User talk:SoWhy/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SoWhy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Adoption

Hi SoWhy, I was looking on the list of adopters and I was wondering whether you may adopt me as a new user to Wikipedia. I've improved articles and stuff before I created my account so I was wondering whether this would be possible. Thank you. :-) -Onewhohelps (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm happy to adopt you, provided what you are looking for is someone to answer questions that you need answered and someone to point you to the right places without any classes or tasks or something like that. On a side note, whether that is what you are looking for or not, please remember to use edit summaries. You can enable a reminder for this in your preferences under Editing ("Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"). Regards So Why 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I expected this! This is fine. I will remember to use edit summaries. It says on this page that I should add a user box on my user page, is that OK with yourself? What area's do you work in? Also, are you willing to check my contributions regularly to check I'm going OK please? -Onewhohelps (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. The code is {{adoptee|SoWhy}}. I'm mostly a Wikignome, so I have no clear area of work, although I am somewhat specialized when it comes to speedy deletion. Unfortunately, real life does not allow as much editing as it did back when I became an admin, so I might sometimes not make many edits for days at a time. Given those circumstances (and the fact that I am really really forgetful at times), I can't offer to regularly check your contributions but I'd be happy do so on request if you think it is necessary or useful (for example, if you edited in a previously unfamiliar area). Regards So Why 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I really want you and this other adopter, because you both seem really nice! The only thing I could think is to have you both, would this be OK with you, if it is also OK with them? Regards, -Onewhohelps (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. The more help you can get, the better. I'm not a jealous guy ;-) Regards So Why 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for repairing that on my user page. I was editing from my BlackBerry, the internet stopped working afterwards. :D --Onewhohelps (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Wikipedia is not important to my career. Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdubputnam (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:DYK question

Hi and thanks for your reply. I think I was just a bit put out that she rejected it after it had been added to the queue then didn't inform me. Had she brought up the issue earlier I could have done something about it. Now because of this, I've missed the boat, as it were, and the chance to add another DYK on my list is lost. It leaves a bit of a nasty taste to be honest . . . But life moves on. I will mention it at the talk page and ask for further review, and will look at those paragraphs you mention again and see if I can't tweak them a bit more. Cheers and thanks once again for your help and advice. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Crat bar

Since the 2 crat RFCs are close to ending, I wanted to bring up the bureaucrat threshold discussion again (previous discussion and related RFC close). I was wondering if it should be 2 RfCs (one to determine the most popular threshold and a second to !vote that threshold up or down) or if it should just be the 80%/75% discussed in the recent RfC and the one in 2008. Did you have any thoughts on this? I hope you don't mind if I ask a few others to chime in here. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem of having it in a single RfC. Since the previous RfC already ended with a pretty clear consensus that a lowering is desirable, the next one could just have multiple proposals for each proposed bar. If it turns out that this RfC then does not yield a clear consensus of what bar to set, we can still open another RfC with the proposal(s) that received the most support and have people !vote on them. But I think unlike the desysop RfCs, there is not much that could sidetrack such an RfC, so there is no need to create multiple ones. Regards So Why 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The one in 2008 seemed to suffer from people being divided and ended as no consensus. I'm wondering if that might happen again, but as you say we could move on from there. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I watch Ched's page and thought I'd comment. Hope that's okay. One RFC just makes sense. Also, I don't like the term burecucrats; seems not appropo to the job at all. Can we change the name? PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hydroxonium: Hmm...I don't think the 2008 RfC is still relevant but I don't remember that one personally since it was before my time (as an active editor and as an admin). From what I can see though, there was some strong sentiment in that RfC for lowering the bar below 90% (approx. 60% of the participants favored either 75% or 80%).

@PumpkinSky: Sure, hop right in. As for the term bureaucrats, I think it's perfectly appropriate. It's a boring, technical job and thus should have a boring name that reflects it. What would be your sugggestion? Regards So Why 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I was surprised the "bar" didn't change with the last two RfCs, but with this new "bit" the crats will likely get, then yes ... I think a new RfC should be held. — Ched : ? 20:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (hey there PS .. gonna drop by your page shortly ... might be something you'd be interested in.)

Hi Ched!. Nice to meet you other guys. Seems to me that if they can grant bits they should be able to take them away, with appropriate controls in place. As for a new name, hmm, "crat" connotes bureacucracy and boring management crap. What does that have to do with giving out admin bits? Do they have other rights? Let's see, a job that is boring and gives out bits...how about "BoringBitGranter" or "BitGranter" or "SuperAdmin". I'll think on it more. PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have three main duties: Closing RfAs and granting the admin-bit; renaming users; and granting the bot-flag to approved bots. Additionally, they close requests to join the Bot Approvals Group. Since those are not really interesting duties, I think a boring name fits the group nicely. ;-) Regards So Why 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's mostly sounds boring alright. But other than that it seems to have little to do with the traditional meaning of bureaucrat. How about "AdminPlus"? PumpkinSky talk 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. "Admin" already sounds like something special and "AdminPlus" would make crats sound like something "better than admins" - not an impression we should cultivate imho. Also, while it didn't happen so far, crats technically do not have to be admins to become crats. Regards So Why 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If a RfC does get started on this, could someone drop me a link please? I ask 1) because I'd like to voice my opinion, and 2) So nobody gets accused of WP:CANVASS down the road .. lol. Hey there SoWhy, been a while ... how's life treating ya? Cheers. — Ched : ? 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi as well. Life's treating me fine, I moved to the next stage of my education lately. And, while I know it's no going completely off-topic, how's your life? :-) Regards So Why 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown together something here that we can use as a starting point. I kept it short and to the point, which is helpful for RfCs. All comments and criticisms are welcome. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification on my talk page. After the two bureaucrat RfCs are closed, I agree with holding an RfC about the threshold for bureaucrat promotion. User:Hydroxonium/sandbox is a good starting point, but should there also be a section for a new discretionary range? Cunard (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a couple discretionary ranges as an example in case others agree also. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Cunard here. The previous discussion contains no consensus to change the discretionary ranges and thus adding this to the RfC just adds potential for unnecessary controversy. Similarly, while a change of the "bar" was supported, I don't think bars like 65% or 60% have a snowball chance in hell to reach consensus. If you don't mind, I made a few changes based on this to your sandbox. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Regards So Why 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, everybody is free to edit. I'm just here to help and wanted to give us a starting point. I was wondering about the oppose sections. Would a potential !voter support one threshold and then oppose the others? Just curious if that was your thinking. Cheers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the support/oppose proposal to support/oppose threshold. Hope that's OK with everybody. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If I want to have a 80% bar, but don't think it should be lower than that, then of course I'd oppose the other sections. Regards So Why 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Makes more sense now. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added other thresholds (ArbCom, CheckUser, etc.) as a reference, see here. Does anybody have any other input or suggestions? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding the RFA threshold to that list. I have some other thoughts, but I wonder if it would be better to copy the whole proposal to a different user subpage, so it can be edited, discussed on its own talk page, and then page-moved to an RFC subpage when it is ready. I assume you don't want your entire sandbox history moved. --RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - please see User:Hydroxonium/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Yes, all imporovements are welcome. Everybody is free to edit it as they see fit (oh, and start a talk page too). The more input, the better. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We've moved the discussion to User talk:Hydroxonium/Requests for bureaucratship threshold to help keep things centralized. Everybody is welcome to update this RfC and all input is appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

re: closer for RFCs

Hello. FWIW, I just wanted to drop by and say I did understand that "It's not about who is 'allowed' to close them", but I just think that when people start talking about who should do something it quickly spirals into making lists, which someone did start to do in this discussion and that can then degenerate into others feeling like they are not wanted or are otherwise thought to be unqualified or ill-suited. I mean no harm in my critique and hope you felt no insult by my comment. I know that you certainly had the best interests of the project in mind when you posted your request and please know that I do not doubt your motives, I was just trying to advocate for a more organic approach rather than there being any "seeking" involved. Warmest Regards. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the message. For a moment there, I feared my request sounded really as if I wanted to designate special "RfC closers". I completely understand your comment and I share most of it; after all, unlike some of our admin colleagues, I have always argued against any group of editors being treated as "special". So yes, lists of people who should be allowed to close RfCs are not a good idea. Unfortunately, many people have prejudices against "normal" editors closing such RfCs because of (founded or unfounded) assumptions that those editors are not able to assess a complicated situation neutrally enough. That's why groups like crats to close RfAs or ArbCom to solve disputes were established. And while editors like you and me know that such assumptions are mostly unfounded, we have to consider those who don't but who yet have to accept the closer's assessment of consensus. For example, I would not mind some random IP closing them if they assessed consensus correctly - but do you think most users would agree with me on that?

Luckily, in this case someone volunteered to do it without having to ask someone. While I do realize that you and others understood my intentions on making the request, RL0919's approach to just ask at a noticeboard is probably the best way to do it in future. After all, there's no reason to sound ambiguously. :-) Regards So Why 22:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, you make some good points and I appreciate the discussion. It's been nice "meeting" you which seems especially odd given that we have combined for over 12 years here (unless I've forgotten in which case I apologize). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Nomination

Hi So, I have not (to my knowledge) come across you before so by my own personality I figured picking you at random from the "willing to consider nomination list" would be best. I am looking for Admin nomination because basically, if you see my user page, I no longer have/take the time for creating articles or making many substantial changes. My time is now mostly spent with RFCs and AFDs and other such cleanup. I believe I would be a prime admin candidate for a number of reasons but the one that is paramount and, IMHO, the most important is that I have virtually no ties to any particular "ism" or anything thereof. Mainly I would like the admin-ship for the tools involved with dealing with vandalism and to be able to better mediate with disputes and other long standing problems (such as tags that go back to 2007 and such). I also believe that an important factor to look at is the fact that I won't "die" if I don't get admin. It's simply a tool to me and I firmly believe in this project and it's quality so I am looking for a way to better make use of my time to insure this philosophy of mine. Please give me any feedback (good or bad) regarding this and I am certainly open to any suggestions. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. While I'm always happy to help, I do not need to review your edits to know that your chances to succeed in a request for adminship at this time are virtually nil. !Voters at RFA expect a sizeable number of edits (usually 2000-3000) and a certain time on the project (usually at least 6 months, to ensure that the candidate is committed to the project). Unfortunately, you fail both requirements with only 5 months here and 281 edits. While both those requirements fall under the scope of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, they are nevertheless common and while strict requirements on the number of edits are a bad idea, having a sizeable number does allow people to better assess your editing. The guide at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship might be helpful. Once you reached those arbitrary but often expected levels of activity, you might find it helpful to request someone to coach you at Wikipedia:Admin coaching. While admin coaching is not required or will guarantee success, it might help if you are otherwise prone to act prematurely. If you have any other questions or need any other help, I'm of course happy to help. Regards So Why 09:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey there thx for the reply. Yeah I kind of figured that was gonna be an issue when I stopped adding for years as an anon then created an account. There's no real way to show the massive amounts of previous work without pointing to it, which would of course negate the whole purpose for doing the work I did as an anon and then creating this account now. Ah well. Like I said I wasn't hinging on my need to be an admin. Figured "what the hell" right? Might as well take a stab. Anyways thx again. See ya around the ol' watering hole. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AdminWatch MFD

Just wanted to say I thought it was a very well thought out and well reasoned rationale. Just thought I'd tell you my 2c, as it's uncommon around here to receive compliments for closing controversial debates. Kudos to you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) Regards So Why 12:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the interpretation of UP#POLEMIC, I agree that the page in its original form and last form didn't seem to have a clear goal other than logging diffs. Despite my wish for a different outcome, I do truly appreciate that you took the time to write a thoughtful and reasonable rationale, especially on a discussion that had been so contentious. Best wishes. -- Avanu (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would to chime in here too. To me it is clear that the page should not have been speedy deleted originally and that in its final form it should not have been deleted at all. However, that was not at all the wiki-mood and it was expedient to be rid of the thing while trying hard not to set a dreadful precedent. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was also impressed by your reasoning and constructive suggestion. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch. Despite the controversy surrounding User:Surturz/AdminWatch, you were willing to involve yourself and close the discussion. On a somewhat related note, would you provide advice at User talk:Timotheus Canens#User:Timeshift9 (unresolved)? Tim has been inactive and unable to provide guidance. Cunard (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind words. I really appreciate it.

