User talk:Retired username/Archive10

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


I got my username changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Tusk (talkcontribs)

Andreas Evagelopoulos[edit]

Dear Sir

There is a link under MY name. If it is supposed to ad an information, then for what this information should be? For planet Mars?! The source for the informations I posted is

Thank you

Do you seriously want me gone that badly?[edit]

Seriously, do you really want me gone that badly? You know how I fought for that GNAA article. Your off-hand comment, the threat of a speedy close, and the way that others have been downright horrible about the whole thing indicates to me that you want me gone. After I had gotten married and settled, I was going to finish off the Patriot Act articles and numerous other articles that needed to either polish or substantial work. However, it seems that you and many others don't want me around any more. If that's the case, please say so and I'll gladly leave you all in peace. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You seem to see the GNAA thing as a win/lose situation for yourself... i.e. if it stays around, you win. But that's not really how it is, the more you defend it the worse you look, Wikipedia has changed and realized the article is unimportant, unverifiable junk and mainly here because a bunch of people got trolled in the earlier days. If you just let it go, people will respect you much more than if you keep arguing something the community has long lost its patience with. I'm just explaining how I see it, sorry if that's offensive but I think it's correct and I don't mean to offend. I hope you come back, but I think part of that might be accepting that things have changed somewhat and that no one thinks badly of you because the GNAA article was deleted. I was recently thinking about getting Windows 95 to featured article status (for historical value) and using Windows XP as a guide, which of course you nominated, so the idea that I personally don't appreciate your work (and thus want you around) is wrong. --W.marsh 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of winning or losing. There were a number of AFDs where it was decided by a considerable number of editors that the article should be kept. It was then nominated again and then deleted after 2 days. AFD policy and practice, unless it has changed, has been to only speedy close AFDs that are not contested or that are not controversial, so that those in the community who oppose the deletion (such as myself) would get a chance to oppose it. I find it most unfair and unreasonable that this was done by an administrator. As for people respecting me: to be honest, this doesn't really matter that much to me. If people wish to disrespect me, this will most likely cause me to leave, but only because it means that they don't think my contributions are worthwhile. I am more concerned about procedural unfairness and less about personal dislike and disrespect of my person. I might note that I have no personal animosity towards you, in fact if anything I have more than a good deal of respect for yourself and I would not have posted a message on your talk page if this were not the case. Your expertise in matters relating to Microsoft is par excellence, and I would be very happy to see Windows 95 on FAC, then FA! I'm probably going to stick around Wikipedia, but for the time being keep a low profile. I would very much like to get the USA PATRIOT Act article up to scratch, then work towards getting other articles fixed. I haven't done much admin-ing or authoring lately because, as you are probably aware, I just got married and this has taken up all my time. I'll most likely get back to things after I get back from Europe in February... hopefully I'll be able to get more articles up to FA status then! However, I still feel disheartened by the deletion of the GNAA article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You were equating me wanting GNAA to stay deleted deleted with me wanting you to leave Wikipedia... my point is that whether you realize it or not, you were taking this personally, and I don't think the community at all sees the deletion as something that reflects badly on you. Also I point out that it was speedy closed as a keep many times (including ones where I made a serious argument for deletion and was ignored) to the one time it was speedy closed as a delete, so getting all bent out of shape over early closes of a controversial AfD is a nearly a year overdue in this case. Anyway, you're one of the more accomplished FA writers from what I can tell and I just have one to my credit so far, so again I respect what you've done and hope you stick around. Wikibreaks and periods of having a "low profile" are very healthy in the long-term. --W.marsh 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

List of famous tall/short people AfDs[edit]

Hi, I saw you closed these two AfDs. Can I ask why they were closed as "no consensus" when the votes for "keep" clearly outnumbered the others? Cheers, HamishMacBeth 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's really not a huge difference. A delete is a strong consensus to delete, usually 66% or better, not just a simple majority... so I see a keep basically the same way, my rule of thumb is two thirds of the comments should be in favor of keeping the article before there's a clear keep consensus. I also felt there were some policy issues at play here, and there were also many "list of" articles nominated forming a larger discussion, some of which were much more sharply divided. I guess it was pretty close in this specific AfD and if the article is nominated again free to mention the ammount of support for keeping, but ultimately it's more of a semantic difference than one that will really help the article stay around or not. --W.marsh 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

