User:Extransit/talkarchives/10

AFD closures
The AFD discussion period is now 7 days, not 5 as it used to be. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results
 * Indeed. Icewedge (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Icewedge's Day!
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  • 00:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It must have been a month of slim pickings for me to get the award.... but thanks =D I really appreciate it. Icewedge (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter
Could you respond to the request on Template talk:Abuse filter please? Thanks, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Icewedge (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Patriotic Nigras


The article Patriotic Nigras has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable, no legitimate sources, non-encyclopedic content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Deletionpedia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Deletionpedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonjonesmjb/Who Do You Think You Are Live
Hi there i have created my first article at the above page. Just wanted to get some advice on the best way to solicit some feedback. Its been there for a few days but nothing yet. Am I doing something wrong ? I am wondering should I just fully publish, as I have noticed some gaps / stubs that could also be created but dont want to start doing this if the article will change.

thanks

Simonjonesmjb (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied to user's own talkpage - helpme should only be used there. ∙  AJCham  talk  18:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was away on a trip for a bit, so I missed this, sorry. It seems AJCham has you covered though :D Icewedge (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alec bladwin
Hi -- not to be obsessive, but I did want to make one more small push for removing random redirs.

As a "slippery slope" argument, I'm not sure why it makes sense to have just "Alec bladwin" without having a matching Stephen bladwin, William bladwin, Daniel bladwin, and of course the Bladwin brothers. We're also missing Alec badwin, Alec baldiwn ... .

The point being that as mentioned previously, there's no need for this kind of redirect at all, since the search engine will now automatically suggest Alec Baldwin or the appropriate match for any of the above. It's not even anywhere approaching completeness anyway, since there are literally dozens of other equally appropriate/inappropriate typos we could have redirects to just for Mr. Baldwin, not to mention his ubiquitous brothers.