@Cunard: I'd like to help but since the AdminWatch page was also about Tim's admin actions regarding Timeshift9, I am wary to involve myself in that discussion. Since I closed the MFD, I acted as an admin in a remotely related case, so I'd rather not give my input as an editor in that case - just to completely avoid any appearance of involvement whatsoever. As such, I think you should ask someone who didn't have any contact with the subject in any way whatsoever. Hope you understand. Regards So Why 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I will wait for Tim's reply. I've asked several admins already and none wish to involve themselves. Cunard (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As the editor whose userpage was deleted, I would also like to thank you for your detailed closing comments. I think you summarised the arguments well. While I might have preferred a different outcome, I believe your decision was fair and correct in representing the consensus. Kind regards, --Surturz (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"...contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page."

OK fine. 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my answer was insufficient. I left a further reply that hopefully addresses your question now. Regards So Why 20:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Adoption

I would love to become a better user and you sound like the person who could really help so plz adopt me thanks --76.176.137.161 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC) DPS

Hi there. Sorry for the late reply but I didn't see your post at the top of the page. I'd be happy to adopt you but only if you signup. While I strongly support the editing of anonymous editors, I prefer to know that the person I adopted is always the same which is not necessarily true with IPs, as they can be reallocated. Regards So Why 10:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My Mistake

On the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page, I initially thought that the paragraph had been in place for quite some time, which is why I reverted its removal twice. I then started to look over how long it had been there, and was shown by another editor that it was actually just a couple days old. My mistake for not realizing it, but just a couple days ago, I had relied on that specific wording for re-instating the WKQX‎ redirect (to WWWN), after a plea for help at the Village Pump, and thought it was just part of the language of the page.

My apologies for my part in the reverts that led you to protect the page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Please remember for the future that you should be extra-careful on policy pages as to if and how often to revert. Since they are highly visible, any disruption of such kind should be avoided. Hopefully, it will be resolved at the talk page now. Regards So Why 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

It seemed there was a bit of tension with the article IceFrog and I'm sorry. We shouldn't get worked up over that and I won't nominate the article for deletion. But, I also want to see the integrity of the article remain. So, I think it should be improved by going on without the use of the name, Eurogamer can and should be kept as a source, as they are very notable. But the name used has been disputed, since it originated from anonymous user claiming to be a Valve employee. DarthBotto_talk•cont 10:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the talk page. Unless you can prove that Eurogamer is not reliable in this case, the name should definitely stay in the article. Regards So Why 10:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA: Elaboration

Hi!

Please emphasize the initial "shown commitment to the project" endorsement.

The second phrase was intended humorously but truly to remind the community of a widespread concern about double standards—to be taken no more seriously (and no less seriously) than Hans Adler's hilarious endorsement "The candidate will abuse the administrator tools only in the ways of which I approve", which reminded me that administrators need not be infallible (and that errors could be corrected ...).

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't pick up on the humor when reading it but I understand now. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. On a side note, I fully support that sentiment. The idea that admins are somehow subject to different standards is still as incomprehensibly to me today as it was when I first heard it. Regards So Why 16:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

River Song

I left you a note on the talk page. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

AdminWatch redux

As the closing admin on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch, I thought I would ask you first, but this is not a criticism or challenge of your close in any way. I think your decision was fair within the discussion that occurred at the MfD.

That said, imagine my surprise when I (re?)discovered this page: Talk:Chiropractic/Admin_log. This is quite clearly a "shit list", kept in perpetuity by admins against non-admins. My username appears on the list. I also have barely repressed traumatic memories of editing the Chiropractic article. Mummy? Please make the dramah go away! Other editor names appear on the list not because they've done anything disruptive, but because they might do so.

Why the double standard? Why are admins allowed to keep such lists on non-admins, but non-admins are not allowed to keep such lists of admins? --Surturz (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect I'm afraid. First of all, there is no reason at all to assume that the list documents only non-admins. Second, it's not a list by one or multiple specific admins against certain users - it's a log by all those who which to manage the disputes that might arise containing those who were notified of the related ArbCom case and the possibility of sanctions based on this case (e.g. you). It explicitly says that your name on the list does not mean anything other than that you were notified of those restrictions and thus your editing might be sanctioned without having to notify you again. But there is no double-standard here because it was actively used (when it was still active) to attempt dispute resolution if necessary - unlike so-called "shit lists" which are not created in an attempt to resolve disputes at all but merely attempt to document behavior one or more people object to. As the MFD on the aforementioned page clearly said, it is perfectly fine to have pages that are created to resolve actual conflicts.

That said, the page is clearly inactive and the only reason why your name is still on it is because noone edited in 2 years but noone brought it to MFD yet. I'd suggest you taking the page to MFD before claiming that there is a double-standard. Remember: Just because something has not been deleted (yet) does not mean it should exist. See WP:LONGTIME. Regards So Why 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the MfD. There are no admins on the list, only non-admins. The ArbCom judgement gives no authority to keep shit lists, nor does it allow admins to create pages to make it easier for them to gang up on individual users. The page does not purport to resolve disputes, its sole aim is to make it easier for admins to coordinate the gathering of evidence against non-admins so that they can be blocked. --Surturz (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So you say. Yet you have not really proven that this is the intended purpose of said page. Just because no admins were on the list does not mean the list was not meant to contain them. Keeping lists of users (not "non-admins") who might need to be sanctioned is fine if there is concrete reason to believe that. Keeping lists of a certain group of people (e.g. "admins", "non-admins" etc.) because one wants to document behavior that one thinks is wrong, is not fine. This page, unlike your aforementioned page, falls into the first category, even if you refuse to believe it.

That said, the very idea that admins and non-admins are two separate groups that might even gang up on one another is complete nonsense and a big part of the problem the aforementioned MFD and your thinking here demonstrate. Admins are nothing special - despite what some admins and even some non-admins think. If I go around vandalizing pages, I'll get blocked. If you go around vandalizing pages, you'll get blocked. If I edit-war, I'll be sanctioned. If you edit-war, you'll be sanctioned. Etc. I think the point is clear. You'd do good to free yourself from this notion that there are somehow status-differences. Yes, I'm quite aware that some admins get away with behavior that others wouldn't but that does not justify treating them differently - it just shows that the system has its flaws (like any system does). But you are not forced to behave this way. I know it's hard but attempt to start looking at the facts, not the users, when conflicts arise. You will notice that the question whether someone is correct does not hinge on the fact which userrights they have but solely on their behavior. That's why imho any list that attempts to focus on the misdoings of one group is doomed to fail. Admins are not a homogenous group that can be watched - they are users like everyone else. Accepting this and acting upon it is imho essential to avoid such confrontations. Regards So Why 11:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Please ignore my shotgun" does not justify the lack of admins on that list, unless you are seriously trying to assert that not a single admin has edited the Chiropractic article since the page was created. No single admin is responsible for that page, which means it is entirely fair to treat admins as a group in this instance. If the admins don't want to be treated as a cohort, then they should not maintain pages as a cohort. (Hope it is okay, I'll copy this discussion to the MfD: I doubt you want to continue it here, if at all) --Surturz (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not the lack of admins but you inferring that the lack of admins is on purpose without any evidence. If I buy a cupboard and use it only to store books in it, then it's not valid to assume that the cupboard was intended for book-keeping alone - maybe I just don't need to store anything else? The same goes for this page. No one asserts that admins didn't edit the article - but maybe they didn't edit it in a way that required others to warn them? Or maybe they were merely forgotten? Here again the point of WP:AGF is to assume that the least negative scenario happened - not the worst. A number of pages are explicitly for "admins" - like WP:ANI - but they are not maintained by "admins". They exist so that admins can do their job easier. But they are not the result of any "us versus them"-mentality.

I reverted copying the discussion to the MFD. I'm happy to discuss things here but I don't think the MFD is the right kind for the discussion we are having - it should focus on that page and that page alone - not pages in general. Regards So Why 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't extend to assuming that a lack of admins in the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin_log#Other_recent_editors section is coincidental. There was no WP:AGF shown for the AdminWatch page (speedied, DRVed, then immediately MfD'ed without any chance to change the page according to suggestions), why should I WP:AGF here?

If editors who edit the article are going to be tracked, then both admins and non-admins should be tracked alike. I don't think I have any new arguments, so I'll finish by reiterating that there is a double standard here. This article shows that admins are allowed to keep lists of editors "just in case" they disrupt an article in the future, that list is allowed to be kept in perpetuity, and the page is explicitly for the purpose of making it easier for admins to coordinate their efforts to sanction other editors. Furthermore, the lack of admins in the lists indicates that the page is NOT treating admins and non-admins alike. Thanks for listening. --Surturz (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does, although I understand that you find it hard to believe. Your argument is a variant of the tu quoque fallacy: The failure of others to observe a valid rule does not mean that the rule itself should not be followed. For example, if you do not assume good faith towards me, that's not a reason for me not assuming good faith towards you.

Again, and I know I'm repeating myself, it's not valid to infer the purpose of something from its use. The fact that no admins were on the list is not proof that the list is intended to not have admins on it. If you acknowledge, that you have no other argument to proof the list's intended purpose, it's not valid to still draw the conclusion that a double-standard exists. Nor will repeating the conclusion make it correct if you cannot prove the facts. Or, to put it another way, the fact that something didn't happen is not proof that something can't or won't happen - e.g. the fact that admins were not included in the list is not proof that admins weren't meant to be included. Regards So Why 11:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing my page User:Aviation.expert 14:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode pages

I have posted a lengthy response on the who I met your mother discussion page. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. On a side note, please do remember to post new messages at the bottom of a talk page. Many editors, including myself, will ignore messages at the top assuming that they are the oldest, thus potentially not seeing them at all. Regards So Why 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh-Oh...

