User talk:SoWhy/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Hey, thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. ;-) — Ched :  ?  22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's what talk page stalkers are for ;-) Regards SoWhy 22:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SCH (band)

Hi SoWhy. I came across this article: SCH (band) and these articles. I think there may be something wrong with these articles but I'm not entirely sure. Article prod/csd is not my field of expertise and well, to avoid any possible mistakes, I'd like to ask an expert to have a look at the articles and hopefully remedy the situation. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not eligible for speedy deletion (A7 does not apply with that many claims of importance/significance) and prod would probably be disputed, so the way for deletion would be AFD. But I do not think that's the correct thing to do here. It seems that the author of those articles knew about how we do things here but applied it incorrectly, using huge portions of copyvio in most articles as well as UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION. I have gone through them, removed the copyvio parts and moved the articles to the correct locations. I do think the band is probably notable, so deletion will not be the correct thing to consider here but you might need to consult with someone who speaks Bosnian to check the external links and sources. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good! Thanks for your time. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SCH Edits

Thank you for the de-capitalization of the SCH band and album pages. I have a question about your edits of these, which severely damage the encyclopedic value of my articles. The "pruned" pages now lack the appropriate historical context, and in some cases, my own translations into English of Bosnian language texts are essential to future scholarship into this subject by non-Bosnian speakers and are the only English language entry points into this world; deletion of these translations is particularly damaging to the articles.

It appears here a clarification of your interpretation of copyright law in this context is needed, since the citations which you have removed, according to my interpretation, fall under U.S. Fair Use criteria and pass the four-pronged test for fair use - are you evaluating the citations through the lens of some other copyright regime? What are your concerns here, because the quotations in the articles clearly pass all four prongs of U.S. Fair Use standard (see ALL CAPS behind each four standard below). As you know, these matters are ones of interpretation, and so a discussion about these is warranted: [1]

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; THE SCH CITATIONS INCLUDED HERE ARE FOR NONPROFIT, EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH PURPOSES
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; THE CITATIONS ARE NOT THE FULL-TEXT AND, IN ALL CASES, HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY SELECTED AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE "HEART" OF THE WORKS; and

Please, undo.

Cheers, vielen Dank,

srx 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) StrindbergRex —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talkcontribs)

They might fall under fair use but they do not fall under our Non-free content guidelines which are the applicable rules for such inclusions. As such, material does not only have to meet the fair use US law but also be irreplaceable by free content. This is almost always not the case with lengthy quotes from reviews or similar because the content of those reviews can be rewritten in new text without the need to use the original text. As such, the guideline clearly says, which kind of text is allowed or isn't:
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. (from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text, emphasis added)
On the other hand, it says also that Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. are unacceptable (see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2). The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy is explaining the strictness further in it's first criterion:
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. [...] (emphasis added)
And criterion #8 says:
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (emphasis added)
You see, our policies and guidelines are stricter than fair use in general which means that longer excerpts of copyrighted text can almost never be used in Wikipedia even if they meet fair use laws. As such, the removals I did were within our policy and should not be in such articles, not the least because such text is conflicting with our neutral point of view policy. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - while I am re-consolidating these edits to match your guidelines, someone already questioned the Eat This! page for lack of references. I re-added a reference to this page so that the page would not be deleted, and will work more on all the pages to paraphrase the citations and meet all guidelines. In the meantime, please remove the alert box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talkcontribs) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX  04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I get confused.....

as to which db to use but usually, I am right on as to the fact that it should be db'd. I leave it to the person who is deleting it fine tune it, if need be! Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case deletion was only the secondary measure to take. The correct measure would have been to move the page to Wikipedia:Abuse reports/, then tag the redirect as R3. Yeah, I deleted the redirect (or rather, did not create one when moving), but the page itself was valid, albeit at the incorrect place. I'd advise you to be a bit more careful with your tagging though, tagging stuff as G3 is quite BITEy after all and should be used only where the situation is clear. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Julio Santa Cruz

I recently created a page for a 1st team footballer at Blackburn Rovers named Julio Santa Cruz. He has been given a first team number by the Rovers management and has been on the Rovers bench on a couple of occasions making appearences in cup competitions also. I would like to know why this page was deleted with no warning or discussion. I spend allot of time making alterations to pages, and creating relevent pages. But if this is how my time is going to wasted, i might not bother. I find removing this page without any warning highly disrespectful to the people that create and maintain it and highly unprofessional.

Please reinstate this page at 'your earlier convenience'... RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The page was deleted because a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Santa Cruz has deemed that the subject in question does not meet our relevant notability guideline. Your creation has been deleted based on this consensus because the information in both versions was substantially the same (and as such met criterion G4 for speedy deletion). If you think you can address these concerns using reliable sources, I can reinstate the article for you to work on. But I will not do so as long it does not meet any notability guideline because the aforementioned previous consensus binds my decision.
As for the warning, I am sorry that this happened. Taggers are usually advised to warn creators of the speedy deletion request and your case was one of those where this was forgotten. I have left the tagging user a note, reminding them of the importance of doing so. Regards SoWhy 09:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Dear SoWhy,

I note that you recently deleted my article on Wokai. I see that the article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". . I would kindly request that you reconsider, and perhaps help me ensure that this article stays up. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.


Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - San Francisco Chronicle Coverage -

Cheers, and thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euwyn (talkcontribs) 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it's not my call to overturn the AfD's consensus. If you think the notability of the subject has changed or can be demonstrated unlike when it was deleted after the discussion, please use deletion review to state your case. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowknife tornado

You closed this debate less than a day after it was re-listed. There is a search ongoing for offline sources. Could you please un-close this while we wait to see if sources can be found? Thank you. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It was relisted by a non-admin against policy, as such I was allowed to do so (see WP:RELIST). My closing statement should explain this quite well actually and I see no conflict between consensus and searching for sources to establish the need for its own article. The sentiment explicitly and clearly was that the consensus is only "merge" as long as the article is in its current form. As such, I would like to leave the debate closed but I am willing to change my mind iff you can outline to me how my closing rationale conflicts with the search for and improvement with offline sources or how this violates policy in any way. Regards SoWhy 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a fair point, I am satisfied with your rationale. Cheers! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy to hear that. Face-smile.svg I tried to phrase it in a way that it reflects the consensus that the AFD resulted in, i.e. that we have a consensus what to do with the article but which does not forbid further development of the article if such development was possible. Regards SoWhy 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Anne's Society

Why did you delete my initial article? I didn't brake any copyright rules. I was editing when of the sudden, all everything disappeared.--WlaKom (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you did. The text you used was almost 1:1 copied from this page which says "©2009 St. Anne's Society - St. John Vianney". Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and as such, we need to remove such text with all possible speed to avoid copyright infringement. You are welcome to write your own text about this group. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking of article about MacFamilyTree

Hi SoWhy

I was asked to re-write the article about MacFamilyTree by my boss. I've never even seen the one you blocked but I created a new one that's very close to the article about Reunion language-wise (a product in the same market). MacFamilyTree is a proprietary product so I'd really appreciate any advise on how to improve it. If you think it's as good a start as it gets, please move the article for me so others can contribute. I wrote the article on my user site:

Thanks for your time GeroSynium (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have not edited an article called MacFamilyTree nor deleted or protected it. Please contact the admin who did so, Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). Regards SoWhy 12:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will GeroSynium (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

About Test Cricket Bowling Cricket Records

If you are a fan of cricket then you know how difficult it is to sum up even important facts and records (leave aside all records) related to Test Cricket in a single page. A single page can't do justice to team records as well as individual records, batting records as well as bowling records and fielding records, captaincy records, wicket-keeping records etc and the list goes on. So I just want to dedicate one single page to bowling records, one single page to batting records and so on... U can see for yourself that the bowling record section on the current record page doesn't even mention these important facts.

  • Most Career Wicket - Progression of Record
  • Most No. of 5 wickets/innings
  • Most No. of 10 wickets/match
  • Most No. of maiden overs in career
  • Most No. of duck dismissals by a bowler
  • Most No. of wickets through caught & bowled, stumped, LBW, etc.
  • Facts related to hat-tricks

While similar/analogous data for batting has been mentioned. I have all these facts related to Test bowling ready with me. so please let me proceed. Reply Soon. Regards. Snigdh.
Snigdh.Chandra (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly are you telling me this? Have I deleted any related page? I have no knowledge or interest in cricket, so it seems unlikely that I have edited one of them. So please explain to me what you expect me to do. Regards SoWhy 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ramon B. Ayala

I don't have the source, but if you read the page, you'll see that the creator has included notonly copyvio material, but the headline and byline in his article itself. Frmatt (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you do not have a source, then it may be possible that the content came from a public-domain or other free source, is it not? Please use {{subst:copyvio}} and WP:SCV in that case then. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah no, WP:CP is what you want here. WP:SCV is only for User:Corensearchbot's automated reports :) MLauba (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and apologies for screwing up the CSD! Frmatt (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Extending protection of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Considering the massive amount of news coverage this is still getting, what do I have to do to request an extension of the semi-protection? Are you aware that the anon(s) involved also continued their campaign on Commons after the SP? I have a very bad feeling that when this SP expires on the 24th, we are going to be be reverting vandalism non-stop. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ain't. Could you please provide some diffs from such vandalism on Commons? If you have any indication that vandalism will resume immediately after protection expires, I will extend protection. If not, I will watchlist the article and you can use RFPP or ask here directly if and when such vandalism re-occurs. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
S34209323498 (talk · contribs) uploaded the arrest photo File:SkipGates.jpg to Commons and added it to Gates' infobox on Wikipedia.[2] You protected the article at 12:48, 21 July 2009.[3], and shortly thereafter, I tagged the image as copyvio. Another user had previously tagged the image as unsourced. The image had recently appeared on Yahoo! news, and was attributed to the Associated Press.[4] It is not clear if mugshots publshed by AP but originating from the Cambridge Police Dept. are considered "free". In the absence of this information, the criteria for {{non-free mugshot}} applies, making the image unsuitable for Commons. User:S34209323498 continued the disruption over at Commons using multiple accounts to remove copyvio tags from File:SkipGates.jpg. I reported the tag blanking as vandalism here and here. The user accounts were blocked and File:SkipGates.jpg. was deleted. If you are an administrator on Commons, perhaps you can view the deleted history? Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately (for this case) I am not. I will ask Juliancolton (talk · contribs), who is an admin both here and on Commons, to comment on this. Regards SoWhy 12:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! As long as the article is on your watchlist, I'm sure everything will be fine. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it's already been dealt with over at Commons. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Collofino

Hi SoWhy, I've added some words to the article and left a note on the DYK talkpage. Thanks for your help, and enjoy the game! Drmies (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey, thanks again for your help with my DYK nomination. As is evidenced also by some of MaterialScientist's comments, they were extraordinarily sloppy, and I appreciate the time and effort you all put into giving us these nice little perks. I am sure your WP paycheck at the end of the month will prove you are being appreciated, but if not, let me just say thanks again. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not problem at all. I'm always happy to help. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Dear SoWhy, here you pointed that the hook has 193 characters. How can I determine how many characters a hook has? Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually copy and paste the hook as it's shown on the page into notepad2 or similar (without formatting) and it shows me the length of the entry when positioning the cursor at the end of it. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, SoWhy. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stäubli

Updated DYK query On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stäubli, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! My first DYK! *celebrates* SoWhy 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good communication!