In short: this is an unnecessary redirect. And I did get obsessive after all...oops. :-) Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I guess but redirects are cheap. If they do no harm, its a waste of effort to delete. Icewedge (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anhel GmbH
Please restore the above article. As I see it, a company that size has a claim to notability, and the article be fixed by  a little normal editing. I know I could just restore and fix it myself, but I like to ask first.  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:NuclearWarfare/Recall
I replied to your comment regarding recall there, but I figure that it is best that the RfA doesn't get sidetracked by that sort of discussion. I was wondering what you disliked about the recall idea that I designed. NW ( Talk ) 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems logical that if a user must enjoy community consensus (perceived as >75% support) to become a administrator they must keep a comparable level of support to remain an administrator. Ideally an administrator would have to be reconfirmed periodically, however, because the RFA process is a time sink and a hassle this cant be done.
 * Honest recall criteria should be stringent enough to weed out reconfirmations that would be an easy pass but if their is reasonable doubt that a user does not have consensus to remain as an administrator than they should undergo a reconfirmation RFA. Half a dozen users with RFA suffrage (that happens to be any user) demanding resignation should be sufficent to indicate that and the format should be a regular RFA. Admins should be able to pass an RFA, if they can't they shouldn't have the bit. Icewedge (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lifeograph
I have clearly specified what Lifeograph is, please verify specifically why you have deleted the above mentioned valid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhu sundar (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article was indeed a decent description however to have a Wikipedia article the subject must be "notable" (see Notability), this is because if an article could be created on every little thing the Wiki would fill up with pages of almost no importance but would still have to be maintained (such as protecting them against vandalism and making sure they are correct). Normally pages have to go through the "Articles for Deletion" process where they will be debated over for seven days before they are deleted however there are certain rules for new pages called the WP:Criteria for Speedy Deletion that permit articles with unquestionable problems to be deleted on sight. Most of the CSD are things like copyright violations, advertisements, or vandalism. However WP:CSD permits the deletion of pages with "no assertion of notability", that is why I deleted your page. You said what the application did, but provided no information about whether or not it was important, and doing a little bit of back research of my own I saw that it was likely non-notable.
 * If you wish to get the page reinstated please first provide proof that your application is notable (again, see Notability). Icewedge (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Toilet Bowl (game)
The AfD at Articles for deletion/Toilet Bowl (game) was closed by you. I believe that this was closed prematurely, specifically because few people were notified of the discussion. The term is widely used in sports, and I ask that the AfD be re-opened for a more full discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does appear that I closed the AFD debate one day early, however, a standard number of people were notified and consensus was clear. If you would like a copy of the deleted article so you could improve it and then reintroduce it to the article space I am willing to provide, however I stand by the close. Icewedge (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please userfy to my account then, thank you! This will work:  User:Paulmcdonald/Toilet Bowl (game).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ please make sure the issues from the AFD are addressed before you move it back. Icewedge (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. What issues, though?  The part about it being "wipe and flush" or WP:POOP?  Seriously though, I'll definitely keep you informed as deleting admin and will likely run it through an AFD review with impartial editors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment just saw the "latest version" of the article, no wonder it was cut! There was a lot more detail earlier on--looks like someone cut a bunch and maybe even vandalized... it certainly needed work, but now it needs a buch more.  Any way we can get history?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅; should have done that originally, sorry. Icewedge (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins
Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, except I am not really active at all at MILHIST... so instead I have removed my name from the memeberlist... lol. Icewedge (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the list :)  Roger Davies  talk 08:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrative favour
Would you mind userfying this page to User:pd_THOR/Twinkie-Wiener Sandwich? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ although with discouragement, I have to say that page looks hopeless. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll grant you that it's unlikely to make it to article-status, but (a) it was (relatively) much better prior to the final version upon deletion (see the reversion I made) and (b) I'd still like to hang onto it for a ... keepsake if you will for the time being.  Thanks again!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisting
This is notice of relisting at AfD of an article you commented on one year ago, Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems consensus is clear without me :) Icewedge (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait... seems I was totally, wrong. Oh well, water under the bridge. Icewedge (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD nomination closed as delete without deleting article
I was looking through some old AFD discussions from October 5, and I came across Articles for deletion/Hi five simulator for Hi five simulator prefix. You closed the discussion with a result of delete on October 12, but the article was not deleted. Was this intentional, or did you forget to delete the article? Thanks. --Mysdaao talk 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Snap, I did mean to delete that. Protonk is right I think. I should have caught that though =/. Anyways, thanks for cleaning up after me guys. Icewedge (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably happened because the article was moved. This sometimes horks up closing scripts. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm userfying AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! -- A Reckless Disregard for Gravity
You deleted the long-winded-titled article in an AFD a while back. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I'm userfying it to my own userspace to work on within the next few days as the game was released just over a month ago, and there is a little bit of coverage that hopefully should meet notability standards. Thank you, MuZemike 05:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, no objection here. Icewedge (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

GetFLV page recreated
just wanted to inform you that the same editor who created the GetFLV article has created the same article again 7 minutes after you deleted it. Amsaim (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent to AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with Blocking Vandalism
I noticed that you had blocked IP User 69.114.35.93 earlier this year for similar issues. There has been repeat vandalism by this same offender. Do you think you can help with this situation? I reverted the issue on the page for Brimstone already. RingWars2007 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I have blocked for three months; clearly a static IP with a user we don't want editing. Icewedge (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

what
why the fuck did you delete my capretto vita thing you know how long it took me to write that fucking thing

god what the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.239.151 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia articles are required to meet a minimum standard of "notability", which your club does not. Sorry, I know that can be kind of annoying to a lot of people, but it is for the best. I can give you a copy of the page if you want so you could publish it in a more appropriate venue. Icewedge (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

