Page protected

User talk:Indubitably/Archive 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Irfan Yusuf

A user named JohnnyTurk888 has been relentlessly cherry picking from sources, adding misleading or innacurate information not supported by sources, and engaging in other subtle efforts to smear the subject of this article. I have no particular interest in the , but as I crossed paths paths with the article and added it to my watchlist, I feel some responsibility to try to help out. I'm at my wit's end and need help. RD232 stopped by for a while, as did another editor, but the only other recent interventions have been to block and ban the subject from editing and protesting. Examples of the problem include misrespresenting the author's history. It says he became a radical when he attended a madrassah (accordign to the author he was six and the cite says it happened later but I keep gettign reverted trying to fix), picking out a bit of a review to say the author "relentlessly" mocks his mom. To refer to conservatives as right wing. To select other bits to disparage the subject. If you have any suggestions let me know. I would rather spend my time in more productive pursuits, and I would like the whole article to go away. UGH! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. I checked all the sources for his most recent changes and they all back up what he's written. لennavecia 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks very much for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing people together... For what it's worth, it seems Irfan Yusuf and his nemesis both agree on something... [1]. Thought you might be interested. Be good! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's agreement someone in there? لennavecia 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What's that you say? You've got a what in where? Who? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've got a something in a someone? This conversation turned unexpectedly.... hot. No, no. I didn't feel like reading a rant, albeit a justifiable one (don't get me wrong). I skimmed it and didn't see what you were referring to. لennavecia 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a major deal. I just thought it was funny that these two bickering ideologues had in common their disdain for a certain website that sometimes has inaccuracies in its biographical articles. Be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah right. I didn't realize that Johnny expressed disdain for Wikipedia, but I'm sure the indef block was all but well-received. لennavecia 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I think that the date of birth (added by the same editor - JohnnyTurk - could usefully be deleted on the grounds that it seems to constitute original research (I am pretty sure that original research is against Wikipedia guidelines) - the footnote is for company records at ASIC. I've checked and that is not openly listed material. So far as I can tell, you need to pay $28.95 bucks to get hold of the record. I would say that a company search, for which you've paid money, constitutes original research. And you would need to know the name of his company - which Johnny Turk seems to know, but how? There is also a relevance issue - how is it important for a biography to include someones exact date of birth? For a dead person, I can see it - fans might wish to commemorate their birthday - but for a living person, who cares? And of course information such as date of birth is useful for identity theft - I would not want my own date of birth to be listed online - I don't include it on my facebook page for that reason.--Rosabibi (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to respond here. It's been removed. Thanks for bringing this up. لennavecia 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
DOB isn't so much of a problem - we have it for all current Australian politicians for example - but as above, it has to come from a reliable source. Politicians are easy as current ones are all on the Parliamentary website and further back ones are either in the Parliamentary Handbook or various other books. I am not sure why an ASIC record would have DOB at all - ASIC record is simply a business registration record (Aust Securities & Investments Commission). Orderinchaos 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

couple things

  1. First, a belated thanks. I don't know what degree of forethought was put into it, but you do seem to have an uncanny knack of speaking to me in a way that is informative, makes me smile, and encourages me to continue my efforts. I know I've mentioned it before, but you time and again remind me so much of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed young lady in my r/l that I love so dearly.
  2. I posted a couple threads at Category talk:Living people that may be of interest in regards to BLP issues. Don't know if you're interested or not, just a courtesy link drop. If the discussions would be better held elsewhere, let me know. Thanks again. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
My uncanny knack is just bluntness. Your shameless ass-kissing and canvassing, however, is terrible... ;) Haha. I'm kidding. I commented on the one. My name being dropped in the second pretty much establishes my position, but I'll keep an eye out in case it becomes necessary to elaborate on it. It may become necessary to bring it up in another forum, perhaps the talk page of the BLP project, as I'm not sure how heavily watched the cat page is. I'd assume not very. The discussion about tagging bands definitely needs to be discussed more, and by many. That one should almost certainly be brought up on the talk page of the project. I may draft a newsletter for all members and link the discussion in it. لennavecia 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
kthx — Ched :  ?  18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Good to hear from you also - have been quite busy offline with studies etc, and some new (positive) personal developments. Orderinchaos 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice. :) Hope things continue to go well for you! لennavecia 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Already am one. I really should go on there more often. :/ Orderinchaos 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha. I had no idea. Neither did MBisanz. XD لennavecia 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a secret admirer

