User talk:Retired username/Archive17

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387). I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chat (journal) deletion

W.marsh, Even though the group that publshes The Chat calls themselves a club, the publication is an important regional ornithology journal. I'm new at this should i include the justification for the article on the discussion page? Thanks. Picbor 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's an important journal, an article on Wikipedia would be welcome. But the article should explain why it's important, preferably with references. --W.marsh 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you'll undelete it i'll add some content.Picbor 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's at User:Picbor/Chat (journal). --W.marsh 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Clemons

I'm not sure if you understood that the page claims self-published books. I also looked at the publisher's website and at the bottom of each page is a copyright notice in the name of Charles Clemons. --Pleasantville 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It has an ISBN... I think it's a reasonable claim of importance. CSD is just for uncontroversial, indisputable cases. You can always use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. --W.marsh 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not worth the effort. --Pleasantville 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can self-publish with an ISBN for $10. All of his works appear to be self-published. I'm not saying that AFD isn't the way to go, but I'm just pointing out for future cases that having an ISBN does not inficate notability. Shsilver 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It may not indicate notability in terms of meeting WP:BOOK or WP:BIO, but it's a claim of notability. That's all CSD requires. --W.marsh 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Listography claim of importance

The link was below. I'm not sure if you actually looked at it, (not accusing here, I'm genuinely curious as you cited the claim but didn't actually comment on the provided source) but the "feature" was a grand total of 45 seconds. The "show" isn't actually on television. Its a 3 minute web video. Articles have to do more than claim importance, that claim has to be valid, hence why I made the point in the summary that each claim didn't pass the trivial test.--Crossmr 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well, to avoid speedy deletion, all they really have to do is claim importance. There's always WP:PROD and WP:AFD for when the claim doesn't meet guidelines like WP:N or WP:WEB. --W.marsh 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the template and the process. If the claim doesn't meet the notability guidelines its not a claim at all. If we're going to avoid speedies based on unsubstantiated claims that means anyone can get an article here for 5 days simply by making one. --Crossmr 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone's concept varies as to what is an obviously bogus claim... but WP:N and other guidelines specifically aren't criteria for speedy deletion. With all due respect, I think I know what the point of the speedy deletion process is. The article even has a link to media coverage... this was not a good one to speedy delete. --W.marsh 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diligence, for excellent work closing AfDs, and actualy leaving a closing rationale. It is something that gets overlooked. Let this barnstar remind you to keep up the good work forever! in case forever is not technicaly viable, pretty long will do. Martijn Hoekstra 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the effort you showed in not only closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories but removing links to it on other pages. :) Anynobody 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome... and really, it's no problem. Closers are supposed to do that (although they sometimes forget...) --W.marsh 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby declare this thread an addition to the above barnstar. Martijn Hoekstra 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of DirecTV channels 1000-9999 history merge request

In your close of the AfD for List of DirecTV channels 1000-9999, you said you weren't sure where the list was copied to the List of DirecTV channels article. Please see this diff, where a "See also" link to the now-deleted article was replaced by a transclusion of Template:List of DirecTV channels/1000-9999. It appears that this template was copied or derived from the deleted list, so a history merge from the deleted article to that template would seem prudent. DHowell 06:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, it should be merged over now. --W.marsh 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe I wasn't too clear in my request, because it looks like you merged into List of DirecTV channels, rather than into Template:List of DirecTV channels/1000-9999, which means now the edits to the deleted 1000-9999 list are now buried in the edit history of the main list of all channels. Unfortunately, undoing this might be rather difficult. If you are willing to fix it, I would be willing to comb through the edit history and pick out and identify the edits which belong to the 1000-9999 list, if you need me to. Sorry, the next time I request a history merge, I will try to be clearer. DHowell 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well... I'm confused. There were only like 5 or 6 edits in the history of List of DirecTV channels 1000-9999 when I merged it. All that should really be needed is some text on Template:List of DirecTV channels/1000-9999 explaining where the edit histories can be found... it could be a hidden note or something, I think. --W.marsh 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I've identified the original edits and put them on the template's talk page. If you're up for it, feel free to merge those specific edits to the template's edit history, if not, c'est la vie. DHowell 06:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, I did that as best as I could figure out... I'm not really sure if everything's correct now. --W.marsh 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Excellent job. The only thing left was to revert the template back to the version before the history merge, which I just did. Thank you! DHowell 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Northend Elite

Good Day,

Just wondering what the requirements are to have an entry about a supporters group for a soccer team. Specifically about The Northend Elite, a supoprters group for Toronto FC. This page was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_End_Elite

It is a very similar group to these ones which are in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Sector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Patch_Boys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_Chicago

Thanks for your help,

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexintoronto (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• The articles you mention cite third-party sources... this is the basis of Wikipedia's current inclusion policy. See WP:N --W.marsh 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

men from uncool

Hi, other bands I've needed information on I've found in wikipedia. This group I am a fan of and was afforded the opportunity to actually meet them and their fans at one of their shows and obtain their history etc. so that people such as myself could look them up.

how is it that certain music can be here and others not as i think it's all part of musical history regardless of how big or small an impact is made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningranger668 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:MUSIC for our inclusion criteria for bands. --W.marsh 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

deletion of article

I am attempting to add an article, however it is being deleted as "advertising." How is the article I am submitting different than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Care_Association_of_America?

I am following the same exact format as this page, yet their page is deemed acceptable and ours is not?

It seemed like the article of yours that I deleted was just copied in from some other site... it would be best if you could write it in your own words, and with information from third-party sources, rather than your own personal knowledge of the topic. It can start out as a short stub... and often it's better that way. --W.marsh 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT copied from another site. My submission is modeled after this one: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urgent_Care_Association_of_America?) - why isn't this one considered advertising? It seems unfair and biased that the page which is exactly like my submission is not considered advertising but mine is!

Well that article isn't very good either, but it starts out with the claim "The Urgent Care Association of America (UCAOA) supports the mission of the approximately 15,000 urgent care centers in the United States." Can your organization make a claim to importance like that? If so I'll undelete. --W.marsh 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The importance of the AAUCM is that it contributes to the field of urgent care medicine by providing support and education to urgent care physicians, all to improve the overall quality of medical care.

Can you cite a third-party source for that claim though? --W.marsh 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the UCAOA's third-party source for their claim?

You can nominate that article for deletion if you want. The existance of one article on Wikipedia doesn't mean any similar article can exist... there are 2+ million articles, not all have been reviewed for deletion yet. --W.marsh 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If my article is deemed unacceptabe and is immediately deleted - even though it is identical in format to that article - then that article should be deleted as well.

Image Deleted

I appreciate that you do not allow any old image to be added to pages. However, I am trying desperately to get our company logo added to the page that was created about us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_Red_Mill) I cannot seem to figure out the right way to acknowledge our copyright on the logo and have it stay on our page. Maybe, since you have deleted it, you can help me. The free image that the original poster used is ugly and we'd rather people use our real logo.

Sincerely,

Cassidy Stockton Bob's Red Mill

At Special:Upload, select "logo" as the licensing. You may need to add a fair use rational, the page should explain. --W.marsh 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ICEcore (software)

I am still trying to understand why I cannot create a listing for ICEcore (software) when there are 100s of Open source projects listed here? For instance why is "write" allowed and we are not?

It didn't seem to explain why the software was notable. If there are other articles that don't make these claims, you can nominate them for deletion too (see WP:DP), but with 2+ million articles, and the nature of Wikipedia... that one article exists doesn't guarantee infinite articles on that topic can exist. --W.marsh 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please return my articles to my userspace and I will continue to refine them.

