User talk:Abductive/Archive 1

deprods by Rockyview
Hello, my suggestion if you believe they are not notable would be send to AFD. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sending them to AfD spaced out a bit. Abductive (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ADVANCE Student Organization
An article that you have been involved in editing, ADVANCE Student Organization, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gingerich
Hi, you commented on the ongoing AfD. Would you mind to post a keep, or delete opinion? Northfox (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. Abductive (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, didn't see it (lack of sleep?). Now I do :-) Northfox (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

PRODS
Hey i have noticed you have put some PRODS on some articles, theres nothing wrong with that its just that you should notify the creator of the page so they can have a change to fix it up. Cheers  Kyle  1278  21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Abductive (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dune articles
Though I am a huge Dune fan/nerd/WP contributor, I agree that there are some extraneous character articles and such in regard to the later, non-Frank Herbert works. I have done a lot of work improving, merging, and/or redirecting various Dune articles, but in the case of Erasmus (Dune) and some others I have pretty much avoided spending too much time, knowing that (as you point out in the AfD) the topics fail WP:Notability (fiction) and there is unlikely to be enough coverage in external sources to change that. As I noted in the AfD, I feel that the significant/notable aspects of these characters can be dealt with in other existing articles.

I appreciate the distinction you made between AfD-ing Erasmus and Iblis Ginjo vs. PRODing Abulurd Harkonnen‎. I'm opening up this discussion with you because I'm protective of Dune articles and am always fearful of potential AfDs. I think you can see the notability where it truly lies, but I feel there are many articles that are not adequately referenced and "substantial" enough at this point to survive an AfD. Not that I can ask you to "check in" with me before you edit, LOL, I'm just hoping for a heads-up if you're thinking about AfDing anything else. I feel I have a good grasp on the "big picture" at WP, juxtaposed with the relative significance/potential of various Dune-related topics. I'm also well-known enough here in the Dune circle that a bold merge or redirect on my part (with explanation) would unlikely be challenged. Thanks in advance! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to run anything further by you. I haven't read all the Dune books (I stopped after God Emperor of Dune), so I judged based only on the lack of scholarly analysis. (I'm actually amazed at the level of scholarly analysis for Frank Herbert's original books, I would be saddened if they had not received academic attention.) Abductive (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Delsorting
Just a note - when you want to delsort something, it is not enough to add something like Academics and educators —~ to the AfD, you have to edit WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators itself, which actually does it. There was a request a while back to the developers to make it a one step process, but nothing has been done apparently. Regards, John Z (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What? A bot should do that. Abductive (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But no bot does, unfortunately.John Z (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmph. Abductive (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Allison Christians
Since your prod on Allison Christians was removed, I took it to AfD. See Articles for deletion/Allison Christians. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Already commented there. Abductive (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD
You might want to familiarize yourself with the CSD categories and tagging, using a CSD tag will get attack pages deleted quicker than going to ANI.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, db-attack. But the article in this case is pretty sophisticated, so I thought more eyes would be better. Abductive (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had to parse through it... at first, I was thinking, "Nah, this isn't an attack page" but the more I read it, the more I realized that you were right... it was one where I checked the history to make sure you were right and that it wasn't a vandalized article.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

University of Salford Students' Union
I had previously suggested to you that an AfD would be the correct route for this article. I would urge you to consider this route (so the community can comment) instead of an arbitrary redirect. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Dock Student Residence
Hi there,

I saw you undid my Prod restoration earlier. I was a major contributor to the article, but I concede that its notability is borderline. I think it would be reasonable to take the article to AfD and would support its nomination if you are so inclined. Papa November (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not merge it to University of Leeds accommodation? Abductive (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparative contextual analysis
Your PROD rationale of the above article was:

This PROD is almost unbelievable, and the extensive PROD rationale is downright misleading, as it purports to have searched high and low for sources, to no avail. Yet, Gscholar returns 72 hits, Gbooks returns 66 hits. How can you have overlooked this, if you had actually carried out the searches you claim to have carried out? I am seriously concerned, as your edit history shows that you are a vigourous PROD (and AfD) nominee, with more nominations in few days than I care to count. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The key word there is "significant". In other words, the string "Comparative contextual analysis" occurs, but it does not have the same meaning in the sources it occurs, aside from analysing thing by comparing them, keeping context in mind. It is not like, for example, Subjective expected utility. Abductive (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, take a look at Research Methods for Law‎ - Page 104, CHAPTER 5 "Integrating Theory and Method in the Comparative Contextual Analysis of Trial Process". This is absolutely significant and not a random combination of common words.  It was the second hit in the Gbooks search.  Perfect match to a crime-related stub. Also matching the crime/law reference from Cambridge University Press already provided in the article.  Power.corrupts (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it is not a significant construction. It's a little used and poorly distinguished jargon term. Abductive (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Canadian National Federation
An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian National Federation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI regarding prods
As I'm sure you're aware, User:Rterrace went on a deprodding spree of articles that you proposed for deletion. I took a look through the prods and sent a few to AfD that I thought shouldn't be here, as well as tagging some more as having borderline notability.  Them From  Space  03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll eventually review the articles I prodded and nominate most of the remaining ones for deletion. Contrary to the puppetmaster's claim, I did research each one. Abductive (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do what you please with the Incwala page
I could have done without the somewhat patronising remark about "copying text from another page" being a "no-no", especially since I've been contributing to Wikipedia years longer than you apparently have, and yes, I have actually heard of the concept of "plagiarism".

I actually copied the text from the main Swaziland page, where it was originally, in order to tidy up that article. Perhaps I should have checked whether it was from another source on the web (as you evidently did), but I didn't. So feel free to do what you like with it. Trxi (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I put what I could glean on the talk page, but the sources are contradictory. The article needs an expert. For example, it should be called "the Ncwala" because "i-" means "the". Abductive (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc Rudov article
What prompted you to put a neutrality tag on the Marc H. Rudov article? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You have no reason or right to edit on my user's page. I consider it harassment, and I will report you if you make similar claims against me again. Youup (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a right, why do you think the template exists? Abductive (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr
I have removed the prod tag from Dr. Granvil Wade Seale Jr, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Youup (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Login (DOMCA)
I have removed the prod tag from Login (DOMCA), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Youup (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you do not deny that you are a sock, and interesting that you are a new user who likes to deprod my prod suggestions. Most people would not act so nonchalant. Abductive (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI
There's a thread about you on WP:ANI right now: I wasn't sure if you were aware or not. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Stone Bank Volunteer Fire Department
I have removed the prod tag from Stone Bank Volunteer Fire Department, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Youup (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a sock of Avziz. Abductive (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination
If you are going to propose Stone Bank Volunteer Fire Department for deletion, could you please at least complete the nomination process? However, I have provided two different cites from reliable sources that are directly about the FD's activities, so I believe it passes the WP:V and WP:RS tests for notability. -- The Anome (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since consensus seems to be to merge, and I've got a little time today to do it properly, I'm probably going to go ahead and do so. I really don't view this as a controversial outcome, but I'm not going to do it right away, in case you feel like I've overlooked something. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Can't you add the information to the town's article no matter what the outcome of the AfD? Abductive (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Userpage in categories
I'm not putting it in, because it's not finished. But I will hide the categories myself. I do have other pages that I'm working on some of which I'm almost finished with, so I'm going to leave those alone until I finish them and then put them in the mainspace. DanTD (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