I can tell he loves us really. – iridescent 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahah. XD Iri, ilu. لennavecia 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf birthdate

Am interested in why you deleted Yusuf's birthdate, is it Wikipedia policy not to include them? I can't edit the article at the moment, so my interest isn't specific to him but am curious in relation to other articles. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For the risk of identity theft, we don't publish the birth dates of living people unless it is widely published already. The source provided to support the date was available only though subscription and apparently not published elsewhere. There's a policy or guide on this somewhere, I believe. I'll look for it. لennavecia 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN and Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy of personal information. لennavecia 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Letting go is hard to do

Speaking of freckles, it's time to let go on Natalya Rudakova. What else is shaking? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to stand up to the insanity. Otherwise, I'm having a fantastic night. Chatting with a dear friend. Thanks. لennavecia 05:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya the Russian!

I am with you on this one? Who is she but a freckle girl? Remove it! Like they say

Well, I stuck my head in a little skunk’s hole, And the little skunk said, well, bless my soul, Take it out! take it out! take it out! Remove it!! Well, I didn’t take it out, And the little skunk said, If you don’t take it out, You’ll wish you had, Take it out! take it out! take it out! Remove it!! Psssssss. I removed it, too late!

Not worthy to be in a mighty encyclopedia like this. Indeed! Hellboy 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Above user blocked indef as troll / spa and per WP:NPA Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Frankel‎

Hey Jenna, could you take a look at this article. IMO it is full of BLP issues and in the current shape, I'm not sure if it is salvageable. I know that this guy is easily notable (I did a graduate research paper on his crimes.) But it is my familiarity with the subject that makes me want somebody else take a look at him. I will probably work on the article, but it is a low priority in my book right now.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at this more tonight. لennavecia 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I can tell by reading the article that it is basically taken from Pollock's book "The Pretender," but none of the comments are cited/documented... if it were any other time, I'd probably tackle it and try to get it cleaned up... but right now, I think the best course might be start over scale it back?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Most likely. لennavecia 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1966

It's groundhog day all over again! --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprising. Luckily, it's verifiable fact. لennavecia 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

what the

Did you subst these on purpose? --Closedmouth (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Habit, I guess. I usually use Friendly to to tag articles. Thanks for the heads up. لennavecia 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WFRN-FM deletion

I cannot locate any information regarding the rationale for the deletion of this radio station page. You are noted as the admin who deleted the page. Can you direct me to the discussion and other relevant information on the deletion of this article? Thanks. Goshenmike (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect tagged for speedy deletion. The rationale given is below.

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because this appears to be an incorrect redirect. No evidence exists at the station's website wfrn.com that they are in any way affiliated with Moody Radio. An article about the actual station could be written, and so would be better as a redlink in order to highlight that it hasn't yet been created.

لennavecia 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Goshenmike (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) لennavecia 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Sam article

re: reply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Yea, I know it's not relevant to that specific article - I was referring to the article being about a single event. I just didn't word it very well, but in general I was glancing at the recreation of the BLP article. I know a lot of people think this is a HUGE thing right now, and in some aspects I can see that from an internal viewpoint (arb and all), I understand why. I just think there's a lot of smoke right now, but not all that much fire. Lord knows I've been wrong before, so I guess we'll see down the road how it all shakes out in historical perspective. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on the Sam Blacketer thing. I'm still considering, though leaning toward delete, as he's not notable and the coverage of this even is pretty thin. I was merely pointing out that your statement, as I took it, didn't apply to that article, nor could it. لennavecia 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the freckled Russian hairdresser/ "actress" article??? Redirected to the movie??? My goodness. Boldness from Fritzy. A merge to solve all our problems? Exciting times... Will she be back when they make Transporter 5???
The Blacketer thing belongs on Wikipedia in some form. A merge seems fine. An article on him seems fine (after all there was one for years, and there is enough coverage of him to do one). Or even an article on the event (although I think that's a weaker way to go). But rushing to delete our buddy's article when they get in the muck isn't a very attractive for Wikipedia, especially when violating Wikipedia's integrity created the problem in the first place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Village pump straw poll

Hi. Thanks very much for participating in the straw poll. Due to the way you voted, I would be particularly interested if you would comment on where you personally think the time elapsed and/or timestamp should be located, (i.e. the "Somewhere else" section/option of Poll #2), if you happen to have an idea for it. Grazi. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. لennavecia 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Per comments and reconsideration, the mockup has been changed to your alternate placement. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll check it out. :) لennavecia 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean Biography of a Living Person Noticeboard Notice