October man sequence[edit]

Hi there, saw you closed up the vfd for October man sequence. So thought I'd ask you if you may please put a copy of the page onto my userspace? Thought I'd like to take a second look at the page for anything that maybe could be useful and merged into another better article which already exists. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst

Hi. I'm a bit dissapointed in the level of discourse that occured in this debate, and suprised at your comment-free close. There appeared to be quite a bit of pure "it's notable because I say so" voting. (Not !voting, but voting since they didn't provide an argument that could be responded to.) Could you have another look at this discussion? 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There seems to be a reasonable ammount of reliable information on this topic... I'm not really into over-riding consensus just because I subjectively don't think something is noteable. But for verifiability issues I will. At any rate, you can renominate it for AfD if you want. --W.marsh 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a reasonable enough position, and I must say I have seen quite a few closes on your part that I thought very good. On this occasion however the consensus was mostly illusionary:
  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are *cough* very new:
    1. 30sman (talk contribs) - Ten edits, all on 2 Dec, all to AfDs.
    2. Dpbeckfield (talk contribs) - His only contributions was to that afd.
    3. Jmldalton (talk contribs) - Thirteen edits total.
    4. (talk contribs) - Two edits in total.
  • Naked "Keep" votes with no rational:
    1. Firefoxman (talk contribs) - Naked vote.
  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are established:
    1. DGG (talk contribs) - a "real" user, and provides at least some argument, but about verification not notability.
  • "Delete it's not showing it is notable"
    1. J Di (talk contribs) provides no arguments in his nomination, true.
    2. Demiurge (talk contribs) disputes a comment about google hits by refering to bias, also providing no evidence on non-notability.
    3. Finally {{subst:user|ME!}} with a bit of homework showing this is nothing special.
I'll cross-post this to deletion review. I hope you don't mind if I don't provide a link to the day's log, I'm sure you can find it if you want to comment. Thanks for taking the time to respond. 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up on Wet noodle award[edit]

I've effectively deleted that VP comments section, including your comments, as I'm going to act gracefully and db-author the template. The heat I feel when others waste my time wasn't ready for publication, and it's my bad for using prematurely. Apologies. // FrankB 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

re your Tfd comment: Dude, how much explanation could possibly be needed when I add {{wikify}} to an article with no formatting or {{linkless}} to an article with no incoming links? It would be the same explanation every time. Templates explain what they mean on the template. If the application of that meaning to an article is unclear and unexplained, remove the template. But in my experience usually when a template is added in good faith it's pretty obvious why it was added. --W.marsh 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is so far off base from the problems I discern I don't know where to start. Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't do any removal, nor reverts(!), unless I can understand why something was so smelly that someone trashed the project and shamed us all in front of the world--they must have a good reason. So I look. No talk annotation. OK, who applied when. Is the merge been on a long time... only 15 months (the record holder--and no clear edit summary either). Well, Guess this turkey wasn't monitoring the situation. I can delete it now, as no one commented this whole time. Ditto Clean ditto copyedit etcetera. A whole bunch of such.
   The Link templates you suggest I haven't ever seen, save the wikify one time.
   In sum, I treat such edit decisions the way I expect mine to be treated. Sincerely, with a great deal of gravitas. If my languge seems offensive to you, at least it's honest. And having been in the USNR for thirty years and in many a factory office, I wouldn't be offended by it in any particular way. But that was a draft. The mistake was using it today prior to giving it a good hard look myself again. Temptation goeth before a fall, not just pride. I'd welcome some help in evolving it for the purpose envisioned. Have at it. I copied the talk comments down from tfd to the talk page before userfying it with a move as well. The resultant redirects have been 'disarmed' and db-authored. I respect everyone's time too much to let that go on. It wasn't the proper forum. Thanks for the time. // FrankB 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed the link, those pages were actually deleted for a bit, I used the wrong slash. The ongoing discussion has picked up steam, and I'm going to be xposting some of the emails on same in a moment. Your input would be welcome. // FrankB 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Vic Ramono Article[edit]

Thanks for the redirection of the Vic Ramono article. The character doesn't really have a history to tell on the show, and the name wasn't even spelled right. Thanks for the redirect. Tinkleheimer 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Incivility on WP:AN[edit]

I demand apologies for this statement of yours. I'd never say that my opponent is "blathering tripe". Please confine IRC manner of talk for IRC and other secretive channels which you so emphatically defend. In Wikipedia this may look unseemly. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well good for you. I don't really care if you're offended, since you were being as offensive as possible and I just called a spade a spade. You can take it up with Arbcom or whatever. --W.marsh 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did I defend IRC emphatically? As I recall my last comment about it was rather negative. But maybe you know more about my comments than I do! --W.marsh 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of South County CYT[edit]

Hello W.marsh -

I would like an explanation of the South County CYT deletion. I have not recently requested a deletion. Thank you for your time.

