User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ...

I will simply let my edits speak for themselves ... besides, registering with a username, such as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs), will not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering Wikipediholic" some slack, and MOVE ON.

And, yes, until the recent service interruption, my Verizon DSL IP address (and thus my username) was (talk · contribs).

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists and Sandboxes[edit]

See User talk: for archived discussions

My current sandbox


Um, I might inform the user. As for the articles, they too will head to AFD. Davnel03 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thnx ... they deserve the courtesy of a Heads up! ... I'll comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NZPWI Invitational. — (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple-listing deletions[edit]

Just to keep track for later, since the subject came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastacia Rose: (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NN Cuban contemporary artists[edit]

Reply re: Diane Salema[edit]

Hi. I don't understand your comment on my talk page about a "seconded" deletion. Do I not have the right to remove PRODS when I disagree? Perhaps I've misunderstood the rule on PRODs? Also, in your edit summary you stated I removed the PROD without explanation, when in fact I did clearly state why I was doing so. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a dated {{Prod}} that expires after five days, and there is a {{Prod-2}} that can be added by a second editor if they agree that the article should be deleted (as was done in this case) ... this is not the same procedure as a speedy deletion, which only requires the agreement of an administrator who can "delete on sight" if they agree ... a third alternative is Articles for Deletion, which is the only recourse that is left ... please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the available mechanisms and the differences between them.
The problem with Diane Salema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as I have stated previously, is the lack of independent reliable source coverage of the subject in the established media to verify satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria (which in itself is not grounds for a speedy deletion) ... blogs and MySpace pages do not qualify, as they are self published sources and violate the policy of verifiability ... you removed the deletion tags from the article without making any substantive improvements to the article, but instead added a few links to non-WP:RS websites. — (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. But I respectfully disgree. None of the websites I added were mere blogs: is a news site; Metro is Toronto's largest free daily; Canoe is the Web portal for the Canada's Sun Newspaper Chain. If I understand correctly, even a "seconded" PROD can still be removed by any other editor if they disagree -- right? I hope this does go to an AfD eventually and we can see once and for all if she's notable. While I'm not terribly enthused about the article myself, she's a national TV host and is the subject of legitimate press coverage and meets basic WP:BIO requirements, in my view. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone has already beat me to it ... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Salema. — (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep,and I've already made my case, or tried to. We shall see, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


It looks good to me. Corvus cornixtalk 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well-referenced actor bios?[edit]

Hello again 72.75. Since we were discussing the quality of the referencing in Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), can you suggest some articles on actors that you consider well-referenced? (Consider people who are not super-famous but whose articles you think are worth keeping). What would you say about Elena Fernández, who had an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Fernández in which I and the nominator had a good-natured struggle about sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just about to crash after another 48+ hour manic episode, so I'll deal with Elena Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after I've had some Zs ... off the top of my head, I can't think of any "well-referenced" actor articles, because if I encounter one, I may just "pretty" the {{Cite web}} tags into {{Cite journal}} tags, and then I just MOVE ON ... I never bother to watchlist them, so I'd have to go through my contributions to find one. :-)
As for any article that survived an AfD seven months ago, well, consensus is nothing if not Very Plastic ... one day, the Community wants categories, the next day it wants lists, then it flops again six months later, almost like it's a seasonal thing ... I'd say that both articles are equally unreferenced, but if Some Other Editor hasn't been able to come up with anything better than the subject's own MySpace page (or their current employer's WP:COI violating press release about them) after seven months, then it would probably get several Speedy Delete opinions at an AfD (they ain't votes!), even though it is not eligible for a CSD A7 speedy deletion for beau coup reasons.
But I'd {{Prod}} that puppy in a New York minute if I was reasonably sure that Some Other Editor would follow it with a {{Prod-2}} tag Real Soon Now ... OTOH,

