User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 14

Alpha,

On a personal note, there's been a lot of stories like this one on how Wikipedia is losing editors and these kinds of arguments are why people are discouraged from a volunteer process that's suppose to be fun and collaborative. I do hope you stick around, because the community needs you!! I don't know you, but reading this whole string makes me angry and sad at the same time.

Anyways, what I'm actually here posting for. I uploaded a SAS logo image for use on the SAS Institute Wiki. My image was removed due to duplication with pre-existing images. You also uploaded a high-rez version, which makes it an orphan anyway. With your permission, I'd like to edit the template/license information on your image. I work for SAS Institute and I was using a lot of specific language to help protect our logo on the version I uploaded. With your permission, I would like to preserve that language/template information on the new image. I didn't know if there was a specific reason it was changed or if there would be any problem with that.

As a side note, I'd also like to invite you to review the draft SAS Institute Wiki I'm writing here that is more updated, neutral, complete, encyclopedic, etc. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and am soliciting as many Wikipedia community members as possible to participate, to ensure the community feels I am making improvements and not adding promotional language (actually removing promotion in some cases).

Analytics447 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Hello Analytics447, I reuploaded the image in .png format, the old image was in .jpg format. As it was a logo, it should be in .png format (See Template:Should be PNG). When I reuploaded the image I tagged it with Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark because the image doesn't meet the Threshold of originality for it to be copyrighted. However, the image is still trademarked, which is separate from copyright. I'll take a look at your article. Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much! In the future I'll upload as .png. The content I wanted to preserve on the SAS logo image was the logo tag and some of the text under Other Information, Purpose of Use, etc. in the Summary template. As an editor with an affiliation with the topic, I appreciate you taking a look at the draft SAS page. As my bio states, I'm familiar with the rules and committed to only keeping content the community feels is an improvement.

Analytics447 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Very nice work on the draft. I don't see any issues with the content. I think the article relies a little too heavily on first party sources, but other than that, I don't see anything concerning. I agree, it is much more neutral than the current article. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The Corporate Culture section should offer a few more third-party sources. Thanks for giving it a lookover. This is the template I'd like to put on the SAS logo. Let me know if there's any problem with it. I'll be posting the Wiki on the SAS Institute Talk page as well before posting it so I'm not the bull in the china shop. Analytics447 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
Hmm, I am not sure the license you want to apply to the image is correct. The SAS logo is fairly simple, much like the Adobe logo. Because the logo is so simple, it really doesn't meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. Therefore the nonfree logo license really doesn't apply here. The image is still trademarked though, so no one can use it to impersonate the SAS Institute. You could change the license, I am just not sure how appropriate the non-free license would be. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Alpha. Ok, I'll post the updates without the copyright tag. My concern was primarily with the language "is therefore in the public domain". This way I'm not posting a license that claims the logo is copyright protected, just removing language that may be misleading to some readers.Analytics447 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analytics447 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you actually did the contrary, removing the PD-textlogo license and adding a fair use rationale, while fair use is not permitted at Commons, thus nominating the files for speedy deletion. As an administrator at Wikimedia Commons I reverted those edits. Jcb (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove the box or the bunny gets it!

File:Steinway concert grand piano.jpg

Remove the "Retired box" from your userpage this instant or I will drop this grand piano on the bunny.


Seriously. A zillion people appreciate you here. If you have an argument with a couple of people on the street, you don't get in a spaceship and fly away to another planet, right? Ok. Bad analogy. Just remove the box or the bunny gets it! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Funny. I see a piano about to get stabbed by some rather incredible rabbit ears. ;) @AQ; what Anna said. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Heh, done. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

your AFC page

is restored, need anything else?

Stuff that needs to get done.

Hey. In case you're looking for things to keep you busy, I just noticed you were a file mover (not true, I knew you were one already because I track the user right). Well a few days ago a massive backlog sprung up out of nowhere, at the time of this writing there are 175 items at Category:Incomplete file renaming requests and 245 items at Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. I could use some help there, if you're interested. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I occasionally look at that. The thing is, every time I start editing again Cunard (talk · contribs) decides nows the time to comment here again. (This next time I plan to flat out ignore him) I'll take a look and see how I can help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's fine if you ignore him. I can handle responding to him if he posts on this page again. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, did you get done what Sven asked you to do? Huh huh? Didja? Huh hu? DIDjahuhhuhuh? WELL? DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU?!?!?!? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
hah, yes, see [1] I have moved a file. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Education Program

Hi Alpha Quadrant! User:Maple_Leaf has also volunteered to help out the Canadian copyright class -- can you also add yourself to the section on the course page page that says "Online Ambassadors" that currently has nobody? I'll have the professor and Campus Ambassador reach out to you on your talk page, or you can email me to get forwarded a thread about one particular student who needs help. Thanks again! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember talking with you about that yesterday in IRC. I'll do that. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve G. Jones Page

Hi Alpha Quadrant! I'm writing my first article, so I'm learning. I believe the subject is notable, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. In this case, is citing information directly from television networks un-reliable? I figured that would supplement some of the other information -- because I feel like having four million YouTube views is relevant. Anyway, your feedback is helpful, so that thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.217.76 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Citing television networks is good. Sources 5, 6, 8, and 9 are reliable third party sources. However, the rest are either affiliated with the subject (first party sources), or they are unreliable. News sources, books, magazines, newspaper articles, or any other reliable media are ideal. The sources do not have to be online. Youtube isn't considered a reliable source (sources 4 and 7). Amazon, Barns and Noble, and his official website are affiliated with him and are therefore first party (sources 1, 2, and 3). As this is a biography of a living person third party sources are preferred. Source 10 is considered reliable, but it needs an exact URL (i.e. instead of http://wikipedia.org use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ). I would also suggest expanding the article a bit more, to better demonstrate his notability. Once those issues are addressed I will accept it for you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is SO helpful. Thanks! I'll go edit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.217.76 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated! Please let me know what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steve_G._Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.174.77 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

