User talk:SoWhy/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Gossip Girl

Regarding the Gossip Girl matter, what qualifies as "recent" activity? I'd simply take this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or AIV, but it appears that the troll comes up with a fresh IP address with every incident. This is part of why I'd requested semi-protection. As I appear to be the only one opposing this, walking away would mean throwing the article to the wolves. --James26 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When I checked, there was not much and there were no edits on the 22nd and 23rd. The edits yesterday and today seem good faith edits, although it seems that there is a disagreement on how two of the characters are to be classified. But none of that is actually vandalism, so I think protection would do more harm than good. If the IPs start do be more aggressive, I'll reconsider. For now I'll add it to my watchlist and I suggest, you do the same. Regards So Why 11:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My main issue is that the IPs attempting to reclassify the "Chuck Bass" character lack a source of verification to support the edit, which suggests that this is really motivated by personal fan feelings, which is in violation of Neutral point of view. It can be mentioned that good faith edits are in the minority on this page; most right now just contain spam comments or unsourced bias. And this has been going on for months. Thank you very much for adding this to your attention, though. --James26 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Decline of Nida Khan

Hi. I nominated an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nida_Khan for Speedy Deletion under 'blatant Advertisement' and got rejected. I had several reasons for the nomination, but i think i got the tag wrong. Can you please recommend what course of action i should take. My reasons for speedy deletion of the article:

1. The person is not notable. She won a small beauty pageant titled "Miss Pakistan World" , the pageant's entry itself was deleted from Wikipedia for non notability and vandalism by the pageant's organizers( users Danthompsonjr and Sonisona).

2. The article has NO references and has statements such as "Nida Khan recently went to pakistan, her home town karachi, and on January 4th She had her nikkah done with a handsome guy named Ayan. She wishes to marry when she completes her studies. That is in two years.". "Her beauty and abilities gave pageant organizer, Sonia Ahmed the confidence to enter Khan into two international pageants during the course of the year."( This speculative statement above was written by Danthompsonjr)

The contributors include Danthompsonjr and Sonisona. Both these users vandalised the "Miss Pakistan World" page and created and vandalised a page on the pageant's creator "Sonia Ahmed". During the discussions for both these pages, it was concluded,that these two users were creators of the pageant and were using Wikipedia to promote it. (Saratahir (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Well, the tag was incorrect, so I declined it for that. As for deletion itself: Miss Pakistan World was recreated by administrator Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), so I think we can assume notability exists for the pageant. By logical argument, we have to assume that people who won this notable contest, may be notable, which is enough to not speedy delete it under criterion A7. No other criteria apply, so speedy deletion cannot be done. If you think the page should be deleted, you can use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Regards So Why 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Marked for Speedy Deletion, help?

I am trying to figure out what I can do to make my tone in this article more neutral. I believe that the largest company in that industry that has regularly cleared $18 Mil/year for a decade should be included in an Encyclopedia, but I do see how the article as written does sound like an advertisement. I wonder if you could direct me to an article about a business that has a good neutral point of view? I am new at this and am just starting to contribute and would like some practice getting it right. Thanks. (Itcousin (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

First of all, it is not marked for speedy deletion, I declined that. But the tone is still less neutral than it should be. You may want to read an article in the category Category:FA-Class Companies articles, Category:A-Class Companies articles or Category:GA-Class Companies articles, where those articles are listed, which were identified as the best written ones about companies. Regards So Why 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Rourke

You placed a semi-protect on Mickey Rourke yet I have seen almost no vandalism. Just letting you know. Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a large number of reverts within the last 2-3 days constitute enough vandalism to protect the article for a bit. Regards So Why 09:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello Sowhy, I have spent some time on a graph found here: User:Inclusionist/AfD on average day. In an attempt to make policy better, I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user a couple of weeks ago.

I was wondering if you can provide 5 deleted articles for me from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15, listed here with the admins closing reason:

Www1 delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Auto-Upturn delete. MBisanz talk 13:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
North london stags delete. MBisanz talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nao Kudo delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Blue Fire Burning delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prefereably userfied, lets say User:Ikip/Www1. Because I need to get the creator's name and date it was created.

Admin Alex Muller was willing to provide 5 userfied pages, like User:Ikip/Newton Howard.

If you can't userfy, could your email them? November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user a couple of weeks ago.

I really appreciate it. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Just tag them U1 once you are done with them and have no further use for them. Regards So Why 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Kitten Records

Hi - Can I please have the article on Vicious Kitten Records removed - what is the process ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5b3TnY (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, why do you want it removed? I see no logical reason for it. I have asked for more input in this matter though, but please stop deleting the content of the page until then. Regards So Why 07:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me with tables, please?

Hiya SoWhy, it's been a while! I hope you're well and still enjoying your lectures :-)

Being clever with CSS, perhaps you can help me with sortable wikitables at List of female tennis players. Tennis expert has helpfully added a sortable wikitable, which we're sort of "trialling" on the As before we add it to the rest of the page.

We'd like the columns for birth, death, and grand slam titles to be centred. I've asked a question on this at the technical village pump page. Based on the earliest replies, Tennis expert has managed to centre only those three columns, which is great, but it unfortunately means adding style="text-align: center"| to each cell that needs to be centred. Needless to say, that is really cumbersome!

There are new replies to my question, however, that indicate an easier way of doing it. For example: .wikitable-center3 would affect .wikitable-center3 tbody tr td+td+td, .wikitable-center5 would affect .wikitable-center5 tbody tr td+td+td+td+td). I simply have no idea what that means. If it's implemented, will it be easier to include in the table than the style="text-align: center"| option in each cell? If so, would you be able to give an example of how and where to add it? Thanks so much! Maedin\^talk 08:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

True true. What? Me enjoying lectures? I didn't know I ever had ;-) And what have you been up to these days? Back to the hectic Wiki-life? :-D

Yeah, I read your comment at WP:VPT but I'm afraid I cannot help you much because I too do not see a more elegant solution and frankly, I have no idea what EVula is talking about. Maybe you should ask him instead? ;-) So Why 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from Sri Lanka, brown and exhausted! I had a brilliant time there and saw so much of the island, but it was still a busy and tiring trip, :-) I didn't have a moment to think about Wikipedia. When I get around to it this weekend, I'll have pictures from Sri Lanka up on Flickr; so far I've only been bothered enough to post one.