It seems all the snapshots I took from RadioTimes render an error on WebCite and they won't pull up...and there's also a bunch of interviews and such not filed under the blog that can be found here. I'm going to keep archiving the blog, but what about the ones that won't pull up? D'you think it may be time to ask the bot? I have to idea how to go about that. Regards, Glimmer721 ^talk 18:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not good. Maybe you should contact WebCite directly and ask them if they know why those errors happen? I'll leave Tim1357 (talk · contribs) a message asking them if they could do a manual run. Regards So Why 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And I just archived another and an error pops up when I click on the link. I'll see if I can contact them. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sent them an email. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried one of the "old." URLs and got an error message vie email:

The caching attempt failed for the following reason: Could not establish the root of the downloaded page. This is most likely caused by a page class which isn't supported yet by WebCite.

I'm unsure as to what that means though. :-/ Regards So Why 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I got. It supported the "page class" or whatever just a week ago. I metioned that in my email. There is a new message on the error page: Sep 6, 2011 - On Sep 3rd (just before the long labor day weekend), WebCite went down due to a hardware failure. While we are restoring the database from our backups, no new snapshots can be made, and old snapshots may be temporarily unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. So I'm glad there's an explanation; I just hope it's fixed by Sept. 30th. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could use your help

Could use your advice and help with this comment [1]. I've tried to follow the rules about images to the letter and follow the protocol for providing source information. User FP is now going on record calling me a liar. Not the kind of actions I would expect from an administrator. I would like the help of an uninvolved administrator to cool things down. Going back to ANI would only make the matter worse. Thanks in advance. -OberRanks (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to how I can help you with that. FutPerf's comments might be annoying and probably assuming bad faith but he is perfectly within his rights to require that you prove something if you claim it and that's what he did (despite the somewhat aggressive tone of his comment). His doubts are valid considering that the file is indeed listed on a page ([2]) with a clear © symbol. That does not mean that your claims are untrue but there is sufficient reason to request that you prove it. As such, your best course of action is to a.) ignore FutPerf's tendency to word his comments too aggressively and b.) get the proof sent to OTRS. If proof is received, the image stays. If proof fails, then it's deleted, according not to FutPerf's wishes but to our policy. FutPerf might have a somewhat "quirky" way to enforce the policy but that does not mean that the policy shouldn't be enforced just because he does it. Regards So Why 14:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the image should just be deleted because I think it was lifted off the Internet and then e-mailed to me. I'm also a bit concerned about the whole OTRS system, i.e. who can access it. FP seemed very adamant about getting a hold of the OTRS ticket number. I was concerned that if he was able to get into the ticket, he would see not only my e-mail address but the e-mail of those I had contacted and work professionally with. I've only used OTRS a few times, and not for at least a year or two. -OberRanks (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually have OTRS access myself. OTRS is handled by specially selected trusted volunteers (not necessarily admins) who have to identify themselves to the Foundation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that and apologies for the situation. Please delete that image. No further images will be added by me to that article, its pretty much as complete as I plan to make it. Best to all. -OberRanks (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SoWhy, your comments would also be appreciated here. -OberRanks (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, since this was raised here and discussed here, with my input (and with me deleting the image as G7), I do not think my input at the ANI thread will be a good idea and people might either consider me to be involved or canvassed to comment there by your message. I'd advise you let others comment on the matter and restrain yourself from further arguing with FutPerf. I know it's difficult but at this point it's pretty obvious that you two have reached an impasse and some community discussion is needed to start talking about the issues at hand again. Regards So Why 17:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stana_Katic image discussion

Since you are one of the people who has contributed a main image for Stana Katic, I thought you might want to come discuss images at Talk:Stana_Katic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lady Xeona a YouTube Personailty?

Here is a request on the talk page for the List of YouTube personalities on some very young Mensa child named Lady Xeona [Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Lady_Xeona]. I reserved my judgement on this one until I can get some consensus on it. Please let me know what you on my and the talk page for that article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Crat bar results

Hi SoWhy. The RfB threshold RfC was recently closed. It ended with no consensus similar to the way the 2008 RfC ended. Do you still feel it could be useful moving this idea forward as mentioned here? I'm curious as the close seemed to indicate others were not too interested in pursuing the idea. What do you think? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think xeno has it right. Apparently, there is not only no consensus as to how to handle it but also no interest in really changing it at all, so in that case another RFC is probably a waste of time. We probably need to wait until the next person tried to run for cratship to see whether the RFC had any influence. Regards So Why 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Even though the RfC didn't reach a consemsus, it did show that the 90% threshold was mostly at odds with the community. Anyhoo, I enjoyed working on the RfC with you. Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So it did, so I think we can expect somewhat lower standards in the next RfBs but as I said, we need someone willing to run for it to see whether that's really the case. Glad I could help you nonetheless :-) Regards So Why 13:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

ER Archiving

Hi, I have picked a random admin at WP:ER deleted contribs list, simply to raise a concern that the page states it archives reviews 30 days after they are created - but there are now 45 requests on the main ER page, some reviewed as far back as April, and not yet archived. Could be a bot has stopped working that does the task? Anyway, just thought I'd point it out, in case there is a fault somewhere needs raising. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 19:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The page is not archived by a normal archival bot like MiszaBot or ClueBot, so I'm not sure why that happens. I left Anomie, who runs the bot who used to archive those requests, a message. Hopefully he can identify and fix the problem. Regards So Why 20:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Anomie pointed out that those ERs all had {{not yet reviewed}} still in place, even those reviewed. The bot checks for the template and only removes those without that tag. I checked the active requests and removed the template from all reviews that had comments. Regards So Why 20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see – thought there would be a logical explanation somewhere. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

SPDY

SPeeDy logo It was in the article because I had put it there. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But is that really the official logo or is it rather just something eweek drew? I note that no Google page about it uses that logo, so there might not be an official logo like that and thus no reason to add it to the article. Regards So Why 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I only know what that article says. It sure looks like the official logo. It would seem odd that e-week would come up with a logo for a Google project; conversely, it is anomolous that Google wouldn't have a logo. Thanks for thinking about it, anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you do find the logo used by Google, it sure would be good to add it. Regards So Why 09:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find this: SPDY™ protocol Guidelines for Third Party Use of Google Brand Features So SPDY is a Google trademark. Inferentially, one could deduce that SPeeDY isn't. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sorry, please read both e-mails! Thanks.

--Onewhohelps (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia and pageviews

This is from the stats.grok.se website: "Wikipedia article traffic statistics Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 has been viewed 7976544 times in 201110." Of course there's not much of a difference with 8 million, but I wanted to let you know where I got the number from :-) Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed that. I fixed it to reflect the source better. Hope it's okay now :-) Regards So Why 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Handling edit-conflicts

Uoops.... I didn't notice I was removing your comment. Sorry for that mistake. Helder 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

HotCat

I just noticed that you were still using my long since not update development version of HotCat. For that reason, i have now blanked my private developement version of HotCat. Please use the gadget in your preferences. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Yeah, I did because when I first used it, it had the multiple category handling that the gadget didn't and I never noticed any change. Thanks for the message, I'll switch to the Gadget. Keep up the good work :-) Regards So Why 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad form

You threaten to block me, and then remove a post knowing that you will have a tecnical excuse to do so. I'm very happy to publicise the situation, but suspect discretion makes more sense, and would therefore request that you restore the comment to an appropriate place. —WFC— 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not threaten to block you. I pointed out that the policy in question that you are well aware of allows you to be blocked without violating 3RR and it will happen sooner or later if you believe that edit-warring is ever justified. I removed the comment you made because it was misplaced. The questions section is designed for Q&A between users and the candidate. The Discussion section and the talk page are designed for comments, discussions, problems etc. If you still disagree, you are welcome to submit my edit for review at any venue you like. Regards So Why 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Semantics do not interest me. You first implied that I was an edit, or a few edits, away from a block, and then removed a comment knowing that you could block me for restoring it. I am convinced that the comment was valid, but conceed that it may have been in the wrong place. Nonetheless, I fear the consequences should I decide to re-post. For that reason, I request that you instead place the edit in an appropriate place (should the original location be deemed inappropriate), so that I know I do not risk a block for restoring it myself. Regards, —WFC— 19:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believed so, then please let me clarify that you are mistaken. My comment was merely a reminder that such behavior is not tolerated and that it violates WP:EW even if the clear line of 3RR is not crossed and that you will thus face such consequences if you continue believing that edit-warring is ever justified. If you understand this now and do not edit-war in the future, such consequences are not required. As for the comment itself, I would not have blocked you for reverting me (since I would never use the tools in any matter related to my edits) but I will point out that I do feel that my edit was justified (which you seem to partly agree) and I am confident that any discussion of my edit at any venue will result in the community agreeing with me. You are welcome to use the talk page to start a discussion about whether Keepscases' question should be removed but I would strongly advise against reinstating the comment you made. Claiming that you did something "good" and someone else "edit-warred against it" (but not mentioning that you did edit-war yourself!) might be how you feel the situation happened but it might actually hurt your cause because it does carry the risk that people think you ignore WP:AGF and thus are less willing to support your cause. So keep calm, forget this episode and start a neutral discussion of the merit of such questions. Regards So Why 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Needed deletion

Please help get this deleted before even more irrelevant info gets added. Thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte for you. Please replace the part where I wrote "(procedural nomination for another user unfamiliar with the process)" (including my signature) with your reasoning why this article should be deleted and sign it. Regards So Why 07:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

I consider it bad form for you to have "closed" the discussion on the Village Pump regarding "Censorship of dissenting voices at the Italian Wikipedia", when the discussion you are pointing at on Meta is in itself closed. I happen to agree with you that there is little for the en.wikipedia community can actually do here, but closing this discussion seems to be as heavy handed as the action which the user was complaining about. Considering the discussion was pretty much at its end anyway, I think it would have been better to leave well enough alone and just let the archival bot remove the discussion than take the action you did.... invoking WP:BITE and WP:AEAE as reasons this shouldn't have happened.

I'm not reverting this action as I'll leave it in your capable hands should you choose to reverse your actions here. I do think the complaint was valid for needing investigation, and with en.wikipedia having the most experience in working with various discussions like this it was valid to at least request some experienced admins from en.wp to look at what was going on. As such, I think there was "something" that the en.wp community could do in this situation even though Meta may be the best place to raise this issue.... other than the fact that Meta is pretty dead and unresponsive to requests like this as well. Of course that is why the semi-organized chaos of Wikimedia projects is so fun to work with too.

At least you took a stand on this issue. I just wish you would have joined the conversation than to shut it down. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm unsure as to what you are talking about. The discussion at meta that I linked to is very well open and active, so it is the correct place to discuss this issue. Whether the input of members of this project was needed is not a relevant consideration - because their input should be given at the meta-discussion and not locally. And they still can do so, which is why I just collapsed the discussion with a link to meta, not removed it completely. I don't think my actions violated WP:BITE (because my words were neutral and asking people to discuss something centrally is not in itself hostile) or WP:AEAE (because I did not act based on the involved editors' status - I never do that). Regards So Why 08:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hello SoWhy, First of all, thank you for creating a button where I can directly write you a message. I would like you to mentor me with my articles. I have already written some of them and you can check them on my profile. I have knowledge to share but unfortunately working through wikipedia is really hard, I wish editing was simpler. Thank you Nathanian Palmer (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You are welcome, although each talk page (such as this one) also has a "new section" link at the top (next to the "edit" tab) which you can use. If you do create a new section, please remember to fill the "Subject/headline" field as well so that the section gets a name. I added one for this one btw.