One question -- I got a document from the organization for which he won the award at the end of the article, but I don't know how to cite it. It's an emailed document verifying he won, a PDF from that year with the other recipients. What should I do with it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.174.77 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Has the document been publicly published anywhere? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was published in a program when they announced the award, but they don't list these things on their website. I even called the organization and they sent me the document in an email! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.174.77 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if the document was published offline, it would be easiest to use Template:Cite journal. If the only existing copies were sent via email, then you might not be able to use it as a reference. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:12, 18 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) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link tool

Thanks! I'll see if this can be of use in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkmore RFC and similar AFDs

Those AFDs shouldn't have never been closed early. It's a clear relisting as non of the two keep voters has no valid reason for keeping the article other than attacking the nominator for doing a massive AFD bunch of non-notable clubs. I think they should be DRVed so they can be relisted. Thanks Secret account 04:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to DRV the articles. I had initially relisted some of the discussions, however S Marshall closed them as keep soon after [2] [3] [4]. After that incident, I closed several similar discussions as keep. It has become abundantly clear there is a dispute over when a debate should be relisted/early closed/closed in general. It is therefore impossible to have every editor agree with my actions. In the future, it would be best for me to rely on policy and my own judgment. In any case, I am not the only editor who closed this type of discussion, so the best bet would be DRV. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I would add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Montenegrins. No clear consensus (3:2), and the page redirected without even a comment on my statement about the policy breach. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Czarkoff, the discussion you linked was on a redirect that you nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion. Articles for Deletion is not the right venue to discuss the deletion of redirects. Discussions on redirects need to take place at Redirects for Discussion. This is clearly defined under under the Speedy keep guidelines. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I would really like to thank you for accepting my article and moving it to the main space.Shalini61290 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I would like to create a page for my company. I already saw other companies on wikipedia, and I tried to copy that style, but the page just gets deleted. Could you please help me with this? Rorczi(talk)

Hello Rorczi, you might consider creating a article draft through the article wizard. Once you create a draft, I can help you write an article that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm puzzeled by an action you took.

Hello. I have a question for you. You recently approved a request to redirect a non-existent article Xiaomi Tech to Xiaomi Phone thereby prematurely voiding any attempt for a user to create the article on the parent company. It would be the same as if Samsung being redirected into Samsung Galaxy S. I'm not understanding this logic. Can you explain? Planetary ChaosTalk 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There currently isn't an article on the company. Any user can overwrite the redirect with an article. Until an article on the company is created, a redirect is sensible. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I would think that since most articles are created by new users who do not understand what's or how's to create an article, it would be conceivable that any user would not know to create an article if it redirects to another article. For this purpose, Red links would be the way to go. Also, WP:UNDERLINK say's this, "Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist."

From, WP:REDLINKS "A red link, like this one, signifies a link to a page that does not exist in Wikipedia. Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow." I just think it's premature to outright redirect the would be article just to avoid a, "redlink". Planetary ChaosTalk 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think an article should be there, then I'll write up a stub article over the redirect. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think the company is notable yet. The phone created by the company appears to be notable, but currently all the coverage on the company is on the phone they released. Until the company does receive non-trivial significant coverage in reliable sources it would be best to leave it as a redirect. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving of Early AfD closures

Hi. You manually archived Early AfD closures to User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9#Early AfD closures, but I noticed that you omitted the subsections that I added. I wrote them to add background to the discussion, particularly Hammersoft's and your assertions that many AfDs had been closed early by other users. Would you explain why you removed them? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

By the time you joined the discussion, it had been over for almost two days. Rather than continue another round of a discussion over the same issue, it seemed quite appropriate to archive it. Also see my comment above. It pretty much sums up the conclusion of the discussion. Your links and comments from other editors have demonstrated that there is a disagreement beyond just this discussion. Changes should be made at WT:AFD, not here. Also per the talk page guidelines

Policy permits me to remove comments from this talk page without archiving them. The comments are still available in the page history if anyone is interested in them. I read the comments you added, but the links you provided I had already seen through my own search of the talk archives. I still came to the same conclusion. Hammersoft's statistical comments were accurate, as many discussions are closed early, despite the fact that there is an 11 day backlog at AfD. Arguing to change this fact here is not the correct venue. I am not the only editor making early closures. WhatAmIDoing's addition to WP:AFD was not unilateral. The information he added is already in WP:SK. Now that I believe that answers all the points in the discussion. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You are allowed to remove comments from your talk page, but I wanted to know your reasoning.
Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A snow keep is not a valid speedy keep rationale. According to WP:SK, a snow keep is a valid reason for an early closure. Speedy and early closures are different. Speedy closures have to meet one of the criteria at WP:SK#Applicability. Early closures are justified by Ignore all rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The difference between the two is explained here. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Per editing in Star Trek: The Original Series, I must have overlooked the possibilities of properly using IMDB.com as a source. Typically, articles have used IMDB.com as a citation for trivial or commonly-knowledged fact. However, I did not look at the "References" well, and I apologize for this. I checked the references, and IMDB is used only as a citation for IMDB itself ranking on notable Star Trek episodes. That is not like articles of soap opera entities that cite trivial or commonly-knowledge fact with IMDB. In other words, IMDB, a user-submitted website itself, is appropiately used for its own rankings on episodes. To make up my mistake, I will have added {{peer review}} in the talk page since that article hasn't had one already. --Gh87 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I agree that IMDb is extremely overused in Star Trek articles. I removed the tags because I wasn't sure what section you were concerned about. As the article is, for the most part, adequately sourced. In any case, no harm done. Thanks for tagging it for peer review. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Medicine_Club

Hi. Can you look here and determine what to do? I dont get involved in AFC much but last I checked, the proposed articles got posted on the talk pages. You marked the talk page CSD G7 which I've deleted but unsure what to do with this particular page.--v/r - TP 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the talk page under G7 because the author blanked it. A few minutes later, the author recreated the article in the Wikipedia namespace. I'll ask the creator about his intentions with the submission. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisting

Hi AQ. Thanks for all the work you do relisting AfDs and RMs (and probably countless other areas that I'm not involved in), but I'm just dropping by to say that I wasn't sure about your call on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Rufer. Since my keep vote, there have been three further votes: two keeps, a weak keep and a merge. I think that an admin would have closed the discussion as keep had you not relisted it. I'm not asking you to undo the relist or anything (another week can't hurt), but I think there was sufficient consensus there for it to be closed. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that arguments for deletion have ceased. Since you found a significant number of reliable sources, it is quite likely the discussion will close as keep. I agree that some administrators would have closed that one as keep, rather than relisting it. Then again, there are some admins that would have relisted. If you would like, I'll reverting myself. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that some admins would have closed and some would have relisted. No need to revert, this was hopefully just something you can take on board when making relist decisions in the future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AFC question re notability

I'm reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emotional amoral egoism and the main problem I see is that it stands very little chance of surviving a deletion challenge, as searches disclose only one reference to the theory in books/scholar other than works by the author of the notion. I'm not sure how to proceed given that the decline option doesn't seem to have a way to generate an appropriate message. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Submissions can be declined with a custom reason by using |d|insert reason here|. I would probably decline that one and leave a comment explaining that the article is mainly based on original research and explain that there doesn't appear to a significant number of reliable third party sources to demonstrate the topic's notability. There are many prewritten decline reasons not listed in the reviewing instructions. You can view a complete list at Template:AFC submission/comments. I hope that helps you. Thanks for helping out in Articles for Creation. We really do appreciate it. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Just don't expect me to review sports or band articles. :) Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria

hi.. i had recently written an article on the economic survey of india 2011 and had given it for a review but it seemed that it did not meet the Wikipedia's criteria. i just wanted to know what is the Wikipedia's criteria and where did i go wrong. i would like to improve my article and by knowing this info. it would help me a lot to do the same. thank you, Raj2026 (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Raj2026, I see that you are in the India Education Program. I have tagged your submission as a draft, so you can work on it over time. I declined the submission, because it is written with personal opinions, rather than just on facts. For example:

the sentence is an opinion. Someone can argue against it. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles should be written in a neutral point of view. All information in the article should be cited with reliable third party sources. Information that cannot be cited is considered original research, and should be removed. If you have any more questions I would be more than happy to help you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

hi Alpha_Quadrant, thanks a lot for your guide. I understood my mistake and will rectify it very soon. it would be an honour and a great pleasure to take help from you...thanks a lot..:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj2026 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The holding back the tide award

The holding back the tide award
For your determined, patient, and longstanding work, with only around half a dozen similarly committed and selfless assistants, to deal with the single most important backlog on Wikipedia, namely the one near WP:AfC.

"A Wikipedia without new articles is like a salad without sausages" -- Chzz. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

KV-4 tank - via article creation

Personally speaking, I think the KV-4 tank article should have spent more time in development before being moved to the article space. Sourcing and grammar being main issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The article establishes notability, and there is a bit of sourcing. Right now Articles for Creation is extremely backlogged. If that weren't the case, then I would have asked the author to fix it before accepting it. Since there is a massive backlog, and the article doesn't have any immediate concerns (well, sourcing could be better), I accepted the submission. Thanks for copyediting the submission. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination)

Hello Alpha Quadrant, just wished to thank you for your contribution to this discussion and notify you that I have added a comment to the discussion. - Msquared3 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

BMI Appraisals

Hello Alpha,

Ok, i will dig up online news sources, but they will be in chinese. However, hope that will better satisfy wiki's requirement. Also, I would like to ask for three weeks grace period prior wiki exercising deletion on 10-23-2011, in order to gather resources, as I just learned of this deletion notice on the 21st and not the 16th when wiki posted such notice. also, i am expecting back and forth communication between you or with Anna for some assistance. your understanding is appreciated.

thanks,

Bmi bmi (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that another editor has removed the PROD. Preventing deletion is beyond my control. Anyone can propose that the article be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


How to continue Dispute Resolution process on survey in Brazil?

Hello Alpha Quadrant, before I was blocked, I promised user:Jess (see "On the rest I will react later" in [5]) that I will come back to answer his/her point in dispute we had related to survey in Brazil [6] [7][8][9]. I'd like to kindly ask how could I follow my promise to reach consensus in this dispute w/o violating any WP:rule. Thanx in advance --Stephfo (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Jess believes the information gives it too much undue weight. I would suggest avoiding the evolution related articles for the time being. There are often heated debates on this topic, and editors often get blocked because they are always involved in conflict and loosing their cool (leading to Disruptive editing). WP:UNDUE is fairly unclear. On religious/scientific/political debates, editors will often give their own interpretation of what is, and is not, undue weight. Because editors tend to edit war and try and push their point of view using the undue weight policy, discussions can get fairly hostile. I tend to avoid editing these articles for this reason.
If you enjoy editing these articles, I would strongly suggest you start out by editing less controversial articles (like Star Trek). There are a large number of maintenance tasks, such as cleaning up link rot. No editor in their right mind is going to revert a simple style cleanup edit, unless the edit made a mess of something :). If you are looking for a good way to learn policy, reviewing Articles for Creation submissions is a good way to learn. Even though I had used AfC before registering an account, I didn't know half the policies. Through my experience in reviewing, I learned policies over time. If you are interested in working at AfC, I would be happy to show you the process. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comment, however how to deal with situation if you believe that some articles are promoting a POV that is highly biased and intentionally portrays certain views or group of people as inferior without even giving a chance to present information that does not fit this manipulated picture? I agree there are often heated debates on such topics, but on the other hand, if your conscience condemns you that there is something wrong with just letting it be so, are there no means one can legitimately apply within Wikipedia (w/o violating any of its valid rules) to try to do something about it?
Nevertheless I also agree it might be worth to try to gain more experience by participating in activities you enlisted, my problem however is that I might not fully understand your language when you make references to AfC process, maintenance tasks related to link rot, etc. Pls. advise on more details, if possible. Thanx in advance --Stephfo (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that an article is violating one of Wikipedia's policies, you can bring the issue up on the talk page. Lay your argument out neutrally and calmly. Explain your reasoning, and how the issue violates Wikipedia policy. There is a process called Articles for Creation. It allows new users, or users who don't have an account, to create articles. These articles are reviewed by members of the Articles for Creation project. Reviewing articles through articles for creation is one of the best ways to gain experience and policy knowledge. Many articles have style issues that need to be fixed. For example, many articles have bare urls, they may need to be re-categorized, or they may need better references. Alternatively, you can work on writing new articles. Requested articles contains a list of articles that readers have requested be written. You may be interested in taking a look there. All of these tasks will help you gain more editing experience. If you have any questions, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