That's ok, it was a good excuse to write to you, :-) I'll ask EVula about it on his talk page instead of cluttering WP:VPT further. A little intimidating, but oh well. Thank you for your help, have a good day! Maedin\^talk 10:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, vacation. It seems like ages since I had one (four years if I count correctly). My jealousy notwithstanding I am happy for you. :-)

And I feel flattered like a schoolgirl that you wanted to write me. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside ;-) But you know, you can write me anytime, about anything.^^

Sorry I couldn't help more than that. Have a nice day yourself (I'm at work so my "good day"-ness is quite limited xD) So Why 10:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm at work myself, but both bosses are out so I can get away with a bit of wiki-ing! Don't be too jealous, holidays aren't that common for me, either. Usually my "holidays" consist of going back home so my parents can put me up and save me money. But blimey, 4 years? May you have an extended stay somewhere interesting and leisurely soon!

I rather hope that you're flattered like a schoolboy, SoWhy, and not a schoolgirl! I'm flattered like a schoolgirl that you're flattered, though! But, I think that to write about anything, I'd have to use your email, ;-)

I really should do some more actual work, so best be going for now. <3 Maedin\^talk 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Decline of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SholeemGriffin/Sandbox_1&action=history

I am not sure I understand why the speedy deletion request was rejected. The content of this article is a complete copy paste of 'Miss Pakistan World' which was an article deleted by AFD( hence i used G4). ThanksSaratahir (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, sorry, I didn't notice your post, please add them at the bottom, not at the top. Then: It's a sandbox, so it's quite usual to find a userficated version there. Miss Pakistan World exists as an article and we can assume that the author wants to use some information of the deleted version for the new version. G2 cannot apply because sandboxes are for testing, that's the whole purpose. Regards So Why 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection declined

Regarding my request for protection of Southwest Asia on WP:RFPP, I have commented on the decision there. I kindly request review of the request/decision. Thanks. Regards, Hús ö nd 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Provided there. Regards So Why 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Hi SoWhy! I have a quick question for you... I've read the policy on source verifiability about a dozen times over, and it still isn't clear as to whether a blog can be used as a reliable source. I've been (slowly) working on the article for Ana Voog, and most of the references are from her online blog. I guess what I'm getting at is this: Are blogs from the subject of a biographical article allowed as a reliable source to verify facts? TheTwoRoads (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are usually not considered reliable sources, correct. If they were written by the article's subject though, they usually count as primary sources which are acceptable as long as they are used to verify that the article's subject claimed something. For example, you can use the blog post by X who claims he is 32 to add "X claimed to be 32" to the article. See this section of WP:V and WP:SPS as well as this section of WP:BLP. Regards So Why 10:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Page 'Harry J Carr'

Why did you delete this page, it is a well known person in my country, after searching I couldn't find a page for him, so I made one. Can you please replace the deleted page? Also, the page was not an act of attacking, I simply wish to spread the word about this insane person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomzidea (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we do not allow pages that talk negatively about living people (without very good proof). Your page was obviously created to demeanor the person in question as well as others and you should not create such pages, even if meant as a joke. Regards So Why 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Excuse me, SoWhy. May I ask why my userpage was deleted? I have never made any requests to have it deleted. Can it be restored, please? Thanks in advance. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did. Or someone using your static IP. Point is, there is no way of telling that this wasn't you but someone misusing your computer. I suggest you really consider creating an account so that this does not happen again... Regards So Why 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PPOL

Thanks for pinpointing when the change to the policy occurred. Silence does not necessarily mean consensus, but it is true that unless someone raises concerns and those concerns are shared by other users, then silence effectively serves as consensus. I'll create a discussion about that sentence on the talk page later on, as it does not seem any useful, let alone logical, to me. Regards, Hús ö nd 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems logical to me though. We are an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" (until FlaggedRevs are introduced I guess), so any measures to stop uninvolved people from editing should be the last resort. If we can pinpoint the troublemakers and deal with them as single editors, why should we stop 47,311,041 users (and countless IPs) from editing the page? But I guess some discussion will not hurt. Regards So Why 09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for the protection on Fernando Verdasco, it was really a pain to mantain it correct. Dreamblack (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You are welcome :-) So Why 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Nolan

The player has now moved so I guess the article can be unprotected? Thanks for the protection. (Quentin X (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Sure, not a problem. So Why 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oz Clarke

Thanks for the page protection, was getting a bit annoying reverting the edits.--Uksam88 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

Thanks. --Sirgreene (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You have been quoted a lot in the RfC. Ikip (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice then, if you told me, which RfC you are talking about ;-) So Why 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, link above. To me this is all consuming, I have to remember it is only one of many RfCs now. Ikip (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:N -- remove prot?

I'm not certain full protection makes sense at this point on WP:N. I'd encourage you to go back and reevaluate it. Sorry if this is discussed elsewhere, I've only seen a brief discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that, I thought someone would unprotect or ask me for it sooner. Regards So Why 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia was deleted

Mr SoWhy, I read that you deleted this post as blatant advertising I disagree with your opinion having read the rule on SPAM. HWCA is a wetlands of international significance and deserves a page here it is part of the Ramsar Convention for protected wetlands and many of the wildlife this place is designed to protect have articles on WIKI pages so to ignore a key facility such as HWCA is leaving a huge gap in the knowledge base and gaps are just as bad as spam. If you don't like my writing style fine but it is not advertising. From a Volunteer —Preceding unsigned comment added by HWCA (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, please post new messages at the bottom, not somewhere in between.

Then: WP:SPAM does not only apply to commercial advertising but to any page that uses promotional language (phrases like "Our 45 ha wetlands...", "visitors will enjoy...", "we rely..." are very good indicators usually). You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well, because you, as a volunteer at this facility, are probably not capable of being neutral.

I can offer you one thing as a compromise: I can restore the article in your userspace, for example at User:HWCA/Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia where you can edit the article to follow neutral point of view (for example by removing those phrases I mentioned above). Then you can ask another editor to review your article, for example at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and they will help you with any problems and once they are taken care of, you can move the article to the old location.