I just stumbled across your communication with Shadowjams, and wanted to quickly congratulate you for your respectful and successful communication. — Sebastian 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment. Trust me when I say that hearing this means a lot to me. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 08:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it! A similar remark helped me three years ago. — Sebastian 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Would you please indefinitely semi-protect my userspace.Synchronism (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can semi protect your User: pages but Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages restricts protection of User talk: space to cases of serious vandalism and only for a short duration. Do you still want to have the other pages protected? Regards SoWhy 11:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Please look at what I most recently removed from my talk page, I don't take it too lightly and would like to be spared any further... whatever you want to call it. This is serious to me. It is not an arbitrary request, nobody watches my page and this guy won't leave me alone. Won't you be so kind to extend my talk page even temporary protection?Synchronism (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. But there has not been any further activity that would indicate that protecting is necessary or rather would work at all. I can remove those edits from the history if you like (and they can maybe be oversighted as well). This way, the traces left by the IP will be removed. How does that sound as a suggestion? Regards SoWhy 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking that over. That sounds good, except, I really just don't want any unwanted contact with him. I like the revision deletion idea though, I'd want admins to still be a able to see what has happened for reference. Do you have any advice for moving forward? When I try to clean up any of the sockpuppeteer's messes, I get similar reactions. Regards,Synchronism (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I will remove the revisions. We can re-consider semi-protection if and when further such contacts happen, for now it might just have been a single incident not worthy of paying too much attention to. Regards SoWhy 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope so. Thanks for all your help, especially tempering my emotional impulsivity. RegardsSynchronism (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's no problem at all, you are most welcome. Just come back here when this problem persists or you need any other help. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bridgecorp Holdings

Updated DYK query On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridgecorp Holdings, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RE : OS election question

There are several examples, so I'd just quote a recent one. This one is a bit more clear cut than some others. A set of edits were made by an editor, where by itself, are innocent-looking and legitimate on different articles. However, when the user contrib's is shown as a whole, it lines up to form a libelous hidden message against named individuals. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So in that example the problem would come from combined edit summaries, not from edits themselves? Well, in that case it should be enough (but should be done!) to remove those edit summaries without deleting the edits themselves. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not edit summaries. If it were, that would be easy. Name of the articles combined. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, I cannot think of valid article names that contain libelous claims to be honest. Such articles will probably be renamed and destroy this goal or they can be speedy deleted as G5 because noone really new will probably know how to use such a scheme. But I would not use oversight in such cases myself because that would be a case of OS policy #2 and require either advice from the counsel or a request by the subject and the latter is too unlikely to be considered here in theory because such pages will usually be handled faster than the subject will find out about exactly such a hidden message. But if they do, it needs to be assessed then because there are too many variables imho that cannot be answered in general: Have some or all of the articles been deleted? Have they been renamed, thus destroying any potential hidden message (as the software re-attributes the edit to the new name)? Etc. Sorry I cannot answer this more specifically. Regards SoWhy 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


An editor is requesting at WP:EAR that a new version of this article, which is available at User:Euwyn, be allowed in the mainspace. Since you recently create-protected this page due to the article being recreated, can you take a look to see whether Euwyn's article is substantially similiar to the previous article? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The deleted revision and the one proposed are almost exactly the same, the only difference is in two sources. More important though, neither version addresses the article's AFD. My advice would be to seek deletion review with the draft as a proposed new version of the article. Regards SoWhy 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy. I had requested deletion review with the proposed new version at Wikipedia: Deletion review. Spartaz had "userfied" the page, and the surrounding discussion seemed to indicate no dispute about getting the article back on. I'm a little confused by this process as it seems to be going in a circle :) Would appreciate any further assistance getting the article up. I believe it is in good shape with proper references. (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The consensus there was to userfy it to allow you to complete a draft. You have done so. Now you need to start a new review and citing your draft as a proposed new version, so people can decide whether it's really in a better shape now. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have put in a DRV for this article on Euwyn's behalf.. ThemFromSpace 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's very nice of you to do. :-) The closing admin can unprotect the article if the consensus is to allow recreation then. Regards SoWhy 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

not to be an attribution nazi or anything...

...but was this lifted from User talk:Dank? If so, you ought have attributed it somehow when templatefying it. FYI I've also lifted it from Dank (but properly attributed it) and put it at WP:TPS/banner. You can use {{WP:TPS/banner|75}} to replicate your usage, which you ought delete. (apologies if I have the order-of-operations reversed) cheers, –xenotalk 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dank took it from me. I just templifyed it on May 20, but placed it on May 5 and he added his on May 6. So if you are up to be an attribution nazi, you are free to go and hunt Dank. But I wouldn't and I don't really care. This is a wiki after all.^^ Nice work on making a more "stylish" template out of it though, I'll think about replacing mine. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
DAMNIT! I am a poor wikisleuth. Sorry ;p –xenotalk 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, glad to see you are happy now with the attribution and all. I decided to change my banner to your flexible template as well, I like the way it can be changed in size. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS elections

Please ping the AC clerks instead of indenting the votes yourself since you are a candidate.--Tznkai (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Regards SoWhy 06:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean whether the sandbox will be affected if Outline of rock music is deleted? Answer to that: It won't be. But the sandbox you created falls under Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses because it is treated as its own article. I suggest you move the page to your userspace for development instead (e.g. at User:Sswonk/Outline of rock music) and request R2-speedy deletion of Outline of rock music/Sandbox. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think I would rather have it under WP:ROCK somewhere, is that within guidelines? Sswonk (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Usually the WikiProject subpages are reserved for pages that are needed to administrate the project (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses). Drafts should be placed in userspace only usually to avoid cluttering up the other namespaces with them (see also the essay Wikipedia:Workpages). Is there a reason why you don't want to have it in your (or someone else's) userspace? Regards SoWhy 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
None other than modesty, and wanting to avoid the perception that I WP:OWN the thing. I'll suggest it to the others, thanks for the responses. Sswonk (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. Well, don't be shy or suggest to them to use their userspace instead. It's a common thing for multiple people to work on an article in someone's userspace and noone will ever think about WP:OWN when it comes to that. If you need any help with cleaning up the pages, let me know. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The page created earlier Outline of rock music by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is what we want to delete and rework in a sandbox. TTH started it and made all the headers, plus populated the "subgenres" section. So he is probably considered the major contributor, even though he hasn't worked on it for several hours. He did this because he asked me if I was interested in doing the initial work on the page, and soon after I agreed to, bam! he poured in all the initial content. Is it OK for you to delete that and let him know it was sandboxed, or do we have to wait for him to request it? Sswonk (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd say we wait for his opinion on it, after all, there is no hurry, is there? Regards SoWhy 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