MedCab

Hey there. If you're free, could you have a look at this MedCab and see if you could handle it? It's starting to rot there at the moment. :) Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm free at the moment. I'll take a look, and see what I can do. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Article on Paris Lees

Hey, you rejected the article I created on Paris Lees on the basis that she is not a notable person. How many more external links do I need to provide to show that she is someone of note, because I need to have this article live by midnight, and have been having problems with it since yesterday. Please let me know if you can help :) MooseyJake (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A number of sources appear to be affiliated with the person. The article needs reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally, there is nothing in the article that suggests that the person meets the notability guidelines for organizations. Has the person won any major awards, or made any major achievements? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, but thats because she hasnt started doing the PR trail yet, this page is meant to be a prelude to that. I can link multi references to her journalistic and activist work, but its all going to be within the same forum - rights for trans individuals. Do I need to link all of the pieces she has written or been included in?
She got backing for the first magazine for/by the Trans community, and is the Editor-In-Chief of it. That means that she represents the entire trans community, within the UK, and I would say that makes someone pretty notable, as it ticks the second point on the "Any biography" bit of the notoriety page
Cheers for the help btw :) MooseyJake (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources need to be independent of the subject. If she has worked or written for a new source, then they are affiliated with her. Could you add reliable news sources that are not affiliated with her? Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple from PinkNews on her activism stuff, but the Marketing for META hasn't started yet, so there isn't alot available, but there is the piece she did with Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/episode-guide/series-1/episode-263), a commentary on it (http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/3267), and a rather funny news story of her stopping a thief (http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Handbag-thief-nabbed-high-heels-chase/story-12235574-detail/story.html). Would these be sufficient? MooseyJake (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, those sources appear to be reliable. However, the article still needs to demonstrate the topic's notability. The subject needs to meet at least one of the notability guidelines criteria. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
She is in the process of creating the UK's first Transgender Magazine, due to have its first edition next month. Would it be worth waiting til then, or is that still not going to be big enough to consider being included? MooseyJake (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it may be worth waiting. If there is a large amount of coverage over it, then it would help establish a clear notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

THanks for the reviewing

Hi, Alpha, I am the writer of the article Jasmine Zhang. Thank you very much for your reviewing. I revised the article according to your suggestions and have submitted again. It's my first time of writing wiki pages. Please feel free to let me know the inappropriate words and citations. Have a great weekend. Lovetalk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetalk (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed or reworded all non-neutral statements. The "early life" section needs to have at least one source. Right now, none of the information is cited by a [[WP:IRS|reliable source. As this is a biography of a living person, all information should be cited with reliable sources. Once this issue is addressed, I believe it can be accepted. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Alpha, Thanks for the reply. Here are the summaries of my revision.

1. For the early life, I cited an magazine "Film & TV Digest", by which Jasmine Zhang was interviewed in 2006. 2. Among those citations I listed before, there is a book, that I suppose is a reliable source. 3. For other sources, I cited those from different Web. Some of them are online version of certain newspapers. Others are from the most famous News Portals in China. I do have photocopy of newspapers to support those, but I thought online source is easier to fact-checking. If you give me your email, I can send you those photocopies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetalk (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have accepted your submission. It appears all the article statements are now cited. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi, regarding the closure of the AfD for International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, I find your keep result perplexing. Did you ascertain that there was significant coverage of the organization in reliable secondary sources, or was the result based on a perception that there was clear consensus between the participants of the AfD that the article should be kept? If it was the former, please take a few moments of your time to direct me to the sources added to the article or mentioned in the AfD that you felt tipped the scale in favor of passing the requirements at WP:CORP. If it was the latter, please note that WP:NAC, which you cited, instructs that non-Admin keep decisions be made when the discussion establishes that consensus is "beyond doubt a clear keep," whereas in this case the keep-to-delete ratio was 5:3. My feeling right now is that you should reconsider your result and revert it so an Admin can review the process.—Biosketch (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion appeared to have established that the organization meets the notability guidelines for organizations. In addition to the sources mentioned in the discussion, see this Google news search. There appears to be a significant amount of sources to establish notability. Yes, many of them are not in English, but that doesn't make them unreliable. Articles for Deletion is not a vote, the purpose of the discussion is intended to attempt to establish the subject's notability. If the notability cannot be establish, the article is deleted/merged/redirected. If it is, the article is kept. Also note that WP:NAC is an essay, not a policy. There is no policy prohibiting a non-admin from closing discussions that are not unanimous. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is a WP:NACD, which is guideline, not merely essay. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It says "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." That debate was 3:5 split (keep:delete), so it would have been wiser to let an admin close it. Also, another editor who voted neither way commented that the sources were not really independent. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have left a note at ANI for an admin to re-close it, should they wish to do so. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources mentioned by User:RolandR are reliable third party sources. The issue brought was addressed. There were no other arguments for deletion. Like I said above, AfD is not a vote. WP:NACD says that it is often better for close calls to be closed by admins. It never says non-admins cannot close them. Posting an ANI thread is quite unnecessary, as there is no incident here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact, while the sources themselves are reliable, the citations within them are nothing more than passing mentions; only one even contains an entire sentence discussing the group. And for what it's worth, the Jerusalem Post article dismisses the group as a "small, radical fringe group" in the half-sentence mention. The first reference (the one that is substantially about the group) is nothing more than a publicity campaign from the group. We don't discuss middle-of-the-night speeches in the House of Representatives (aired on C-SPAN), and we shouldn't be using a proposal which was never debated in the House of Commons as a pretext to justify inclusion of a specific article. I don't plan taking this to DRV, but it makes it there, I will support overturning your close. I think it was imprudent of you to close a clearly contentious article as a non-admin close. Horologium (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree with the closure, then why did you make the above statement here instead of at the ANI discussion? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Because ANI is not the proper forum; that would be DRV. I also dislike the tone of the some of the discussion in that thread, and dropping a note on your talk page seemed to me to be a bit less hostile than dumping on you in a thread that is not particularly conducive to a calm discussion. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not quite following your reasoning. If AfD isn't a vote – which you're right, it's not – then presumably the 5:3 ratio of keep:delete votes wasn't a factor in your decision. That leaves the matter of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I asked you to point me to if you had identified any. This Google News link doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and in your reply you failed to point to even a single reliable secondary source that met the criterion of significant coverage. In the end this is a moot point since the AfD was relisted, but for the sake of future AfDs keep in mind that a superficial glance at how many websites mention an organization in Google News isn't an indication of the organization's notability.—Biosketch (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your AFC review