PS: Please do not forget to sign your posts on talk pages like this one using ~~~~. Regards So Why 09:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete the Web 5.0 page

20:58, 2 February 2009 SoWhy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Web 5.0" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: copyvio of http://technbiz.blogspot.com/2009/01/defining-web-40.html)

The reason it is not a copyright infringement is because the author of both the articles, at that blog and at Wikipedia, are one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramendra (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So you say. But we have no way of knowing that (because the website in question does not state that the content is released under the GFDL or a similar, compatible license). While we usually assume good faith, we have to delete such articles in order to not violate copyright laws. You could email permission at permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed) but I advise you do not do so. The article will probably be deleted within the normal five day period in any way because we do not allow original thoughts to be published and because it is speculation by the author of that blog (which may or may not be you) - see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

PS: Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Regards So Why 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR LETTING MY SANDBOX PAGE LIVE PSNMand (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, but please try not to write in caps. It's slightly annoying. Regards So Why 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

HWCA

The wiki page was requested a long time ago but nobody took it up it was felt that it should be attempted by ourselves all the content came from third party sources even the wording mainly newspapers if you would prefer someone less connected to this place to write the article please have them contact us at hwca@wetlands.org.au we would be happy to assist them anyway we could. but if changing "we" to "the" would be enough to pass than I would like to edit it 202.22.175.84 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)hwca volunteer

See my advice above. Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and we don't have people standing by to write articles. You can do so yourselves, provided you heed aforementioned advice (especially the part about letting someone else review the article while it's still in userspace, not live). Regards So Why 07:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links

Thank you for your help! Donadio (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Master Grade Page

Hello, I was browsing through the gundam models page, and went to check the handy list of Master Grade models, and noticed that it had been deleted. The reason for deletion was "G8" or no linked to a valid page. Though as far as I could tell, the Master Grade page was part of the overall page dedicated to Gundam models. I was hoping that you could undelete the Master Grade page, because it was a resourceful list on the different make/models of Gundams that are available in Master Grade. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.24.223 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding wcsd template

Hi SoWhy, I just noticed your {{User:SoWhy/wcsd}} that you use for informing users of speedy deletion declines, and I think it would be great if it could be moved to template space so that everyone could use it. Say Template:Declined speedy deletion or something. What do you think? Dcoetzee 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fine with me. But I'd like a shortcut, say Template:wcsd or maybe it should be integrated into WP:WARN? I think a little icon would be a good idea as well. Tell you what: Seeing that WP:UW seems kind of inactive, I'll be bold and create {{uw-csd}} based on my template to fit with the other warning templates. I'll have a go at it tomorrow, but you can feel free to do it yourself if you like to. ;-) Regards So Why 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I created {{uw-csd}}. It should offer all the "luxuries" needed now and I think the usage is clear. If you have any ideas for improvement, please do not hesitate to change it :-) So Why 07:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

CloseXFD.js

Thought I forgot, huh? =) Well, actually I did for awhile. =\ Something off-wiki came up and I've been a little distracted. But I had a burst of creativity and a new version is available now. The interface has changed to how I remember we had discussed like the afd_helper script. There should be a "Close" link on all of the appropriate XfD sections. I haven't quite finished everything yet as I do recall you asked for shortcuts on the result prompt. Anyways, give it a try and see how you like it and if I broke anything. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so did I. Off-wiki bothers us all and I had no time backlogging through XFD with the CSD and RFPP work. But great news on the progress, I will check it out tomorrow. Thanks for your time and work on that :-) So Why 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SORCE Intranet

I declined deletion because it also had a speedy tag added to it. Since that one obviously didn't apply, I declined it. I probably should've reworded to say I "opposed" a prod. :( That's what you get with multiple deletion processes on one article. It shouldn't have them to begin with... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I was just wondering :-) Regards So Why 12:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's also why I don't like PRODs. Things get deleted for the most spurious reasons outside deletion policy. I only rarely search the PROD logs for something to save because it is so depressing. If someone were to make a reasonable proposal to drop the whole prod process, I'd support it in a heartbeat. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. That's what we have Speedy for and better to have a discussion than to wait for 5 days for the prod to go through... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, but what to do in cases where CSD does not apply because it is restricted to certain pages but where discussion is not needed? I think prod serves it quite well in those cases and as you say, noone has a reasonable proposal how to replace it. Regards So Why 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the Swedish page you mentioned? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That was Miki nesic. If you run it through Google Translate, you'll see it's about some Swedish kid and thus context exists. And foreign language stuff shouldn't be deleted as A1 anyway unless it has no context after it was translated.

Same with Bhupesh karankar btw, that was not a A1 but a A7, because the context was clear. We need to be careful with A1, it's quite strict actually. Regards So Why 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Winkler subject to deletion

Hello SoWhy, thanks for letting me know this page didn't quite meet Wikipedia's standards. I just have a couple questions:

What exactly does "tagging for prod" mean?
If more references were to be provided (both quantity and well known), would that be sufficient to keep the page established?
Do you have any other suggestions specific to that page?

Thanks! ACatRon (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for prod means placing {{subst:prod|reason}} to the page. PROD stands for proposed deletion and is an alternative to articles for deletion (=AFD). I basically means that the article is marked for five days as deletion-worthy and if noone objects to deletion (by removing the prod-"tag"), it will be regarded as uncontroversial and deleted. If you think it shouldn't be deleted, you can remove the tag to contest it. In this case it will most likely be sent to AFD instead.
I suggest you read the notability requirements set by WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. If you can provide reliable sources(!) that the subject is notable within those guidelines, then it will be sufficient.

That's all I can say to it, because I have no knowledge about the subject at hand. I suggest you read the links I provided here and then decide what to do. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards So Why 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi
I made some changes to your userpage, which should make it display correctly at least with the Modern skin. To make it work with all you'd have to make sure to explicitly set font styles, font sizes, paddings and margins of all divs etc., to override the settings from the skins. There's really no way around that if you want to have them positioned and sized. Not that hard either, just needs some fiddling to get them right since MediaWiki will be sure to add paragraphs where you don't want them. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a real good guy, I owe you one for that. :-D So Why 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My sig

I'm gonna leave the ~~Balloonman~~ PoppaBalloon for a while, but it will probably become:---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that would work better if you had chosen I'm Brian! instead...if I remember the end of The Life of Brian correctly. After all, I doubt many people watched Spartacus (1960 film) but they sure watched Life of Brian ;-) So Why 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're showing your youth ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 15:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't hide it well anyway. But compared to most users here, I am quite old. And if I haven't watched that movie, those younger most likely haven't either ;-) So Why 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But compared to most users here... hmmm, based upon that comment, I guess it's safe to say you're older than 15 ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Older than 24 actually (and younger than 25), which probably places me in midlife-crisis age in Internet-terms. ;-) So Why 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, me too then. 24 going on 25. Though females supposedly "mature" sooner then males, so I must have had my internet crisis last year. Hmmm, and then I came to Wikipedia . . . sign of desperation, perhaps! Maedin\^talk 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain that that's just a urban legend ;-) So Why 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Was just going to come here, when I noticed