James R. Davila
I can understand why you would be concerned about a stub's notability, but if an article is a stub, and maked as such, that ipso facto explains its shortness. I wish we all had the time to expand every deserving article, like James R. Davila, but tagging a stub as too short is not going to help expand the article. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put a reliable sources tag on it then. Abductive (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I request you read the article; St Mary's College, St Andrews IS a third party source. -- Avi (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I request you read the template; "affiliated" is the key word. Abductive (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I inform you that you are close to 3RR.
 * Secondly, the fact that it is his employer is irrelevant; it is not controlled by him.
 * Thirdly, I suggest you read the entirety of No original research, and especially No original research, not just the headlines, before drive-by tagging. The policy reads: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Here we are solely making descriptive claims about Davila, and even if the university website was considered a promary source, which is is not, it is acceptable. The tag reads generally not acceptable; in this case it is.
 * Fourthly, you may wish to review WP:SELFPUB, as in this case, even if the website were written by Davila himself, it is acceptable. What is a valid claim is that there is currently only one source, and if you feel the intense need to tag the article without improving it, I suggest you use onesource. -- Avi (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't apply the same tag three times, ero no 3RR. I would be fine with onesource. Abductive (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring does not necessarily require the mechanical replacement of the exact same text; I agree the moniker 3RR is somewhat misleading. Regardless, if we agree that onesource is proper, I'd consider the matter closed. -- Avi (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Referenced to you at ANI
I hope you don't mind, but I referenced you and the SPI levelled against you wrt the User:Frei Hans fiasco going on right now at ANI and RFC.

Also, reading that old SPI again, there is also another sign of quacking (for future reference) that I noticed just now wrt the latest socks of User:Esasus: the user refers to CU as "checksum"; compare with, , and. Thought I'd let you know. MuZemike 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shek Yam East Estate
Shek Yam East Estate is one of the public housing estates in Hong Kong. I think it should be reserved rather than deleted. If you think more reference is needed, I just suggest expanding it. But please don't oppose my article every time. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia-UAE
in good faith, I'm withdrawing the AfD at the moment. "UAE" seems a better search term. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. Like I said, I am generally in agreement that there shouldn't be a "relations" article for every country pair on Earth. Abductive (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A note just in case it is needed
I think you are probably aware of this already, but just in case... I have no problem with you or your editing personally. My comment on DGG's talk was intentionally broad as there where several similar cases recently, and your name wasn't even on my mind when I raised it. I generally respect the work you do hear and wouldn't want you to think otherwise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay; I have faith in the process. In addition to the uncompromising regular editors, it is the mass of fans who can't summarize and don't know how to create a redirect that concerns me. Abductive (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: University of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions
Hello Abductive, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of University of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions - a page you tagged - because: A7 clearly excludes schools. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  10:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bundelkhand Yearly Meeting
I have removed the prod tag from Bundelkhand Yearly Meeting, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ceiriog (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Those damn cats
Look, I know the word just means 'cat' in Turkish. Kedi just means cat. Kedisi just means cat. This is a Van cat - what's it's name in turkish: a Van cat or just a cat; in Armenian: a Van cat or just a cat. The problem you have is that you have left two sources in the article that confirm that the "official" Turkish name for it is just "cat"  (the second site laughs at the first site because the official name is also the Armenian word for cat). I know it's stupid, but the stupid is the Turkish ministry of culture rather than me. If you're determined to 'ave it out, you need to take the references out as well, otherwise they are contradicting you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's add one of these here as well
Since I have the innate subtlety of a tomahawk to the groin, and during our association (the last thirty minutes or so) you have appeared to be dot dot dot difficult to work with, there's room for another pre-emptive statement of nonhostility.

I harbor no real animosity towards you and hope that any of our upcoming confrontations will be resolved amiably, despite being on the Internet. --Kiz o r  23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be no real problems. It is too bad that User:Savidan chose to nominate all those articles at the same time. I would have spaced them out by 48 hours each so that they could be individually debated on their lack of merits. Abductive (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to have problems, but when has that stopped Wikipedians? If we had a sense of perspective, we'd be outside. --Kiz o r  00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Abductive (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Westnet Wireless
I am a reporter trying to do a news story on WestNet and I noticed you deleted the entry. I strongly suggest you restore the article, as WestNet is currently the most controversial wireless carrier in Canada at present and having the Wikipedia entry assists the public and my colleagues.

Thank you so much!