Gray Crown —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Crown (talkcontribs) 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

  • The content was along the lines of "Welcome to South County CYT, the place to go for info about SoCo. Hey, that rhymes!! We're under construction right now, so please be patient . . ." That's not an article... it will get deleted until there's actually meaningful content there. --W.marsh 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Ghirla and Piotr have agreed to try mediation with me. JzG who initiated the arbitration request has asked the committee to give this a chance to work. If you'd like to provide input your comments are welocme at User talk:Durova/Mediation/Input. I'd appreciate if you'd append your comment at the arbitration request to allow mediation unless you really want the formal case to go forward. DurovaCharge! 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I just have little patience with people full of venom and accusations, people like that drive away good contributers by making this place so hostile. My intent was just to say that ArbCom should consider doing something, as other efforts have seem to have failed... this guy really doesn't seem interested at all in changing his ways. I wish you luck with the mediation but I do not plan to participate in it... trying to reform people like that is really not my strong suit. Thanks for letting me know though. --W.marsh 23:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, your statement advocates arbitration. Whether or not you'd like to contribute to the mediation, would you like to at least note at RFAR whether ArbCom should give this a chance? I think there's a chance of achieving a less painful solution than arbitration, and if it doesn't work there's nothing lost from trying. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I honestly think arbitration is a better choice at this point. Mediation requires the willingness to compromise... to admit some wrongdoing. He's had his chances on that, and I've been unimpressed. If ArbCom is interested in this, I think they should take it up. --W.marsh 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC) fails WP:WEB[edit]

Hello ... Have you tried clicking any of the external links in this article? The only one not linked to the subject's website is to an Alexa search engine results page, and most of them produce 404 errors ... even Alexa only points to the Arabic language website ... I can't find reliable sources supporting the notability of the subject as specified in WP:WEB ... if there are, then they should be a cited references in the article. -- 05:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I will nominate it for AfD for you if you like, since anons can't do that. But speedy deletion is for articles that really don't assert importance, AfD is more appropriate for questions of whether an article meets WP:WEB --W.marsh 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Since the only response of the author Striver (talk · contribs) has been to replace my {{citation needed}} tag with a ref that only says "per Alexa rating." then I guess an AfD would be the place to decide if a single Alexa reference (all other links are for the subject's website, and half of them are broken) is sufficient for WP:WEB notability. Thanks. -- 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, you might want to make a stronger argument for deletion than I did, as well-argued AfDs are more likely to get the desired result. --W.marsh 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I hate to interrupt again, but would you consider extending the AfD on to include by the same author (please see the discussion page and edit history), with the same WP:WEB problem? Thnx again. -- 07:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
          • It would be best that it's just clearly noted on each AFD that the two AfDs are related. It would get confusing if one article was added to the AfD days after the AfD started. --W.marsh 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/[edit]

Hello ... I have found some interesting things from this AfD that I would like to see incorporated into some of the guidelines and policies, and I guess that the best way to get the ball rolling would be with an essay ... I'm thinking of something like Wikipedia:Popularity (Web).

The point is that there needs to be a central place where the role of web directories like Alexa and Google rankings are documented as being reliable sources for claims of popularity, but that popularity by itself does not satisfy Wikipedia's standard of notability, and that such rankings cannot be used for this purpose.

This AfD also raised the issue that while pointing to such ranking pages as an External link should be avoided as per WP:EL, they have their place if used in a {{cite web}} for assertions of popularity among certain kinds of websites. Then it would point out that the popularity of a website is not the same as the popularity of the subject of the website, and therfore was not a valid measure of "notability" of the website's subject.

We also need to reach a consensus as to what we call these Alexa and Google rankings ... a "Web directory" or a "Search engine results page" ... the essay would also discuss How They Work, and would show that "Web directory" is the proper name for them, since there is no "search" involved ... the subject places a link on their website, then Google and Alexa record the number of visitors and where they came from, and that is how they make the rankings. Consequently, the rankings only show websites that have actively solicited their inclusion in the rankings, which raises WP:COI issues.