(feel free to remove this once you've read it)
You asked for opposers to give reasons, but the format of the election page doesn't allow them; I don't think you're untrustworthy at all, but I am concerned that you're very trigger-happy regarding RFPP. Protection should be a last resort as almost every use of it further widens the already gaping divide between content-writers and admins – despite you're being an admin for less than half the time I was, you have enacted six times as many protections in that time as I did in my entire time here – and looking at your protection log there are numerous clearly inappropriate protections in your recent history. (Protection of Friedrich Martens in response to this edit, six months protection of Jonas Brothers in response to a single vandal, indefinite full protection of Melanie Cruise…) In light of that, I'm concerned that you'd be oversighting a lot of material that doesn't really warrant it (oversighting is a last-resort measure because, inter alia, it destroys audit trails and hides patterns of bad behaviour) as you seem to have far too strict a definition of "bad content". – iridescent 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all: Thank you for both taking the time to write this and to make such a thoughtful decision. I will not remove this at all, I welcome any food for thoughts on my actions after all and it can serve as a reminder.
Nevertheless, I must confess, I am very surprised. Yes, I have a huge number of protections but on the other hand, I am also the most active admin handling RFPP by some margin and the amount you see results from days where I had to clear backlogs of 20-30 items by myself (thankfully those times are over). But my surprise comes from the fact that I have so far thought myself to be one of the most restrictive admins when it comes to protection, having denied much more requests than fulfilled them and having denied many that other admins would have protected. Yes, of course I made mistakes, but I do not think they are exemplary for having a too lenient stance on protection. And I somehow do not see the connection to oversight, so it would be nice, if you could clear this up for me (after all, you did support Lara who has a much more lenient stance on protection than I have).
I have always compared oversight to speedy deletion rather than protection because it essentially is the removal of content without discussion on decision of a single person. And as such, I actually expected opposition for too much strictness, not vice versa, as I have somehow acquired the image of being one of the strictest admins when it comes to speedy deletion. I share your concerns regarding oversight btw, I have said so in my response to Aitias' question: Oversight can easily destroy the admins' capability to work efficiently by removing information necessary to do so and I would never ever oversight anything that does not fall under the policy (I think OS should be an IAR free zone for as much as possible), the same as I do not speedy delete anything that is not covered by our speedy deletion policy. Please understand that I am not trying to sway your vote with this response, you wouldn't be yourself if that were possible. But I honestly do not see the connection you made between protection and oversight. The former makes it harder for editors to contribute, the latter makes it harder for admins to do their job. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, and hope I'm not coming across as hostile. My general attitude to all decisions on Wikipedia is "defend the status quo unless there's a reason to change it" (see here for a much longer explanation of the thinking behind it). My thinking on the CU/OS election boils down to: both are such potentially powerful tools, they should only be used by people with an active need for it which clearly outweighs any potential problems giving it to them could cause. (Much the same line of thought was one of the factors behind my recent self-desysopping; as there was no clear and present need for me to have admin buttons, there was nothing to outweigh the potential problems should I mess something up.) I've supported J.delanoy, Dweller and Lara because IMO they made clear cases as to what they planned to do with it, and opposed (or abstained) from all the others. I agree that Lara can be erratic, and if she was purely running on a "I think I ought to have this" stance I'd oppose – but she makes a clear case (her involvement in the bulk cleanup of Category:Living people) as to why her having oversight powers would be a positive that would outweigh any potential problems she might cause with possible misuse. – iridescent 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded like I wanted to compare your votes. I just pointed out Lara because she supports a very liberal approach to protection and by your reasoning you would have to oppose her, fearing she will be oversighting material that does not have to be oversighted. I did want to say anything against her though, after all, I, too, voted for her. Still, I would like to understand why you think oversight is similar to protection (and not to speedy deletion).
I understand your defense of the status quo but I cannot share it. I do not think anyone running does so for just having another power but because they want to help. For example, I have no great plans what I want to do with it - except one: Monitor requests and respond to them. And as such, my decision to run was based on the fact that while having a clear plan of what one wants to do with a tool, there simply need to be people who don't, who are just active to use it whenever the need arises (for example, most Oversighters are US-based and thus there is a shortage during times when Europeans like me request Oversight). I cannot sway you and I don't want to try but I felt the need to address this. And of course, curiosity compels me to request an explanation for aforementioned connection between oversight and protection. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Of the admin functions, I'd lump deletion in with granting permissions and bulk rollback, as relatively non-contentious powers; they translate as no-harm-no-foul "you violated our policies so we'll put things back the way they were before with an explanation to avoid you doing it again". While there are certainly admins who abuse the delete button, when used as intended it's a straightforward technical issue. Oversight, I'd class with protection and blocking; unlike deletion, use of the oversight/protect/block functions even when used correctly makes an explicit statement of "my opinion is more important than yours, and I have decided that you're not welcome". When used incorrectly, oversight is even more pernicious, as it's historically been used by members of Wikipedia's "elite" to hide evidence of their activities (try to find an explanation of where this diff went, for example). Both correct and incorrect usages share with blocking and protection the greatly increased probability that they'll potentially drive people off the project if misapplied or applied overly keenly. (While deletion and protection can annoy people – and sometimes does cause people to leave – as long as it's explained properly as to why it's being applied in this case and what the editor has to do to avoid it happening again, it generally doesn't cause problems. Oversight, with it's "we're going to pretend you never existed" connotations, has the same de facto effect as blocking a user – in that they make no change to the database – with all the potential problems that brings.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by iridescent (talkcontribs)
Ah, okay, I think I understand where you are coming from. Your view on oversight seems to be influenced by your view on Wikipedia as a whole (i.e. aforementioned "status quo defending") and as such, naturally, you categorize it with the admin actions that are designed to keep people out, whether individually or everyone. I cannot argue against that because that would mean I had to argue against your point of view about Wikipedia. If I may suggest something though, I think Oversight is not like protecting+blocking but rather than deleting+protecting, i.e. you remove something and then prevent others to access and restore it (something everyone admin can do if someone deleted a page). I would not make the analogy to blocking because it never is targeted at an individual user but at all users.
Anyway, I am very happy that you took the time to explain all this to me, I will try to address the issues you mentioned in your first post when protecting pages in the future. I have enjoyed this little "philosophical" exchange quite much and I would like to thank you again for making the effort explaining it. If I can do anything to make up the time you "wasted" here, please feel free to ask at any time. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Shirukume