Musicbio

please explain why u have deleted my contribution

• It didn't credibly assert why the topic was important --W.marsh 02:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

marsh

Hi there, You deleted a page about nicolas greilsamer yesterday, and i have no way of retreiving it although some time was spent to write it. Is there anyway of retreiving it? MAny thanks

• Well, we generally advise people not to write autobiographies. Any biographical article needs to assert importance, and preferably cite third-party sources. See WP:BIO --W.marsh 14:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ICEcore (software)

Thanks for the explanation. Please return my articles to my user area and I will continue to work on them.

• Okay, here it is User:Emcconne/ICEcore (software) --W.marsh 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hec Researcher

Hello

I saw you were an Wikipedia administrator. I'm a marketing reasearcher at Hec Paris (http://www.hec.fr/) and I want to conduct a 2-3 week survey on Wikipedia starting this Monday. It deals with how often Wikipedians contribute to the site. All I am asking you is to tell me where I can post this link so that some contributors complete it(it takes 2 minutes..). http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=U6THkoMvVVIpKi7wmmmlUA_3d_3d If you cannot I hope you could tell who should I contact. At the end of this survey, I will post the results so that everyone sees them.

Yours Truly, Jacques. MarketingHec (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks a lot for your nomination and support! As you've probably seen, my RfA ended successfully at (51/1/2), and the support from someone of your ill-repute certainly has something to do with it.  :-) I'm going to work very hard at deserving that trust you gave me. — Coren ^(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief mention?

So I can frame the DRV correctly, can you tell me why the length ("brief mention") in a peer reviewed article counts against it? If a subject can be explained in a few paragraphs--and most evolutionary psychology subjects can if you understand evolutionary arguments--then why give more credence to longer explanations? Keith Henson (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

about the deletion of the page "little fighter 2"

The article little fighter 2 got deleted, and I see the main reason is because there is no source can prove it's popularity. LF2's official site, lf2.net's alexa rank is 31,688 which is a indication of it's popularity. LF2 have been downloaded over 4,987,162 times might not be a strong indication to say it's the most popular freeware game ever, but then change it to a "a popular freeware fighting game" would be more decent right? skycn.com is a large download site in China, and it received 2,537,881 download for a slightly modified LF2 version http://tele.skycn.com/soft/7562.html over 800 video is published on youtube about LF2 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lf2&search=Search

This game is released before Little Fighter Online. So maybe, it's ok to undelete and replace the non-accurate info with more accurate ones?

I don't know much about wikipedia right now, so I don't know much about the process...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgccl (talk • contribs)

The page is not protected against re-creation, so you can start a new one there whenever you want. It would be best to cite sources. I can give you a copy of the old page if you think that would be helpful, but as it was deleted, it will need a substantial rewrite. --W.marsh 14:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

I wrote about a band I love here. there was they're name just written by someone else in a link without article, I copied the biography from the band website. I personally know the components and I'm not English, so to be sure of not doing mistakes I copied the biography. A biography that they have written. Why deleting it? is what they have written on themselves. What they have published to let people know about them. I don't understand. If I need a special permission from the website they used to write it ok. I can understand if it's only a problem of copyright. But it's a bit absurd thinking that the main message is written by a person and not a website. thanks for reading me anyway. I wrote this also in my talk, you can reply anywhere you want. I want to underline that I didn't write the article because BNI are friend but because they're a part of Maltese music, an important part, like the other group linked in the article where I found BNI's links. And I've not written my personal opinion but they're personal story. Beacuse while I'm here in France they're still playing in Malta and I think that maybe people going there want to know what they will find going to a concert reading they're name. If the problem is copyright I have to work on it or to leave the possibility of writing the page if I can't write an article in my own words on BNI music excluding my personal opinion. I'm not trying to promote a band, I'm trying to complete the article of someone else with an explanation of what the quoted band is. I just need an explanation of what I've to do to write this article. thanks. kind regards. Yukari4288 19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Yukari4288

P.S. sorry I didn't sign because I'm a new user and I don't know really well how it works

For a subject to get a wikipedia article, there needs to be a claim of why they're important, as well as coverage by reliable, third-party sources like newspaper and magazines. I deleted this article because there was no claim of importance. You can recreate it if there is a reason why they're important, and reliable sources that back up the claims of the article. Unfortunately, we can't really have articles on topics that don't meet these criteria. --W.marsh 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked around the web for reliable sources and I've found a lot of things but I need a bit of help. Just to know if the sources I found are enough important or not and to understand if there is something more that I have to add to the article to read it on wikipedia. Would you help me? the sources are some websites, Malta Independent and the press review of French Ambassy in Malta. I've saved all in an .odt file. I was forgetting, I talk with some friends about what is a claim of importance and the concept is still difficult to understand, I've some ideas but I'm not sure. I will look in the existing articles on the other bands quoted by the first article to learn more. I don't know how to work on the article sending you every changes so I need help and instructions and someones reviewing it. thanks a lot! please reply here or on my talk. Kind regards Yukari4288 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well our guideline on reliable sources is WP:RS, generally websites are reliable if the authorship is clear. Wikis, blogs, forums and similar sites generally aren't considered reliable. If you want I can give you a copy of the article to work on in your userspace, where it won't be deleted, then you can move it back to the article space when you're ready. --W.marsh 16:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the article to work on it would be great and I would be glad of having it and to have yiur opinion when I will have re-written the article with the sources and with the claim of importance. thanks for your help! kind regards Yukari4288 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: User:Yukari4288/BNI (Batteries not Included) --W.marsh 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the page is ready. If You will find other irregular things on it I've no problem in re-editing. I added sources, quotes, discography and why they're so important (first punk lyrics in Maltese.) So will you give a look on it on my Users page? or I have to save the re-written pages on Maltese Music article's link and then wait to know if my article is re-deleted? I don't know how it works, is my first article. anyway thanks a lot for your help! I will wait for an ok or for some corrections! Kind regards. Yukari4288 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're getting close. Can you point out an article that confirms the claim: "Their debut album Ilsien Pajjiżi / Native Tongue features the first ever Punk tracks in Maltese" That's pretty much the last stumbling block... if I can reference that claim clearly, the article should be a lot harder to delete. --W.marsh 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found two quotes, the first is in Maltese (and my maltese is really poor) there are the words l-ewwel (first) trakk (track) and Malti (Maltese) but I can't be sure that this text is talking about my claim if I don't give it to a Maltese's speaking person, is for sure an article on "Native Tongue" album,written in the year that the cd came out. but I'm not sure that it is saying that they are the first in recording Maltese punk lyrics. there isn't the word punk but looking at the article format and at the firsts lines of the article it's clear that the writer is talking about punk and we can suppose that the lack of the word could depends from a pronoun, or from the fact that the word is quoted in preceeding sentences but usually I never work with supposition (or false assumption, as my supposition probably is considering the lack of the word "punk"). so I report my first quote but I think that is completely unuseful.

Hadd 14 ta' Marzu jintroducu l-ewwel cd taghom waqt wirja fid-Dempsey's Bar ta' Buġibba “Ilsien Pajjiżi/native Tongue” tiġbor fiha tlettax-il trakk, uhud minhom bil-Malti. It-trakks itkitbu kollha mill-membri tal-grupp

Gwida mużika lokali 1999

The second quotes is in English, from an interview in Maltese Independent and is sure (I worked on the page in jpg format)

“we also choose “Ilsien Pajjiżi/native Tongue” because we have recorded songs in Maltese, and, up to now, we are the only ones to have done so.”