That you had already noticed Amalthea's RfA nomination ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had it pre-emptively watchlisted ;-) So Why 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TradeMark Express

Hi, I just have to say, I disagree that TradeMark Express shouldn't be deleted. It just seems like unnotable spam. -Zeus- 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me. But I think my decision is correct. It does not fit A7 because an interview etc. asserts notability - it does not have to exist for that. And it's spammy, yes, but it's not blatant advertising as G11 requires it to be. I suggest you take it to WP:AFD instead. Regards So Why 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ytterbyn

I'm not to familiar with the rules of deletion. But Ytterbyn (in Norrbotten County which the article is about) is not in the list of tätorter or småorter which means that it have less than 50 inhabitants, (or maybe is part of another place, but not even swedish wikipedia have an article). Is that really notable enough just because it is an "existing places"? Thanks! --Skizzik ^talk 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't say it's notable. But with existing places, notability is presumed to exist. The only criterion for speedy deletion that touches notability is A7 but that can only be applied if there is no such presumption or assertion. And it does not apply to places anyway. So I suggest you take it to WP:AFD instead if you want to get it deleted. Regards So Why 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to restore {{db-t1}}

Hi SoWhy, I just noticed that you deleted {{db-t1}}. While I'm an opponent of T1, another admin asked me to TfD it, and at least one user voiced a Keep opinion during the ongoing TfD, so I think it's best to allow that TfD to finish. That's why I declined the T2 speedy deletion tag. It's also really important to me that these actions have strong consensus behind them, so that they will be difficult to contest if a backlash later emerges - I want to see T1 dead for good. Could I ask you to please restore this template? Thanks. Dcoetzee 22:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, we had a edit-conflict there, I deleted it literally seconds after you declined it. I think T2 applies though because T1 is dead for good now. {{db-t1}} just points to a non-existent criterion...

But I am happy to restore it and reopen the TFD on your request. No harm done. Regards So Why 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that T2 applies - I've deleted that template under T2 before myself - but I just want to be extra careful this time. :-) Thanks for being understanding. Dcoetzee 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure no problem. There is no harm in waiting for the TFD anyway. Sorry again for that, there should be a warning if you delete an article and someone else edited it in the mean time... Regards So Why 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[1]

I really wish there was some kind of "protection conflict" :P Tiptoety ^talk 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too: T18441. ;-) So Why 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Tiptoety ^talk 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now we just need someone who knows a dev real life, so they can hit the dev with a stick until he/she actually reads and implements that. ;-) So Why 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to restore funkitron

Hi SoWhy, I noticed you deleted funkitron. It seems that this page was deleted a long time ago and now, even though it gets re-written properly and the company is notable, it keeps on getting deleted automatically. How would one go about getting it to be re-reviewed before it gets auto-deleted? Funkitron is referenced other places in Wikipedia, and it would be nice to get rid of the red links. Thanks for any help/advice on this. Cheers, Dave635 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The page that was recreated made no claims that the notability increased since 2006 and the only source existed already when it was deleted the first time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron. So if you want to contest this deletion, I advise you to go to deletion review where you can present your arguments to the community. Regards So Why 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the advice. Done. Dave635 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with it :-) So Why 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can I ask one thing: Did I do it correctly? And could you review and make comment if you think it has merit. Dave635 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you did. But I don't want to comment on it at the moment, as I deleted it once myself. Let people discuss it who have not encountered the article before. Regards So Why 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Dave635 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well is it not going well so far. I think people are reviewing the past deletion history which happened years ago and the present article. Can you review the reference materials and determine if you find the company notable now? And then review the just deleted article and see if you find it in line with wikipeda guidelines? Thanks for looking into this. Dave635 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy SoWhy/Archive 9's Day!

User:SoWhy/Archive 9 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as SoWhy/Archive 9's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SoWhy/Archive 9!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow...I mean...wow! I feel truly honored, thanks Rlevse! :-) So Why 10:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, SoWhy. As one of our best admins (and as an Awesome Wikipedian par excellence indeed), you really deserve it! :) — Aitias // discussion 13:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

MG Gundam

y did u deleted the MG Gundam webpage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.60.251 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to tell you if you tell me which page you are referring to. There never was a page called MG Gundam in this Wikipedia. Regards So Why 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is There A Page where i can find all the templates and how to write them thxPermethius (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Help:Template explains usage and writing but it depends what templates you need to find them. But a page where all are listed? That would be impossible. You can take a look at Category:Wikipedia template categories, where most categories for templates are listed (but nowhere all of them). You are probably more successful if you look at the project pages for certain areas you need a template for and then check the links there.

Are you looking for a certain kind of template? Regards So Why 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I Guess i would really need the speedy deletion template .I am tryin to get edits by deleting new vandalism pages.Permethius (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are different templates for each criterion, you can find them all at Category:Speedy deletion templates. Basically they all consist of db- and the suffix for the criterion you want to tag a page with, e.g. {{db-a7}} for criterion A7, {{db-g4}} for criterion G4 etc. There is also a number of special templates like {{db-bio}} for biographical articles under criterion A7 oder {{db-attack}} for attack pages. Some of those are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion#Speedy deletion.

It is good to hear that you want to patrol new pages. Before you start tagging pages for deletion, please do make yourself familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion and maybe read Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion, a very good essay on the issue. Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to keep content, not delete it; so if in doubt, do not tag for speedy deletion but rather use proposed deletion or deletion discussions.

If you need further assistance in this field, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards So Why 17:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You I will read them and if i any more questions i know whop to ask :) Permethius (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Current Event

Hi, I have a question. In regard to the page for President Mohammad Khatami, how can I request for a tag of "current event" on top of the page? I am not familiar with that. Can you help me with that? As I mentioned in my previous request, he is officially running for 2009 election. In farsi-Wikipedia, we had many IP users that abused the editing. Here, we have, but I will request again, once it gets worst. Kind Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just edit the page and place {{current}} at the top of it. Regards So Why 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! done. The best.Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

message

I read yur message I undo myself but phd mit UCLA continues undo all on article MARION COZMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrtkzt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe what the poster was referring to when he stated "MG Gundam" was the "Master Grade" Gundam model page that existed under the main Gundam models page. If you restore it or at least explain why it was deleted, that would be much appreciated.