I have read your article on deletion and still do feel that the page for the band Shirukume should have been deleted. It contained no vandalism, advertising, copyright violations, was encyclopedic content, and sources were cited. If quantity of sources was the issue, i or someone else can easily get a few more.

To fill you in: Shirukume are a very popular band in my area of the UK. Form a huge part of the youth culture in the Worcestershire and Birmingham areas. They are signed to Mother Should Know Records. Yes, I am a fan. Of course I am or I wouldnt bother making the page, but I ensured I kept in encyclopedic, and did alot of research to find out all the band's activity over the years, and grabbed the band after a show and asked them a few things. The rest was found on my cited sources.

The reason I made the page was simply as a concise source of information about the band, which is the point of wikipedia is it not? When I, or i'm sure anybody finds or hears about a new band, one visits 3 places. Band website, band myspace, and wikipedia. So its worth having that page to provide info, if so many people are going to view it - surely :)

Mmm that was more long winded than it needed to be - sorry about that. Anyway I hope you'll review the page. I'm pretty slow at all the markup language, im new to all this, so i'd rather make appropriate changes to the page than start again - it took me ages!

Thanks very much =]


Tomandhismathcore (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Wow, that deletion is long ago, so let me see, what I can say about it. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place to publish information for the first time, although it may be well-liked as a source of information. The band you are a fan of has not achieved anything that would make them somehow important or significant? They have not received any coverage in reliable sources, are not signed to a notable label, do not have notable members etc. So here we are: Wikipedia has two thresholds: A low one for called speedy deletion which sorts out the worst new articles (and the article you are talking about was one of them) and a general one, notability (in this case notabilify for bands) which has further requirements. To allow an article to pass the low threshold, it needs to indicate any importance/significance at all (see criterion #A7) which your article did not. Even if it did, it needs to meet the aforementioned notability guidelines.
As such, what you need to do is to consider these thresholds and honestly think about whether the band can meet them (remember that sources need to be reliable). If you reach the conclusion that they can, come back and I will help you restoring the article. If not, please don't feel put off by this incident. We are more than happy if you were to continue editing and contributing here. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Dear SoWhy,

I am sorry to oppose your candidacy, but here is my reason for doing so. My biggest concern is your CSD track record. You often create inordinate amounts of work to delete pages that need to go, resulting in process drag and allowing people to game the system. While it is good that you adhere to the policies strictly, there are a few incidents that really caught my attention, among which some are noted on your editor/admin reviews. Oversight is deletion after all. Sorry again, Triplestop x3 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for providing a rationale. I appreciate that you took the time to do so. Face-smile.svg
Then: I know that my adherence to rules that are meant to be strict does not always yield applause from other users and I do not try to convince you that it's the correct point of view (there are dozen of essays which explain why CSD should be handled strictly). But let me ask you something for my personal understanding: I quite agree that oversight is a kind of deletion; but it's a deletion that happens after things have been removed from the public eye already (as such, there is no work created by not oversighting and system-gaming is quite hard as well). As such, do you think that the oversight policy should be applied liberally, with room for WP:IAR-oversightings performed often? Regards SoWhy 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, as RevisionDelete is not quite the same as Oversight, there is more room for interpretation. See Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Usage_of_RevisionDeleted. I think that there are some things, while not strictly oversightable, like egregious attacks/vandalism, that should be deleted for courtesy of those attacked, per "WP:DENY", etc. Since entries in logs and histories are stricken rather than removed altogether, one would know that something really bad occurred and the paper trail is left intact. Triplestop x3 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I just use "Oversight" because that is the name that has been used for so long, even if the software implementation has been changed. So fair enough, I can only say that we have to agree to disagree here. Deleting revisions like you suggest would leave an entry stricken, true, but it would remove the information from the administrators, thus effectively removing the paper trail from their sight. They'd know that something has happened but they don't know anything else about it. For example, see this diff (I requested OS on the edit prior yesterday): We can assume that IP but we cannot be sure. It could have been something else, a good faith revealing of personal information, a good faith copyright violation that the board advised has to be oversighted etc. Admins dealing with this IP later will not know why the diff was removed (they have to trust the edit summary and not all admins leave summaries anyway). On the other hand, if an admin has selectively deleted an revision, the information would still be intact to be found (like egregious attacks/vandalism) but still be removed from the public eye. In the end, Oversight is simply the question whether we trust admins to view the deleted information or not and I think we should trust them whenever possible.
Anyway, you have my honest thanks for your time and explaining your point of view, I appreciate it. If you need anything, feel free to ask. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 08:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


No worries. Please start assembling another set, since I've moved the set to the queue area. You might also want to use the inuse tag while you are at it. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember using it in the future. Nice work on DYK btw :-) Regards SoWhy 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Although I am not thrilled to see two building images in a row (Queue 1 and 2), I realize we have very limited choices at times. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John P. Charlton

Updated DYK query On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John P. Charlton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will take a look tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Outlaws

I created a page that was called The American Outlaws. It was deleted, because it was considered a club. I am supposed to give reasons for why it should stay. While thinking about creating it I looked around and saw that Sam's Army had a page as well as a many Major League Soccer Supporters Groups. The American Outlaws are as big (if not bigger) than most of these groups. It is a well established group that is nationwide, it is growing, and I recently heard that it is incorporated. It is a legit group, and not a club that some people decided to throw together. If needed I could rewrite the page.