The Malta Independent wednesday 14 july 1999 article and interview with Batteries Not Included written by Wayne Falsk

There is also another sources, unuseful because is in the description of the album in B.N.I. official site, and for that it could be considered written by themselves. Is that ok? or I have to search more? I'm personally sure of my claim because I know something on Malta music scene, I have been there and I have read a lot about it. the group on which I'm writing is the most famous punk-group on the Island, has partecipated to Marsaxxlock Festival and Beer festival and Concrete Junction festival, probably at all the Maltese Festivals involving Punk, Ska or Rock music and they did two tours in UK. I have enough material,or so I think, to make the article un-deletable for WP:MUSIC rules if I add other sources. Other sources that I have: 372 results stocked on my PC. But I don't want to explain how much BNI are famous, but why they are famous. even if I know that in encyclopedia sometimes notability can be more noticeable than concepts. If the second quote is ok I'll publish the article. if not I will correct and try last possibility to save my claim: e-mailing a Maltese journalist to ask other sources, and if that won't be enough I will be forced to change claim. (I don't want to write the first quote because I'm not sure of it's meaning.) So tell me if a newspaper quotes like my second quote is ok (or tell me about the first if you find a good translation). thanks a lot! Just waiting your reply. I don't know how to thanks you enough for your review! kind regards Yukari4288 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "The Malta Independent wednesday 14 july 1999 article and interview with Batteries Not Included written by Wayne Falsk" reference you mention sounds good. The template you'd use here is {{cite news}}, I'll add it to the draft article now as a demonstration. The way I learned all of this is just looking at good, existing articles and copying their techniques to write about things I was interested in... in this case you might go to WP:FA and find some featured articles on bands, and use them for ideas on how to make your article better. At any rate, with this reference added, it should be safe for you to move the page back to the article namespace, just be sure to use the "move" tab a tthe top of the page. --W.marsh 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, only one problem, I've moved the page two times! O-o (sorry! a stupid mistake! :( to justify myself I can only say that I'm not sleeping a lot in that period, University is killing me.) the first time I moved the page I wrote B.N.I. Malta, that isn't uncorrect but it doesn't link with "Music of Malta" article. You can delete "B.N.I. Batteries not included" page naturally if is absurd to have two pages on the same subject. but please don't delete the "BNI Batteries not included" page if now is possible to have it on wikipedia. I added the template cite news to every quote and to the three new quotes including the one in the note. I haven't added more because I think that music speaks for herself, if the reader wants to know more there are the links below and also the possibility to hear their music for free in the space (the music on the space start automatically, I've not written it because the reader has to go to the link because of is interest in the band and not only to try free music, is not an add, is an article). I think is unuseful talking about the precedent drummers (changed three times) or all the festivals if they're quoted in the link and sites (even if that will add a lot of quotes and links, but I don't want to torture the reader with links where the group is quoted, I think I read all the material about them in the web, is heavy, 372 pages are heavy of course). I will add about the tours and the festivals only if the article will be re-deleted. And I sincerely hope that it won't be re-deleted thanks for your help! I'm really sorry that I have to disturb you for a mistake! I have to say that you're great in review and you have a lot of patience, thanks for writing the note on my user page too! Kind regards! :)

(additional part, 5 minutes later)

now I've opened the page finding the sentences "redirect to B.N.I. Batteries not included" So I think you don't need to delete something. I don't know. I'll see. anyway thanks a lot!

(1 minutes later)

Ok it's all right! page redirected succefully! :) I'm too happy! B.N.I. is the best way to write it and the article is still related to "Music of Malta"! THANKS!! =^*^= Yukari4288 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another user (Curious Blue) corrected some errors on the page (I'm grateful to her/him for that) and... ...deleted my maltese translation in the External links. I contacted the user on his/her talk and I hope he/she will reply anyway the article is here and I'm happy of this. I hope to discuss that directly with this user. -see you the next (I hope on another article) and thanks for your help! Yukari4288 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

image in page

Dear Marsh,

I would love to put an image in one of the topics in wikipedia. It is a 'first day cover' or a cover with postage stamp that is available for sale generally on the day of release of a postal stamp. I have one such first day cover and I scanned it and tried to upload it to the page. First I got stuck in the sandbox or something of that kind, being inexperienced in the ways of the wiki. I finally managed to put it there. Alas! It was deleted by another user, with some gobbledygook about 'fair use image'. I tried to read about this fair use stuff, but it led me deeper into legalese, and in the end I am pretty confused.

My simple question is, Can I upload an image of a postal stamp/ first day cover (released in India) to the page 'Tenneti Viswanadham'. It is a great honour bestowed upon this gentleman who is my grandfather, I felt that it is only right that I share this image with the community through wikipedia. Kindly reply at your convenience to me at ansrao@gmail.com.

Thanks ANS Rao

Sorry, but I've had to forward your question to this page --W.marsh 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have given up on getting a reply; so let me tell you I replied to replied to your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Question from my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capture_bonding This article has been stuffed with nonsense twice, once by Sadi Carnot (now banned) and once by Publicola. When the article was deleted it was pure Sadi as reinserted by Publicola.

Now it seems that Publicola has been busted.

User:Publicola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search [] This user is a sock puppet of Nrcprm2026, and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

This is the guy who screwed up the capture-bonding article the second time, to the point I insisted that the EP stuff come out because the incorrect claim Publicola inserted that it was my idea would wreck my reputation with the evolutionary psychology community (credit goes to John Tooby).

In the light of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot/Evidence#Response_to_Nick_Y_.28below.29

what if anything should be done? Keith Henson (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really sure what your question is... the AFD occured after Publicola's edits tot he article had been reverted, as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Publicola edited the article back into the kind of mess Sadi had made, I didn't revert it, just pulled out the evolutionary psychology material about capture bonding because it gave improper credit. At the time the article was deleted, there wasn't any useful content to it. The argument being used to keep me from editing capture-bonding was that the material did not come from a peer reviewed source so there were OR issues. About 7 hours before you deleted the article, I found I had presented a discussion of capture-bonding in a peer reviewed article, "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War" in _Mankind Quarterly_ Volume XLVI Number 4, Summer 2006. (It isn't that important a part of an article that attempts to account for the origin of war--which is why I didn't remember it was there as well as similar statements in the Human Nature review article.)

From their website: "Mankind Quarterly is a refereed academic quarterly journal. Qualified authors wishing to submit manuscripts are invited see Notes for Authors."

From Wikipedia: Mankind_Quarterly "The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to physical anthropology and cultural anthropology and is currently published by The Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, languages, mythology, archaeology, race, etc. It aims to reunify biology with anthropology. The journal was founded in 1960, and originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics."

From the article:

"Evolutionary Psychology

"My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature. (Silverman 2003)

"The understanding that emerges from applying the profoundly powerful tool of evolutionary psychology to strange human behavior is often so obvious that one marvels why it has not been known for ages.

Consider the mysterious behavior of Elizabeth Smart in Salt

Lake City in 2003 or that of Patty Hearst when she was abducted in 1974. In both cases the victims bonded to their captors and resisted leaving them. The evolutionary origin of this psychological trait, known as the Stockholm syndrome (or more descriptively as capture bonding)/ almost certainly comes from millions of years of evolutionary selection where our ancestors-usually our female ancestors-were being violently captured from one tribe by another. Those who had the psychological traits (ultimately gene-based mechanisms) that led them to socially reorient after a few days (i.e., bond) to their captors often survived to pass on the trait. Those who continued to resist,

because they didn't have this trait, often became breakfast.