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

In other words, "Just 'cause ya don' see none in plain sight don' mean that they ain't none to be seen." ... Happy Editing! — (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, EdJohnston ... I haven't had time to find well-sourced actors, but I did resurrect this sandbox example ... it may be bogus, but it Looks Good on first glance.
I don't mean to encourage deceptions, but that's an example of one that would not raise a flag, because (if verifiable) it is ineligible for an A7 speedy deletion, although I might flag it if this were the only WP:RS citation, since WP:N requires "multiple" independent sources. — (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello 72. Thanks for your comment about Stepin Fetchit, and the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, over at Talk:Elena Fernández. Seeing that list of stars made me want to go through it to check the quality of the references. The results did not impress me. A quick view of Bud Abbott saw that there wasn't much to go on. Yet we are unlikely to delete that article. How about we start a project called 'The Hollywood Walk of Referencing', that would work its way down that list? Just kidding.. I'm starting to think that AfDs of film articles are settled by hand-waving, not rigorous analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't resist coming up with more ideas on this vitally important topic:
  • Ask for something like a URL to the film's own website, where the article subject is listed in a cast list for the given film, within a group containing no more than 10 actors. I.e. the person is, if not one of the leads, they are high up in the list. With a rule like this we could make Bud Abbott notable (though in his case, he is already). There could also be a cutoff to show notability of the film they appeared in. E.g. require that at least one major newspaper saw fit to review the film, and did so with at least 100 words. Metacritic must have their own cutoff for film notability since they don't include everything; I assume they don't bother including things that have no newspaper reviews since their ratings come by averaging the reviews. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Elle Travis[edit]

Thanks for attempting to fix up the Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. However the new reference link you just added, to, looks to be the most self-published of all her self-published information. Why not just link to her resume? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? What "" link? I have No Idea what you are talking about ... all I ever do is "prettify" some existing URLs in articles, not add new ones. — (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As I clicked on the various reference numbers, I found myself going to the entry at about her Oprah Winfrey appearance, which must be the ultimate in self-published sources. Still don't know if I was completely messed-up, but I made a further edit to the article. See if your (helpful) reference now goes to the IMDB information you hoped it would contain. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm clear now ... I didn't SAVE one edit version. <Sigh!> ... this is one of the few occasions where I actually did add a URL (the IMDb link to the Oprah episode), but that link was added previously by Some Other editor ... I was just trying to provide an example of using {{Cite web}} instead of just an external link, then I got distracted by something else I found in the middle of the edit session, and lost track of what I had saved. :-) — (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay MacFarland[edit]

ROFL! I got these two articles confused:

The first one is now at WP:AfD/Elle Travis ... Some Other Editor also had both of these articles on their radar, and decided that it was time for this one to go.

To me, both subjects are indistinguishable as NN young, blond media personalities ... I have no personal interest in keeping or deleting either of them ... I'll just follow the consensus and require WP:RS from multiple independent sources ... how long we'll wait for them appears to be the current topic of discussion, IMHO.

I'm sure we'll hear from User:EdJohnston (talk · contribs) at the AfD, and maybe Lindsay MacFarland will get tagged for deletion citing WP:AfD/Elle Travis as precedent ... Happy Editing! — (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't take the suspense any longer ... I stuck a {{Prod}} on Lindsay MacFarland ... maybe Some Other Editor will add a {{Prod-2}}. :-) — (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
While checking out Image:Brien Perry Elle Travis2.jpg, I noticed that Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is at AfD as well. — (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay MacFarland (second nomination) was just opened. — (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


pls see the heading on my talk p., and dont expect much comment from me for a week or so. DGG (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy that, Good Buddy ... ohana always comes first! :-)
No hurry ... just thought I'd leave a reminder ping for when you have some time. — (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: DB-repost[edit]