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carrie_Prejean. Thank you. Rico 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

It's not a BLP issue, and you may want to consider shortening or reformatting your post, as I don't believe many people are going to read all of it. لennavecia 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a bigger picture that you missed -- that of a tag team that turned someone that was not notable into an attack page recipient. They own the article, and they successfully campaign to drive off editors that do not share their POV.
The "dumb bitch" comment is one worthiness-of-content dispute, of many.
Most of the article's content was put and kept in it to vilify her. I don't even know if it qualifies as a biography, as it presents very little information on her life or career, only the details of one incident and the subsequent fallout.
Undue weight and WP:Harm create the BLP issue.
There is also a big content fork linked to from the article, that vilifies her in even greater detail. -- Rico 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The quote is what I see being brought for discussion by AniMate. The quote is not a BLP violation. I also don't believe that one sentence == undue weight. The controversy is very much relevant, and if you removed that section it takes the next out of context. That leaves only the basic biographical information, of which there is biographical information. Much more than some of the crap BLP nightmare articles I've seen kept. That said, the whole article could do with a good copy-edit, as the prose is not impressive, but the information contained within the article is relevant and very much a part of her notability, which I don't think is in serious question. The neutrality of the article can surely be discussed, but I don't think (at least from the version that currently exists) that it's to a point that it becomes a BLP concern. She made the comment. The fallout from it are presented, including both criticism and support. I don't share your view of the situation, I don't think. Of course, I didn't read your post there. Perhaps cut back on the use of breaks in your formatting to prevent your posts from appearing to be so daunting. لennavecia 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd Biography

I didn't know if you wanted to look into this. Keenan Donahue is creating and editing their own page. I googled their wikipedia username and find it's the same for their twitter where they tweeted, "Is on the wikipedia". I find it strange they are previously on the Cameron Diaz page but I can't find anything about him otherwise. I'm not really an expert on Bios so figured I would leave it to you, I just found the activities very strange. --Peppagetlk 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoax. Thanks for bring this to me. لennavecia 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day

Hey jen.. I don't really know chet from adam, but if you think he'd get a kick out of a postcard from down under, flick me his address and I'll send one up - is he allowed to get a pic of chicks in bikinis with a brief 'hello'? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Email sent. لennavecia 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson article

Dear WP Admin, may I request you to take a look at this article and determine if it’s time to take out that tag on insufficient citations. It may be generating a bit of racial resentment. It seems to reinforce the cynical stereotype that “if you’re a white intellectual, like Louis Friedman whom Tyson succeeds, or Joel Moses, of comparable fame, no one questions your background reliability, whereas if you’re a black intellectual, you’d better line up the God of Abraham and Moses to support your case.” Of course I’m being dramatic here to drive a point. A number of us have put in about 40 citations to verify this man, and I previously appealed to have that tag removed, to no avail. Much Obliged--EJohn59 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn One more data point: if you compare the page view stats for the month of May, it's 162 for Friedman and 10,155 for Tyson -- no lo contender!--EJohn59 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

I think the problem may be in the reliability of the current sources. I've not gone through all of them, but I see a lot of YouTube, for example. Those are too often copyright infringement. Looking at a couple of them, I can't tell for sure, but they don't look like official sponsored accounts. Thus, more likely that not, they're copyvios and need to be removed from the references and replaced with reliable sources. لennavecia 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bavarian Pigeon Corps

Updated DYK query On June 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bavarian Pigeon Corps, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

\o/ لennavecia 05:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A swabian salute is in order for your fine work on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that some over-zealous clot has defaced your article with a whole bunch of tags. Since when was Reuters an unreliable source? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. The Smithsonian, the FBI, the University of California, Reuters, and all my other refs tagged as unreliable. That's utterly unbelievable from an established user. لennavecia 14:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Want me to weigh in? I have to admit to following this article from Malleus' page... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
By all means. If there are errors, I'm all about correcting them, but that was unnecessary defacing (not that I'm saying it was you, I know it wasn't). لennavecia 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall the details, but there was a lovely article on a war pigeon. Can it be linked to? I'm not sure if it was Bavarian or not. But I think it liked pretzels. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already linked in the 'See also' section. لennavecia 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness! The world should know about Commando's story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. We need to find a picture. لennavecia 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There was an "Animals at War" exhibition on at the Imperial War Museum North a year or so ago. I wonder if they'd have anything on Commando? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hint. – iridescent 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Pic of the medal. Can't find anything on the bird. لennavecia 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again to Malleus for helping with this article. :) لennavecia 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comrade José