Being captured by neighbouring tribes was a relatively

common event for women in human history, if anything like the recent history of the few remaining primitive tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured tbem. Once you understand the evolutionary origin of this trait and its critical nature in genetic survival and reproduction in tbe ancestral human environment, related mysterious human psychological traits fall into place. Battered-wife syndrome is an example of activating the capture-bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training, fraternity bonding by hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or

bondage/discipline.

(page 445-446)

As I understand wiki rules, an editor can use material and concepts he wrote about if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal without running into OR issues. But I can't edit a deleted article. Keith Henson (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This goes a bit over my head... but it seems like the source you've found merely describes capture bonding as an alternate name for stocholm syndrome. Wouldn't that justify a redirect and a minor addition to Stockholm Syndrome, rather than an article on capture bonding? You can create a redirect whenever you want, the AFD doesn't preclude that. --W.marsh 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm syndrome is a symptom without providing any explanation. Capture-bonding goes into the evolutionary psychology of why the mental mechanisms evolved. It's like "idea" and "meme." Memes are ideas but using "meme" instead of "idea" brings in the evolutionary features of memes. As the article says, the mechanism provides an explanation for the origin of a lot more common human behaviors than just Stockholm syndrome. I suppose an article on "capture-bonding (mechanism)" would work. Keith Henson (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that the published sources here amount to more than brief mentions. However, you can work on a draft of capture-bonding (mechanism)... or you can take my close of the AFD to WP:DRV. --W.marsh 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see history and talk for capture-bonding restored since they relate to the Sadi Carnot business. I guess the only way is to take it to WP:DRV Keith Henson (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will userfy a copy of it for you: User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding --W.marsh 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of references for Daniel Boey

I have added references to the article on Daniel Boey. If the references are sufficient could you remove the deletion post at the top of the article?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Succisa75 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I'm sorry for messing with your awesome pregram mister Sir. I hope you have a nice day and remember, Vote Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.21.105 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

Capture bonding is an article you deleted and it is at DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category tags

I noticed that you tagged Timeline of Jane Austen with a "no categories" tag within minutes of the page being created. Please give editors a chance to find the categories! The page had most everything it needed to be complete (the entire timeline, all of the sources, a complete lead, etc.) That was the one remaining thing. It was a bit disheartening to have a tag slapped on it immediately. I had to first deal with a copyright violation tag that was incorrectly slapped on it. Thanks for your consideration! Awadewit | talk 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it got the categories added... maintenence tags aren't a criticism or an attack, we're just trying to help. The quicker the tag is added the more likely the creator will see it. --W.marsh 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what made me add the categories. I was about it do it anyway. This page was created in userspace, which isn't supposed to be linked to categories. I was about to add the categories as the second step to creating the article. I know it isn't a criticism, but time is a consideration. Awadewit | talk 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pecos Empire et al

Hello. Thanks for processing my speedy delete request on Pecos Empire. Unfortunately it appears that I may have tagged the article in question with the incorrect criteria [1]. New editor Whitechedda (talk · contribs) has been on a spree creating unreferenced articles on non-notable in-universe organizations from the science fiction role-playing game Rifts. Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did a A7 speedy deletion on one of these, New Navy, last night, but missed the other two: Pecos Empire and Republic of Japan (Rifts role-playing game). Since it appears that {{db-group}} is not the correct speedy tag, can you direct me to the proper one? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. There's no reason in WP:CSD policy to speedy delete an article just because it's about a fictional character, it has to meet one of the other criteria (nonsensical, copyvio, etc.) Some admins will delete out of process, but I won't. --W.marsh 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize New Navy was an out-of-process speedy deletion. My apologies! Thanks again for your time, --Kralizec! (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wendy Scott article and my incompetence

Hi - Thanks for picking up on my idiocy - I completely botched the references (cut and paste from an earlier submission). I have fixed and removed some non-referenced text (related to how I heard about it but not stated in any of the references. Hope that makes everything work... still learning (though my stupidity is an ongoing trait, unfortunately... Psinu (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Psinu

Ugh... I meant Wend(i) Scott article...

... though in researching this Wend(y) Scott of the UK might be interesting to add... maybe I'll get some more caffeine and go back to things I am less likely to screw up... thx... Psinu (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Psinu

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick help

I saw you had previously ended this discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future American Dad! episodes, and per that all future episodes have now been redirected/deleted. Having all these basically placeholder episode template pages basically inspired this argument here Talk:List of American Dad! episodes#Episode notability, partly because if you looked at some of the pages then you would see that those articles we not notable in any way. Since that past issue is resolved, wondering if you can end this argument as a no merge, or no consensus, as it can possibly be an issue brought up later, although for the current time seems. There are ongoing efforts to go through all the pages for this show, as well as family guy, which is one of the main issues that Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy‎ is dealing with now. (note: the editors for the family guy project are also most of the main editors for American Dad, and so a similar process is being set out for both shows. Also, family guy has already had a few episodes redone like American dad will, and a few have even reached good article status.)

So just hoping you can end the debate on notability and the merger for now, so that the tags can be removed from all the episode pages, thanks. Grande13 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As I was just closing several AFDs that day, and because I believe one admin alone shouldn't keep closing discussions on the same issue (to allow for a diversity of approaches), I'm going to pass for now... unless there's no one else who can close this in a timely fashion. I also don't really know that much about American Dad... someone who knows more about the topic would probably make a better closer here. Sorry. --W.marsh 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look around for some other admin now. I'll check back with you in a bit if those attempts are unsuccessful though, but thanks for the input. im not an admin, but am quite knowledgeable on the show, along with the show family guy. The wikiproject group has just started going through pages for both shows one at a time and already has found some desirable results such as [[2]]. So if you could change it to no merge or no consensus now it'd be great, as having those tags seems to be preventing some people from editing fearing their edits are just going to be removed if theres a merge, but if not i'll go around asking others, and pending on how that goes i might be back in a few days.Grande13 (talk)

sorry to bother you again, but I've emailed some other admins with no luck in any responses. Any chance you can just close this one yourself. If you have any questions on the subject I'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable so just ask. Basically it appeared the same time as the one you previously closed and was regarding the same subject matter with the same end result decided, so if you can do anything such as no consensus it or label it as a no merge it would be greatly appreciated, thanks Grande13 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aeja1370 (talk · contribs)

Hello! Several of this user's new articles have been speedy deleted today because he copies and pastes copyrighted material from other websites. I believe he is recreating some previously deleted pages. You deleted Abdul Hamid (Indian Manipuri Poet) and I believe he has recreated an article titled Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet). Tags are left on his talk page regarding nominations for deletion and copyright infringements but he seems pretty persistent and, personally, I don't think he's read or taken seriously anything on his talk page. I could use some help. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) doesn't look like a copyvio and probably shouldn't be speedy deleted. I'll leave the guy a final warning about the copyvios. --W.marsh 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet), it's not a copyvio. My issue is that his contributions generally amount to spam because of the amount of copyvio in his articles as well as lack of content and context in the articles that he does not copy. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for your help. SWik78 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment removed from Agavtouch case