DB repost is specifically for the exact same article on the exact same person. It looked to my that this was a different person. No article has yet existed under the name Lena Yada. I looked over old versions of the Anastasia Rose article, and while both appeared to be about women who competed in the same competition, they are different women, and thus would be different articles. DB-repost is fairly narrowly construed, for uncontroversial and easy to call deletions. This one was NOT as clear cut, and should probabably go through AFD... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ ... is the logs for "Lena Yada" ... it has been deleted multiple times (the admin Nikki311 (talk · contribs) was involved in the AfD) ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastacia Rose ordered the deletion of this article, as well as the two individual articles about the Bella sisters:
This IS a repost of an article deleted by AfD ... it was just a few weeks ago, so it is fresh in my memory. — (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad. The name difference threw me off, but it is clear that this was a bundled AFD, and was deleted by consensus as part of that AFD. I will get on that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thnx ... still stretching yer new admin legs, eh? Congratulations, BTW! :-) — (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... sometimes this damn mop doesn't work quite right, but I'll get it figgered out... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eve Torres[edit]

I read your comment on Suriel's talkpage. The references seem OK to me. Oh, BTW, a promo aired last night and (after all) she is actually going to be making her debut in WWE (on SmacKdown). D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that her "notability" is a bit premature, and lacking reliable sources ... after all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. :-) — (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just read your comment. I agree, most of the references are worthless. I've already removed the Youtube ones for linking to copyright violating videos and have removed some fansite from her infobox. I'm going to have a closer look at the rest of the references as I think most of them probably violate our policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've removed about half of the references for violating WP:BLP and WP:V. I've got a hunch that someone involved in the fansite has been editing there, given the overuse of links to that page and that the site was implied to be 'official'. I'll keep it on my watchlist and see what happens. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply: Thnx ... now that I know it's on Some Other Editor's radar, I can MOVE ON. — (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


I wish I knew who changed the licensing to GFDL and then moved it to commons. That was an odd move, and even weirder that the reviewing admin allowed it and deleted the copy here on english Wikipedia. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion[edit]

I dont understand what is being deleted and why. I rewrote a whole new entry sourcing every line. What needs to be changed and i'll change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamierush (talkcontribs) 20:55, 18 January 2008

Aliya-Jasmine Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted by Lectonar "(CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material; no new info)" ... this was already explained on your talk page by Some Other Editor ... in other words, "changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted", i.e., the subject does not meet the basic notability criteria. — (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The page has now been re-edited and I would like someone to have a look at it and reactive it. User:Jamierush/Sandbox Jamierush (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
ROFL! Those links are just a mirror/clone of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article before it was deleted, so they are useless as references (Wikipedia by definition is not a reliable source because "anyone can edit it") ... your latest effort still fails WP:BIO, and it would still get speedy deleted ... BTW, you screwed up the ISO 8601 date formats, listing access dates still months in the future. — (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


FYI Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_January_30#Image:Copper_snuffbox.jpg Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have sent them an email and asked them to participate. — (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, sorry about that looping. Forget to tell the bot to skip pages w/ the header already on. You bring up an interesting point. I'll have to make a list of IP users who've opted out. Mønobi 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for examples of using WP:SHORT

{{essay|WP:DTTR|WP:TEMPLAR}} (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New template: Olfprodfull[edit]

Moved to User talk: — 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Talk page messages[edit]

Please do not WP:CANVASS as you have by mass-messaging users on their talk pages regarding the usage of one particular template. This would be especially inappropriate if they had no interest in the issue. A better option would be to post a note on a page which you think affected users would have watched. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF ... These are editors who have either (a) contributed to articles where I am testing the template, or (b) have worked with me on other projects ... I have even set up a special area to record their feedback ... how is one supposed to gauge WP:CONSENSUS on an issue without soliciting comments? — (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that these users are ones who will be interested in the issue. In future you could consider:
  • A page that they will have watched (the template talk page)
  • Village pump (proposals)
  • Other centralized discussion venues
I would say that them working with you on other projects does not necessarily guarantee their interest, though. Oh, and the template seems a good idea :) GDonato (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx fer the suggestion ... I'll post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). :-) — (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

copied to Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies —16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oldprodfull and Cuban artists[edit]

The Oldprodfull template seem like a good idea. I like how it provides the reasons why it was tagged for prod deletion in the first place. As for flag-bio, there are already templates to contact a user about the speedy deletion of their article (they can be customized to whatever speedy deletion criteria it fails). The talk page template may be of use, though. [[User:|Nishkid64]] (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

copied to Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies —16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuban artists and Oldprodfull[edit]

Hi I did look at {{oldprodfull}}.