I saw that you deleted the article that I just created, Comrade José, as being non-noteable and an unsourced attack page. I very strongly object to both of these charatarizations. As mentioned in the now-deleted article, Comrade José is the supreme commander of a guerrilla organization that launched a war that, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, killed 60,000 people. With all due respect, I have an extremely hard time believing that if those 60,000 people were Americans, or really white people of any nationality, Comrade José would be considered non-noteable. Wikipedia has articles on the supreme commanders of groups that engaged in wars that killed far fewer Europeans, for example. If his notability is reduced by the fact that the Shining Path is a non-state actor, and arguably just a terrorist organization, then I would point to the fact that Timothy McVeigh, who is widely considered a terrorist, has an article on Wikipedia. Ironically I didn't even go to his article to make sure it exists because it is such a given that killing 1% of the people that Jose has killed will get you an article here as long as the victims are white.

I'm not calling you a racist, and I'm sure you're not one, but I am pointing out the almost absurd level that wikipedia's institutional POV comes into play when deciding what is noteable. It reminds me of the time that an admin pointed out that the most deadly conflict in the world since WWII has a shorter article than a fictional plant that appears once in Lord of the Rings.

The second reason you gave for deleting my article is that it was an unsourced attack page. I think that it was neither completely unsourced nor an attack page. While it didn't have a reference section, it did cite a source several times in the text of the article. The source was a recent television interview with Jose called "Contactando Sendero," probably the biggest journalistic scoop in the Andean Region, possible the whole of Latin America, in 2009. That means that the article wasn't unsourced.

The article wasn't an attack page, either. While you may consider it "negitive" to point out that Jose is the leader of the Shining Path, Jose himself certainly doesn't. In the recent interview (check it out on youtube if you don't believe me), he doesn't wear a mask, he brags about his status as the commander of the organization, he says that he feels pride in being part of a "revolutionary family" (his parents were both Shining Path commandos), and he even goes as far as to call his two sisters "political embarrassments" for not joining his organization. The Shining Path and their sympathizers constantly refer to the armed wing of the organization, the People's Liberation Army, as "the People's Heroes." Simply put, they are not ashamed of being members of the Shining Path, and their supreme commander is certainly not ashamed to have risen in the ranks of the group to eventually take it over. While you might find it unsettling that the Shining Path exists, the fact is that it does and it would POV to not point out that Jose is the leader of the organization.

I clost by asking you to please let me know what steps I can take to get my article undeleted. Thank you.