Anywho, if I take a crack at it on my talk page, with arguments lifted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (second nomination), would you be willing to put it someplace for broader discussion and consensus? Thanks. 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Using Alexa ranking and google result comparisons to try to determine popularity seems a bit contrary to WP:NOR... encyclopedia articles really aren't the place to publish results of studies that random internet users conduct. At any rate, I would direct you to WP:WEB, perhaps a new section should be added there to confirm what (to met at least) should be obvious, that Google results are not what is meant by "non-trivial third party coverage". Discussion on WP:WEB's talk page is probably the best place to get some feedback on this. --W.marsh 22:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "What we have here ... is a failure to communicate." ... I think that we're in the same book, but not quite on the same page yet ... let's get away from the idea of these being a "search results" ranking, but a "Web directory" ranking, which operates by a different mechanism than the name "Google" implies to most people ... it should always be referred to (in this context) as "Google Directory" ...

      Google Directory is a collection of links arranged into hierarchical subcategories. The links and their categorization are from the Open Directory Project, but are sorted using PageRank.

      There is already mention of "open directories" and "open wikis" in the guidelines and policies, and we just need to explain and define Alexa Popularity and Google Directory rankings as a valid citation for a qualified claim of "one of the most popular websites", but that such a claim of popularity cannot be used to support a claim of WP:NOTE as it applies to WP:WEB or any other subject ... I think this puts us in the same chapter, at least.

      The beauty of the paradigm is that there is no need to quantify a dubious measure which is in constant motion ... having the links as citation means that no numbers are ever used in the article (no 1st, 3rd, or 5th highest criteria or claims), but the assertion can be verified at any time ... simply put,

      Any website that is listed near the beginning of the same category in more than one well-established open directory ranking may claim to be "one of the most popular websites" in that category, but if it ever fails to appear on more than one of the pages to which the citations are linked, then the assertion may be deleted.

      ... this also prevents trying to "increase popularity" by pointing to multiple citations since just two would be sufficient. OTOH, any website that meets WP:WEB will probably be in the Top Three of both Alexa and Google Directory, and it will not be worth mentioning at all, just like the popularity of or in the pornography magazine categories are not mentioned in their articles.

      I guess I'm just trying to cut off debates before they begin, and provide a precident for being able to prevent "publishing studies" (or whatever) in articles, and deleting them without having to go all the way to an AfD for consensus on the wording ... thnx fer letting me use your talk page as a sounding board ... I'll take this over to the WP:WEB Talk page now. -- 07:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC) on deletion review[edit]

Thanks for info. I'll let it run its course. Tyrenius 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: copy and pasting[edit]

Sorry i didn't know the one i got was from a PDF. Nareklm 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville growing and changing[edit]


WikiProject Louisville is sprouting its wings for 2007! We have a new Assessment Department and a much more refined project template. We have nearly 1,000 articles catalogued for our project. And we still have a lot of work to do. We have 500+ articles left to assess for quality, and all our articles, as always, need tender loving care. Please consider dropping by the project and seeing what you might be able to do to move Louisville-related articles forward. Cheers, and Happy New Year! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I added more information about the village and also added links and related stubs. Can you remove linkless on it now? Can you comment on Mlpkr 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


it looks like you deleted an article on YouMail. Can I ask why? (Just do a Google search YouMail to learn more...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

  • I'd need the exact name of the article... there has not been an article at YouMail. --W.marsh 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I got bored :) Navou talk 20:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

07:37, 8 October 2006 W.marsh deleted "Youmail" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youmail) Navou talk 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well uh, from the looks of it, the article didn't meet WP:CORP / WP:N. Mere claims that sources exist aren't enough, they need to be specifically pointed out in the AfD, or better yet, included in the article as references. Just recreate the article to meet WP:CORP if possible. --W.marsh 05:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments, I've left another, really would like your input. I want to open up the policy, or perhaps make is less restrictive to allow non-admins to close those afd's, even those keep that might be gray. Its been said, that sysop is no big thing, no reason why non-sysops, experienced wikipedians should be able to make jusgement calls on the keep side of the house. I do agree with the delete closing. I mean, if I can not delete the article, I should not be clossing the afd as delete. Navou talk 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll reply eventually, a day or two. Vaguely busy with real life stuff lately. --W.marsh 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Metal Project[edit]