As for mentorship, I'm always happy to help to adopt new users but I like to say upfront that I won't tutor users or hold classes like others do; I think our help pages are able to explain most things just fine. I will, however, be happy to help if you need someone to ask specific questions or to check specific edits. If you think this is what you want as well, I'd be happy to help you. If you think you need something more (no hard feelings!), Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters has a huge list of users also offering adoption.

PS: Please remember to use edit summaries! Regards So Why 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works out for me. I have started this new article named Introduction to National Antarctic Programs and I intend to write an article for each of the country mentioned. In fact, I have already written most of the material and only need to put it into wikipedia. I would also like you to review my style of writing. Thank you again. Nathanian Palmer (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DNR

Good morning! I'm sorry if i write to you, but i don't know to whom i have to ask.... I'm writing to ayou about the creation of a page called "DNR Dreams Not Reality". You reject my request on the editing page cause you say that our username is promotion... But we don't search for promotion! Their producer knows many people, from labels to directors, so we don't need to have a promotional page here! Hope that's clear now! We wanna create a page for the band as founder of a new genre of music, called EUROVISUAL. The project called DNR starts in 2005, when Kira, bass player, since ever artistically influenced by the Jrock/Visual Kei japanese scene, decides to create a band that would be the perfect fusion between two opposite sounds: the european groove and the asiatic melodic lines. A mix between Orient and Occident, a new genre called “Eurovisual”, which transport us in an avant garde universe where electronic and melody meet powerfull riffs made in USA. DReams Not Reality are the first italian band that brings this groove into the music world, so we hope we can create a CULTURAL PAGE (not a PROMOTIONAL PAGE) to let people know something more about EUROVISUAL and Dreams Not Reality. VISUAL KEI it's a musical genre which is very implemented in Asia and now also in Europe, thanks to DNR! Dreams Not Reality have some singles and an album already edited, one more reason for us to NOT SEARCH for promotion. Hope you can give me the opportunity to create this page. Please take note that this page must be a CULTURAL PAGE, not a promotional page. Hope to have some answer from you. In conclusion, i have to ask you a question: why does Cinema Bizarre, for example, or Beatles or Rolling Stones have a page on wikipedia and DNR cannot have their one? for Cinema Bizarre, Beatles etc it's not a question about "promotion"? Sorry, but i don't understand! Tank you in advance for your attention.

Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNRDreamsNotReality (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, my comment was about your username, not an article. Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are a.) the name of a group and/or b.) promotional. As such, you cannot use "DNRDreamsNotReality" as your username. Please note that usernames are not the same as articles. Usernames reflect an editor working on Wikipedia while articles are pages about certain subjects. Creating an username (such as "DNRDreamsNotReality") does not mean that an article by this name will be created or that it can be.

Also, since you want to write something about a subject you are directly involved with, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Then, about an article: Wikipedia welcomes information about topics not already covered but it limits the subjects which can expect to have an article. The relevant guideline for this is called Wikipedia:Notability, in this special case Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please read this link and especially the criteria on this page. Does your band meet at least one of those? If so, do you have any reliable, third-party sources that directly support this?

If the answer to one of those questions is "no", please understand that we cannot have an article about your band (at this time). If the answer to both questions is "yes", please tell me which criterion / criteria are met and what sources you have to support this. If I concur with your assessment, I'd be happy to create an article about your band.

PS: This also answers your last question, i.e. why those other bands can have an article: Because they meet those requirements. Regards So Why 15:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

'Morning!! It'a Laura again. Thank you so much for your answer, now it's all clear! I looked at the link you give me, and i can tell you that DNR meet the first criteria; they are mentioned in a lot of articles, on newspapers and also online. If you give me an email address i'll send you all the links of the foreing and italian press where you can find articles about them. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNRDreamsNotReality (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You can send me an e-mail using the "E-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" on the left side of the screen but it would be easier if you just wrote them here. Just copy+paste the links as a reply in this section. Regards So Why 08:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok! Here we are, with all the links you want! :)

PRESS (some of them are "scan" of newspaper) TokyoNoise http://www.tokyonoise.net/articolo.php?id=57 Teen Rock http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp312/Sekunden-95/dnr.jpg “Gazzetta di Modena” http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/682/giornaleui8.png Teen Rock (again) http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/3025/pg01.jpg

                              http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6605/pg02.jpg

Teen Rock #21 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/35239817.jpg/

                         http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/37900923.jpg/
                         http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/32390633.jpg/
                         http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/15648103.jpg/

Newsic http://www.newsic.it/artisti/body_artisti.php?id=777 Beat Magazine # 45 http://i48.tinypic.com/9t25b4.jpg THOIF & CBOET http://eteam.cinemabizarre.forumfree.it/?t=45434392 French article http://i48.tinypic.com/2s9yo2d.jpg LineaMusica.it http://www.lineamusica.it/2010/06/dnr-l-intervista/#ancora Bizarre Music http://www.bizarre-music.net/publ/kira_dnr/57-1-0-282 Linea Musica.it http://www.lineamusica.it/2010/05/dnr-un-ritorno-a-casa-in-grande-stile/#ancora Bravo Russia http://i48.tinypic.com/4rdy79.jpg “Resto Del Carlino” http://www.dnrofficial.com/aster/notte_rosa_2011.jpg DDTTRH http://www.myspace.com/ddrockhall/blog/543484950 All Star http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/181650_1436647015917_1825258356_769710_2231390_n.jpg

LaCarmina personal blog http://www.lacarmina.com/

La Carmina's blog http://www.lacarmina.com/blog/2011/05/dnr-dreams-not-reality-italian-visual-kei-band-sebastiano-serafini-is-new-vocals-keyboards-member/

La Carmina's blog http://www.lacarmina.com/blog/2011/06/dnr-dreams-not-reality-versailles-cavacon-jrock-visual-kei-concert-italy-seba-kira-axia-sieg-ash-band-photos/

La Carmina's blog http://www.lacarmina.com/blog/2011/05/sebas-band-dnr-dreams-not-reality-opening-for-versailles-in-italy-visual-kei-jrock-band-europe-tour/

Cavacon guest http://www.cavacon.it/ospiti/dnr.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=250&width=400

V-Rock Festival official site http://v-rockfes.com/content2/

V-Rock Official Site - personal page for DNR http://v-rockfes.com/content2/?no=eEfI3NvB3SF1SAcr3QSac9S

SUPPORTS : Official Site http://www.dnrofficial.com/

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/dnrofficialpage

Myspace http://www.myspace.com/dnrofficial

Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/dnr_official

VISULOG http://visulog.jp/dnrofficial/

Italian Support http://it-it.facebook.com/DNRItalianSupport

WorldWide DNR Fan Club http://www.dnr-fanclub.com/

All the Supports http://www.dnrofficial.com/dreamers/join-the-teams.html

Hope that it's enough! Best regards. Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNRDreamsNotReality (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Most of those sources are not reliable (fan pages, blogs, Twitter, Myspace etc.) but some seem to be. Unfortunately my Italian is less than perfect despite my Italian roots so I need a native speaker to help me assess them; hence I asked fellow admin Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) to assist, unfortunately he is kind of busy in real life at the moment, so his / my / our reply might take until Monday. Regards So Why 07:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No problems! We wait 'till today, it's not a problem to wait untill Monday.. Meanwhile, i found others link for you :

New interview made by Visulog (sorry, it's in Japanese) http://visulog.jp/page/next/dnr/index

Tribute to Dave Lepard http://www.dnrofficial.com/home/168-dnr-tribute-to-dave-lepard.html

Rock Eyez http://www.rockeyez.com/interviews/2011-08-street%20symphonies/int-2011-08-bmr-stephano-gottardi-street-symphonies.html

I wait next week for your decision. Thank you! Greetings Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNRDreamsNotReality (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(in Italian) Ciao Laura, io sono Salvio e sono l'altro amministratore che SoWhy ha interpellato. Ti scrivo sia in Italiano sia Inglese, cosicché sia più facile intenderci. Innanzitutto, come SoWhy ti ha detto, soltanto ciò che soddisfà i criterî di enciclopedicità (in Inglese, a proposito, si parla di notability) può essere oggetto di un articolo presso Wikipedia. Svariati sono i criterî che un gruppo musicale può, alternativamente, soddisfare al fine di meritare l'inclusione. Tu hai scelto di riferirti al primo di essi, in forza del quale i gruppi che hanno ricevuta vasta risonanza presso fonti attendibili (in Inglese si parla di reliable sources) e indipendenti dal soggetto sono considerati enciclopedici. Il gruppo musicale in parola, purtroppo, secondo me non soddisfà il cennato criterio, perché di esso hanno scritto fonti, per la maggior parte, non attendibili, trattandosi di contenuto creato da fan o di blog. Esclusivamente riferendomi alle fonti scritte in Italiano, quelle attendibili mi paiono essere le seguenti: Il resto del Carlino, che, però, contiene solo una menzione di passata, La gazzetta di Modena, ch'è un giornale locale (sebbene, contenga un articolo dedicato esclusivamente al complesso) e, forse, questa intervista, che, però, è pubblicata da una rivista che, per sua propria ammissione, copre sia artisti famosi sia emergenti... In breve, io non ritengo che il gruppo soddisfaccia i criterî per l'inclusione.

(in English) Hello Laura, my name is Salvio and I am the admin SoWhy has consulted. I'm writing both in Italian and in English, so that it can be easier for us to understand each other. First of all, as SoWhy has already told you, only subjects meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements qualify for inclusion. There are various criteria a band can meet to be considered notable; one of these is that the band has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Sadly, however, DNR, in my opinion, does not meet that criterion, because it has, for the most part, received coverage from non-reliable sources, such as blogs. Only taking into consideration the sources written in Italian, only three appear reliable to me: Il resto del Carlino, which only contains a passing mention of the group, though, La gazzetta di Modena, a local newspaper (although it contains an article entirely devoted to the band) and, perhaps, this interview, published by a webzine that, by its own admission, covers both famous and emergent artists... In short, I personally do not think the band meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ciao Salvio, grazie per la tua risposta. Permettimi di contraddirti, però... Molti degli articoli che ti ho linkato NON sono scritto da fan ma da persone che hanno assistito a live dei DNR o che li hanno intervistati. Non ho linkato pagine gestite dai fan perchè sapevo benissimo che non le avreste accettate... In questo momento i DNR dovrebbero aver terminato lo show a Tokyo, al V-Rock festival e quindi domani ci potrebbero essere articoli interessanti fatti da giornalisti Giapponesi; ti passerò i link appena li ricevo. Comunque personalmente mi fa rimanere molto male il fatto che nessuno di questi link sia reputato attendibile.. Eppure giornali Russi e francesi che parlano di loro dovrebbero essere segni di interesse internazionale! Inoltre EUROVISUAL è uno stile NUOVO, che hanno portato LORO! A maggior ragione credo che dovrebbero avere la possibilità di poter far conoscere alle persone questo stile musicale innovativo.... Appena ho gli altri link te li passo, sempre che ti interessino e che la decisione di NON permettergli di creare l'articolo su di loro sia definitiva.... Laura

E-mail

Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--OWHMobile (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking...