Intrigue101 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better to ask the admin who deleted the article. Abductive (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Speech and Drama Teachers Association of Queensland Inc
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Speech and Drama Teachers Association of Queensland Inc has been removed. It was removed by Windlake with the following edit summary ' (deprod because this is a notable professional association) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Windlake before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

July 2009
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Tothwolf (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Tothwolf (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's a banned user alright... Abductive (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

answer to your question
It is possible that someone stalked you causing you to create your username in 2009. Not physical stalking but following you to articles that you edit and causing trouble, even though they never edited those articles before you crossed paths with them. Gasp2009 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more explicit? I don't understand. Abductive (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Play Crack the Sky
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Play Crack the Sky has been removed. It was removed by 212.140.128.134 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 212.140.128.134 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Respect
Hello! Replied on my talk page! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A good example of how new articles should be started is Hradec-Nová Ves. By bot, much better than I could do manually. I may request that the sub stubs I created on czech municipalities are deleted too so they can be restarted properly like this. I know the community always seems to have serious doubts about automation but uf used correctly it is a wonderful way to generate new content consistently and without initial problems and lack of consistency. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Watch the prod reverting, please
Yes, I am watching. Let's wait until more stuff pops up. MuZemike 06:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Abductive (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this user? Someone else brought up a red flag at Articles for deletion/Gianmichael Salvato. MuZemike 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind. Looking up what that username means, this is Esasus. Heading to SPI. MuZemike 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT
I am not Toddst1. Do NOT run a checkuser between us. Gasp2009 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The one thing I don't get is why you said I was a sock, when I had never interacted with you, as far as I know. Don't worry about it, if you haven't done anything wrong nothing will happen. Abductive (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Régie intermunicipale de police de la Rivière-du-Nord
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Régie intermunicipale de police de la Rivière-du-Nord has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary ' (Declining prod. It's a governmental agency, so should be at least merged somewhere.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Welsh Target Shooting Federation
The Welsh Target Shooting Federation article meets Notability re WP:CLUB - "Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * 2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.  (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"


 * 1) The Welsh Target Shooting Federation is a national governing body.
 * 2) Information about the Welsh Target Shooting Federation and its activities can be verified by the Sports Council for Wales, a third-party, independent, reliable source - see here (it's under Shooting).

Please remove the tag you placed on the article. Daicaregos (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I looked for reliable sources and found none. I hoped that the tag would encourage editors to find some that are not available to me. Abductive (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you consider the Sports Council for Wales to be a reliable source? Daicaregos (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the standard is that third party sources must have taken notice of the topic. Suppose that someone created an article on a manufacturer of plastic pellets, Hoehn Plastics (a real company). Google searching will reveal that it exists, but it has only one Google News hit about a fire there. Hoehn Plastics would surely be deleted from Wikipedia. Normally I would have simply nominated the Welsh Target Shooting Federation article for deletion, but the fact that it was a new article made me consider giving it time to gather sources. Abductive (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the standard. The Sports Council for Wales is a government agency. On what basis are you questioning their reliability (and please do not waste my time talking about plastic pellets). Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not a disinterested third party. The job of the Sports Council for Wales is to promote and regulate sports in Wales. As such, one can imagine that they cover all sports organizations, even the most obscure. The word "reliable" may have unfortunate additional meanings; I am not saying that they aren't a reliable agency, but that they are not proof of notability. Abductive (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would any 'disinterested third party' make note of something in which they were not interested? Please refer me to the phrase 'disinterested third party' in the Notability guidelines. The Welsh Target Shooting Federation is a national governing body. As such it complies with WP:CLUB: that 'The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.' In addition to the Sports Council for Wales they are noted here by the Welsh Airgun Association, here by British Shooting (formerly Great Britain Target Shooting Federation) and here by the National Library of Wales. Now, please remove the tag you placed on the article. Daicaregos (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At some point, somebody will run the article through an AfD. It may well be me, but eventually it will have to either get some sources for notability or be deleted. Abductive (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Regarding this, are you in fact currently operating alternate accounts? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Many accounts ago, I was a major content contributer, but I ran out of material. So nowadays I improve the encyclopedia through the sorts of efforts that this account has become known for; asking for reliable sources. Abductive (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abductive was previouly known as Joey the Mango. He edited two AfDs Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/William Brandon Snyder under both names. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Didn't vote twice, though, which distinguishes me from some people. Abductive (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you for the reply.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Thanks. Abductive (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Neurocognitive Rehabilitation
Can you read article and talk, please? Thank you. --Isadorad (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, that was very important!--Isadorad (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you too. Abductive (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