If you are interested in joining a potential Project Wiki Christian Metal project go here to sign up. --E tac 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand why you describe my contribution to Jay Garner's page as plagiarism since I have attributed my source and quoted selectively. If you compare what I added with the source you will notice that I have rearranged most of the words while extracting the facts and placing them in the context of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hplovejet (talkcontribs)

  • We were pretty sure it was plagiarism, I recall finding chunks of that text in websites that were not Wikipedia mirrors, exactly corresponding with the portion you added. At any rate the tone was awkward and it didn't fit into the article very well. --W.marsh 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Err... isn't that an "overturn and delete?" Or am I smoking crack again? - brenneman 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the DRV closure? I'm confused. --W.marsh 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bah, no, it's me. I looked at the closure, forgot that there isn't a spot for the closer's name, and got muddled... please just ignore me, like my wife does. - brenneman 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, I think this is sorted now, and you can get SPAM #1!


A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (2nd nomination).
brenneman 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language wikipedia prods[edit]

If you would like to remove these articles, please nominate them for deletion. I do not agree with your proposed deletions. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you believe they meet WP:WEB? --W.marsh 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right? They're Wikipedia editions. Not everyone can read each of the editions to get each language's project history. Besides, mass noms of a category of articles like this by PROD is underhanded, it's best to put it on AFD and let the community pass judgement. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Have you read WP:WEB? These articles do not assert meeting it. If you want to document Wikipedia project history, don't do it in the article namespace. --W.marsh 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's your perogative to formulate a deletion nomination, but I will protest any PROD movement on these articles. Wikipedia itself meets WP:WEB; The foreign lanugage edition articles are IMO daughter articles to the main Wikipedia article, conveying information too extensive to keep in the already extremely long main article. This is well within accepted article breakout procedures. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should have expected something like this... biiiiassss. --W.marsh 08:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Streamload[edit]

Hi, I discovered that the Streamload article had been deleted. It caused me quite a headache as I was very sure I'd read about it on Wikipedia previously, but I just couldn't find it. I finally found it trough

  • Is there any easy way to discover if an article has been deleted? Some sort of "The article you're looking for doesn't exist anymore. It has been deleted due to being spam."?
  • Are deleted articles achieved anywhere? If I still want to see the article in question?
  • If the service in question increased in notability and one wrote a an article that looked less like a press release, where would be the polite place to post it? Is there somewhere one can post the article for discussion and feedback instead of just re-creating the Streamload article? Since the article has been deleted twice, I would think it would be more polite to test the article on other Wikipedians before publishing it.

--Alf 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • First, you can see if a page has been deleted by clicking on a nonexistant pagename where it says "If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?." Deleted articles are visible to admins, and can generally be made available upon a reasonable request. I can move it to your userspace if you like, and you can make whatever changes you want, then either request feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam or just move it back to the article namespace. But moving back the deleted article with no changes wouldn't be a good idea. Let me know if you want me to do that (put the article in your user space so you can work on it). --W.marsh 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, putting the article in my user space would be great. I:) --Alf 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there some easy way to see all sub-pages of an article? sortof User:Tunheim/* ? --Alf 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
See Special:Prefixindex to view subpages. I have userfied the article to User:Tunheim/steamload.--W.marsh 05:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Alf 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS. I probably won't be too much in a rush to fix the article, so if someone else is planning to submit it, don't wait for me :)

additional pages to ignore[edit]

I recently ran across the article Pull-quote and when looking at what links to it I noticed that no actual articles do, despite there being a long list of links. It currently has, redirects, talk:, user:, wikipedia:, wikipedia talk:, template:, and template talk: but 0 articles. I'm not sure which of the ones I've listed you're already ignoring but you might consider ignoring some or all of them. Vicarious 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pablo Ganguili on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pablo Ganguili. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Please note that a totally new article is being taken to Deletion Review as requested by another admin; this review is not to dispute the prior decision per se.) John Broughton | Talk 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International[edit]

Hello ... As the closing admin for the most recent AfD, would you please take a look at the article and Talk:Faith Freedom International#This article need cleanup per the AfD discussions? One editor seems to think that No Consensus means "The sites mentioned now are acceptable, and prove notability." ... IMHO, this article is worse than it was before the AfD, with even more "references" that are just links to essays by the website's founder, Ali Sina, whose article was deleted and redirected because that's a pseudonym ... how can anything posted by an anonymous individual on their own website satisfy WP:V or be considered a WP:RS?