No e-mail found. Regards So Why 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-sent. FYI from my old e-mail account, my BlackBerry is up and running again. --Onewhohelps (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello SoWhy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this [3], I meant "Nominee," I see how that would be very confusing. Thanks for the cleanup! Dayewalker (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry to see that you have a sizeable amount of opposition to your RFA though. Regards So Why 22:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it was to be expected. Some people are sticklers for content, and I can certainly respect that. No one seems to have any problems with my edits or with my grasp of policy so far, they're all judging me on what I haven't done here. There's not much I can do about that at this point. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

True, you can't rectify missing content creation but you might want to take another look at Dweller's question (and the related follow-up Q11) and add a couple of diffs pointing out such contributions. Regards So Why 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, when I've got some time to pull diffs, I'll answer questions. Some of my answers have been taken in the wrong way, so I'm going to write and rewrite the next rounds to avoid confusion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nom/cand

Ha--now I understand how I made the same mistake: I read Dayewalker's comment, and then simply copied the error. That makes me feel a little bit better. Hey, SoWhy, don't take it personal, right--I really do appreciate Dayewalker's work here (I have great faith in their reports, for instance), and I don't think they would necessarily abuse the tools or something like that, but IMO the claim about content editing (which I think is a necessary element to being a rounded editor with extra power) is not made true. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't. It's Dayewalker's RFA and if people oppose him for things they believe to be wrong with his contributions, I don't agree with their assessment but I am not offended by it. The day I start believing that people should do something just because I told them to is the day I should be stripped of my tools and banned from this project.

I do admit to feeling a little annoyed about those !votes that factor in the fact that I'm the nominator but that's not the case with your !vote anyway. Regards So Why 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait--am I supposed to be against you? If that is the case I'll need to tweak my oppose a bit... It would be easy if we had tables or categories that outline who belongs to which clicque. For instance, I really like Ucucha--so I would need to know how you stand with them in order to decide how I vote on the candidate you nominated. Litmus test: DGG--pro or con? What is your stance on climate change? On WP:CIVIL? On articles on diplomatic relationships between countries? We have to be able to cross reference, and do all these permutations, or we'll never get anywhere. Sigh! Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I like both Ucucha and DGG but then again, I like many people, even a number of people who don't like me.

I'm sorry I can't help you with the clique-thing. Although some people keep on insisting that I belong to this or that clique, I actually have no idea. It seems to change all the time, too. How about that: You can categorize me as belonging to the most exclusive SoWhy-clique which has only one member, me. That way, you won't have to be careful about other people being affected if you denounce my clique as "EVIL!!!!!!11111"

Regards So Why 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I got a clique for you. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it Groucho-y: "I don't want to belong to any clique that will accept people like me as a member"

Regards So Why 17:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Vito Cataffo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vito Cataffo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vito Cataffo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Onewhohelps (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Prospective RfA nomination?

SoWhy, I was considering making a try for adminship and noticed your name at WP:RRN. Would you be willing to review my case and let me know if I've got a shot, and if so, perhaps even submit a nomination? In short, the kind of admin work I would be performing would mainly be non-controversial stuff: speedy deletes, page moves, editing of high-risk templates, category moves/deletions, technical backlogs, etc. As far as where I've worked, I've done a fair amount of hairy template editing in addition to my content work for college football and Utah state highways, along with occasional vandalism reverting, disambiguation, and generally trying to help keep the place organized and clean. I don't recall ever getting into any stressful situations with other editors. Not that I haven't ever disagreed with an editor, but we've always either come to an agreement or taken the issue to the overseeing project's talk page to obtain a consensus on standards and conventions. Thanks for any consideration and/or advice you can provide. De FaultRyan 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help but I just had a candidate I nominated fail yesterday, so you might reconsider asking me for my opinion. Regards So Why 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, but I'd still appreciate your input if you are willing. Besides, our cases are different in that first, I've actually created articles, including one that's gone to GA (Utah State Route 143), several B's and a few DYK's. Secondly, Dayewalker seemed a bit frustrated with WP overall - not the case here. I'm just asking for some keys to the closet where we keep some of the cleaning supplies. If I don't get them, that's OK, too. De FaultRyan 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to give you a fair warning that my help with that could have a negative impact on your chances. If you are happy with my help anyway, I'm of course happy to provide it.

Regards So Why 18:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm super swamped with files in real life at the moment, preparing for tomorrow's act of "SoWhy as a public prosecutor"™; I didn't forget about you, don't worry but if you still desire my help, you might have to wait until the weekend. Regards So Why 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, <insert swear word>! I completely forgot you with all the work I had to do over the weekend. Are you still interested in my help? If so, I'll promise I'll get to it tonight. Regards So Why 12:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. An extended-family issue came up that required my attention late last week and over the weekend. Thanks for getting back to me. If you're still willing to examine my resume, I'd appreciate it, but I don't want to impose on your free time. If you'd like, look it over when you get a chance. No rush needed. Thanks. De FaultRyan 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Still, I offered my help and then didn't do it, so I'm feeling bad about it. I'll go check your edits in a minute, after fixing myself some dinner. On that topic, you might want to fully activate the edit-counter. Regards So Why 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Opted in to the edit counter. De FaultRyan 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done some checking. The good news: Your contributions are solid, you created some nice articles (although it seems to be focused in a single area), your interactions with other users are both friendly and helpful and I didn't see any problematic edits. The bad news: While I think you are fit to become an admin, I won't lie and say you will pass easily. Unfortunately, you have a lot of "simple" cleanup edits, like adding categories and fixing links, things that a sizeable number of !voters at RfA seem to think are not "important" edits. On the other hand, you have almost no edits to any of the administrative noticeboards and pages or to many user talk pages - while too many edits to such pages will lead to people being opposed for hanging around at "drama boards", too little edits to such pages will lead them to question their "need" for the tools. So you got "no need for the tools", "not enough work in admin-related areas", "limited areas of contributions" and "too many minor edits" as opposes that you will almost certainly get if you ran for RfA at this time. I'm not saying that the many positive contributions won't outweigh such !votes but I have to warn you that those opposes will almost certainly happen and, like in Dayewalker's case, may sway the RfA in a negative reaction.

That said, I reaffirm my statement that I think you'd do a good job if you were an admin based on what I saw. As such, if you are still pondering to run and still want it, I'll see whether I can write a nomination for you. You might want to consider the answer to the standard RfA questions before deciding though, since it might be a good idea to know why you want to become an admin or rather what you'd really do with the tools if you were granted them. Regards So Why 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Helpme

Hello SoWhy

If you could help me with your response, I would greatly appreciate it...and Yes...my hard work was deleted...so trying to figure out all the ins and outs before I attempt again. Much appreciation. Laura Mary Clarke (LC)

"Yes, because it was copied from imdb. We do not allow text that is copyrighted by others unless the text is licensed under the the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. Even then though we would not accept the text you used because it's promotional in nature. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Regards SoWhy 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)"

The copied information from IMDB...is my post. I am my husbands (Julian Chojnacki) publicist/manager and write, post, promote all information on IMDB, and other official sites. Can you please explain. Thank you kindly. Laura Mary Clarke Lauraclarke4 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I figured that, which is why I linked you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which explains what and what not to do if you have a conflict of interest. Basically the rule is: Don't write about subjects you are affiliated with unless you really really know what you are doing (even most experienced editors avoid doing that because it's complicated to shut out your personal feelings about the subject and just write based on Wikipedia's rules). As for the imdb text: I understand that you wrote it but when you submitted it to imdb you submitted it under their license which is not the same as the one Wikipedia uses. Also, text used on imdb is usually not written in the tone Wikipedia requires; content submitted to Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view, which also the reason people affiliated with the subject usually fail to do it. Regards So Why 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello, I would be grateful if you could review my deleted edits for my editor review -Magister Scienta ^talk 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look shortly. Regards So Why 08:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent 3RR for Mythical Curse

Hey, there! I see the wisdom in a page protect versus a block in response to the little edit war involving Mythical Curse, Edgepedia and myself. Mythical Curse is young, and relatively inexperienced; everyone deserves a second chance. However, I did note that Edgepedia did not advise him of the 3RR case on his talk page, so he's unlikely to know it took place. I do think he needs to be aware of it; might I suggest a message from you regarding 3RR on his talk page would not come amiss right about now? I'm not sure what the protocol is regarding advising of a noticeboard case in arrears is, and I'm not sure he'd pay much attention to anything I put on his talk page now, given his having quickly removed the two 3RR warnings he received, so I thought perhaps he'd at least pay a bit more attention to a message from an Admin. Drmargi (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I have done so. Sorry for not thinking of it myself. Regards So Why 15:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking care of it. I took a peek at his edit history, and noticed he has a rather aggressive editorial style at times. I'm hoping this has a cautionary effect. Drmargi (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA and for the great commment at the last one. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for that. I was distracted and completely forgot to preview before I saved. <blush> – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happens to all of us. I won't count the times it happened to me, lest I'd have to be completely ashamed ;-) Regards So Why 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA

Hello, SoWhy, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --Orekhova (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, I'm always happy to help but nominating someone is a task that I do not take on lightly, so I'd have to evaluate your edits first. Speaking of which, it's never a good idea to make edits just to reach an arbitrary number, especially for requesting adminship. Instead, you should edit not with that goal in mind but simply in order to make the project a better place. And speaking of the project, please allow me to ask why you chose to focus your editing on the English Wikipedia instead of the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia, seeing that you indicate on your userpage that you speak those languages better than English. Regards So Why 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EEK banknote

Template:EEK banknote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Hi! Several years ago, you offered to nominate User:Cunard for the mop. I've just made them another offer. If you'd like the chime in, the thread is User_talk:Cunard#Not_another_RFA_nomination....--v/r - T P 14:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Help Me on Finney Ross

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello SoWhy,

First my apologies for not having enough brain matter to barely write an email much less traverse Wikipedia.

I have tried twice to contact the previous administrator Fastily...but to no avail.

I wrote an article on Finney Ross (master leathersmith) and it was deleted because I didn't at that time have references. I was told that once I had references the article would be reconsidered for publication.

I found all the references and re-did the article, but it was deleted again within minutes (sighting "no" references).

A few years ago, I was also chastised for not getting all the references "speedily". I told the administrator that I suffer from Aphasia and Dysnomia and nothing comes speedily for me.

I understand that things on Wikipedia need to be done rapidly and that I did not full fill that requirement. But now that I have noted all the references and his importance to the RCA (Precursor of todays PRCA) there is no reason this article shouldn't be published. Also that there is now a book out with Ross in it regarding his knife making. (Amazon.com)

I tried explaining to the last administrator a few years ago, that the RCA history and all who made it possible, is dying, and without it and its history, the PRCA wouldn't be alive and well today.

With Wikipedia allowing anyone to go in and change anything they want, I can't for the life of me understand why this article is being singled out. There is nothing offensive, only fact and importance of RCA history.

I also didn't appreciate the way I was spoken to and treated by the last administrator a few years ago, and told him so. I want to file a complaint, but I have no idea where to go to do that or how. I've spent hours looking for a way to do it, but there is always another blue link to click on that never takes me anywhere. With Aphasia and Dysnomia, to be able to process thoughts and actions takes forever. To navigate Wikipedia is almost impossible.