W.marsh, I have removed your comment on a checkuser case regarding my usage of checkuser (see this). If you have complaints regarding my usage of checkuser, please feel free to contact the Ombudsman Commission or the Arbitration Committee, but please do not distract the focus of checkuser cases. People are already very easily distract on those cases (breaking out into arguments) and it's sometimes difficult to keep order. Also, you should note that I've acted more tactfully when checking SPAs since then (warning the sockmasters privately, telling them that I won't keep it a secret if they keep disrupting in the future), so I challenge the constructiveness of the comment. --Deskana (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You ran a checkuser on a whim then, now you want Alansohn to spend hours gathering even more evidence? It's just frustrating that sometimes a checkuser is run on the drop of a dime, other times you need a federal case made. You're lecturing about strict adherance to privacy policy now, but you had zero problem trampling all over it in the past, and seem unapologetic about that. It's also frustrating that you'd blank my comment. --W.marsh 04:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not the appropriate venue, and I have removed it again. If you want to discuss this with me, that's fine, but please do not discuss it on a totally unrelated checkuser case page. That is not what they are for. I wanted him to spend about 10 minutes gathering evidence, which he has done. I have so far been unable to comment on the case because every time I've gone back to check whether or not more evidence has been added, I've had to read your totally unrelated comments. --Deskana (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a question about why you wouldn't run a checkuser here, which thus far you've been only interested in blanking and not in answering. There is no good reason to blank the comments of an established editor here... just ignore them if you don't want to respond to them. --W.marsh 14:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to echo Deskana here, those comments were not relevant there. Consider other places, Ombudsman, et cetera. Regards , Mercury 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shear bureaucracy. If he can answer me there he can answer me here. --W.marsh 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring with checkusers on RFCU isn't a good idea. I refuse to waste my time on you, W.marsh. If you want to make a formal complaint, either contact the Ombudsman Commission or Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How bureaucratic. Treating a productive admin like a troll isn't a good idea, either. --W.marsh 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was requested (by Deskana on the internal CU mailing list) to review and comment. I have to concur with Deskana and Mercury here, I believe you may have picked an inappropriate venue. Checkuser pages are a pretty rigid format for a good reason, to make it easier for other checkusers to pick up cases, and for all checkusers to operate efficiently. If you have an issue with the handling of a particular case, or with the actions of a checkuser, you by all means should raise that issue, it's perfectly appropriate to do so, if you do so in the right venue. It's just not appropriate to disrupt a completely unrelated case. That's not bureaucracy, it's just a desire for keeping things moving smoothly. I do hope you understand. I am sure Deskana is very open to review of his actions, as I know I am. I'd urge everyone to remain civil, including both Deskana and W.marsh ... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Deskana isn't. Deskana has said the only possible way he'll comment is if I make him by way of involving the authorities. All I'm asking for is an answer to why he'd run a checkuser then on no evidence and not now on a good deal of evidence. Then out comes the bureaucracy and the friendly admins who conveniently echo him and the fishing for support on mailing lists. I can only assume this is because he doesn't have a good answer to my question... hence the fierce evasion. The essence of bureaucracy is to ask a question that requires a simple answer and be told "Whoaa! You gotta use form L in triplicate!" --W.marsh 14:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have told you multiple times in the past that according to both the Privacy Policy and Checkuser Policies, checking Android Mouse was a valid check, as was revealing he was the sockmaster. Thus, my responding will not produce any productive discussion due to the fact that I believe I've done nothing wrong. As a checkuser, it is entirely my choice how I apply the use of checkuser as long as I use it within policies, which I have always done. As such, contacting the Arbitration Committee or Ombudsman Commission is your only way of doing anything productive, if you believe I have done something wrong. I have said this many times before, so I am unsure why you are requiring me to restate it. This matter was done and dusted months ago, I'm not sure why you've felt the need to bring it up again. --Deskana (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you make continue to claims like "I refuse to violate Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy because someone asked me to without giving my sufficient evidence to perform a check" when you obviously have made checks on no evidence at all beyond a hunch in the past. I thought you "refused to waste" your time on me though... --W.marsh 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As a checkuser, it is entirely my choice how I apply the use of checkuser as long as I use it within policies, which I have always done. As such, contacting the Arbitration Committee or Ombudsman Commission is your only way of doing anything productive, if you believe I have done something wrong. I have said this many times before, so I am unsure why you are requiring me to restate it. This matter was done and dusted months ago. --Deskana (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So stop telling Alansohn that he's asking you to "violate Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy" when you apparently could do this check if you felt like it, you just don't trust him or whatever your motive was. That's my entire point here. --W.marsh 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When he provided additional evidence, I performed the check for him. I did that nearly an hour ago. --Deskana (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the initial comment well before an hour ago. --W.marsh 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the checkuser tool as I see fit, and am more cautious with it than I was before. We are clearly not going to accomplish anything here, so I would like to restate that if you have a problem with my usage of (or lack of usage of) the checkuser tool, you can contact the Arbitration Committee or Ombudsman Commission. --Deskana (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was naively hoping you'd care that an established, good faith admin thought you were making a mistake... I'm not going to jump into the wheels of bureaucracy here and do these things you say are necessary for you to consider my POV. --W.marsh 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have university work to do. I've already wasted far too much time saying the same things over and over again to you. If you wish to make a formal complaint, you know how. Expect no further responses, you can have the final comment telling me calling me as many names as you like :-) --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, please... I don't see how this is helpful. I've asked for the particulars of the Android Mouse case and I will if given the chance, look at it to see what I think, but I think we all would appreciate it if you didn't disrupt the functioning of other cases, CU is hard enough work as it is... I know for sure I'd really appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only replying to comments here, I won't "disrupt" anything, I know when the deck's stacked against me. Surely I can at least make comments on my own talk page? --W.marsh 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, you were disrupting the Agavtouch case, and it was asserted that you've done similar things on previous cases where Deskana declined to perform checks. That's not a good approach. I'm not sure that saying " I know when the deck's stacked against me" is useful either. I'll repeat my offer to informally look into this matter further if it would be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In the tiny number of WP:RFCU cases where I've ever commented, to my knowledge I've never "done similar things on previous cases where Deskana declined to perform checks". Maybe I'm senile, but I'd need to see a diff to believe that. When 3 admins who I don't know appear on my talk page with varying degrees of messages telling me to be quiet, that's what I mean by a "stacked deck". --W.marsh 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, it's been clarified to me that it wasn't true that there were other RFCUs that you had previously participated in in a way that some would consider disruptive. I do have to wonder about (from User_talk:Deskana/Archive_15#Check ) why you would ask that SlimVirgin be CUed out of the blue that way... seems like that would be drama enhancing, wouldn't it? Elsewhere in that thread it seems that Deskana did explain his motive for running the checks on the sock of AM... that there was an ID disrupting RfAs, that it had the hallmarks of a sock of someone violating Good Hand/Bad Hand, and that when he investigated, that's what he found, it was indeed a sock of an established editor being used to disrupt. Do you agree with that assessment, that it was such a sock? That's what was asserted by Deskana to be the situation, and it was also asserted by Deskana that the explanation should satisfy you as to why the check was performed. I do have more information on the Android Mouse situation now, and I will investigate further and let you know what I think, if that's of interest. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed like in the AM situation there was just the vague hunch any experienced editor gets with RFA disrupters... beyond that it was a fishing expedition. When I saw that a checkuser could be run in such a situation, based on just a hunch, I was excited (aside from the public outing, which wasn't necessary)... I thought we could now deal with a lot of troublemakers in a way that bureaucracy had previously prevented. I was saddened that every subsequent attempt to use checkuser based on a similar suspicion has been denied by that very bureaucracy, even when much more evidence is being presented than was there in the AM case. Also, the Slimvirgin thing wasn't out of the blue... there was a lengthy thread on WP:ANI or somewhere with several admins questioning whether there were sockpuppets in play. Based on what had just happened with AM, I thought it was a logical conclusion that a checkuser could be run. --W.marsh 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to use "the ends justify the means" as a justification for every action. This hinges on what the appropriate level of justification is for running a check, and whether self initiated checks should be subject to the same rigorous justification as checks that are initiated via RfCU. (and I would note that I was similarly asked why I ran a check recently in the Doctorfluffy/Pilotbob case, although it was a private request from an admin whose judgement I trusted rather than my own investigations that prompted me to run it). I agree this policy question may merit discussing. But I'd note we're not a justice system, we're a project, and we rely on the good judgement of our admins, and the good judgmeent and discretion of our fellow CUs in deciding what to run and what not to. Sometimes we err. Deskana went through all this with you, and further, said maybe his judgement was too hasty (even though it apparently did come out in the end that this was indeed a disruptive bad hand account and that the block, in my view based on what i have learned so far, was sound) and that he was going to want to see more justification going forward. Given all that, what more should he have done that he didn't do? I don't mean to be bellicose here but it seems like that you've raised a good question, one that merits more discussion perhaps, but you're not doing it in a good way... Why not forgive him for whatever slight you feel, and use this as a chance to raise the policy matter in a collegial way? Perhaps we all can learn something? I will continue to look into this if you wish. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's made it clear that my only options are bureaucracy, so I'm done with this. I have no patience for that kind of stuff. No one seems to understand my argument here, they seem to think I'm out to be mean to Deskana. Deskana at one point offered what I think was good for checkusers, actually stopping troublemakers without making people be slaves to bureaucracy to get him to do it... I was excited about that prospect, minus the public outings. But everyone seems to have glossed over that and cast me out as public enemy number one, including Deskana. I don't think I shall be forgiving him given his comments on this page, including the one he reverted. If someone's attitude is "I'm right, you're wrong",[3] well I don't have much to say to them. Their position is clear. --W.marsh 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you focus on you, and Deskana, the people involved, you're right, there's not much more to say. If on the other hand, you want to talk about the larger policy question, which I think is an important one, there is, and I'd gladly work with you to discuss it further, or not, as you like. It's up to you, but I'd ask you to please, as a favour, not to raise this matter again on individual cases, once was enough, going forward bring it up as a policy matter. Thanks for your consideration of my request. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking on the bureaucracy... if people can see what they're doing is bureaucratic and contradictory, fine, maybe they can change. Deskana apparently can't... I'm not going to waste my time trying to legislate them into changing their ways. --W.marsh 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed]