MG = Master Grade page

I believe what the poster was referring to when he stated "MG Gundam" was the "Master Grade" Gundam model page that existed under the main Gundam models page. If you restore it or at least explain why it was deleted, that would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.24.223 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Master Grade? It was deleted under criterion G8 because it was only a broken redirect to List of Master Grade Gundam models as the latter page has been deleted by DGG (talk · contribs). You need to talk to DGG about the deletion of the actual page, mine was just cleanup that occured because someone thought the name was too unclear. Regards So Why 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

I have posted a response on my talk. Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the hangon tag?

Hello, please can you explain why you removed the hangon tag from HSS Hire, and saw it as unneccesary removal?

Thanks

Northernmonk (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it does not make sense if there is no corresponding speedy deletion tag. Adding {{hangon}} will list the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which is not necessary if deletion is not proposed. You can use {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} instead to indicate that you are working on the article. Regards So Why 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. How would i go around changing the main body of text again to comply with the warnings, as it is not directly editable any more for me?

Thanks Northernmonk (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It was removed but you can still edit the text. You can use the revision history to find and edit an old version where it is still present - like this one, then use this as a sample for your new text. Regards So Why 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would i have to resubmit this to you for reinclusion once edited? I cannot find an 'edit' link anywhere on the old version page. I will re-edit the old article to comply with the requested changes. Northernmonk (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is noone you have to resubmit anything to. Just write a new text without copying text from any other webpages and you should be fine. The reason it was tagged for deletion was because the content was taken from here, which is violation of copyright. If you do not violate the copyright again, there is no reason to fear speedy deletion. You might want to provide reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject though (see Help:References and Wikipedia:Your first article for detailed help on that). Regards So Why 13:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there still problems with copyright even if they have granted permission to use information from their 'about us' page? Do you know how i would go about adding this permission to the re-submitted article? Sorry for all the questions! Northernmonk (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) I can see no such granting. The page clearly says "Copyright © 2009 HSS Hire Service Group Limited. All rights reserved". All text to be incorporated in Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details) and there is no indication that this is the case. I suggest you write your own text instead. Regards So Why 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand now, I will write my own text, many thanks Northernmonk (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Be sure to read the guides I linked above, they contain helpful tips. Feel free to ask if you need any further help. Also, if you plan to become a regular editor here, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Regards So Why 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EA Sports F1 2000‎

According to this page, EA Sports F1 2000 is the correct title. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, but Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source to verify such information, can it? Amazon.com lists it only as F1 2000, as does IGN. Metacritic lists it as F1 Championship Season 2000. But noone other than Wikipedia calls it EA Sports F1 2000, so I think WP:V tells us to use what we can verify. The correct name would probably be F1 2000 (video game). Regards So Why 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

I notice you say you believe an article useless without images. I agree. Which is why when BigJimEdge put up a piece about my play The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, I added two production photographs and the flier image. This were taken down by Blowdart (who had previously proposed the article for deletion (The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna), the result of which was unanimously keep). I can see no reason for this, but have no wish to enter another COI debate myself. I leave this matter with you. The flier is at File:Pendulum-E-flier.jpg. Please note that I own sole rights, and have released them, but credit should go to Andy Cooke for design and Matt Jamie for photography. The same applies to File:The_Pendulum_-_Before_the_duel_(small).JPG Caption: Alexander Fiske-Harrison as Captain Freidrich von Leiben & Gareth Kennerley as Dr Artur Neurath (Photography by Matt Jamie) and File:The Pendulum - Schlessing's card (small).JPG Caption: Alexander Fiske-Harrison as Captain Friedrich von Leiben & Sian Clifford as his wife Elena (Photography by Matt Jamie). Thank you for reading. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you leaving it to me though? I never had anything to do with those images, did I?

If you think I should do it as a neutral third-party and/or because of my "status" as an admin, I am sorry but I won't do any edits of which I know that another editor opposes them - there is no sense in such confrontation. Instead, you should raise the issue at Talk:The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, using methods outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, for example by requesting a request for comments. Regards So Why 14:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you--Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Katana of Mystery

I just wanted to point out that it notes at the bottom of the article: "Disclaimer: This article is being used as a movie prop and is not to be taken seriously. there is no such person as an Ernest von Breckinridge, and there is no Katana of Mystery." That seems like an advert.--Nate 14 81 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be used for a movie, but that alone is no advertising. Yes, it probably has no place here, but it does fail G11 because even if used for commercial purposes, the article itself is not blatant advertising. The only criterion possible might be G3 as a blatant hoax, but I am reluctant to assume bad faith in this case, so I think PROD is the way to go. Regards So Why 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Smallville edits

Fair enough, as I recognize that getting into an edit war with this user was a poor choice. What should I do then if he continues? The fan images he was trying to upload have been deleted, but in my experience with him (and you can check his log file to confirm) he just uploads the images again and again, if not at Characters of Smallville he's been doing it on other Smallville (and non-Smallville) pages. Should I come to you, ignore it completely and have all of the images deleted because they are orphaned, or what? I've been having substantial issues with this user since they started editing with regularity these past couple weeks, and apparently others have as well on other non-Smallville pages (and not all of it having to do with image replacement). Other than the edit warring, they seem to be skirting the edge of disruption but they really are not doing anything objectively wrong (so to speak). I consulted another Admin (A Man In Black (talk · contribs)) about this yesterday - still awaiting their reply - as I'm really at a loss for how to deal with this type of editor. At first I tried to be as helpful as possible and explain some of the policies and guidelines on their talk page, but it eventually just degenerated into annoyance because it seemed more like they were deliberately ignoring me instead of just not understanding where I was coming from with the guidelines and policies. I even had to open a sock puppet investigation because it became clear that they were creating accounts to falsify a consensus. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a protection situation, that was the point. If it's edit-warring and if they continue, WP:ANEW is the appropriate venue. There is no other way about it, so I fail to see your problem. I did warn them for edit-warring today (as I did you), so any additional revert after the warning is plainly disruptive and can be dealt with by going to the aforementioned noticeboard. I suggest you enter dispute resolution procedures for this issue if needed, like third-party opinions or request for comments. Regards So Why 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for fixing the page move I asked for. (I'm nervous about doing it myself as apparently history sometimes gets left behind, or something.) I think this was the third time I've used {help me}, and, as before, the response was quick, friendly and helpful. Like magic. - Hordaland (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are (mostly) nice people here. Feel free to ask me directly as well if you need any help.