Any help you could give me would be appreciated more than you know.

Respectfully, Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all: This is the internet, so noone knows whether you are really disabled or not and as such, noone can discriminate against you for it. If you feel discriminated against because of a disability, do not mention it. Trying to argue based on personal characteristics, rather than facts, will never ever work.

That said, moving on to facts: Fact 1: The article about Finney Ross was not singled out. It existed for three years and then it was deleted because it failed the relevant guideline on notability. If you believe that you can provide sources that warrant another review of the subject, you can head over to Wikipedia:Deletion review and argue your case to request that the deletion is overturned. This guide explains how to do it. If you have further questions, you can use the {{help me}} tag on your user talk page with a question or ask me (using the helpme tag might be faster since most people are wary to answer questions asked on other people's talk pages although I personally welcome it).

As for your complaint, if it's been a few years ago, it's doubtful that the administrator is still active so that a complaint will be effective. If you give me a link to the problematic behavior (in your view), I'll have a look though. Regards So Why 11:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unified login

Thank you for your reply, I'll check out the village pump and helpdesk. — Quibus (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know the issue is resolved. A matter of good settings regarding third party cookies. Take care, — Quibus (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Glad the VP people were able to help you :-) Regards So Why 19:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AdminWatch round 2

Hello, you closed the original MfD on my "AdminWatch" page. It has been nominated again here. I respected your original close and trust your judgement; could you please review the new version and let me know whether you think it violates the spirit of your original close? I think it differs in that it is more humorous, and does not name Admins directly. Also, it only contains admin actions that have actually been reversed (rather than simply admin actions I disagree with). That said, if you don't think the page is different enough, then I will request CSD U1 and save everyone a lot of time. Thanks very much. --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. It's been G4'ed. Please let me know whether you endorse the G4, otherwise I plan to take it to DRV. --Surturz (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the previous MFD and the page just deleted, I think the G4 was correct. The previous MFD was closed as delete based on the consensus that the page only served to collect administrative actions that you believe to be incorrect; the new page seemed to do exactly the same. You are not forbidden to create such a page if you want to collect diffs in order to initiate dispute resolution but if you only do it to keep a record of such actions, the previous MFD was clear that this is not allowed. Thus I doubt that DRV will revise the G4. Regards So Why 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the answer I was hoping for, but thanks. --Surturz (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as much but I thought you'd rather want to hear me tell you what I really think instead of what you hope for because that DRV would not have been successful. I know working on Wikipedia can be a tad frustrating at times and that sometimes it may seem as if admins are "out to get you" but in the end, most of us just try to do what we think is best for the project and that includes making mistakes that we regret (or not) and/or that are reversed. I know I have had my share of them. But when others make mistakes or when they act in a way you think is mistaken, there is imho no point in collecting those actions at some page somewhere (except for conflict resolution evidence gathering purposes of course). Many users have learned (sometimes the hard way) to be thick-skinned about the criticism they will face when working here but not all of them. Personally, I really don't see why you believe such pages are worth the hassle. If you want to keep track of "bad" admin actions, you can do so easily on your computer and if you want to share your thoughts with others, there are plenty of (infamous) web pages, blogs, forums etc. where you can do it. Speaking as the naive user I still am in my eight year on this project: Focus on the issues but steer clear of the drama. Ultimately it leads to a much happier experience. :-) Regards So Why 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SoWhy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of GSG9 Adidas boot page.

Thanks alot for deleting it. In case you can't detect it, the previous sentence was laced with sarcasm. I noticed that your reason for deleting it was "blatant advertising." And? Why shouldn't a product have it's own Wikipedia page? There is actually some rather interesting history behind those boots, but I guess the Wikipedia-mafia doesn't give a damn. The more I look into the whole Wikipedia site, the more I notice that it is controlled by the aforementioned Wikipedia-mafia, aka a group of losers whose primary purpose in life seems to be controlling this website like a police-state. What's really funny though, is that despite your kinds' ruling with an iron fist, this site is still almost unanimously regarded as lacking any real credibility. So have fun wasting your time. I guess everyone needs a little something in their lives to feel like they are important, even if it is just dominating a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who told you that insulting people will make them help you but I'm sorry to tell you that they lied to you. Usually, it will have quite the opposite effect but than again, I'm not normal. The page you refer to was deleted more than three years ago, so forgive me if I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but from what I can see, you are wrong. As you will notice (or at least can notice, if you stop complaining about the "Wikipedia-mafia" for a minute), we have lots and lots of articles dedicated to products, so your assumption that I deleted it because it was about a product is incorrect. We do welcome all kinds of articles about notable subjects that have reliable sources covering them, so there is no reason to make an exception for GSG9 Tactical Boot. What we do not welcome though is pages, like the one I deleted with that name, that solely consist of advertising talk, in this case a 1:1 copy of the sales blurb that can be found here for example (which also made it a copyright violation). If you think you can write a neutral article about this subject containing the "rather interesting history" you mention for example, feel free to do so. :-) Regards So Why 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dirk Gently, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assumptions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Renée Felice Smith

The article Renée Felice Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources for notability. Subject only has one notable role.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Sephiroth but I have to contest this PROD. I think someone who manages to get a part as a main character of a major network show is sufficiently notable to warrant an article here. I can't stop you from taking it to AFD but personally I think you shouldn't. Notability criteria are helpful in order to distinguish between subjects that do not warrant an article and those who do but they are not the one and only true way to do so. Regards So Why 13:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Polk Family Tree...

Hi. Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I find it illogical to state that there should be a Polk Family article in order for there to be a family tree page. I actually find the family pages that you link to (Bush Family and Kennedy Family) to be a bit redundant of the individual articles. For example, Joseph P. Kennedy II is notable simply due to the fact that he was a member of the House of Representatives. His father is notable because he was a senator and attorney general. His uncle was a senator and president. His other uncle was a senator. His aunt is notable because she founded Special Olympics. His first cousin's husband is notable for being a movie star and governor of Cal-e-four-na. etc. etc. Now all these individuals are notable and how they are related to one-another is notable, but to require a written-out description for the relations seems like over-kill. By this rationale, there should be one article entitled "Kennedy Family" with sections on JFK, Bobby, Ted, etc. and no individual articles for each person... that makes no sense.

Therefore, if James Knox Polk, William Polk, Leonidas Polk, and Thomas Polk are all notable, then it would seem a well-cited chart showing their relation to one-another would be notable, usefull, and not as cumbersome as a detailed article describing the family relations.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, the issue of notability remains the A-#1 worst thing about participating in Wikipedia.

--Thanks! Eric Cable | Talk 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you make a mistake by assuming that redundancy is a bad thing. Wikipedia has many articles that are "overview" articles that allow people to access quick facts about the people covered which contain links to those individual articles if the reader wants to know more. It's basically what the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline is all about - just that in this case the individual articles existed first and the summary page would be created later. Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale explains it in more detail but the gist of it is this: There is no reason why we should have only one or the other, so why not have both and let the reader decide what serves them best?

Let's take the Kennedy family example:

If I am a reader who wants to know the most basic facts about all members of the Kennedy family and how they are connected, this article will give them to me without having to open up every individual article (which is especially useful for people who have slow connections or pay their Internet by data transferred). If I then am interested in Robert Francis Kennedy, I can still read his article.

It's not a question of notability though - I don't see why a chart of the connections between notable people (which can be sourced easily) should not be considered notable. And there is no reason to have an article as extensive as those examples I provided - those are the work of 10+ years of editing. The point I was making is that a family tree should not stand alone but be part of the family overview page. But it would be sufficient that you include a short piece of information on the subjects listed (like a disambiguation page) together with the tree, so that people reading the article will be able to understand what it's about without having to read the individual articles. Regards So Why 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

When In Rome

Hello SoWhy. I believe you are one of the moderators that oversee the When In Rome (Band) page. My username on Wikipedia is musicwerks and I have been directed via MediaWiki Mail to the Dispute resolution board. I would like to offer some insight as to why the page is under an edit war but I'm afraid my knowledge of how to navigate Wikipedia is limited so I'd like to explain the circumstances behind the edit war here:

When In Rome is a musical band originating in the UK and was formed by myself, Michael Floreale (Wiki ID - musicwerks, ip # 68.93.99.172) with Clive Farrington (Wiki ID - Catfishcat, ip ID's 89.242.220.146, 92.25.181.99, 89.242.214.157) in 1985. The band broke up in 1990 and I reformed the band in 2006 in the USA. Because the 2006 version established itself on the US touring circuit and finished work on a new album (we now have a record contract with Spectra Records USA), and in order to protect the bands interests it successfully obtained a US trademark on the name in 2010. In 2011 the band trademarked the name in the UK as well. In 2009 Clive Farrington reformed When In Rome in the UK. At the time of writing his version has not released any new material, has never performed in the UK and performed 6 shows in the USA in 2011 where (under the terms of our trademark) his version appeared as Clive Farrington and Andrew Mann formerly of When In Rome.

The Wikipedia band page has been used by Clive Farrington to dilute the above facts in order to present his band in a better light. Most of the edits I have made are to correct his many unverified statements. If you note through the view history page most of my edits are reversions to the moderators last edit ( 02:24, 17 February 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ which I believe is an acceptable version of the bands history. I can verify the trademarks and all of the information I have given to you by web links but I don't know how to do this on the Wikipedia site. The reason that I revert the Clive Farrington edits back to the latest moderated version is because we are a professional, working band based in the USA and Wikipedia is a reference used by persons wishing to book the band. I'm afraid that Clive Farrington refuses to recognize our trademark so we cannot settle the dispute with him so I don't know what the solution can be unless the moderators version can be frozen. I do note that you have a policy that states any content that violates any copyrights will be deleted and Clive Farringtons edits do come under that category. I would be grateful for your comments or possible solutions to this matter. March 03rd, 2012 Musicwerks (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a moderator, I'm an administrator. In fact, here are no moderators and certainly no "frozen moderator versions". I do not impose my personal opinion anywhere and I am not the correct person to talk to about this. Dispute resolution on Wikipedia is done by all uninvolved, interested users, something I tried to set in motion by the post to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please make your statement there if you think you have something of value to resolving the conflict to add.

I am aware that you and your former band mates are using this particular Wikipedia entry as some sort of battleground to "correct" each others "mistakes" and that is precisely why Wikipedia strongly discourages people like you editing their own articles. As I said in aforementioned post, I don't know how to stop you and your "rivals" from edit-warring, so I'm seriously considering blocking all of you on sight to stop it. But that's a last option only, so consider the initiation of dispute resolution a chance to avoid this fate.