If you have a specific concern, there's the arbcom and the privacy ombudsman to address it to. This sort of harassment is beneath an admin - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, and or harassing anyone. You're the ones insulting me by saying I'm "beneath an admin" and that talking to me is a waste of Deskana's time. --W.marsh 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is insulting you. Rather, people are pointing out that there are more appropriate venues and ways of handling this issue, and asking you to stop badgering Deskana. Please consider letting this matter rest for now. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that people are insulting me... but anyway, didn't I say I was not going to take this to the ArbCom or Comittee number 17 or whatever else it is today? I am letting this rest... but I will reply to comments people feel inclined to make on my talk page. To end this, stop leaving me messages. --W.marsh 15:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unban?

Re: the Chicken Soup Game DRV, if we value the content over the ban, then why not make it official and undo the ban? Otherwise, he's just going to keep coming back and causing controversy like this anyway. Like I said, I wasn't real thrilled when I found out he'd been banned in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's ArbCom isn't it? We'd have to go there to unban. I got in a conflict with this guy, I think, under one of his socks... and he was a royal pain. I concluded he was blocked for a decent enough reason. We're trying to keep a decent article, not a disruptive editor. --W.marsh 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No it was a community ban of the Tecmobowl (talk · contribs) account. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was blocked during an ArbCom case when it was discovered he was also Tecmobowl. Personally, I think we either ban and keep banned (and discourage return) or we unban. This situation has done nothing to discourage Tecmobowl from evading his ban. This new IP was actively continuing Jmfangio's work editing the Joe Montana article but now I guess there's no point reverting his latest edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh it's kind of weird. Blocks and bans really aren't my area of expertise here, but Techmobowl apparently did exhause a bunch of people's patience. I suppose an unblock could be discussed at WP:AN, but again... I'm not sure it's a good idea. He made good article edits but also created a lot of drama. Good article edits don't excuse poor behavior everywhere else, I'm just saying we should keep the good article edits. --W.marsh 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was article deleted?

Choi Kwang-Do Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choi Kwang-Do Nominated on the 8th October? , deleted on the 14th October?

States: Minimal sources, one on criticisms and one magazinewithout ISSN, for 10 months, has been cleaned up from an advert, but no evidence of notability Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"no evidence of notability" ? Information on the founder: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwang_Jo_Choi Information on the international organisations: See: Choi Kwang-Do International Organisation[[4]]

What sources are needed?? - the two links above are not hard to find one is on wiki and the other is a dot.com domain of the namesake, the namesake website shows a pic of maybe 20 front cover articles on the style? (and there are far more) and the google figures seem to speak for themselves too?

The "citation needed" tags are difficult to understand and traverse and are so much harder to be complied with because of that.

The site has been the target of a single misguided vandal (hence :- "Minimal sources, one on criticisms") who relentlessly keeps at the article and maybe because of this it is better to leave this article out of wikipedia? Bacmac Bacmac 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, more sources independent of the subject of the article, presumably. I just closed the discussion... there was a pretty clear consensus that better sourcing was needed. --W.marsh 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi --W.marsh, Can you advise me; how does someone provide better sources than wiki's own page on the founder containing links to independent websites, google's hit count and around 20 front cover articles on the style that appeared on martial arts magazines from around the world? (I am aware of far more independent media coverage)

I tried to address one of the first citations I noticed and it was removed, so I think i must have done it wrong. Thanks --Bacmac Bacmac 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Well, Google hit count isn't really a good source, but the others sound promising. You can read all about how to do proper citations at WP:CITE. --W.marsh 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • What do I do?, do I reinstate the page ( and can I do that?) and then try to address the citations?

Bacmac Bacmac (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • You can do that, or to be safer you can get a decent draft written in your user space (sandbox), e.g. at User:Bacmac/Sandbox, and when it looks decent, move it to the article space. --W.marsh 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • can I resurect it to my sandbox and fix it up from there?, and if I am able to do that would you be willing to view it once I have finished before it gets posted back up? --Bacmac Bacmac 59.167.125.253 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC) ....why is my sign off got an IP address?
            • Yeah, sure. Do you want me to move the deleted article there or are you going to start from scratch? --W.marsh 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Labor Day

It would have been nice to have a discussion about moving Labor Day (United States) to Labor Day before you did so. I also take exception to you doing so while many editors may be away from their computers because of Thanksgiving. -Acjelen (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It had been a redirect since 2002... with only a few days of interruption to that. So having Labor Day redirect to Labor Day (United States) for five years, to me, means that there's little controversy there. Also, it was a requested move. Do you actually object? I will consider undoing it and allowing for discussion... but I think it would just be discussion for the sake of discussion if no one really objects to Labor Day and Labor Day (United States) being one and the same. --W.marsh 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where and when was it a requested move? We had a discussion back in June of 2006, but the result of that was "don't move". Also, I'm unsure of your history. The article Labor Day (United States) dates to August 20, 2005, so it can't have been a redirect target for five years. I'm not sure what happened to the edit history of Labor Day, but if I remember correctly, it also redirected to Labour Day and maybe even May Day. -Acjelen (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See the history of the article, someone requested the move with a tag. You're right, the redirect is only 2 years old, but that's still an extremely long time by Wikipedia standards. --W.marsh 16:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What? Why should there be a time limit on redirects? United States of America is a redirect to United States and has been since July of 2002. Also, I looked in the edit history of both the article and the talk page. I could not find a move request tag prior to when you moved it. -Acjelen (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a deleted edit now, someone made the request on the Labor Day page, which was a redirect I had to delete to make the pagemove. --W.marsh 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Where can I find the templates for stubs.