I don't see how this was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources". Reliability is a matter of context; the GNU blog and the Fedora guidelines are reasonable sources for their font licensing concerns and policies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please check Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/_WestPort_high_school for the full text and recognize that this submission (you linked) has 0 sources which is/are independent/third party. mabdul 14:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I'm talking about GPL font exception. Did you click the diff? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, however they are affiliated with the subject. There were no reliable sources that contributed to the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, but Fedora seems to be a Linux distribution among many. I think you are stretching the word affiliated too far if any project within the free software movement is considered affiliated with the GNU to the point that their comments on a GNU initiative don't add any notability to it. Practically all the sources in the much expanded article are affiliated in that very broad sense. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you mean that link --> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ <-- then check it twice! This page is highly unreliable since it is a wiki. So the question still remains: why did you move that page before waiting some hours to get a good answer? No references the user provided is third party, independent and reliable at once! mabdul 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you edit it? It seems to me it's a wiki run by the Fedora/Red Hat organization, which probably only allows certain people to edit their pages. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you prove that? That page doesn't look like that only RedHat members can edit the wiki. The history page of the GPL related article proves that more than one user was changing the page. mabdul 20:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Hi there, as MedCab has been a bit quiet recently, do you think you could take a look at DRN and see if you can help clear the backlog a bit? That'd be great. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article for Grant Thornton UK, your help please!

Hello, you recently returned my article saying that it read like an advert. I followed the structure and type of content that the articles for the other big accountancy firms (KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PWC) used, so would welcome your help as to why mine didn't meet the criteria. Any guidance on how to improve it would be greatly received. Many thanks. Katcarter (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few things that need to be addressed. The introduction appears to exaggerates a bit. The sentence "..., including three staff support sites with over 4,000 professionals led by more than 200 partners." According to source 6, the company has about 3,650 employees, not more than 4,000. The awards section, and the services section should be written using prose. The "notable employees" section should only contain people who already have a Wikipedia article. I also noted that, unlike other articles on accountancy firms, the article doesn't have a criticism section. Wikipedia articles should cover all the main points in a neutral point of view. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IEA-4E article

Hi Alpha_Quadrant,

On the IEA-4E article, which parts need referencing? A lot of it is factual information about what the organisation does. You should also understand that 4E is not part of the IEA, it's completely independent. It was set up under a set of rules established by the IEA, there are 45 different organisations which are under these implementing agreements. So references to the IEA are actually external references.

Thanks, Alison Sainsbury — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Sainsbury (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, I haven't heard back from you on this. Would really appreciate some help as I'm not sure what else to do?

Cheers, Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Sainsbury (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alison, the article submission needs reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or books to support the information, as well as establish the topic's notability. Because 4E is set up with rules established by the IEA, the IEA is somewhat indirectly affiliated with 4E. They are two different organizations, but because they are affiliated, the sources are primary. The article needs to have some reliable third party sources. I hope that helps you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Alpha Quadrant/Archive 10! 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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

De Havenzangers

Thanks. I left you a note on my talk page. The DYK requirements these days irritate me, but one of those templates would look very good on your talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Alpha,

I saw your name on the adopters' page, and I would like to know whether you are adopting currently or not.

Thanks, B 14:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuchsiab (talk • contribs)

Hello Fuchsiab, I would be happy to mentor you. It appears you also asked Worm that Turned, and he also accepted. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AFC Script

Hi, could you link me to the script and perhaps teach me how to add it in to monobook.js...I can never figure out how to get those to work.--SKATER Is Back 20:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Add importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); to your monobook.js. Jarkeld (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Alpha Quadrant. I just stopped by to thank you for this and to thank you for your work at ACC. You've been working on requests for a good long while and I wanted you to know that your hard work is appreciated. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


wikipedia: Canada Education Programme / Intellectual Property law course

Hi Alpha Quadrant,

We have a problem with one of the articles written as an assignments for professor Katz's Intellectual Property class. a student posted a wiki article: "An introduction to copyright law in Canada: origins and governing principles" as per title stipulated by the prof ( see the course page and the prof's list of topics: ) and the article had been redirected overnight to the article "Copyright law in Canada". The student is concerned about his mark and asks if there is any way to prevent the redirection? "The copyright law in Canada" article goes through the origins and basic copyright laws and principles but is quite different from what the student submitted for this assignment. He forgot to put the banner at the top of the page and this could be one of the reasons why this happened. We have not a clue what to do? Is there a way to bring the article the student submitted back and prevent it from redirection somehow at least until the end of the term - December 21, 2011? Please advise.

(the student retained a version of it in a Word format and can resubmit it, but how to prevent if from redirecting?

Thank you, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Szot-Sacawa (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the article was redirected by another editor. An can undo the redirection. The student's article appears to be fairly similar to Copyright law of Canada, which is probably why the other editor redirected it. Could the student add his or her content to Copyright law of Canada, or does he need to start a new article? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

BOTDF

The page for Blood On The Dance Floor (band) has now been unprotected so, could you move the page now? • GunMetal Angel 04:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I reclosed the discussion, but it appears that the move target is also full protected. I have made a request at RFPP for unprotection. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lovells Athletic F.C.