As for the page move, just try it. If the target does not exist or is only a redirect, you can do it yourself. If it exists but there is more history, you cannot move it anyway. In those cases you can request an admin to handle it, using {{db-move}} and they will take care of the history by merging it if needed. So just remember: be bold.

Happy editing So Why 13:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

adoption

i noticed you offered adoption. I want to let you adopt me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbj9210 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very generous of you

. Well, then let's get started: First off, please remember to use your signature whenever you post to a talk-page like this one. You can do that by adding ~~~~ at the end of your messages. It's important so people can easily identify who wrote the messages. Then, you need to change the template on your userpage to {{adoptee|SoWhy}} so everyone knows that you are still learning. And then, please just ask, whenever you need help with anything on Wikipedia. Regards So Why 09:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the peppermill

Hi there,

I saw a link to Peppermill records on wikipedia, my website, and the reason given was "blatant advertising". I'd just like to go on record as saying that I never put up a wiki for myself, and never asked anyone to. The bit of test in google that I saw was used was directly from my "about" page, so obviously not a ton of original work went into creative the wiki... and I'm not going to start one myself as that seems lame. But I do like the fact that someone actually did go to the trouble, and I'm curious what exactly made it seem like advertising. Thank you,

PK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconutmelodies (talk • contribs) 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, judging by the way it was written, I assumed it was written by you or someone affiliated with you, certainly someone with a conflict of interest. The article used language like

“

Also, if you are an artist that's interested in taking part, drop us a line. As well, if you have any unique project ideas, please suggest away. Finally, if you have a song or some other gift you'd like to send digitally, you can submit stuff to us by clicking here.

”

That indicates that the person in question wants to use Wikipedia for their purposes. I just now checked and realized that the whole "article" was a blatant copy of http://www.peppermillrecords.com/about/, so whoever created it, violated your copyright as well. It would have been deleted as a copyright violation anyway if it hadn't been so advertising. Such text may be okay for you to have on your website, but it's not for Wikipedia.

Please review our policy of advertising for further details. Regards So Why 09:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article

Hey SoWhy i created my first article wanta check it out?Its Lifeline (Papa Roach Song) Peace Out–Permethius (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should probably add some more text to that. It looks nice, very MOS, though. But some background info would be useful and a CD cover would be nice. But a good start, nonetheless

So Why 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,Im searching for the cover and what Jacoby shaddix,the main singer,had to say about the song the itunes part and much more im gonna add an under construction label to it Peace Out–Permethius (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have fun writing. Amazon.com or similar are a good source for cover images (or the band's website maybe) :-) So Why 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the image in several diferent places just having trouble gettin it into jpg format so i cant post it.Any ideas how to do that? Peace Out–Permethius (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon has it already in JPEG iirc. If you have the patience, I can upload it for you when I come home in the evening. I'm at work at the moment and I have to go to my classes at the university now, so I'll be home in 6-7 hours. Regards So Why 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of Course i can wait thx Peace Out-Permethius (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh actually i got it to work.Thanks for the help Peace Out–Permethius (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha.I also got the Metamorphisis Cover for P Roach on that page .Im really getting the hang of this–Permethius (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Just remember that you need to add an empty line in edit-text if you want a new paragraph, else your messages are all in the same paragraph. So Why 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearfield Systems Inc.

Has the author released the text under the GFDL? Nothing on the original webpage, is there an OTRS ticket? You declined the speedy but I can't see evidence of GFDL compliance. Exxolon (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy on grounds that Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) did decline the same speedy before (see the talk page). I have no access to OTRS, so I don't know if there is an OTRS ticket; my decline was solely procedural, as I did not want to wheel-war against another admin's decision. I suggest you ask Accounting4Taste instead. Regards So Why 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Mitchell's Doctor Who

Why did you delete Tom Mitchell's Doctor Who? Apart from the fact that I had declined deletion just before, I don't think you can really say it was vandalism - not with assuming bad faith on side of the creator anyway. And that was clearly a good faith attempt at an article, albeit a mess. I think you should explain your reasoning for deletion to its creator, otherwise they might feel bitten. Regards So Why 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing that you are not familiar with Doctor Who. The content is a patent hoax — the author is claiming to be the chief writer of the series and to have cast a nine-year-old boy as the Eleventh Doctor, cited only to his bebo page. I've left the creator a hoax warning. You're welcome to DRV it if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - my apologies then. Although I am a Doctor Who fan, I must have overlooked that. You were of course correct to delete it then. Sorry for the bother. So Why 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do

Because it hasn't even been released yet!! - Jasonbres (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In case you haven't figured it out it, I'm referring to Into the Wild Green Yonder, which I would rather not find info about until I get the DVD the day it comes out.

Please, I don't want to sound patronizing, but I do know what "we" as Wikipedia do or do not. I left you a message in the mean time, detailing why we do not remove such information, even if it may spoil the plot. If you don't want to read spoilers, do not read an encyclopedia. Regards So Why 15:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Metcalfe PPC delition

Dear SoWhy

It appears you deleted a page in November entitled "Stephen Metcalfe PPC"

It appears to have the code A7 associated with the deletion, indicating that the person it referred to was not notable.

I wonder if you could clarify this for me, and what would be required to post the page.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks

Stephen Metcalfe 82.2.170.135 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As with any deletion under A7, it means that there was no indication why the person in question might be notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read those and especially the one for biographies about politicians. If you are sure the subject in question meets those guidelines and if you have some reliable sources to back it up, you can go ahead and recreate it at Stephen Metcalfe (politician). In any case, please note that Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigning. Regards So Why 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hi SoWhy, Many thanks for your support in my RFA, and those kind words. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here:-) Were Spiel Chequers 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA and for your question. I plan to start out with the blatantly obvious speedies and work my way to more complicated ones over time, so there's no chance of me using IAR any time soon, let alone often. Thanks for your offer of help; I may take you up on that if I have a question because I see you around quite a bit and you always seem very sensible. :) Somno (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Don't hesitate to ask, I know they're sometimes quite confusing, those new buttons.