172.129.120.152's block.
You may want to set it with talk page editing disabled..I've dealt with this vandal a number of times, he always rephrases/vandalises his own talk. Connormah (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct Connormah. I was kind of amused by it, that's why I have not so far. But, that's a pretty illegitimate excuse on my part, I know :D. Re-blocking now...
 * Keep up the good vandal fighting work sir. Icewedge (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Email
You've got mail. Th e T hi ng Vandalize me 03:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I see. Its good to get mail :D. Expect a response shortly. Icewedge (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/JWASM
At 175 kilobytes, should Articles for deletion/JWASM be included in User:Icewedge/Largest AFD's? Cunard (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, I think the idea I had when I created the page was to list AFDs more than 150 kilobytes. Thanks for the spot! Icewedge (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! I found out about this interesting list after you added Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident to it. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination) (191,262 bytes) to the list. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ozzy Osbourne's 10th studio album
Maybe salt it until there's actual proof it's coming? That's at least the third time it's been created. Half Shadow  04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I will hold off on that for now. Two of the deletion log entries just came from moving the page around and as the title has many possible alternatives I think the likelihood of recreation is relatively small. Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Deletionpedia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Deletionpedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Phase I is closed and archived, but I see you noticed that yourself :) Nice you could comment. Thanks. Okip  06:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I was on a mobile device and the very small screen with the unusual tint made me miss the fact that the page was archived! That was a bit embarrassing really =/ Icewedge (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello.
Just thought I'd let you know you forgot to place a "blocked" template on this IP address' talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very correct. Icewedge (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Correcting misinformation
The page on Elizabeth Barrett Browning contains a lot of misinformation. For a few years I've been trying to correct this situation and once spent a day rewriting it completely because it was quite ungrammatical as well as incorrect. I understand that a page that is subject to frequent alteration may be frozen. I have published on her work and include her work in the courses I teach at university. I would be happy to offer a rewrite with references however and to whoever would facilitate this process. Suze (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Suze. Thanks for your quality work! It is true, pages can be "protected" (at a level that prevents edits by new editors or at a level that restricts editing by anyone but admins) but I am not sure such is warranted here. The page has certainly been getting regrettable edits however that's a fact of life here at Wikipedia, regrettable but we find that locking a page down does more harm than good overall. See Protection policy if your interested in the details. I have added the page to my watchlist (makes me get a notification every time the page is changed) though and I'll keep it on there for a while, to try and help keep the page unimpaired. And, you are of course welcome to work on the page at any level you wish. Please do! Icewedge (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzibear (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

CBBC New Site
Thanks Icewedge for helping out with my site. Can you help configure my Performance History page please? It needs to be smaller as a table I suspect. When it started there was only one Work listed, which kept it small. I don't know how to change the overall font size. Is there an easy way of copying stuff from an existing table into a wiki table. What I have done is ponderous to oput it mildly! Finally, when one types City of Bath Bach Choir first into Google lets say, Wiki originally shows up as City of bath bach choir (then once on the page the title is correct with capital letters). Is there some way of editing that first reference to have correct capitals? Someone kindly helped to correct the main header title. Many thanks again. Tony Tony Thornburn (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot help you with the page title, that is under the control of Google. However next time Google looks at the page (a few weeks, maybe only days) it will update the title accordingly, so that problem will fix itself. As for the table, it looks OK to me. On Wikipedia you can make text smaller by surrounding it with the "small" tag (e.g. ), but I wouldn't. As for the ease of making tables, there really isn't a better way without getting pretty technical, sorry. Icewedge (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Very helpful. Tony Thornburn (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help move the image I have just inserted. It would look better either to the right of the 3rd paragraph, which then could be reconfigured as a block, or opposite the contents block. Many thanks. Tony Thornburn (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this what you wanted Tony? Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Brill well done. I was just 'sussing it out' from the Beethoven site. Thanks. T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Thornburn (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ITBLMF cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ITBLMF cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect &quot;. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). m o n o  23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect &quot;. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). m o n o  00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mo no so ck  18:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

''Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)''