UsmntAO (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) UsmntAO

The article was not deleted because its subject is a club. The article was found to be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion A7, because it was an "[a]rticle about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (emphasis mine). You may recreate the article, but to avoid deletion in the future, your best course of action is to have the article assert that its subject meets the relevant guidelines for inclusion (see WP:ORG, and WP:CLUB in particular). The most straightforward and unambiguous way of doing this is to add references to independent, reliable 3rd-party sources that cover the subject. See also Wikipedia:Your first article. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks! UsmntAO (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)UsmntAO

Requesting Assistance from SoWhy

I am a newbie on Wikipedia and have been writing a company page for Integration Point for the better half of this year. A couple months back you disagreed with a speedy deletion tag placed on my article and cited that you believed the article had "plenty of notablility" , but may still need to be revised as an advertisement. Because of you, I was able to work on the article - adding more credible sources and revising so that advertising was no longer an issue. Recently another admin, Nihonjoe, has placed multiple tags, including a speedy deletion tag, on the article. I included more sources at his request, but he then added the consider for deletion tag. I made some mistakes, I admit, but I am new to this and I feel that I can no longer work with an aggressive admin because his criticisms do not prove to be helpful. The point of the Integration Point page is not to advertise, but to allow someone who is curious about the company to read information about it on Wikipedia. I simply would like to create an informative company page, but I am having difficulty with tags constantly being placed. I am open to suggestions and willing to edit, but as far as the notability of the article, which Nihonjoe constantly disputes, I am not sure what more I can do. I know that my references are credible. I thought I was heading in the right direction and now feel discouraged. Can you please help? Jmiles1107 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe has initiated an articles for deletion-request which means the decision whether the article should be deleted is now a matter of community consensus. Unfortunately, I am not a very good article editor to help assessing or fixing the problem. You might want to use Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where hopefully someone with more article writing experience can help assessing the article and the options. Regards SoWhy 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletes of recordings.

In most cases, the A9 speedy delete requests were accompanied by or prompted by A7-band requests on the associated artist. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first one I notified you about had no such tag on it and the second one was incorrectly tagged for it had survived an AFD. The reason I notified you was foremost to remind you to be more careful in those taggings as the criteria are quite strict. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Sincere thanks for the help about border.Hamza [ talk ] 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If you need further help, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Roth Law Firm

Actually, I did do a Google search and found nothing -- although there are a number of firms with that name in the United States, I found nothing that would lead me to believe that there was any notability at all. However, it's entirely possible you know something I don't. I'm just wondering if this prevents the article being speedied as a copyright violation, which I also believe is the case, or whether this now has to go to AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my error; I didn't see that the company had added an assertion of ownership of the copyright at the bottom of the page, instead of on the talk page. I'll make sure a copy of the information is where I usually look for it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not find the text on the link so I left it there for someone else to investigate. But there is a bunch of GNews hits, so I would not A7 it. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I should have been more clear that I didn't have a problem with you declining the speedy deletion, you obviously had a good reason -- I just wanted you to know that I didn't propose it idly, that's all. (I think some of the hits are for companies with the same name, but thanks to your helpfully having provided the link, I note that there's enough there to convince me too.) I've left a note for the article's creator about finishing off the copyright work and offered further help. Thanks for your help. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I know you didn't, don't worry. I have never thought anything else about your work in that area. So thank you for doing the work in this case, I have not really done anything after all. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Old metalworking templates

Thanks for the note about noinclude and {{db-redirnone}}. Can you explain why the following templates which were nominated ten days ago do not populate Category:Templates for speedy deletion?

I am almost done with the WP:METALWORKING navbox migration, and want to get it wrapped up tidily. Bryancpark (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the first two because they are not templates but redirects where the target has been removed (as such, they were eligible under criterion G8). No idea why the latter were not in the category but I removed them as well as T3. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK images

I notice that you just added a set of DYK hooks from the prep area to the queues. THANK YOU FOR THAT! I notice that they image used is found on Commons and it was not protected. Please be sure to either protect the image of Commons if you're an admin there or upload the image to the English Wikipedia (which only an admin can do) and it will automatically get protected here. You just need to add the template {{C-uploaded}} to the image after uploading to the English Wikipedia. We can't have unprotected images on the main page - one of these days there's be a picture from this category on Commons for the world to see. You don't need to worry about this image, I protected it on Commons. This message is just a reminder, no need to respond. If you feel the need to respond, please do it on your talk page. Thanks for your help! Royalbroil 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I knew I forgot something. Thanks for mopping up behind me, I appreciate it! Regards SoWhy 08:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! We appreciate your help with keeping DYK moving. Royalbroil 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I noticed the backlog and decided to help out a bit. I'll bother you again if I need anything (if I may of course). Regards SoWhy 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Per this discussion:[5] I would also like a way to track deprods. I've been asking Kingpin13 about if it is possible, and they directed me to that thread. Fences&Windows 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When did he direct you there? As far as I know, Kingpin13 has got approval of a second task for SDPatrolBot which does exactly this, although it's not using an edit filter to do it. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem with SDPatrolBot is that it doesn't run 24 hours, and I'm not keen to place it on the tool server. I personally don't think this is a major problem, as it runs while I'm on my computer, which is about 15 hours a day :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"If a page which has previously been proposed for deletion, and the tag is removed, SDPatrolBot will notify the user who proposed the page, as long as it doesn't think the user already knows." That's great, but it's not a list of all deprods. That's what I'd like to see. Fences&Windows 13:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah right, the list (which includes deprodded pages where the user isn't warned) is at User:SDPatrolBot/prodResults. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your question on my talk page, the reasons I don't really want to place SDPatrol on the tool server, are because it's too complex a process, the way it's written currently (it requires me to press buttons, it has a large amount of interface, and often requires a start-stop, etc.), and I don't want to do a full re-write to change this, also their rules (which require me to subscribe to lists, and have yet another e-mail ;D), and I don't feel a huge need to :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The list is quite useful, but it's not a complete list and isn't sorted by date, afaics. I'll keep scouting around for a full date sorted deprod list. Fences&Windows 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I've moved the contents of Shell Exploration and Production Ireland‎ to Royal Dutch Shell as I didn't believe this article was necessary and the topic could be covered adequately in the larger article. I'm not sure if the request for deletion was declined becuase I didn't follow the correct protocol? Please advise. Thanks GainLine 11:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you merged the contents to Royal Dutch Shell, the Shell Exploration and Production Ireland‎ cannot be deleted because it is needed to preserve the edit history. I see you redirected it to Shell now, which is the best way to do it. Btw, the original reason I declined the speedy is because you need to use {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE}} and only then if you plan to move a page to the location you tagged. General cleanup can be requested using {{db-g6|reason=REASON}} but as I said in this case, it was not deletable anyway. Regards SoWhy 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for that. I know now! GainLine 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawel of AFD