Whatever your beef with Mr. Farrington, Wikipedia is not the place to fight about it. We do not care about trademark disputes or booking arrangements (as long as they are not itself subject of coverage in reliable sources). We care about having a neutral, verifiable article about notable subjects - and both your edits and those by users edit-warring with you demonstrate that you don't. As I said, please try to contribute to aforementioned Dispute Resolution post. If this continues much longer, there will be consequences and they will apply to everyone involved equally - no matter who believes themselves to be "right". Regards So Why 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When in Rome

Have you actually listened to "The Promise"? What tripe--I couldn't stand more than a minute of it. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer not to be familiar with a subject if I'm somehow involved in dispute resolution - judging from your message, I was right to be ;-) Regards So Why 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Even if I wanted to, I can't watch that video because the stupid GEMA forces YouTube to block a majority of music videos... Regards So Why 20:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Martin Prince.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Martin Prince.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation help

Hi SoWhy. Would you help me translate a few sentences from this article from Der Freitag? The Google translation wasn't very coherent.

Viele Bewohner haben ihre Gitter mit Zeitungspapier abgehängt, um zumindest optisch ein Stück Abgeschiedenheit zu schaffen.
Dennoch ist die Zahl der Cages durch die Arbeit der SoCo deutlich gesunken: 1997 gab es rund 320 registrierte Cage-Etagen, heute noch 100 bis 110, davon knapp 50 illegale.

Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem:

Many residents have hung (put) newspapers in front of the gratings in order to create a kind of visual seclusion for themselves.
Yet the number of cages was reduced drastically due to the work of the SoCo: In 1997 there were 320 registered cage-levels, today there are only 100-110, including circa 50 illegal ones."

If you need anything else, feel free to ask. :-) Regards So Why 21:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Goodvac (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A3

Hi, you made some good remarks on history invalidating speedy anyway. You may want to comment on the talkpage discussion I started on this: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Article history and A3 Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello SoWhy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tinytoons.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tinytoons.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi, you blocked the IP 202.3.77.183‎ (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) for vandalizing a page (after I requested protection for that page). I didn't notice before that this IP is the same as the one hounding me some time ago making racist personal attacks etc. I suspected it to be a sock puppet but SPI didn't find enough overlap, so I'll not make any accusations on a user but can you re-assess the block length per its block log (the previous two blocks were after it hounded and attacked me) and its editing history in Nov-Dec [4]. Fastily gave it a range block after that; this has also been used at the same article recently: 202.3.77.231 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to determine whether those are the same users but since they edit through a educational IP, long-standing consensus is that those IPs can be softblocked at the first (new) offence without having to issue the appropriate amount of warnings, so blocking them seems the best way to go forward. If another admin has evidence that the whole range is misused, I defer to their judgment but I don't think two IPs are sufficient for a range block. Regards So Why 08:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. It is OK, I can report again if they hop IPs... just wanted you to assess on basis that it was deliberate and pointing to me. Thanks anyway since they're done for now. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin nomination request/advice

Hello SoWhy

I got your link from the admin nomination request list. Initially I wasn't much for admin privileges because I'm a bit of Wikignome, but my pet project has me thinking it might be useful and interesting. I quite enjoy cleaning up Notable people lists on cities, towns, and villages. I've cleared five entire states. Afterwards, I watchlist and patrol pages I've cleaned up. I also stay active with Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. Recently, I've been thinking that blocking the occasional IP vandal for a day or two might come in handy for my patrol work. My work also gets me involved with the occasional deletion discussion, when I run across a biography not meeting WP:Notability. I also really enjoy doing the occasional biography page. I'm a psychology professor and therapist, so getting involved with admin dispute resolution is something I would enjoy.

I appreciate your consideration and insight. I think the process at best will be great insight into where I can improve as an editor. My most likely controversy with nomination is my early edits years ago. I got active on Wikipedia creating biography pages for my father and brother. Only one withstood WP:notability, but the process was what got me excited about editing. I've refrained from conflict of interests since then. You are the second editor I've approached. User:Juliancolton informed me that their time is pressed recently and that it would best for them to defer to another volunteer. Cheers, Dkriegls (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Dkriegls (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm happy to help although it might take a few days for a full analysis. On the first glance, I can see two reasons that will likely prevent me from successfully nominating you: The first is that you often do not use edit summaries, especially for minor edits; I am a firm believer in using edit summaries for all edits no matter how small and am not willing to nominate or support any candidate for adminship that does not share this conviction. The other reason that people will likely oppose you in great numbers is that your contributions to internal pages, especially the Wikipedia: namespace, is negligible at best. People expect admin candidates to be familiar with the internal processes before granting them access to tools that rely on those processes; such familiarity cannot be seen from your contributions. As such, even without further checking your contributions, I have to advise against running for adminship at this time until you have addressed those concerns. You might want to read some previous failed RfAs by other users to get a feel for what the community expects from its admins. Regards So Why 08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I thought I was doing good with the edit summaries. Didn't think to get down to the nitty of the gritty with edits like punctuation. Now I know. I guess I will work on getting more involved with discussions, the ones I tend to get involved with on the List and City groups don't tend to generate much in the way of edit counts. I will work on those two areas and come back round when I think I've gotten more involved. Any other insights will be much appreciated, but I understand time constraints. Thanks for the review Dkriegls (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 14:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

David

I have to disagree with your reasoning, but your decline of the previous speedy is enough for me to believe that undeletion was appropriate. Note that I've only restored the revisions since its most recent creation; everything before its previous deletion (27 May 2007) I've left in place. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AndroidMarketPermissions.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AndroidMarketPermissions.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Amlz (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) (via Sfan00 IMG (talk))

Arbitration at Talk:Good Crazy

Hello, I am contacting you because you are the first admin I've found who seems to have some relation to HIMYM. There is a dispute at Good Crazy about whether a not a continuity reference about Marshall being seen smoking a cigarette (presumably his last, per Last Cigarette Ever) is either WP:OR or WP:Common sense. An IP (most recently going by 99.192.61.78) is feuding with me and some other IPs and newly registered users over the matter. I am not reverting the reference back into existence to avoid fanning the flames of an edit war. The IP in question has been reported for edit warring here, nothing has been done yet. They and an ally named User:Eaglestorm have been continually removing the cigarette reference. I was looking for arbitration, but so far I have not found an admin who actually watches the show yet to come in to the debate, I was wondering if you could be that admin. Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that I do watch the show makes it more likely that I have an opinion about the dispute in question than another admin. That said, admins are not moderators, dispute resolution is handled by all users regardless of their status (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), with the exception of Arbitration. I'll comment on the dispute as a normal user but if you really want to judge consensus on the discussion, you should ask at WP:AN for someone who has no opinion on the matter whatsoever. I'm not that guy. Regards So Why 12:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a balance between being knowledgeable and being impartial. I asked another admin User:Gogo Dodo, whom I work with on Survivor articles, for help, but since they don't watch the show, they didn't even understand whom Future Ted is. Anyways, I am going to yield to the majority on this matter, since I have too much other stuff to deal with than to deal with this relatively minor quibble. Since the closing admin on the edit warring notice put the page on full protect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering, could you give the IP a question a warning about civility. Please look at this comment they just made on Talk:Good Crazy [5]. In all my time on Wikipedia, this IP and Eaglestorm are amongst the rudest I've ever seen. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people will occasionally be ruder than they should or would have to be. I would advise that you just react calmly and neutrally when they are and focus on the facts. Wikipedia is a place where tempers are often high and manners forgotten. In such a climate, issuing a warning for some sarcastic comments will only serve to inflame the situation. I don't think a warning is necessary or helpful and I'm sorry to say that I won't issue them just because someone asks me to. Warnings can be issued by any (preferably neutral) user anyway, so there would never be a need to ask me. But in this case, I really recommend walking away from it. Regards So Why 22:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have filed an appeal to the Slakr (the closing admin) to put a range block on this IP in addition to leaving the protection up, I am walking away henceforth though. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Sga-s03e05-0.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sga-s03e05-0.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Martin Prince.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Martin Prince.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Crazy

Unfortunately, it looks like it might be a good idea to reinstate the lock on the Good Crazy page for a little while longer. When the cigarette edit was discussed on the talk page, three editors said it should not be there and one said it should, but we have a persistent editor who keeps adding it. Perhaps this person can be persuaded to discuss the edit on the talk page, but it might be best to lock up the page for a while. 99.192.53.197 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but since I was involved as an editor, I am not allowed nor willing to do it myself. Please take it to WP:RFPP if you believe this to be required. Regards So Why 18:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

‎Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition

You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as willing to help, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution since the Tony Awards are tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I was not online anymore since it was ten past midnight local time. Seems that it was solved though. Regards So Why 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Video game platform discussion

Hi there! As someone who participated in the "platform" discussion at WikiProject Video games, you are probably well aware of the complexities involved in the issue. Thus far we've discussed quite a few points but haven't come to any firm conclusions. One of the participants has suggested that we hold a !vote. Please share your thoughts on how we should proceed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Starting a !vote. If you would like to !vote, one of the participants has already provided several options. Thanks for your help! CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Hello SoWhy, I am considering opening my first RfA and would be very interested in your opinion of WP:DOIHAVEASHOT. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This was two years ago but it will give you some idea where I tend to roam and head towards Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mlpearc. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll be happy to help although - as I indicated on my user page - I am a bit busy at the moment and it might take a while for a thorough check of your contributions. One thing you might consider is filing another request for editor review - if you have the patience for it to conclude. I'll (hopefully) be able to give you a more detailed response within the next 48 hours. Regards So Why 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Sorry I did not see the note about being busy, and no I'm in no big rush, I'll start drafting up a new review now. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 16:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mlpearc (powwow) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Doctor Who in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Doctor Who for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So why?

So why did 28bytes unblock PumpkinSky? For part of the answer see here, quote "You are probably aware that the admin who blocked PumpkinSky said "there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted." 999 of those would be afraid to do so, right?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused as to what you wish to tell me with your message. Please clarify. Since we both speak German, feel free to do so in German, if you wish. Gruß / Regards So Why 13:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I shortened it too much? I asked the blocking admin to unblock. Someone else asked the blocking admin and got the above answer: "there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted." Then I asked Raoul (link above), as probably the only one of the thousand mentioned who was not afraid. I was wrong. 28bytes was not afraid. (I could supply diffs but would rather like to move forward.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that but I fail to see the relevance. Afraid or not, 28bytes made a mistake unblocking someone they previously defended. It might have been the correct decision and it might have been the wrong one, my point was solely that per WP:INVOLVED admins should refrain from performing admin actions when they might be considered involved, i.e. to err on the side of caution. Regards So Why 14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	questions and help
	Thank you for your helpful gnomish presence and thoughtful questions in general, particularly supporting 28bytes! I am not the first one to notice: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 February and 16 April 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Belated Congrats

Well I'm about a year late with this , but congrats with becoming a Rechtsreferendar (did I spell that right). Hopefully I will be able to congratulate you in better order for passing the Staatsexamen. I know we don't cross paths too often anymore, but you have been a wonderful mentor during my time here, and I can't thank you enough for that. Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much (and yes, you spelled it right). Hopefully I will pass the second Staatsexamen, otherwise you can't congratulate me for that (passing the first one was the requirement for becoming a Rechtsreferendar). Take care, too :-) Regards So Why 08:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply re How I Met Your Mother

Hi. To answer your question: I removed it because the character is neither a cast-member nor a recurring guest, and we don't list every guest star who ever appeared on every series.