Have fun! So Why 08:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So far I have learnt that if you use Twinkle to delete a copyvio, it doesn't give you an opportunity to put in the URL. Is there a way to preview the deletion summary, like how you can preview an edit summary? Somno (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no preview. Apparently as an admin are expected to know wikimarkup and how to spell. I'm not a Twinkle user, so I wouldn't know if it's possible but I never saw anyone using TW add an URL. You got to manually select the G12 in the dropdown and then copy+paste the URL in the other field (since the change in the software, the {{db-xxx}} templates prefill the field and not the dropdown anymore). Regards So Why 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know both of those things, but I also know I make a lot of typos. ;) When you tag an article for speedy deletion using Twinkle, it asks you for the URL (and inserts it in the tag), but not if you're deleting it outright. Seems strange to me! Perhaps I'll mention it to the Twinkle people. Somno (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Try Amalthea maybe, he seems to have a knack for such fixes (although he might be busy at the moment with his RFA). So Why 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just request it straight at WT:TW/RFA, I can't work on any admin-only features. Cheers, Amalthea, Twinkle Person. 11:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll go request it from the Twinkle people; thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'm pretty sure Twinkle Person Amalthea will be able to work on admin-only features within a week, but I may as well log the request centrally. :) Somno (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of the Hours

I saw your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of the Hours. Because the article was considered in another, properly listed AfD and redirected there, I've gone ahead and closed the AfD you relisted. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of the previous AFD - I mentioned it explicitly in my comment. The new AFD was opened almost a year after the old one and had already generated discussion, which is why I have not listed it at DRV. As it is long-standing consensus that deleted articles can be recreated and re-AFDed if they may not fit the old consensus, so I think in reverse we should have let the AFD just run it's course than closing it.

I wish you had contacted me first anyway if you disagree with another admin's actions. Some less-patient admins may regard such actions as an invitation to wheel-warring. All of us should really be careful when taking such steps when there is no urgent need to take them. Regards So Why 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please un-delete our page

on 20:15, 23 January 2009 you deleted my page regarding "Turnaround Management, Restructuring, Distressed Investing Industry Hall of Fame" with a notation that it was advertising. I respectfully disagree. This Hall of Fame is sponsored by the Turnaround Management Association, representing 8,600 members worldwide, to honor those in the industry who are icons. Those who have made significant contributions to the industry over many years. This concept is similar to the NFL (football) and other Hall of Fames. Please reinstate the page with revisions if required. Thank you. John Strategist@aol.com (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And my decision was correct. Wikipedia is not a webhost for you to propagate such things. It was evident from the page that you wanted to promote your "Turnaround Management Association" by adding that list of links and people you honored. You are free to request deletion review but I suggest you don't and rather read Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as our policies on advertising and conflicts of interest. Regards So Why 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I wanted to thank you for your constructive comments at my recently failed RfA. I can understand where you and others were coming from with respect to lack of experience and I'm glad you were able to get past mistakes of mine in the open so the RfA was as transparent as possible. I also want to thank you for making those "admin eyes only" pages accessible to the rest of us. There is a more general note on my talk page, should you be interested. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. As I wrote, I think you could be prime admin material in a few months, if you avoid such obvious mistakes in future. Just remember, when tackling speedy deletion, be as inclusionst as possible - if there is any doubt, use PROD or AFD. Only clear cases of G10, G11 or G12 need to be deleted on sight - everything else can be kept for a few days without hurting us. Be especially careful with G1, G3 and A1, the tags which get abused most (see WP:FIELD for more details and of course I'm Spartacus!'s WP:WIHS). I suggest you consider admin coaching for a future RFA if you think you need it, else play with rollback (not literally of course

) for some months and I hope you attempt it again in a few months. If you heed the advice from the RFA, you will pass with flying colors. If you have further questions on anything, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards So Why 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tagging

Just wanted to clarify that, while external links were provided in the Wilhelm Heinrich Detlev Körner article, when I marked it for speedy deletion the article's content was nothing more than a sentence essentially saying that he was a man who existed. The article made no claim of notability beyond the fact that he once lived. I see that the article now has content, and is a legitimate stub, which I think is a good result of a deletion nomination. So, thank you for your notification and keep up the good work. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

External links can be a valid claim of notability, please do not forget this. If I write an article with only "John Doe is a politician" and I provided a couple of reliable sources which talk about John Doe in length because he is President of North Elbonia, then the article has a claim of notability even if just because of the sources linked. Regards So Why 12:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, like I said, the article is improved, so everything turned out as it should, perhaps I was a bit hasty with the tag. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Bianchi

I've attempted twice now to write an article about Mr Bianchi and both times I have failed. I'm just intrigued as to why Wikipedia keep deleting my article? And when you open up the page to write an article on Mr Bianchi, it warns people not to. You've put "Author even admits to article not being notable". At no point have I ever said anything close to that. I want an explanation about all of this. No doubt I shall have to do all of this again after I've done another article on Mr Bianchi (which I'm going to do). Regards (MalkyHutchinson (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

You might want to read criterion A7 for speedy deletion and Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies before you try that. Otherwise you will be disappointed again. You yourself wrote on the talkpage (and I quote (emphasis added)):

“

I want Mr Bianchi to be public knowledge before he becomes a prominent figure within Microsoft.

”

So you do admit that Mr. Bianchi is not notable, you just assume he will be in the future. But that is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. The article itself had not a single sentence that would even hint at why the subject would meet aforementioned guidelines on notability which is the reason for deletion.

If you cannot provide a reason why we should assume such importance or significance (or even notability), there cannot be an article about this subject and further articles will be deleted for the same reasons. If the subject (as I assumed) is not notable, I suggest you cease trying to write articles about it. You are welcome to contribute with articles about subjects that do meet those guidelines. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards So Why 17:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Our highly improbable plan worked, Sam!"

Ah, fellow Sam & Max fan! Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users!
Sabre (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Kuyt

Can you take a look at the discussion on Talk:Dirk Kuyt? It looks like there's clear consensus to change the spelling in the article to Kuyt throughout, save for one mention of the Dutch spelling (Kuĳt) in the lead. Since it's your protect, I figure you should have first look at it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. You are correct on that, I unprotected it and while on it, cared of the requested move. Regards So Why 07:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

long time no see

good to see you one last time have a good lifeThe Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for taking the time to do some house cleaning with my edits. I appreciate your hard work. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm at CAT:CSD today anyway (unfortunately I seem to be the only one). Regards So Why 10:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Brian Jackson Show

Dear SoWhy

Thank you for your explanation as to why my recent article on The Brian Jackson Show was deleted - I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain why the said article was removed.