You closed this move request but the move hasn't actually been done? 109.154.72.50 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done There was a redirect in the way, so I tagged it for deletion. I was waiting for an admin to delete it before I could fulfill the move request. The redirect has been deleted and I have moved the article. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Spencer Reed

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how those sources aren't considered reliable. AVN (it's counterpart GAYVN) and XBIZ are the two leading magazines/journals within the porngraphic industry. Their awards carry merit (as witnessed by their own wiki pages) and any profile feature written by either agency and appearing in their publications is no different than Rolling Stone covering a musician or Sports Illustrated covering an athlete. If you check any other pornstars' wiki listings, you'll find a link to their IAFD page. All of the sources used in the listing have been admissable for other pornstar's pages.

If you could please be more specific about what in the page does not make it fit for publication. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneQ (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Has the person received any significant coverage in reliable third party sources? It appears that he won a award, but the only coverage he received was from the publishers that release the awards. There doesn't appear to be a significant amount of coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the notability page you referenced and came across this: 1.Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards which may apply.) 2.Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.[11]

1. He won the 2011 XBIZ award for Gay Performer of the Year. XBIZ is listed among the applicable "Pornographic film awards." 2. He has been nominated for awards from XBIZ and AVN (both listed as applicable pornographic film awards) in multiple years.

I understand that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The other two conditions listed for ponstar inclusion Spencer certainly does not qualify for. He has not yet contributed or birthed a new scene/sub-genre of porn. He also has not received much mainstream attention (rare for gay pornstars, I'm sure you'll agree), which seems to be your larger point.

I would argue, however, that if you're looking at inclusion from such a narrow view, then pages for male pornstars like Ty Fox, Talvin DeMachio, Randy Mixer and countless others should probably be rejected as well because you'll find they quality for the first two requirements, but not the last two. Also, you'll find at the three pages I referenced only include sources to award nomination/winners pages. There is certainly no "significant coverage" from "reliable third-party sources" to be found there.

As you can tell, I'm just trying to find some consistency and get a better understanding on what gets included and why. I want to be a constructive, effective Wikipedia member, so please help me get a better handle on this. Thank you. TheOneQ (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

All articles should have a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. That is how we determine whether or not a subject is notable. If someone has won a major award in their field, it is likely they received a significant amount of coverage because of it. There are many articles on Wikipedia that do not meet our notability guidelines. They just haven't been deleted yet. Through Articles for Creation, our goal is to make sure that the article we accept meet the notability guidelines and other major Wikipedia policies, so that the articles are not deleted. Rather than accept the article you wrote in the current state and risking deletion, I put the submission on hold so that you could work on it and add additional sources to establish the subject's notability. I hope that helps you. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Company - GreatAmerica Leasing Corporation

Thank you for your recent review of my article here. You asked, "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information on why the organization is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

Drawing from Wikipedia's guidelines that you linked to, I argue that the company is important for many reasons:

Depth of Coverage I've provided multiple references for a wide-variety of sources that include local media, industry media, and national media.

Audience GreatAmerica Leasing Corporation is mentioned not only by local papers, but the Des Moines Register - the statewide newspaper for the State of Iowa. The article referenced in the "Rankings and Awards" section of the article was a general news article discussing the best companies in Iowa to work for.

Independence of Media In order to stay neutral as possible, none of the articles are press releases or articles of similar nature. The articles focus on specific topics (i.e. history or important events impacting the community).

Wondering if you could provide specific advice on what you'd be looking for to approve this article for submission. Thanks! Wiedenu (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have erred. The article doesn't really go into much detail on why the company is notable. However, as you pointed out, the company has significant coverage in reliable third party sources, therefore meeting the general notability guidelines. I have accepted your submission. I apologize for the confusion this caused you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! This is my first article, so it's been quite a process, but I want to thank you for your help. Thanks again, and Look forward to doing more here! Wiedenu (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. I hope you enjoy editing. If you ever have any questions, or if you need any help, I would be more than happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers, I appreciate your barnstar! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador program

Hello Alpha Quadrant. I see that we are both wikipedia ambassadors for the following program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/Intellectual_Property:_Copyright,_Trademark_and_Patent_%28Ariel_Katz%29

A student Mken86 (talk) in Professor Katz's Intellectual Property class has consulted me regarding a problem.

His work, titled "an introduction to copyright law in Canada: origins and governing principles", was redirected to the article "Copyright law in Canada". The redirection of student articles has been a growing problem. Is there a banner or infobox that can be used so that the student in this program can continue to do their work? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Maple Leaf (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was also recently made aware of this issue. The current template for student article only displays on talk pages. It may be a good idea to modify the template so that it displays in mainspace. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool

Hey man, thanks for approving my first wikipedia article about French Radio London (FRL). Jiver2 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect troll

84.62.204.7 is likely to be the German reference desk troll. While many of his proposed redirects are (more or less) worthwhile, sometimes he tries to slip something in between. I believe his suggested redirect of Nikodymium is one such attempt to troll us; Google found not a single instance of that "proposed name". Please take a little extra care with 84's suggestions. Huon (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the issue. Many of his other redirect requests were quite sensible. I was unaware there was a problem user making submissions to AfC/R. I'll be sure to double check his requested titles in the future. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Glad to see I'm not the only one working on this AfC backlog. We'll both need some coffee to get through it all. Good luck and godspeed. hewhoamareismyself 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out to me, when it comes to these sorts of things I do everything by hand, mainly because I don't often try out all the fancy scripts that people write. hewhoamareismyself 03:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Alpha Quadrant/Archive 10: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor

I have had no further contact with him for the past 24 hours, and intend to keep it that way. If an admin. wants to unblock him, encourage him to create an account, and instruct him in the proper way to edit, I will not interfere. In fact, my intention is to avoid him. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My say deserves to be heard here as well. And please do not construe this as yet another imaginary "attack" on RJ. Alpha Quadrant, though my IP has changed, I am Republican Jacobite's favourite new chew toy.

