciates the work and effort. Also thanks for finding those first couple of sources for the article, your finding them was what got the ball rolling on fixing/rescuing the article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin Knight

Hello! About two months ago, you added a category listing Goodwin Knight as a Latter-Day saint politician. Would you mind sourcing this claim, as I have documents conflicting with this and stating that he was an Episcopalian (as is suggested in the article). Thanks! Homagetocatalonia 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will when I get back into town in a couple of days. Oakshade --69.45.100.66 03:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD review

Thanks for the heads up on the AFD review, you left on my talk page.

I take the view that my reasoning should be evident and visible; I'm therefore happy that others review it as it stands, without usually adding anything.

That said, I like to know and track AFD reviews, but I don't often comment on them, when its my own closure. So thanks muchly for the heads-up on this, and if it hjappens again, feel free to let me know too :)

Many thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GentMagCover_StacyOwen.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Taviahim01ht8.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Taviahim01ht8.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance-based view

You contested a proposal to delete I placed on this article, stating that it is a Verifiable encyclopaedic topic. I can find no reference to this topic in my resources, so I have commenced an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignorance-based view. This is a courtesy note, since you might like to comment. Banno 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loriga

Hello.

You've re-added a link that has not valid information about the town. It only reflects the webmaster's point of view on the town's history therefore it's not a reliable source (and the english used is far more worst than mine :)). On the Portuguese Wikipedia, that IP has been accused of Vandalism due to that and some other small things, insisting that a Portuguese hero was born there (non-proved). I'm going to erase the link. The few internet sites there are, aren't in english. Septrya

It's not referred to as a reference for the content in the article. It's just an external link. It's the only heavy content English website about the town I can find. External links can be POV, just like a link to a company's official site is POV. If you want to put the Portuguese language links in, I certainly won't object. --Oakshade 04:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answer. There are no links about the town in English, except that one. I'll put the portuguese links. If anyone wants to erase them, won't object either :). Septrya

Your recent edits to XMU (XM)

Why are you making blatant edits to these pages, which could be read as vandalizing. How could any XM page read as an advertisement? No company with 8 million subscribers needs advertisementsNightRider63 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(For once I get accused of being a deletionist.) This needed to be reduced to a stub because all of the program listings and descriptions weren't encyclopedic and read like TV Guide or a press release. If that section hadn't been erased, a group of editors would've found just cause to delete the entire article, which I don't think was appropriate.--Oakshade 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Couture-Nowak

Last month's decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Regenhard doesn't look good for Nova Scotia's VTech victim. And relevant material from the son's bio doesn't seem to have actually been added to his mother's bio/skyscraper safety campaign article. Canuckle 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who closed that AfD is known for ill-conceived comments and decisions, not to mention severe uncivility. Don't know how this one will turn out, but if it's deleted it will have made this project weaker. --Oakshade 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gunman then committed suicide by shooting himself in the forehead in the same classroom. Seven registered students survived the massacre, with six of them injured. Four students were not present at the time, including one who never appeared for class. Clay Violand, one of the seven known survivors, stated that he was the only individual in the room to not receive gunshot wounds...

The above is obviously violating NPOV and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject unless the article were about Clay Violant. Also, you're behavior is smacking deeply of WP:OWN. I suggest changing it and removing the bits of the article that have nothing to do with the subject. A subject's biography must cover the subject, not something else. NPOV pretty much covers that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing cherrypicked excerpt. The remainder of the FULL sentance you tried to delete is...

... Cho shot Couture-Nowak and students during the first round, left the room, and later returned to shoot the occupants numerous times before committing suicide.[11]

Sorry, but that's VERY relavant to the article topic and erasing sourced content directly related to a topic is a violation of WP:NPOV. Simply retorting "No, your in violation of WP:NPOV" doesn't change your violations of WP policy. --Oakshade 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to removing only the part above. I don't care about the second half. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

Hello Oakshade,

Thanks for your continued interest in Gladys. I continue to follow the "notability" debate in general, and to monitor/make edits to Gladys. I wonder if you could offer an opinion on that topic. Recently, the CT Post published yet another article on my art - albeit tangential to Gladys. Would you recommemd adding this link to the Gladys article to further support Glady's notability ? http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6495972

--James.lebinski 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't hurt in confirming notability. I would try to find inline citation use for it. When I have the time I'll check it out. --Oakshade 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Previn image

a fair use image of a dvd must only be used to describe the dvd or its content. --emerson7 | Talk 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. This article discussed the album in question.--Oakshade 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:PrevinPlaysMyFairLady.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and behavior

I read the discussion you took part in on the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak discussion pages, and I found your tone and manner in various places rude and unhelpful. While Wiki editors (you and I, for instance) may have differences of opinion, there's a line to be respected in how we talk to one another. Pablosecca 09:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pablososecca, you were the one who made false accusations of me. Remember, you falsely claimed I "proudly claimed success" about keeping the article? Something of which you have failed to apologize for. You have not in any way been helpful to the improvement of the article and have been uncivil. That you make this childish attack on my talk page seems to be an attempt to overcompensate for your poor behavior. --Oakshade 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CLIN-226SA.jpg

I noticed that when you uploaded Image:CLIN-226SA.jpg to illustrate Benjamin Britten you gave it the {{Non-free album cover}} license. Unfortunately, this license does not allow for its use to illustrate the composer, merely the recording in question. I do not think that there is a permissible license that would allow for its use on the Britten article, so I have tagged it as having no valid license information. Thanks. RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]