--Joe123456789123456789 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not race issue. It's the fact that you've put out a BLP full of unsourced negative information. If he's notable, all this should be in reliable sources. You can't just call someone a terrorist [whatever one who leads of group that kills people], stating he reportedly or allegedly or is claimed to be the leader of an organization that slaughtered launched a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds tens of thousands of people and not back it up with sources. Additionally, I did not state it was wholly unsourced. I said the negative claim to notability was unsourced and negative in nature. لennavecia 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely never used the word "terrorist" to describe the Shining Path, nor would I. If you think that they are terrorists, that's your POV. It should be kept out of the main article sace.
60,000 is not "hundreds of thousands," and I didn't use either number in the article. Nor did I use the word "slaughter" or even "kill." You know this.
If the single-biggest journalistic scoop in the region, in which Jose literally takes off his mask and bluntly says "I am the leader of the Shining Path. I am responsible for all of its actions" isn't a reliable source, please tell me what is. Remember, just because you've never heard of the extremely popular news program that it was aired on doesn't mean that it's not a reliable source. Hell, I think 60 Minutes is largely propaganda, but you don't see me trying to delete the fact that McVeigh basically admitted to the program that he killed a bunch of people.
Please tell me what steps I can take to get the article undeleted. --Joe123456789123456789 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the hyperbole. Not entirely intentional, just ten things going on at once. Fixed my post. Now, your source is a primary source. We need independent secondary sources to verify claims. I can go on TV and claim to be something I'm not, but that doesn't make me notable for it. McVeigh is not a comparable article. There are plenty of reliable, independent sources to verify everything in that article. That said, you can contest the deletion at WP:DRV. If other editors and admins disagree with my reasoning, the deletion may be overturned. لennavecia 13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As an admin, do you think you could give me your opinion as to the usability of the interview as perhaps a primary and secondary source? Just to let you know, it's not like the guy just walked into a TV studio, gave an interview, and left, during which he could easily make a false claim about his ties to the Shining Path. Rather, a reporter managed to hike out to a jungle hideout filled with heavily-armed guerrillas, and Jose emerged surrounded by a phalanx of fighters armed with rifles, heavy machine guns, and rocket propelled granades. As part of the interview, he showed off the serial numbers of the weapons he had and other identifying effects that had been stolen off the bodies of police and soliders who were recently killed by the Shining Path. The fact that he didn't wear a mask allowed him to be clearly identified as Victor Quispe Palomino, who is wanted in Peru for being a Shining Path commander. After the interview, the program returned to the studio for commentary by a couple of well-known Peruvian reporters about the interview.
It would seem to me that while Jose's words during the interview were a primary source, the running commentary and the commentary afterwards, such as when they said that the military confirmed that the weapons shown were stolen by the Shining Path, would be pretty close to a secondary source. In any event I think that no reasonable person could watch the broadcast and not come away thinking "this guy is uninvolved with the Shining Path." I mean he basically did all he could to prove it.
Even if the commentary provided during and after the broadcast count only as primary sources, could the article be undeleted for one day to allow me to add secondary sources? They're no lack of them (the improbable name "Victor Quispe Palomino" get over 28,000 hits on google). If the worry is that Comrade Jose could technically sue Wikipedia for libel if it was undeleted, that would actually be legally impossible since his assets are "blocked and confiscated" by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and it would be illegal for him or a lawyer representing him to enter the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act as both "a member or representative of the communist party" and "a member or representative of a designated foreign terrorist organization." Really no harm could be done by undeleting it long enough to allow me to make it into a better article. --Joe123456789123456789 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If it weren't a BLP with negative claims, I'd userfy it. How about this. Can you look for additional sources for the various claims and post them here? If they are sufficient to uphold RS and V, I'll restore the article. لennavecia 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here as I don't remember exactly what the article said, but here are a few links from major media outlets in Peru that I put together in about ten minutes:
  • http://www.larepublica.com.pe/component/option,com_contentant/task,view/id,191179/Itemid,/ "Dircote identifica a los 10 terroristas más buscados del VRAE y del Alto Huallaga" ("DIRCOTE names the ten most wanted terrorists in the VRAE [Apurimac and Ene Rivers Valley]") This names Victor Quispe Palomino a/k/a Comrade Jose as one of DIRCOTE's most wanted. It's an old article and lists him only as the leader of one of the rival Central Committees of the Shining Path, but it includes a photograph of the same guy who gave the interview and identifies him as Victor Quispe Palomino and gives his alias as Comrade Jose.
  • http://www.larepublica.com.pe/component/option,com_contentant/task,view/id,217319/Itemid,/ "El cabecilla terrorista del VRAE se autotitula sucesor de Abimael" ("The terrorist chief of the VRAE calls himself the successor to [imprisoned Shining Path leader] Abimael [Guzman]. Article says that Jose has become "the maximum leader" of "the most powerful military apparatus of the Shining Path." The article also calls him "the most dangerous of all the Shining Pathists, much more so than Comrade Artemio." This is important because Comrade Artemio is widely assumed to be one of the only other Shining Path leaders who is neither dead nor in prison. The article includes a graphic on Jose titled "The New Leader of the Shining Path."
  • http://www.larepublica.pe/politica/19/04/2009/el-solapado-cambio-de-piel-de-sendero-luminoso-en-el-vrae-0 "El solapado cambio de piel de Sendero Luminoso en el VRAE" (I'm not exactly sure how to translate this figuritive saying in English). Aticle Mentions that Jose took over after Comrade Feliciano, the previous Shining Path leader, was arrested. Article also mentions that Jose's siblings gave information to military intelligence that allowed Feliciano to be captured. This helps explain why, as the wikipedia article mentioned, Jose rants about how his siblings are "political embarrassments" and he is only proud of his parents, who remained loyal to the Shining Path. The article also gives information about how Jose is protecting the "backpackers," Peruvian slang for people who transport raw "pasta basica" in their backpacks to labs for processing into cocaine.
--Joe123456789123456789 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfied to User:Joe123456789123456789/Comrade Jose. لennavecia 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hi.

I like your new name.

Would you be so kind as to take a sweeping look over the OOK and WPOOK system and activities, and let me know what you think.

Problems. Opportunities.

I've been immersed in it for so long (4 years) that I'm certain I've gone blind to many things that would be obvious to someone else.