I am pleased that you understand my reasoning for putting the article onto Wikipedia - I wanted to catalogue The Brian Jackson Show as I had privileged access to the local Press Pack as well as a restricted screening of the episodes via a secure link online; I thus - using such privileged information - wished to catalogue the show as early as possible to be one of the first to contribute information in respect of the same.

As the show will soon be released publically, I shall re-construct the article with hopefully further evidence of its notability (I am aware that there will be further coverage of the show in local newspapers as well as online sources - I shall add these sources as soon as they are available).

Regardless of the above, here's my request for re-instating the article in the meantime:

I would be grateful
For the reinstatement of
My said article.

Wikiwitchoftheeast (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your request and I really would like to fulfill it but I think I shouldn't, because I can guarantee you that it will be deleted again by someone else and they are very likely to be annoyed by how it was already once deleted and then recreated. And I want to save you the disappointment and all that can come from that. That said, I can offer you the following: I could userfy the article by moving it to your userpace, for example at User:Wikiwitchoftheeast/The Brian Jackson Show. You could work on it there without fear of speedy deletion and if you manage to find reliable sources to establish the notability, it can be moved back to article space. You might want to ask someone for a review of it first though. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Regards So Why 12:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy - I hope you enjoyed my attempt at Haiku in English!

Thank you for your reply and for your offer to userfy the article so that it is moved to User:Wikiwitchoftheeast/The Brian Jackson Show - I would greatly appreciate that. From my space/page I will add more reliable sources once they are available and subsequently repost the article as a wiki article.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain the reasoning behind all of this.

Kind regards, Wikiwitchoftheeast (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm German, so I'm afraid that was lost on me. Hope it was not too time-consuming to write^^

I userfied the article per your request, you can find it with full revision history at the aforementioned subpage. As I said above, before you try to move it from there, please consult an experienced editor (or me ;-)) for another opinion on whether notability has been established. Good luck with it!

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me anytime. Happy editing! Regards So Why 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No it didn't take very long - I only wrote it as it mentioned in your FAQ that you'd reinstate pages if the request to do so was written in Hiaku (perhaps I read that in a general FAQ...oh well it's a moot point now regardles).

Thanks again...Wikiwitchoftheeast (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That's because I copied that page from someone else. Thanks for pointing that out *deleting it away*. Have a good day :-) So Why 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD U1

Thanks for deleting my subpage. I was sure there was a category for it, but i thought i'd scoured that CSD list but couldn't find it. I shall remember the U section in future! --Ged UK (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. We live and learn. :-) So Why 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That was very fast

I know that Germans a very hard workers, but I didn't know they are that hard

A notification and delete in 10 minutes, that's a world class service, don't you consider a job in the mailing service, why should we wait for post if we can use someone like you that deliver in seconds Congrats

But seriously, I was still building the Page, come on, give me one hour to complete it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I could consider that request if you told me which page you are talking about ;-) So Why 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing , really, You are replying very fast, I started to think that there is a machine replying to me, not a human being How do you do that?

I tried to create only one page, I'm sure you can figure it out, you are the admin ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at work and thus bored ;-)

But I need to go to classes now, so I'll check that later, okay? Sorry for the delay. Regards So Why 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think you were talking about Wael Eldeep, weren't you? Well, I deleted it as "no indication why the subject might be notable" (see the notability guideline for biographies on that). I doubt you can provide reliable sources as to why this individual should be considered notable, but so you can work on it, I userfied it to User:Themaski/Wael Eldeep. You can tamper with it in your userspace as long as you like and then move it to the main article space if you think it fulfills aforementioned guideline. I advise you do not try to move it there sooner, else it will be deleted again, I am certain of that. Have fun!

PS: Could you please just answer in this section (click the edit on the right) and please sign your posts with ~~~~? Regards So Why 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

expandables

I didn't write the article or anything, but I don't understand why you deleted it. It'd been all over the news about them casting arnold, rourke, etc. It makes wikipedia seem incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.254.20.253 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to The Expendables (2010 film)? I deleted it because it was a recreation of a deleted article and deletion was consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables (2010 film). If you think this decision was wrong, you need to request a deletion review. Regards So Why 20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Central America topic

Muzzle it, why don't you? Good faith edits -- such as this, which seeks to simply include in the template what is already in the article about what comprises Central America -- aren't vandalism. Refrain from commenting if you don't know how. 69.158.144.231 (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The disruption is not what you edit but how you do it. Please use the talk page(s) to discuss the changes if you see that people disagree with you, don't just keep on reverting. Otherwise you will be blocked. I do not need to know the topic to comment on the editing style. So Why 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Then be more judicious in your commentary: it is certainly not vandalism. And how are the reporter and compatriot editor (who have a long history of edit warring) any less different, or arguably disruptive? I also fail to see similar warnings on the other user's talk pages, who have also not used the talk page and often revert without any comment, so I question your judgement. If you don't know how to enter or settle the fray, don't. 69.158.144.231 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there are two editors reverting you, not only one. That should indicate to you that it's not a struggle between two editors but you against multiple people. You enter the BRD-cycle with your edits, you were reverted. Per WP:BRD you should start a discussion if you notice your changes are not accepted, not continue making them. After all, you do not strike me as someone who does not know Wikipedia policy, so you are surely aware of our policy against edit-warring. The fact that other editors are not warned does not make your editing correct. But, funny enough, I was posting at their talk pages to stop it, when you posted here to complain about it (I, like all humans, unfortunately lack the capability to do more than one thing at a time). So don't assume I don't know my job, but your editing was more disruptive than the editing by those users because of the way you did it, hence the warning. I hope you will not continue reverting... Regards So Why 10:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But, actually, no: these two editors (from what I've observed) apparently have a looong history of boosterism and edit warring, and avowedly believe that Mexico belongs in North America to the exclusion of all else, regardless of source matter which may say something else depending on context. Hence my template edit, the goal of which is to accommodate for that ambiguity. Please review the template history and similar articles (e.g., Geography of Mexico); as well, other editors have previously sought to include edits similar to mine (in the template etc.), but only desist largely because these editors gang up and continue their campaign of edit warring over lengthy periods of time. So, I do not see how my edits can be more disruptive than theirs, and so (coupled with false accusations of vandalism) I question your judgement.

As such, BRD is not a policy, but simply a guideline. In light of some activity, I tend to defer to the policy of ignoring all rules. Why should I ascribe to BRD, when clearly these editors do not? Two wrongs do not make a right, and I wish all things could be meta, but these editors must budge or be outed before that can happen. Thanks. 69.158.144.231 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)