SoWhy, I put my vote in at the bottom as nomination withdrawn. I do not know how to close the AFD, as I think removing the article constitutes vandalism. Could you please close the AFD as "nominator withdrawn". Thank you. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is now that another "delete"-!vote was cast before expansion. Thanks for withdrawing though, I will put a request at ANI for an uninvolved admin to assess the situation and decide whether withdrawing is still okay. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, if you have the time could you take a look at my report at WP:3RRN? Knowing it, it probably won't be looked at until tomorrow otherwise. Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Regards SoWhy 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Hey, you recently declined a speedy deletion tag (WP:A7) that I placed on the Subspace trip mine article. I left a message on the talk page explaining why it qualified for A7. As an item uploaded to an online game is it not considered web content? Can you please give me some more detail? Anything helps. Thanks in advance!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, Roblox is not a web-based game. Web does not equal online and the criterion just covers content on the world wide web and Roblox is a game (i.e. software) that just uses the internet to connect players. But unlike browser games it runs outside the www. As such, items in this game are not web content either, they are software features and A7 cannot be applied to them. It's like with World of Warcraft in that regard, non-important items from it are still not web content. It's a bit more tricky with Roblox because it features a website prominently but the "download and install first"-part is essential to it and as such, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, especially when an AFD is already open. Another 5 days will not hurt, will they? Regards SoWhy 08:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the AfD is snowing. Enigmamsg 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah there is no rush and the AFD seems to be telling a story. I was just curious to find out how you made your decision. Knowledge is power! Thanks again.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

usurp help

Hey SoWhy, I'm wondering if you can help me understand what I need to do to finish SUL/usurpation. The nowiki user was moved so I could have that account, but I'm unsure of how to log into it, or what I need to do. (create a new account?)

Second, there's a contrib or two at dewiki, so that seems stuck. Here's my request over there:

I understand dewiki is .. a sticking point in the whole SUL process. That's disappointing, because now that should be the only blocker in my new SUL superpowers.

I'm not asking you to fix it- I'm just wondering if you can give me pointers on those two topics- what I need to do next. tedder (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the no-wiki crat has renamed your no-wiki account "Tedderst" to "Tedder" in the process (see your diff there). Check if you have the same password and email in the no-wiki account as you have on the en-wiki one and then visit Special:MergeAccount again. It should be merged then.
No idea about the de-wiki problems. You see, the way they handle their project is the very reason I have decided to work here instead on de-wiki. This is just a further example about how their rules are too strict to allow people to be comfortable as they do not allow to usurp any account with any edits at all. Unfortunately, unless they change their rules (which seems unlikely), there is nothing that can be done. The proposed meta:Steward requests/SUL requests/Usurpation policy will not fix the problem (despite it being said so on the de-wiki page) as it would not apply to a wiki with active crats. You will notice that several admins like AGK and Amalthea have failed to usurp their respective de-wiki accounts as well (which is especially "funny" in Amalthea's case who is German like me). As such, the only solution at the moment to allow you to have an unified account on all projects would be to choose a new name... Regards SoWhy 06:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a "forgot password" on nowiki and got it. That is ironic/sad that you Germans are having the same problem! I've heard rumblings about the dewiki, and especially about the broken SUL process, but this is my first direct experience with it. Good times. tedder (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least one worked. I am lucky I got my SUL without such problems (which is because I registered there first before I registered here). de-wiki is a mess, unfortunately and they have a less sophisticatic set of policies and rules than en-wiki has, despite them being Germans (we all know the prejudices). Unless a foundation wide policy is set in effect that deals with SUL problems equally everywhere, there is nothing that will make them change their mind imho. You will have to live without a corresponding de-wiki account unless you are willing to change your name. I wouldn't bother if I were you, though. I mean, how often will you need to edit there anyway? Regards SoWhy 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I'm not going to change my name just to get the dewiki sorted out- but it's sad to see 13k contribs and the sysop bit being held up by a single contrib. It'd be nice to get SUL. But you're right, it's probably more likely that the "different names can be SULified" change will go through before a policy change, so it'll be fixed technically rather than at a policy level. tedder (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Der Butter

There's also certain Swiss German dialects using this. Tends to drive me crazy :) MLauba (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Swiss and Bavarians are quite related when it comes to speaking languages the rest of us High German speakers don't speak. But I know what you mean. Mind you, it drives my g/f crazy that her best friend and I do not respond if she asks for "der Butter". Face-wink.svg SoWhy 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You're doing that on purpose, aren't you? It's not that you wouldn't know what she meant. I guess she's especially cute when she's crazy. I hope she'll find a good way to get back on you soon. But that gender confusion is nothing compared to the one around Kassel: There, girls (and young women) are considered "it": "Die Claudia" becomes "'s Claudia". Read Mark Twain's essay "The Awful German Language"; it's all true! — Sebastian 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm doing it on purpose, although for different reasons: I want her to learn the correct gender of the word ;-) And you know, women always know how to get back on us men, so you don't have to hope. xD
Ah, yes, Hesse dialect. That's a thing for itself, although if we start comparing the worst German dialects, East German is probably the winner. Mark Twain was probably right about the language, I, for one, cannot blame him. Lucky for me, Munich is somewhat an High German speaking island in a sea of Bavarians. I'd probably go crazy otherwise ;-) Regards SoWhy 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
How about her? Does she want to change the way she talks with you (and your friend)? (No need to answer, it's your business, but I just had to ask; the question just posed itself.) — Sebastian 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I think she knows it would sound just horrible if I tried talking in Bavarian ;-) SoWhy 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, be careful, man! It woudn't be the first time a relationship got called off because of such a problem! ;-) — Sebastian 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Softwarepark Hagenberg