Oh, I almost forgot ... they've added more PageRank cruft (as if relative "popularity" is encyclopedic information/knowledge), and this time the link goes to a site ( that requires registration to see the statistics they cite ... can you say, "links normally to be avoided?"

Anyway, I'm assuming that (like me) you just moved on after the AfD and have not been monitoring it ... I just fell into it from another questionable article (a recent creation) that is using a page from this website and a wikilink to this article as a WP:RS to establish WP:N ... not a "walled garden," but when I saw the current state, I just had to put a cleanup tag on it because it still lacks WP:RS and WP:V citations, but it was immediately reverted as "vandalism" ... I was going to flag it with {{unreliable}}, but decided that {{cleanup-afd}} was more appropriate (hence the comment not matching the edit) ... maybe you'd feel more confident adding it? Thanks in advance for any opinions or actions on this matter. — (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You seems to know a lot about Wikipedias policies for a "new" user, that started editing just a few days ago Or perhaps you just forgot to log in to your main account? As for the article, it has indeed improved since the AfD debate. Some very appropriate secondary sources is now being used, and in an much acceptable way. -- Karl Meier 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I somehow find IPs who know a ton about Wikipedia to be a lot less suspect than new accounts that inexplicably do. I dunno. Some people just like to edit by IP and IPs change over time for 99% of us. If someone's creating a new account every week, chances are there's a reason and it's not a very pleasant one. At any rate... looking at the FFI wikipedia article, the problem that jumps out is sourcing. Everything is sourced to Alexa (sigh) or the site's webpage. A stray claim is referenced to WorldNet Daily which could be a reliable source I guess, but the article makes no mention of FFI. They were quoted at, a few other stray mentions. Just based on the references in the article. I remember closing this, and my philosophy is basically that I'm not going to overturn a reasonable argument that a site meets WP:WEB, e.g. the debate is not whether there is reliable coverage, but whether there's enough. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what I'll overturn is stuff along the lines of AfDs where everyone "votes" to keep but the only references are message board posts, which does happen.
At any rate, my opinion on looking at the article in its current state is that it still needs some referencing work, anything in the more mainstream press would be good if it exists. You might even consider another AfD in time or perhaps a WP:RFC to drum up some outside comments on the article. 72.75's comments seem in perfectly good faith and should not be dismissed as trolling, but sourcing on this article isn't a battle I want to fight right now... I wish you luck and let me know if you need any more help. --W.marsh 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GNAA (from User_talk:Chmod007)[edit]

Why would one want to re-create GNAA?? Georgia guy 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I do know that dozens of people have spent hundreds of hours on the article in the past, for altruistic reasons, and believe that they deserve another try. The people who felt that it did not belong in Wikipedia had 18 tries before the article was deleted. The fact that it was allowed to be listed 18 times proves that consensus changes over time and that no decision is final on Wikipedia. — David Remahl 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sources would need to be presented first... on the talk page, wherever. The page existed for years without sources... it's unreasonable to expect a new one would suddenly be sourced correctly, let's find the sources first before letting people reintroduce unreliable information into articles. --W.marsh 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Only you have protected the talk page and all the track record for the page (history) has been removed from the eyes of non-admins. The only reason I can think of for taking these actions is to quash all attempts to work productively to find encyclopedic information about the subject matter. It scares me that this is now the prevailing attitude on Wikipedia. :-(. Here is an email response I sent to Tawker that explains some more of why this trivial issue has eroded my faith in Wikipedia to the point where I don't mind risking my admin status. — David Remahl 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well uh, if anyone presented to me a good source I'd remove the deletion protection and give the article my blessing, and it would stick. The talk page was unprotected for a while and really got nothing but trolling and sour grapes, nothing towards sourcing, so someone (not me) axed the talk page. I'm not opposed to it existing in a semi-protected nature, but I will likely remove unproductive trolling. But really, think about it, no reliable sources means no article in 2007. It's not worth ruining your reputation over a troll organization that hoodwinked Wikipedia in 2005 and no longer even has the resources to even disrupt a single AfD successfully... the community has moved on, GNAA was a silly joke that some admins were tricked into thinking was important. GNAA was deleted and Wikipedia is better for it. --W.marsh 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship[edit]