  • It's very large. (At least, the one you pointed me to, on Talk:Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido).
  • Consider waiting for some positive responses (at least from the people who know about the Cuban Artists debate) before deploying it outside the realm of the Cuban artists.

I was happy with the way you approached this debate, in that you tested the waters before resorting to the formal deletion mechanisms. You also used PRODs in a judicious manner, and you kept everyone informed about what you were up to. I'm disappointed that you took some negative responses to the PRODs as a reason to leave the field. (Or at least that's how I perceived it). With the Cuban artist articles, I felt you were undertaking some kind of a social experiment that might be instructive for use elsewhere in Wikipedia.

The problem I perceive is that the Cuban artist articles don't have editors who are 'positive champions' who really look forward to a good set of surviving articles. The closest thing to positive editors we've managed to recruit were the experts from Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts who came over to offer some opinions. But I perceive that they were doing us a favor rather than coming to offer enthusiasm for Cuban art specifically.

So I'm left not knowing for sure what to do about the Cuban artist articles, nor your {{oldprodfull}} template, nor the debate on how to triage the articles, which I haven't (unfortunately) had time to do much on since I performed the original Google searches on the A-D artists. I think the people who've worked on this task view the effort as 'homework' rather than fun.

Do you think you have enough energy left to do a little editing on Cuban art (the article)? I think there is a link there to I imagine you're in a good position to list all the pros and cons of including that link! All this Google searching must surely improve your awareness of the main themes of this field. Can you tell that I'm winding up to give my sermon on deletionism? (just kidding.. :-). EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thnx fer your continued support, EdJohnston ...
"Cuban artists" checklist was a "temporary" OCD project for me, which has lost its appeal due to lack of interest by other editors ... Template:Oldprodfull grew out of the project, but it has applications far beyond this little corner of Wikipedia, and the "Cuban artists" checklist was just a convenient opportunity to give it some Real World testing ... I've switched to Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed (articles with a {{Prod-2}}) for my beta-test articles. :-)
  • The example I provided may appear large, but the default is just the template with no parameters, which is a no-brainer to use.
  • The template is for more than just the "Cuban artists" checklist, and the feedback is recorded at Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies.
My manic-depression is entering the "down" phase (I have a birthday coming up) so I'll be pretty "inactive" for the next few weeks ... I think that my Flag templates and {{Oldprodfull}} can stand alone for a while .. I'll sit back and watch to see if other editors embrace their use.
Happy Editing! — (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

copied to Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies —16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If you still have a twinge of interest in the setting of standards for artist articles, take a look at this unbelievably thorough analysis of a painter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Frigerio. They are not even voting in an AfD, and they are going into a very patient and wide-ranging analysis of this guy's work. I think somebody over at that WikiProject knows what they are doing. (PS I hope this is not canvassing; I'm not voting there myself. It's just some evidence of the thoroughness and patience at that WikiProject). See also the note on the essays writtten by User:Tyrenius. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx fer the link, but my evil twin has lost interest in that group of articles, and is currently looking for new windmills at which to tilt. :-) — (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I just noticed you created this template, and posted my thoughts about on the talk page. Terraxos (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied there as well. — (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


On User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf, said:

Hello, ... I hate to bug you, but would you please block (talk · contribs) for a few weeks? ... I know that it's a school IP, but this account has done nothing but vandalism, and I have just reverted their edits to Grace Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the second time in two weeks ... Thnx! — (talk · contribs) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, please note that KnowledgeOfSelf has retired Wikipedia.. so please ask another admin at WP:AN or you could ask anybody in the administrator category just a quick few people that might be able to help: User talk:Ioeth User talk:Rudget and User talk:Delldot however, I would suggest leaving a message at WP:AN instead as you would get a faster response with many administrators watching that page. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP address[edit]

Gee ... this one lasted nearly two months! :-)

See y'all at my new IP account! — (talk · contribs) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Newton Estape Vila[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Talk:Newton Estape Vila requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hatoulah (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)