Like i have used {db-bio} how do i get templates to say that articles are stubs? I mean template messages.... such as {{db-bio}}

I don't understand your question... you can find help with stubs at Wikipedia:Stubs --W.marsh 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't really understand what you're asking... stubs can still be deleted if they meet WP:CSD. Perhaps you could link me to the article in question so I can see what's going on? --W.marsh 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, there was an article which I put up for speedy deletion, however you changed this to make it a stub, I want to know where I can get the code to put different stub messages like you have. The link is below...

Article

Oh, you can just add {{stub}} and someone experienced will sort it eventually. If you want to do it yourself, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for the big list. --W.marsh 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

quick help pt2

not sure if you saw my recent post, as you seem to be quite the admin as my topic is almost off the page, anyways seeing if you can do anything for what was mentioned above here User talk:W.marsh#Quick help. thanks Grande13 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I closed it at long last. I haven't closed one of these in a while so feel free to correct my formatting if I screwed it up. --W.marsh 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My User Talk

Hi,

I want to know how I can add this signature similar to yours add the end of each of my edits by default and change the colour of 'the helpful one' and 'talk'. Also I want to make talk supersubscript.

The Helpful One Talk 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all in Special:Preferences. See Wikipedia:Signatures for more on the formatting. --W.marsh 19:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I have installed the tags script in my monobook but Ican't seem to get it to work. How does it work. Is there atab or something to click on ? Regards. Hammer1980·^talk 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

there should be a tag when you edit an article, up next to the "move" and "edit" tabs. You might need to reset your cache --W.marsh 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Still not working. I think it may be because I have Twinkle installed. Hammer1980·^talk 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Taft v. Bowers article

Hi, you recently added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article on Taft v. Bowers. I'm not sure why you did this, because the case citation is clearly mentioned in the heading of the article, and a link to the case is provided in the infobox. Therefore, the article was properly sourced all along. See the articles on legal citation and case citation to see what I mean. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to third party references... see WP:RS. --W.marsh 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was describing the facts of the case and the ruling, which is listed in the case itself. A third party reference would not be necessary unless the article was describing events or issues not mentioned in the case. In fact, the very policy you are quoting at me states this.--Eastlaw (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay, sorry. --W.marsh 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Valerian article deleted

Hi, Let´s get this sorted out: My article on Valerian (the band) was deleted and I would like to know the reason why. The one that was given me was that the band has no significance. Is this a joke? Now, for example there´s a category in Wikipedia "Finnish musical groups" and you better delete 95 per cent of the bands there if you are going to be relying on this significance factor. I haven´t checked yet but I bet there´s a vast category on American rock bands which no one has ever heard and ever will. Valerian has been together for 10 years, recorded three studio albums and is currently on an independent record label from New York. The band is definitely not a "cellar" band.

Wikipedia Category "Rock Music Groups" is also very interesting. On what grounds Wikipedia "accept" this information? On a whim? On solid assertion that one artist is more significant that the other?

Now that the Valerian article has been deleted, I expect the Wikipedia Administrators delete ALL "insignificant" artists and bands all around the world.

I understand your need to keep the Wikipedia a platform for useful information and keep it clean from profanity and rubbish. My article had neither profanity nor rubbish in it and it was a mistake to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqni747 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MUSIC, our inclusion guideline for bands. If you see other articles you believe do not meet the criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion and an administrator will delete them if they qualify. --W.marsh 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamie bernstein

Back??? - - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gary Forrester article

Hi W.marsh - I was just editing the Gary Forrester article to provide the citations etc. that led to the previous deletion, and I got the "speedy delete" notice, and I was about to insert "hang on," when your delete came through. Was there a reason this was deleted? I was just a bit confused, because I thought I was doing the right thing in addressing the things that led to the previous deletion, but I hadn't quite finished. Anyway, thanks for any explanation you could provide. I'd like to continue editing the article if it could somehow be restored. It was a lot of work gathering the citations, etc. --Jeshel.brown (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted for now so you can work on the article --W.marsh 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Renee Pussman article

Hello, I am confused as to why Renee Pussman would be deleted as an attack page. Other nicknames are posted on the Rex Grossman page. And if those are allowed to be posted then so should Renee Pussman. I am not the one who is making up the nickname, I am just the one who is trying to put it on Wikipedia. If it is out there in the mass media, which it is, then it deserves its place here.

Why does the nickname need a separate article though? It should be covered at Rex Grossman --W.marsh 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do that then. Thank you.

Gary Forrester

Gary Forrester, which you restored "so sources can be added", was tagged with {{db-repost}} - clearly the tag was incorrect (since it's an undelete rather than a repost), but can you explain the undeletion (who requested it / intends to add sources, etc, what kind of timeframe are you giving it)? [I did delete it on seeing the tag, but reverted myself] —Random832 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up, "Jeshel.brown" left me a message on this talk page. --W.marsh 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it (after leaving my message - the "+" button is a mixed blessing). Keep in mind that false use of sources was one of the issues in the original AFD, so sources that are added or retained need to be verified. —Random832 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I left the CSD tag on so it's fair game for another admin to evalute... I don't object to a deletion. --W.marsh 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regis Silva

I've recast as an article and will discuss and PROD

My concern is there may be grounds for notability even though its self promo. he names several specifics that suggest enough chance that we ought to have a look or give a chance for evidence).

I'd like review, and your speedy delete edit conflicted my reworking of it to address that a bit. Apologies, its the 1st time I've ever recreated over someone's speedy, but give it an hour, then see what you think, and if its still a delete, I wont say otherwise.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should have made it more clear, the only content I saw was the talk page and a redirect to it, and the talk page was a copyvio of [5] (which appears to have been undeleted). I think the talk page should be re-deleted. I have no objection to someone creating a proper article here. I will tag the talk page. --W.marsh 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there appears to be a claim of permission... well I'll let you handle this. --W.marsh 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah :) See the talk page for what actually happened :)

User has removed PROD... so I'm listing for AFD to gain views and evidence if any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Permeability (spatial and transport planning)

I notice that you have put a deletion tag on the above page - I understand the reasons for this. I edited the 'permeability' page to add this term which is being used more and more frequently in urban and transport planning circles. Having done this, I realised that I really don't have the time to do this justice at the moment. I will need to return to it, and would like to encourage others to contribute.

I have recently published an article on this subject in Town & Country Planning, November 2007(see www.stevemelia.co.uk/articles.htm) which aims to move the concept forward by distinguishing between 'filtered' and 'unfiltered' permeability. But before I can add a reference to that, I, or preferably several other people working in this field, need to put the basics explaining the concept of permeability in the first place.

This is the first time I have tried to use Wikipedia. Can you leave the definition on the permeability page until such time as people can be encouraged to begin contributing to it?