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. See you soon on CAT:CSD, just remember to do I8 deletions correctly or I might have to chase you up :P--Nilfanion (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

About your deletion of Kansas Koyotes[edit]

Samuel Blanning, the man who deleted the article at first, deleted it because of lack of "sources". He said he had no problem with re-creating it if it had sources. I rewrote it, added quite a few sources, and you still deleted it. May I ask why? Tom Danson 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, it was identical except for the sources... I've gone ahead and restoredn it. But I'll ask Blanning to take a look at it if he has time. --W.marsh 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 Utah State Legislature[edit]

This article should be deleted. It is an older version of the 56th Utah State Legislature article that is part of a series of articles (List of Utah State Legislatures) and should be deleted as it no longer serves a purpose. It doesn't link to any article and no other articles as far as I know link to it. IF you could delete this article I would appreciate it. Edward Lalone 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

done --W.marsh 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for MKULTRA Pop Culture[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MKULTRA Pop Culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wyatt Riot 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


My internet was down, as was the forum at the time. The reality is, the page has been referenced in BBC articles on Che Guevara's continuing popularity. It has 9000 members, which is huge considering that it is a forum of radical leftists, making it the largest of its kind. Its google rank is number two for Che, and number three for Che Guevara. It's clearly notable. I have started a review, but my net is still down. I would like this page undeleted please.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Che-Lives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aah... wikipedia has changed alot since I had stable net access... I have no idea what the hell I'm doing when it comes to this review, I think I messed up the boilerplates, it's not showing up. Do you mind sorting out for me?--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky Parks Template[edit]

Nice work on the Kentucky Parks template. Maybe that'll spur some interest in creating a few more of those articles. If not, maybe I'll just take a long weekend sometime, check out The Kentucky Encyclopedia from the library, and stub them in myself. Acdixon 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I think there's also an online version at the UK webpage somewhere or other. I plan to try to create a few state park article myself if I have time. I noticed the lack of a template after working on an article for a NJ State park... I'm glad we have one for KY and hopefully it will be less filled with red links soon. --W.marsh 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Keeley Dorsey[edit]

An editor has nominated the article Keeley Dorsey for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Keeley Dorsey during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Http:// It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

This page redirected to, which is clearly vandalism. The actual website is nothing but a placeholder by a domain registrar. Mchmike 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please make a cursory attempt to look into a situation before pasting annoying template messages on the talk pages of administrators. That redirect was fallout from pagemove vandalism I fixed. --W.marsh 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not realize you were an administrator. I'm still rather inexperienced with Wikipedia in general, I simply noticed something that was out of place. Mchmike 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's okay. I deleted the redirect anyway. --W.marsh 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


User:Markco1/archive-001 archive of talk page Markco1 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

About your message[edit]

Actually, my mom is from Boston. Mewtwowimmer 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up: AFDs needing closing[edit]

[1], [2], [3] DogJesterExtra 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • We normally wait 5 days, unless an AFD happens to meet a criteria listed at Wikipedia:Speedy keep or WP:CSD. None of these seem to, so I'll let them wait until the standard 5 days are up. --W.marsh 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Chris Rombola ? That's been 5 days DogJesterExtra 02:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Legacy[edit]

The discussion of the article Quantum Legacy ( for deletion is once again, no consensus. There is not enough discussion in my view. Only 6 people, 3 keeps, 3 deletes. How can someone reach a decision with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K776 (talkcontribs) 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

  • AfD isn't a vote... there weren't independent sources presented, so the arguments for deletion were much stronger than those for keeping. See WP:N / WP:SOFTWARE. --W.marsh 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex Montalvo[edit]

You closed this afd as delete, but I believe that afd was brought up by banned User:JB196. Could you undelete this by any chance? We're supposed to close any afd's he opens. Part Deux 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Done... thanks for pointing that out. See a few threads up, I've already had a run-in with this guy. --W.marsh 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The checkuser results came back as unnecessary (duck test). I've gone ahead and closed the afd's; I hope that's not a big problem, because that's what everyone's been doing with this guy's afd's recently. Thanks. Part Deux 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And if you could block the socks listed at WP:AN/I, it would be nice. If you need evidence, go ahead and email me, but trust me, it's really obvious. Part Deux 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's fine... some of the AfDs did look like they had some merit but there's nothing stopping good faith users from nominating them. If it's one AN/I someone should get to it eventually... I'll look into it if I have time but I'm busy right now. --W.marsh 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[edit] was deleted just as a news item about it ran on Wikinews. what would it take to get it restored? Ted22 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The afd should be open for a few more days, so sources can be added. --W.marsh 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