I desire for you to know two things: I have never vandalised any article. This is all merely an example of RJ's shopping for someone to do this dirty deed in his behalf. He's trowing to get me blocked. At present he says he's washed his hands of the article also, so it is my hope he'll stop trying to accomplish this injustice.

The second thing: RJ attacked me the moment I first posted at Steampunk, and it was only a few observations and queries. He didn't give it up til yesterday, attacking me time and again - when he gets called out of order, he tends to vanish.

I have been observing and studying his pattern, and I cannot understand why he hasn't been blocked more often! What a troublesome, malicious and dishonest person he seems to be. If you think the aforementioned constitutes an attack, then heaven help us!75.21.156.42 (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are angry with RepublicanJacobite, but please keep your comments civil. I believe he made a genuine mistake in classifying your edits as vandalism, but the incident is over now. I believe that it is unlikely RepublicanJacobite will repeat his mistake. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha, you have been most kind and I take your advice to heart. I wished for you to understand that for many days I have had no intention of returning to edit at Steampunk. I shall not return to edit there. However, I found your suggestion to study neutrality in facts to be a good piece of advice. My thanks in return.75.21.156.42 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I am glad my advice will help you. If you have any question I'd be more than happy to help you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


AlphaQ, I am the editor you just wrote to via JamesBWatson's talk page. I am a different editor than the person above who posted at Steampunk, 75.21.156.42, although I have the same issues as 75.21.156.42. I am in the process of obtaining an actual user account, but I had difficulty because RepublicanJacobite got Watson to block my IP. I am the one who posted at A Beatiful Mind, after which RJ began to constantly attack and revert everything I wrote. Obviously, RJ has several of us "chew toys," as the other editor pointed out. It is true...whenever RJ disagees with someone, he begins to trow around to find someone to block people he disagrees with. I know you warned the other writer about being civil. And I know it may seem hard to believe. But I have to tell you, in all honesty, that 75.21.156.42 is 100% correct about his RJ accusations. RJ has been doing the same exact thing to me. RJ tries to get Wiki admins to block users he disagrees with. Many of these admins chastise RJ for edit warring and constant reverts. So then RJ just keeps trying and trying and eventually finds someone who will make the block for him. As a matter of fact, after JamesBWatson blocked me, another objective editor wrote to Watson and asked why I was blocked. Watson simply replied that he had to go offline now, and never answered the question. That is exactly the type of admin RJ searches for...to do his "dirty work" as the other user said. In this case, Watson did RJ's dirty work for him, and then conveniently Watson had to log off when he was questioned about it. 99.93.150.57 (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but I think it's important in giving an objective view of RJ. Whenever RJ is challenged, he always replies with something like "I won't interfere any more" or "I won't try to block him any more." He makes himself seem so innocent. But then he writes things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.70.66.43 . There you will see, in RJ's own words, that he plans to stalk and revert all my edits until Doomsday. In these public forums, he acts like it was all a misunderstanding, but when he addresses us directly, he makes threats to undo our work forever. I mentioned this to JamesBWatson, but he just called it childish. 99.93.150.57 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have talked with RepublicanJacobite today via email. I believe that he will not repeat his previous mistakes. He has no interest in reverting your edits anymore. You might wish to read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia's sourcing policy. These two pages will help you understand why RepublicanJacobite reverted your edits, and hopefully, help you avoid problems in the future. He shouldn't have labeled them as vandalism, but he was correct in reverting the edits, as they violated Wikipedia's policies. This should have been explained to you when this first started. Yes, there was an edit war, and both of you should have been blocked. Unfortunately the blocking admin didn't know you were editing in good faith and blocked you because he thought you were just vandalizing. The issue has passed, as blocks are meant to prevent disruption (i.e. edit warring), RepublicanJacobite is not going to be blocked this long after the dispute. I hope this helps you understand the reason behind the events. If you have any questions or concerns, I would be more than happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you would like a Wikipedia account, you can request one through the request-an-account process. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And I am here merely to do a few things: 1. Thanks to IP 99 for coming forward. I saw the talk page. 99 is being savaged a lot worse than I. 2. RJ has involved someone named Neelix to issue a staunch warning to me, but mainly to keep me off Neelix's talk page. This is, by my count, the 7th editor or admin RJ has persuaded to help him. 3. So you may see that I am not IP99.

Alpha, I think you are a fine individual and work very hard - but I warn you, do not believe RJ in anything he says. He has been in trouble here for a while now, and he simply takes to vanishing until it all blows over for him. However, he leaves editors and admins in his wake, doing his dirty work for him.

I appreciate your wisdom and advice. I hope you will have more faith in me as far as the neutrality and other points you raised: you seem doubtful that I will ever learn those rules. I know them well and the fact is that some editors are getting more slack than others!75.21.145.222 (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

75, RepublicanJacobite only reverted your edits twice. I haven't seen any further reverts since then. He disagreed with your edit. This was a content dispute, which is now resolved. Continuing to bring it up can be considered disruptive editing. It appears that the only remaining users involved in this are Rcsprinter123 and Spinningspark. The only thing they are discussing is whether or not you have been banned or blocked in the past. To get this resolved, are you currently under a ban or a block? Answering that question will resolve this whole mess. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha, forgive me for being frank towards you, but NO!! I am not blocked and not banned. Have editors and admins persecuted me in the past? Yes!

Also, I am neither interested in any edits, changes or further contacts with Republican. I was merely indicating to you what it is Republican has done by turning this into a Keystone Cops situation. I hope this clarifies it for you, and you will not feel so much concern. SpinningSpark has been pressuring me about the same things even though I answered him very clearly the 1st time he asked.