re diversity graph
Hello. I see, I accidentally used Chinese figures for Blacks and vice versa. I will fix it soon. Thanks for pointing it out. TehranIran (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Actually I translated all of the article. its all my work!! He just corrected something minor. I agree with you know about it generating traffic and the importance of putting articles onto here. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Evdience of what we have said is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sebastian_scha. here]. Also read the converstation on Sebastian's talk page and it sums it up. He said "I am not likely to start a new article but if I come across an article needing work I will try to expand it"!! He is not primarily interested in politicians but expanded them as they were related to Hamburg. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you see why I get frustrated at ANI when people criticise me and my stubs as most of my stubs are referenced and are useful. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't bother trying to justify anything to Gavin. He is the sort who enjoys confrontation, it is a waste of time. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least he has done something constructive then... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a Prussian general Alexander von Dönhoff Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! I've started WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German. You get the idea? In the missing article directory there will be the sub pages by main topic and then sub ordered and propbably sub ordered again by topic in a chain down way e.g WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Lakes of Germany etc.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly how they will look eventually, the directories wuth missing links red linked sub ordered by categories as I've been discussing should be drawn up using a bot. If we consider that we are missing maybe 200,000 articles from German wikipedia then obviously you can't list them all on the main german page! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Abductive there is no need to be like that. You didn't put your name down for the project so I wasn't expecting you to anything LOL. Your help would certainly be needed to create further articles like Hero but this project is intended to be a sort of unbrella project. I know that most of the work in creation will come from outside the project by indepedent wikipedians, the idea is the regulate exactly what is missing and aim at getting it onto here. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Find a few more sources and you could propose it for a DYK. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me 5 mins and I'll upload it for you. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