INT Management (look like advertisement)[edit]

I've corrected the article about INT Management which looked like an advertisement by suppressing some sentences that were too subjectives. Could you tell me if it is objecive enough now, ad if it is, suppress the {Advert}? Thank you, AM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meuniea (talkcontribs) 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


Hi, Wmarsh. About your edit to {{DRVNote}} [4], the reason I removed the header was that people usually create headers themselves, leading to double header annoyances (See [5], [6], [7] and [8]). In fact, I've just checked the talk page of the admins who have been taken to DRV recently, and there doesn't seem to be many problems with the template not having a header [9] [10] (with one exception [11]). -- Steel 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Because most people who add this template are careful and will type out a header too once they see it's required. But there's no need for a non-automatic header here and it's a waste of time to type a custom one every time... in fact the automatic one is more informative than me typing "DRVnote" as the header and so on. It would be nice if the template could avoid double header stuff automatically, but I don't think that's possible right now. --W.marsh 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that typing a header is a waste of time (In fact, if you use the '+' link, you get the added bonus of leaving a descriptive edit summary). It's a waste of time for me and others to continually remove duplicate headers, and considering that people are willing to spend five seconds to type headers (as shown by the diffs provided above), I think the template is better off without the header. -- Steel 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree... people go to their talk page not via watchlists but via the "you have new messages" thing that doesn't show edit summaries. It's still wasted time to me... considering the header should always say the exact same thing, that's exactly what automation is for. --W.marsh 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I accept your point, but as I said, it's a waste of time on my end to keep removing double headers. Normally I wouldn't bother changing the template for something so minor, but lately I'm being taken to DRV on a semi-regular basis and constantly removing extra headers got annoying. -- Steel 17:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What we really need is for the devs to add some ability for a "override header" feature in templates, if that makes any sense. If you want to change the template back I understand. --W.marsh 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that would solve a lot of problems (though I imagine it would be difficult to code). -- Steel 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hitachi Foundation[edit]

Why did you delete The Hitachi Foundation entry? I'm very confused as to why you felt it was necessary to delete the whole entry instead of just editing parts. It is a legitimate and very large foundation. The wording was informative and not opinionated. We had also discussed a redirect of the M-Powered Project. Why was this deleted instead of redirected? Julieatrci 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Almost every line of the article was a copy and paste from other websites or sources... see Wikipedia:Copyright, we really can't do that. It's best that articles be written in your own words, in a tone acceptable for an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hitachi Foundation x2[edit]

Hi there,

I see from this [12] that you deleted the The Hitachi Foundation article, which I you did immediately after closing this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-Powered Project. Unfortunately you forgot to inform the user who created these two articles - User:Julieatrci, who is now left dazed and confused - see User_talk:Lethaniol#Question_from_Adoptee.

As the Adopter (see WP:ADOPT) of this user I feel obliged to lend him a hand with this issue, as I believe he was editing in good faith. As I do not have access to the deleted article, I am asking that you explain to them exactly what was wrong. I also assume that as the article was only deleted for copyright violation, and not notability, that if the user appropriately recreates the article this would be fine. Cheers Lethaniol 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol should have checked here first - I see you have replied to the user in question above. Still best if you leave a note on their talk page so they do not get confused when deleting. I suppose the only question left to answer is if the article is recreated - without copyright violation issues, then notability is not an immediate problem. Cheers Lethaniol 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it was deleted for copyright reasons, and if he recreates it in his own words that should be okay, but there could still be notability issues, he should see WP:N. --W.marsh 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Buckley Wiki[edit]

The Tim Buckley Wiki is under vandalization attack again from a number of individuals, registered and anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thrindel (talkcontribs) 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

  • looks like it's already been cleaned up... I try to keep an eye on this article, but sometimes stuff slips through for a few hours... sorry. --W.marsh 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alpha_Kappa_Nu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FrozenApe 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)