Updated DYK query On August 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Softwarepark Hagenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Whippe

Re speedy: I have a very uncomfortable feeling with this page. Several assertions about run-ins with police, threats being made, yelling, etc. are being made without being sourced. The second paragraph is an alarm bell IMHO ("Much of what follows cannot easily be externally referenced although, as the individual concerned still lives in the area and is active on the internet, anything which is considered factually inaccurate will be challenged quickly. Archive searches of the Governor's minutes will provide verification for much of what is written, and a number of newspapers and the BBC have also researched the issues and are quoted below.") As this is a BLP, such unsourced statements should be deleted. --Crusio (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But there are sources, check the bottom, like the BBC and others (Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc.). I agree that unsourced passages need to be removed but the whole article is not unsourced (G10 only applies to unsourced BLP, not material that is poorly written). Instead of deletion, the article needs to be cleaned up and the sources evaluated and integrated. There is no real doubt that there are sources, is there? Regards SoWhy 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right, there are sources, so G10 is probably not applicable. But the article itself also clearly states that much that is written cannot be sourced... Unfortunately, I currently lack the time to look into this in more detail and read the sources that are listed... --Crusio (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential socks

Hi again. First, I forgot to say thanks above - so, thanks! I was wondering about your thoughts regarding Java Kingpin (talk · contribs), ExitGhost (talk · contribs) and LavaLamp2 (talk · contribs), all of whom are involved with the House of Pain (Apparel)-article which is currently at AFD. ExitGhost and LavaLamp2 were both created within the same hour Java Kingpin made his return after not editing for over a year and they currently have 50% (2/4, LavaLamp2 hasn't voted or even edited for the last four days) of the "votes" at the AFD so I wouldn't mind making sure they're not socks. What would be the way to go about that? A SPI-report just seems very drastic for such as small issue where there's no obvious abuse, just two reasonable keeps for an article about a company which could potentially be pretty notable but which doesn't have the most searchable name when it comes to finding coverage of it. I'm thinking it's most likely they just know each-other and wanted to help out ExitGhost after seeing people was looking to delete "his" article, but I guess that's not totally OK either (WP:MEAT etc. Not saying they were actually recruited)? What would be the best course of action in this case? Asking a CU to take a quick look at it (are they allowed to do that without a proper report?), go to SPI or simply mark them with the "few edits outside this topic"-template? Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is need for any drastic measures. Just tag them with {{subst:spa}} and let the closing admin weight their !votes accordingly. I don't think it's that big a deal, AFD is about arguments and consensus after all, so the important part is what they are saying, not what they are. :-) Regards SoWhy 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know

While passing by Template talk:Did you know, I noticed that you were mistaken at Template talk:Did you know#Michael E. Wysession (permalink). Though you were correct in not passing Michael E. Wysession, you were wrong in your reasoning. Please read my explanation at the aforementioned link. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was? I know that articles can be backlogged at DYK, but can they really be submitted after a week just because there is such a backlog? Wouldn't that allow people to increase the backlog retroactively? WP:DYK says that articles that are nominated may not be older than 5 days and this article was nominated 7 days after creation (if you notice the timestamp, ImperatorExercitus added it to the July 29 backlog on August 5). I did not decline it for being in the backlog but for being added to the backlog retroactively. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for my misguided comments. I neglected to check the timestamp at the end of ImperatorExercitus's nomination.

I'm unsure whether or not policy allows for articles added at the end of backlog to be passed, but I strongly believe that it should. If a user forgot to nominate their article for DYK until a day or two after the cutoff date of five days, they would be denied a DYK. There is no harm in passing articles that are a day or two overdue. The cutoff date is officially five days, but I believe that it should be until the article no longer belonged under "Older nominations". This will slightly add to the backlog, but it really doesn't take that long to verify that an article passes the DYK guidelines. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understood it, the rules are strict in this regard for a good reason. I'm not against passing such articles but I would hate to IAR in those cases, it would make the process more depending on the current backlog. If the backlog is a week, we would allow bending the rules for 7 days. If it's only a day, we would only allow them to add one days overdue nominations. That would be unfair to people imho because the process would then be dependent on the amount of backlog. Somehow I don't think that's the way we should handle it. I'm all for allowing nominations later than 5 days but then we should make it the same for everyone. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You are correct again, but I still don't like rejecting an article that is a day or two overdue. If I see an a nomination like that, I will leave it for someone else to handle. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Why is it that you constantly challenge me on every AFD that I decide on. You seem to follow me around looking to challenge everything that I do. I make good faith edits and I do not vandalize any of the AFD boards if that's what you are trying to get me for. I realize that you are an admin, but I do not think that just because you rewrote the entire article as an admin automatically qualifies the article as saved.keystoneridin! (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but why should I do so? I don't know you and frankly, I have no single reason to behave the way you think I do. Pardon me for saying but you seem paranoid. You are participating in many AFDs and as such, it is very likely that our participation overlaps at certain times. That does not make your contributions anything special, sorry to say so. As such, my !vote in said particular AFD was not against you but against what you wrote. I think I am allowed to say that I don't think I re-wrote it to a spammy article, ain't I? The fact that I am an admin has nothing to do with it (I have no idea why you would think that). So please calm down and don't think yourself followed. On a side note, you might want to read some essays like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to make stronger !votes in future AFDs. !votes like "meets WP:SOMEGUIDELINE" or "is notable" are usually not very effective or convincing. Regards SoWhy 09:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)