Best Regards

Steve Melia School of the Built Environment University of the West of England —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemelia (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In practice, most people who create an article with nothing but "under construction - article coming soon" never actually write the article, so we need to delete articles where that is the only content. Just write a workable draft that stands on its own in your sandbox space, at User:Stevemelia/temp for example, then move it back to Permeability (spatial and transport planning) when it's ready and you should be fine. --W.marsh 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grenadiers Drum and Bugle Corps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Themis Group, Inc.

I need to understand why you deleted my page? It is far from a blatant advertisement as many people involved with the company are also involved in various research and presentation areas within the video game industry. There were over 20 references. If you feel this page should be deleted, maybe you should delete all other articles that are less researched and informative that are all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeghanElizabeth (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Portions of it seemed to by copied from various other webpages, such as [6]. We can't accept random copyrighted material at Wikipedia, see WP:COPYRIGHT. --W.marsh 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can change the portions that refer back to the actual Themis Group web site if that is a problem, but most references link to news sites, IGDA white papers, etc. Can you please just tell me what is unacceptable for your reference standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeghanElizabeth (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I really can't undelete a copyright violation... you'd need to rewrite the article in your own words. --W.marsh 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

that's fine, but the only part taken from the site was the beginning of the History section, can't you undelete the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeghanElizabeth (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I copied it here: User:MeghanElizabeth/Themis Group, Inc. --W.marsh 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Deleted

Not sure why you deleted my article "Glam Gonzo" I added encyclopedic referenced as well as web examples per precious editor. The only reason the previous article was deleted was because I could not work on it over the holiday. I stated such on my talkback for the page yet received no response from you. So tell me what I need to do to add this artcile.

Donngy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donngy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The references seemed to be to a dictionary definition of "glamor" and to another Wiki... it wasn't very good sourcing. --W.marsh 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First off the references were to the definition of Gonzo Porn "current definitiion" not via wiki, as well as Glamour modeling style. What sort of references are you looking for that way I can make sure to add it. I fail to see how your article for Gonzo porn, which contains on reference to the definition of Gonzo Journalism and Gonzo porn is any better. Or hoe they got away with links to actual material when I was told I had to remove them.

So I have an idea, you tell ME what I need to do and Ill do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donngy (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This term gets no Google results that confirm it [7] while "Gonzo pornography" does [8]. The Gonzo pornography article does need work though. What you need to do for Glam gonzo is find published sources about the usage of this term... it's history, etc. If those don't exist, we can't really have a Wikipedia article --W.marsh 20:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that is a little tough considering the niche is just coming into popularity, and very few companies are filming in this style -- there is no real history. Modern pornography definitions are a little hard to come by anyway. Which is why I gave definition and reference to the source terms. If it will make the article happen by me giving references to the current artist and companies that make this type of porn and how they came up with the idea etc. Would it help if I actually used still photos for examples of the style? If you like I can list a history of how Gonzo porn transformed into various sub-niches, but really since it is a new niche, there is no historical perspective on this specific term. So what should I do?

donngy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donngy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ONe intriguing example would be the wikipedia entry for Trample which is basically an unreferenced definition of a term, both in everyday life and as a porn/sexual niche. There are no references or historical perspective on the term, unless we Google it ourselves, what in this article lets us know this niche exists? Also if you Google "Glamour Gonzo" you get porn results --- such as Glamour Girls gone bad -- so would you like me to change the entry to "Glamour Gonzo" and site any pf the above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donngy (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other articles exist doesn't really mean much... they might very well meet deletion criteria if someone nominated them at WP:AFD. I'm still not convinced by the results for "Glamour Gonzo", most don't even use it as a term, they just have the two words next to eachother for some reason. Find some articles discussing the term in meaningful depth and there's something to base a Wikipedia article on. --W.marsh 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting timmyland

Thank you for deleting timmyland which i spent ages writing about. Thank you are so kind!

smell you later, dantheman555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman555 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

marsh

Hi there, You deleted a page about nicolas greilsamer yesterday, and i have no way of retreiving it although some time was spent to write it. Is there anyway of retreiving it? MAny thanks

Vulgar Displays of Power

Vulgar Displays of Power Msisshinryu (talk) I personally feel that editors at Wikipedia take their job way too seriously. I understand their intent, but simply because anyone who "earns" someone else's trust to do the job in a "free encyclopedia" does not merit all that much power that they display. They delete any page they wish when it doesn't "agree" with their ideology. They hide behind "policies" but make up their own to match the actual policy the hide behind. -- Msisshinryu

Hello Marsh - Aeja1370

Aeja1370 has been consistently trying to keep alive an article "Abdul Hamid (poet)" after it has been determined that it:

a) provides no sources b) seems to promote the individual c) no evidence of claims found (e.g. famous writer - no evidence of such a writer). The link you can find this article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_%28Manipuri_Poet%29

I have talked all about this on previous versions of his article and I am putting a "{{dated prod}} " tag on his latest Abdul Hamid article. Please monitor this page as he will remove the tag to keep the page alive. It should be noted that he uses a few different IP addresses but all of them link back to the same-named article I am talking about.

I have already tried putting the speedy deletion tags on his articles but he conveniently removes them before the 5th day. He adds no changes on it.

Thanks for your concern.

Gary Forrester

I think there might be some possible sockpuppetry issues. See Talk:Gary_Forrester#I've_noticed - I don't want to accuse anyone of anything since I'm not sure (and WP:BITE applies even in the case of it being e.g. a group of friends), but another pair of eyes would be nice.—Random832 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlie-Sloth

Hi, I posted the the recent Post on 'Charlie-Sloth' Why is this blatant advertising? I have plans to create a page for every UK hip-hop artist who has achieved incredible things in 2007... These artist's deserve to have there details on here when they are successful artist's in there own right.

I have showed were i sourced the info from,please assist me in this problem.

Thanks

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrinfo66 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately the article would need to cite references and otherwise show the subject meets WP:MUSIC, our inclusion guideline for musicians. You can work on a draft... if you take your time you can write an article that's more likely to survive deletion. If you work on a draft at User:Mrinfo66/Sandbox it won't get deleted unless it's a copyright violation. --W.marsh 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System

Regarding deletion of this article, you wrote:

14:10, 13 November 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs) deleted "Graduated Random Presidential Primary System" ‎ (This item appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.fairvote.org/?page=965, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12))

This Wikipedia article should be restored. There is no copyright infringement, since what appears on the FairVote website was largely taken from the writings of the author of the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, with his permission. For verification, contact Rob Richie, FairVote Executive Director, at rr@fairvote.org.

If he wants to release the rights to the text under the GFDL, the place to start is Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --W.marsh 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vistagy page deletion

My apologies for inadvertently posting a page the appeared to be advertising focused. It was unintentional as this is my first post.

My intention was to highlight a company that produces several types of very powerful software used within major 3D CAD modeling systems used by major companies world-wide for the design and manufacture of commercial aircraft, automotove, and marine applications. It was intended to be more of a highlight of the product. One primary system that it is a key component is CATIA, developed by Dassault Systems and IBM. Because there was an article about CATIA and Dassault, I felt that we could also showcase VISTAGY and products in a similar vein.

As a newby to Wikipedia, I am hoping for some guidance as to how to best fit within the guidelines and allow this informative page stay visible.

Please contact me at karyzate@comcast.net.

Thanks and again, my apologies for running afoul of the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzate (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to still be a copy and paste of official material... which is pretty basic advertising. I would suggest rewriting in your own words, but summarizing published, independent sources (newspaper, magazine and books). This is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. --W.marsh 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)