I want to take this opportunity to compliment you about your input with the shared IPs. I read that discussion and (for what it is worth) I am glad something is to be done about that. I have been the victim of renewed chastisements for something someone else did while they had an IP that I would later inherit. It's terrible and I think the solution is a good one.75.21.145.222 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Is this dispute resolved then? He is not reverting any more of your edits. I agree, the proposal for IP talk archiving is good, unless you are 76.117.247.55, 220.101.28.25, or similar IPs. I am not sure they would appreciate archiving every three days. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQ, I too thank you for your involvement. Although my edits were factual, I will be even more diligent with neautrality. I stand behind the facts I added to 2 articles, and I will try to re-insert them in a re-worded, neutral manner to see how RJ reacts. And instead of edit warring from now on, I will use the discussion pages to handle things better. And one last thing, I strongly agree with 75 when he says "I warn you, do not believe RJ in anything he says...he leaves editors and admins in his wake, doing his dirty work for him." In my case, as I pointed out, he went to 3 or 4 different admins to tattle on me, and they all rebuked HIM and told him that HE was the one doing the warring. Instead of giving up, he kept trying and trying and finally found an admin to block me (do his dirty work for him, as 75 said. It really is the perfect phrase to capture how RJ operates). The funniest part to me is when another admin asked the blocker why he blocked me, the admin quickly logged off and disappeared. Thanks again. I won't take up any more of your time, but I'll keep your name handy in case I have future issues. I appreciate your input. 99.93.151.187 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha, here I am - I'm IP 75. No, thankfully I am not the IPs you mentioned. That work is laudable and I'm glad for it. I am grateful to you too.
There is one last thing, and you may immediately say no or ignore it if it is too much. Can you get SpinningSpark off my tail? I think you mentioned SS before - well, he's loudly and falsely accused me of trolling. I'm sorry, I do not usually do this so I'll try to place a link to his talk here: SpinningSpark THIS IS NOT A SIGNATURE OR MEANT TO BE A REPRESENTATION OF THIS USER. It is only a link as best I can give it to you.
I said to him never to accuse an innocent editor of trolling. What's he looking at, what's he on about ref: these accusations? 99 and I alone can stand as testimony for you to see how RepublicanJacobite causes horrendous, unending misery here. Sorry, hopped in to reply to you: dispute resolved. That is, as long as RJ behaves himself. I have no plans to go anywhere near his hang-outs or talk page. As I stated, if he's serious about washing his hands of Steampunk I gladly say, Good riddance!Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's good. It appears that IP 99 now also has an account. If either of you have any problems in the future, please consider bringing them to my attention. I have mediated disputes in the past, and I may be able to help before any of the problems escalate. I will inform Spinningspark that this issue has been resolved. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank you most kindly, Alpha_Quadrant, and don't think it will be amiss if I thank you on behalf of IP 99-as-was; she's (?) very sweet.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

e-mail?

Do you have e-mail enable? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Special:EmailUser/Alpha Quadrant. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Alpha Quadrant. 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.

---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Alpha, I was remiss in not thanking you for explaining the nature of communication you have had privately with RepublicanJacobite. I for one am honored that you would divulge its gist; however, I warn you again that RJ is a liar and an alarmist. His main goal here is vendetta. I speak the obvious truth. It is NOT an attack.
Will you please peruse the pages of SpinningSpark, Rcsprinter, Neelix and Orangemike? You'll see. Lord knows who else RJ has dragged into this. I have one other ally, Andy Dingley, who supported my old edits at Steampunk. He is wisely staying out of the fracas but is bravely working at the Steampunk page in support of my old edits.75.21.145.222 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Bold text Thanks for the welcome back. I just got back from being deployed overseas, so it's good to be back.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP archiving

Hi Alpha Quandrant,

You weighed in a bit on this proposal to archive shared IP talk pages at VPR – I've since updated the specs a bit, and I'm working with Petrb to design a bot that would help us (some first-pass bot operating instructions here). If we get consensus on the proposal, we'd take the bot through WP:BRFA.

If you have a minute, mind weighing in again on the VPR discussion? :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinningspark

AQ, this user has a bee in his bonnaid about something I am not certain I even understand. I'm not blocked. I'm not banned. It seems that is clear. I do not know what the editor wants, but please ask Spinningspark to either state a case or else stand down ... please. He's getting tiresome and I can't even storm off in a huff.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel lucky punk?

Hey Alpha, I know that a month or two ago you asked me to review you again... and it took me a while to do so, for which I apologize. But I think your not being an admin is crazy... so unless there is some glaring reason or concern that you have about running for adminship, I'd be happy to nominate you. Your talk page bespeaks a person who is already an admin in all the ways that matter, the only thing missing is the formal vetting. Again, before accepting the nom, I encourage you to consider if there is anything that I missed that might torpedo the RfA. I am a firm believer that it is best to confront weaknesses head on, so if I missed something let me know. But assuming that I didn't, I think your general demeanor and regard by the community are enough that I can make this nom in comfort.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Also, you might want to review Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA before answering the questions.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Balloonman, thanks for the nom offer. This event from about a month ago, may be concerning. I could have handled it much better than I did. At the time of the issue, I had considered leaving Wikipedia, as I didn't want to cause unnecessary drama and waste other editor's time. After the incident, I had a talk in IRC with DeltaQuad, and he explained that non-admins closing potentially controversial AfD discussions is an unwritten policy and should not be done. Since the AfD issue, I have avoided making potentially controversial closures, and have just continued about the tasks I commonly work on. From my own analysis, there are two reasons a user might oppose. One, the event I linked above. Or two, the fact that I do not have any featured or good articles. I'll need to think about it. Thanks again for the offer. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Alpha, I advocate that you put six months between the incident above and an RfA. In the next five months you can work on getting a GA. Having recently got one myself, I can help you through the process. Also, at some time in the future, you're going to need to address the AfD closure issue. My recommendation is that three months from now, you start doing closes again. This time though, you should do them only when they're ready to be closed (once a week or so it takes a few hours for an admin to get to them, that's your chance), and you should only do the ones that are really, really clear. This way, when you get to RfA, you can point to that work and say "I've had some time away from AfD, and when I came back, I did everything right.
You're a good editor, and I've worked with you for quite a while, if you ever need advice, just ask. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
yeah, I agree... especially as controversial non-admin closures was the one issue that I highlighted from last February. I do, however, still believe that you act like an admin and have the respect of an admin... thus the transition would be nominal, but you would probably garner opposes as a result.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 07:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha_Quadrant/Archive_10&oldid=1184423540"