And this particular guest star was listed only because a WP:COI linksapmmer was going through Wikipedia adding links to his own webpage. I hope you'll respond, and let me know if there's a reason we're singling out this own guest star out of the dozens who have appeared on the show. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page of the article. Regards So Why 20:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hi SoWhy, I was just re-reading your comment at the last RfC about "the problems of any tool that allows one group of users to decide which edits of other users are valid without discussion", and regretting that we haven't chatted in a while. I'd appreciate any insights you want to offer on my talk page any time; I've mentioned some of the issues I have with Pending Changes in various posts at WT:PC2012. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Dan. Unfortunately, due to real-life stuff (particularly the fact that the most important exam of my life is in three months), I'm unable to contribute much to that issue. That said, I also don't see that there is much more for me to contribute to it. What I wrote in the RfC you mention outlines a fundamental problem with the idea of PC/FR, a problem which imho cannot be addressed by any variant of PC/FR unless one would implement a consensus-based system - which of course would render the very point of PC/FR moot. Nevertheless, if I find a few spare minutes, I'd be happy check your posts there. Regards So Why 19:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. It's not urgent. There may be another shorter RfC within the next month. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi SoWhy ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd love to help but I'm currently very busy in real life and unfortunately do not have the time to review you any time soon. Regards So Why 13:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hi SoWhy. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Stadtwerke München for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stadtwerke München is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadtwerke München until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion

Hey I am just writing to inform you I have used your article on the Ten commandments in my new Policy Reference (WP:POREF) essay and would like to run it by you before I make it a permanent fixture. As you might notice if you see the page I have given you full credit for it. I hope you like it and it should be helpful to have it there. Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mention that I wrote them - like you did - it's fine with me. Good luck with your essay :-) Regards So Why 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

-Reply - Thanks It might take ages but i'm working on it! --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible RFA nomination

Hello, SoWhy, I was wondering if you would review me to see if I was even close to being ready for adminship. I edit articles that apply to highways, NASCAR, and, mostly, weather. I also revert vandalism and, when necessary, issue warnings. I have been involved in my fair share of disputes and I will often catch myself wanting to get involved in edit wars. However, I have been getting better about this in recent months. Most of the time when I edit disputed content I will leave a note in the edit summary trying to direct people to a talk page, where I usually participate in the discussion as well. I would appreciate your feedback and a possible nomination if you think I am ready. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately I'm currently far too busy in real life to review your contributions, so you probably should ask someone else. As a tip though: If you revert vandalism, you should probably apply for rollback first, which might also serve as a first test - as far as I know noone who was denied rollback was deemed experienced enough to become an admin. Regards So Why 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. United States Man (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice Needed: AfD MusicBlvd

Hey again, As a relativity new user on here I would like some help with an article if that is okay. Basically the following article MusicBlvd is annoying me personally because from where I stand it represents numerous problems however, with my limited experience as yet I am wondering from another prospective what it looks like. Basically the article was recently created (12 October 2012) and appeared to be about an organisation / company founded in 1995 which was quite successful however, the article author attempted to create a connection between this pre existent company and one that was very recently created with a new web address and social networking presence. Now my problems is simple. Where is the evidence to prove that the MusicBlvd in which this article has made many present day references to and that numerous associative links are being posted with actually is connected to the one in which this article states was founded in 1995 as this article appears to be making a connection between the two. I am just concerned that a creative business owner has picked to name their company after an old one and due to it not fitting the criteria for a Wikipedia article as a small company (in which its present form is) has decided to make references to a preexisting one therefore making the topic notable but then swinging in the bits to make un referenced associations between the old and new ones. I don't know if this makes sense but hope for feedback. (For convenience could you please respond to this on my talk page, thanks.) --Olowe2011 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Rome-old and Juli-eh.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rome-old and Juli-eh.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Cast of "Scent of a Woman"

Hello,

I added four people to the cast credits for the the movie "Scent of A Woman" two of them you deleted...I'd like to know why. After reading your listing of the reasons for deleting an article or edit, I cannot understand why you did so. Would you please explain to me your reason?

Thank you--Jskins (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)11/28/2012

Sorry, you must have the wrong guy. I never edited the article Scent of a Woman (1992 film). Regards So Why 18:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited you .js files

I just edited your vector.js and and monobook.js files. In a comment line, they had {{persondata}}. This caused the pages to show up in two tracking categories... Category:Persondata templates without name parameter and Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter. I only removed the brackets around persondata. Bgwhite (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely forgot that this will happen when I added that comment. Regards So Why 12:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)

You are getting this alert because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) is now up for deletion.

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).

Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you SoWhy! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bernd Brinkmann article

Hello SoWhy!

A few days ago I started to write an article about Professor Brinkmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bernd_Brinkmann). Today, I by chance found out that you have already written an article. My contribution is on hold for review (the adim did not like it in the first instance) - how could we proceed? Could we fuse the 2 articles?

Best regards and looking forward to hearing from you

TPOX TPOX (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) --TPOX (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember writing an article about Bernd Brinkmann and there is no log of that. Could you explain as to what you are referring to? As for having an article about him, I think that should be possible. I'll see whether I can write one tomorrow based on the German one with some sources added. Regards So Why 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TParis

G'day SoWhy. TParis has you listed as an editor from whom he will accept a nudge that he might not be acting as an admin in the right way. I have been involved with him in a conflict for the past couple of weeks that he is prosecuting way too personally. The latest incident is particularly disappointing as it was essentially an attempt by him to restart the conflict after it had fallen into a lull (diff), and an attempt by two other editors on either side of the divide to approach a resolution (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Discussion_redirect until TParis' attempt to close down the discussion, which was shortly followed by the diff above).

At the moment, I'd like to ask that you talk with TParis about the above diff, which was a clear attempt to restart the drama machine and probably WP:BAITING, and ask for him to back off. If he does not, then I'll leave it to your consideration as to whether this is now grounds for recall, but, personally, I have a high expectations of behaviour for admins, and, on top of everything else, WP:BAITING is a clear breach of that.

In terms of TParis' criteria:

I have previously discussed the issue with him at his talkpage at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up and User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Your_actions.2Fcomments_at_RFC.2FU.
The issues at hand have been extensively discussed at ANI, where TParis proposed a onesided interaction ban, which I view essentially as an attempt to silence me.
There has been time to cool down since the issue started, but TParis can not let go.
In terms of actions as an administrator, TParis closed my initial complaint against ANI with poor wording, that has been discussed at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up, where I repeatedly reject what I read as a suggestion that I follow Epeefleche around and fix his problems. I have since had to keep repeatedly saying that I'm not interesting in doing that at, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#TParis.27_concerns_regarding_.22wikistalking.22. The Wikipedia:ANI#Formal_interaction_ban_proposal made by TParis at ANI was also made from an administrative perspective.
The key policy issue here is WP:CIVIL.

As I said, I'm leaving any decisions about whether TParis' behaviour is not what is expected of an admin in your hands. However, I would ask that you suggest that he consider stopping.

I am also posting this message to the other admins on TParis' recall list. Also, I am scaling back my involvement with wikipedia, so I might not see replies very quickly. If you have something you want me to respond to, I'd like to ask that you e-mail me at "daniel.judd@gmail.com". Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree. From what I can see, TParis acted correctly although he might have used harsher language than necessary. Unfortunately, you seem to be having difficulty to accept that discussions did not turn out the way you hoped for and now seem determined to "punish" a single editor when in fact a number of editors were involved. Also, TParis actions were not done as an admin but as an editor, so his recall criteria are not met anyway (you don't have to be an admin to close threads at AN/I).

My suggestions are as follows: You step away from the whole area and let others deal with it; if there are problems that need to be fixed, someone else will notice them too. TParis should - if he reads this - refrain from interacting with you because his language is becoming harsher every time and I don't think he wants to say or do anything he might later regret just because of this. The horse seems pretty dead, you should stop flogging it and TParis should step away from your flogging and the carcass for his own peace of mind. Regards So Why 16:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am watching and I agree. Bob has said as much on the RFC/U and I think the discussion can continue on it's natural path without need of my opinion anymore. I'll wait until the RFC/U reaches it's month and discussion of a close begins before reengaging on it. Danjel and I haven't crossed paths before and I think it's unlikely we will again so it won't be a problem for us to not interact.--v/r - T P 18:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy, consideration and making the message clear to TParis (even if the above seems to indicate that the message still isn't completely clear - "reengaging") was all I asked for. It's a shame that it had to come to this. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame if that's all you took out of SoWhy's comments. I was going to wait for SoWhy to comment, but he hasn't. If read correctly, SoWhy suggests you stay away from the RFC/U and I stay away from you. I politely agreed to further stay out of the RFC/U until it closes. SoWhy, I intentionally didn't respond on your talk page, or the others, that Danjel brought this issue to because I hate seeing other folks get caught up in my problems so this will be my last comment here.--v/r - T P 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my suggestion. There is a part for you, TParis, but there is also a part that applies to danjel and it's basically what WP:STICK is all about. Regards So Why 17:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tajik Wikipedia

The article Tajik Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

questions and help
Thank you for your helpful gnomish presence and thoughtful questions in general, particularly supporting 28bytes! I am not the first one to notice: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 February and 16 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 202nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the Peter Capaldi Article, saves me from making a request Hybirdd (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching the announcement as well and knew it had to be protected pretty quickly. Unfortunately, any Doctor casting will create both cheers and boos and people will use our articles to express this. Hopefully it will have cooled down until tomorrow. Regards So Why 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isabel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isabella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Vice City for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vice City is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice City until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Trevj (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Five years passed since semi-protection was enabled. Can you perhaps lower the settings to "pending changes" to allow everyone to edit? --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, If it doesn't work, please inform me or another admin at WP:RFPP to restore semi-protection. Regards So Why 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the edits have gotten frequently since. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lately, there aren't any good IP edits. Time for semi-protection and revisit for 15 to 20 years? George Ho (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It does look though that pending changes works fine, so reinstating semi doesn't seem like the right course of action imho. But I won't mind if you requested that some previously uninvolved admin took a look and decided something else. Regards So Why 21:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Asking for help at DYKnom: Åke Bonnier (clergy)

Hi! I'm just in the process of reviewing DYKnom: Åke Bonnier (clergy), and I've doubts about the reliability status of a ref in the article, which is a CV. I'm not sure whether the existence of this ref contests the approval of the DYKnom. Can you pls advise on the said DYKnom page? If not, pls let me know so I can apply to someone else. Thank you in advance. --CeeGee 09:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to help but in this case I'd strongly suggest you ask someone who speaks Swedish, since they can actually understand what the sources say. Generally, the relevant policy is WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, so the question would be, whether the article's subject is also the one responsible for publishing the CV. If so, it should be okay if the requirements stated in the policy are met. Who published the CV is a question I cannot determine since I'm unable to read the language, which brings us back to asking someone who speaks Swedish. HTH. Regards So Why 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo Gabba Gabba style review

Last October you pointed out some problems on the Yo Gabba Gabba! page. I invite you to come by and take another look to evaluate removing the two tags you added. Thanks! RossO (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I removed the tags and did some other tweaks. Regards So Why 20:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not it listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Not it. Since you had some involvement with the Not it redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	good for u!!!!!! Peace33756 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlie Chaplin - Modern Times (mechanics scene).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Chaplin - Modern Times (mechanics scene).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)