Any and all feedback would be appreciated.

The Transhumanist    19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look over it tomorrow. لennavecia 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Not my area of interest, but certainly appears to be something of great benefit to the project. لennavecia 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bitch, but not the dumb kind!

Hey Jenna, I read your comment at Malleus Fatuorum's talkpage. Jenna, do you remember this? ("I'm a bitch, but not the dumb kind") :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha... awesome. Ah, the memories. Those are the little reminders I need now and then. Thanks. لennavecia 19:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Katarzyna Dolinska

Can you explain you decision to redirect and protect Katarzyna Dolinska as a redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10? Apparently, Mbinebri accused me of tricking you into unprotecting the page. if you review the history, of our previous messages, you will see I did no such thing. I created the page as Katarzyna Dolińska, because at the time I thought that was the more appropriate spelling. I asked you to remove the redirect Katarzyna Dolinska to that page, because Katarzyna had gained notoriety, and the reason the page was protected no longer applied (I think you will agree, that when the page was protected, that was not a decision to forever ban Katarzyna from having a page, but rather a way to enforce the AfD decision of the moment).

After doing research I discovered that all the reliable sources spelled her name Katarzyna Dolinska, and so I suggested moving the page, which you did on, April 8. Immediately after that, there was another AfD, which was closed as no consensus, and the page kept. The same day, another AAfD was filed and closed as speedy keep. So at least a couple of Administrators agreed that the earlier protection was no longer applicable. To refresh you memory the earlier AfD and protection enforcing it, was because Katarzyna had just been on America's next top model, and had not yet done anything else, but now she has the strongest portfolio of any former top model contestant, and if she doesn't deserve a page non of them do. (Incidentally Celia Ammerman who is only know for being on Americas top model has a page that survived an AfD).

From what 'm aware of, it seems to me like Mbinebri had no grounds to request the re-protection, as a link to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, and unilaterally overoad an AfD decision rather than seeking consensus through proper channels. If there is some other information that I'm unaware of, please share it. At the present time I'm too busy to watch the pages on wikipedia, otherwise I would have immediately responded to Mbinebri's accusation and rebutted his claim. I really don't have time to go through the formal process of requesting an unprotection, so I'm asking you to undo the protection again, and restore the page until such time as there is consensus to delete it. -... MistyWillows talk 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is this addressed to? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The above, being on my talk page, is clearly addressed to me.
Misty, what AFD are you saying I overrode? لennavecia 05:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Actiually, it was Mbineri I was saying overoad the AfD, But it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarzyna Dolinska (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katarzyna_Dolinska_(4th_nomination) -... MistyWillows talk 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD closing

Yes I was aware of that fact. That was a day and a half ago though. I do not believe that such a massive change in the opinions given on the page will occur, nor will a further few hours provide any more useful information to a closing administrator. Any further comments will be mostly be watered down by the shear size of the rest of the page. I will address this in my closing statement. Hope that shows I have thought before closing this :-) Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Gazzarri

Do I need to put this to an AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Appears to be plagiarized from this source, but it is verifiable per this government source (PDF), this source, and this ABC radio source. As it's not a BLP, I'd say keep it, rewrite the prose, throw in these sources, and tag it for expansion. لennavecia 05:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your attempts to help me better understand the relevant issues at the AfD. I'm still not quite sure I understand it all, but your posts there have helped me quite a bit. (I'm still not sure where you saw me "throwing off insults", though.) Unitanode 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, no problem. Feel free to ask me any questions you have about process or policy. As for insults, comment on the content, not the contributor. Comments you made about Hans, in particular, such as the one where you piped your comment to a film article, were not helpful and could be considered insulting. If you like, I can quote the specific comments I considered to be potentially insulting. لennavecia 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, there, Hans had just called those of us who disagreed with him "spoiled kids", and -- for whatever reason -- his attitude just reminded me of those guys in the movie who all felt they were the smartest guys in the room. In all honesty, I really did try to keep my comments polite and civil during the discussion. If I fell out of line anywhere but that once, I apologize. Unitanode 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Buttigieg

Did you realise there were a number of articles bundled in that AfD? --Jimbo[online] 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm getting ready to delete them now. Got a phone call in the middle of deleting that one. لennavecia 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A name similar to you

Can you please take a look at this new user .The user name is Jennaonwiki which is Jenna on Wiki.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not close enough for me to care, but thanks for bringing it to my attention all the same. :) لennavecia 23:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)