French request
Check out the shock horror. Check out this. Now view the english equivalent. Could you improve it? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 21:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta Male Transitional Center
This is a prison, which I assert has notability. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat image trimming
Nice work on trimming some of those images. That article has long needed a bit of pruning. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov
I notice you occassionaly edit the Marc H. Rudov article. Please place it on your watch list. There's an editor who repeatedly edits it in way which you once described as "slavishly pro Rudov". Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"no hatnote to outline"
Could you explain why you keep removing the hatnote? Your terse edit summary describes what you're doing, but it doesn't explain why. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is not appropriate. The discussion is here. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ent
Loved the comment on Yung Ent's AfD! The Weak Willed 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Any more estates to be deleted?
Any more estates to be deleted? If you want to challenge me, I have no mood to deal with you. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a proper reference for notability to the article on Telford Garden, and removed the notability tag placed there by User:RadioFan. I will continue to apply the rules of notability fairly. You should acquaint yourself with the WP:OWN policy. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point is ridiculous. How do you do it fairly? I found you still add the notibiity or deletion tags to the estate articles which have so many reference links to support. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are free, try to add more topics in Wikipedia, rather than finding others' drawbacks. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I have not been able to communicate to you what constitutes a reliable source. Please read WP:RS, WP:PSTS, and secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added more articles to Wikipedia than you. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found that some people disagreed with your point. Do you try to communicate with them? Do you have any benefits after deleting others' articles unreasonably? Ricky@36 (talk)
 * I'm not clear to what you refer. I always try to communicate. I am not trying to delete other's articles unreasonably; I have very good reasons. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this article meet the requirement? Kwong Tin Estate Please comment. Ricky@36 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched for any Google News Books or Scholar results in both English and Chinese, and found nothing of encyclopedic interest. Nothing of note has ever happened there, the buildings have never won any awards, been the subject of a newspaper article about their construction, or been the home of anybody famous. If you look at What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, you'll see that an article that just lists some numbers about a building isn't encyclopedic. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you really follow all the requirements stated, over 90% of the articles in the Wiki will be deleted. Ricky@36 (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Try the Random article link; I got The Bees Made Honey in the Lion's Skull, an album by some band. A Google News search for it reveals quite a few reliable, secondary sources about it. The article has links (in the infobox) to reviews by 9 respected reviewers. I have pressed the random article link about 100,000 times, looking for articles to nominate for deletion, but only gotten a few hundred articles deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But you know the articles you requested deletion are new articles. Why don't you give opportunity to improve them? But you choose to delete them as possible. Ricky@36 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article for deletion is not something I take lightly. I do extensive research, and in my judgement the articles cannot be improved. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You just say your own words. You point out the information lackage of the articles, but don't want others to improve. Your final aim is to delete, delete and delete. OK, I now stop writing articles this time to protest against your judgement! Ricky@36 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong
I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! Note that I am in no way challenging the AfD process per se, and that many articles are being deleted for the right reasons, and your work along these lines is very valuable. I am trying to gather a broader feedback from the community and hopefully find a satisfactory way of dealing with the material contained in the articles about the minor estates. olivier (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prod notice
I'm sure a list of people from Albany, Western Australia isn't worth keeping, but I think that "If deprodded, I will AfD, if AfD results in redirect I will nominate the redirect for deletion" is a little over-the-top. Fences &  Windows  23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a redirect would result in a bad precedent. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't doubt your reasoning at all, I just felt that the comment was a little too confrontational - it was as though you were expecting the worst of other editors. Most people who deprod know that an AfD nomination is likely unless notability can be demonstrated or the article can be improved or merged somewhere, and if it did go to AfD you could explain then why a redirect was inappropriate at that point. Fences  &  Windows  15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Research-Project
Just a thank'ee for calling the existence of this "helpful" template to my attention. I've been going through and prod'ding all of the pages using the template if they seem to make no claim for importance or are written in gibberish masquerading as English. I've got to be gone for a couple hours, though, so any help completing the labor would be appreciated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange prod, any reason for it?

 * about Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications,

hi Abductive, i removed the deletion tag, an explanation is on the talkpage of the article, cheers. Mion (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Transitioning Applications to Ontologies
An editor has nominated Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI Report
I have accused user:TheNoNonsenseMan of sockpuppetry. Here's the report: Sockpuppet investigations/TheNoNonsenseMan.

I srongly suspect he/she is the same user that keeps making the pro-Rudov edits on the Marc H. Rudov article because the editing patterns are identical. Your comments on the report would help me prevent him/her from further vandalizing the article. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else I could add to the report. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

MULTICUBE
Challanging copyright violation on MULTICUBE (discussion):

1. www.MULTICUBE.eu > View Page Info > Author. There you'll see my name - I generated supporting content (see History).

2. Open the report you listed as violation and check the authors. Compare with the first person to post the content. Second, find the copyright notice in the public report for the European Union. You'll note that the writer posted his text in both places (therefore not copyright).

Challenging non-noteable project:

- What is your basis for non-notability?

Michael.Fercu (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyright problem is out of my hands now. The way to challenge the non-notability is to remove the prod tag. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Albany, Western Australia
Hello,

Thank you for merging the content from List of people from Albany, Western Australia to Albany, Western Australia. However, your prod on the remaining list should not have resulted in the article being deleted.

When ever you merge content from one article to another, you have to leave a redirect behind and take certain other steps outlined in Help:Merge. This is true even if it is only a list of facts that is being merged. As such, I had to restore List of people from Albany, Western Australia and turn it into a redirect. I also made a few other edits to document the merge you did.

"Worthless" redirects hurt nothing and allow the people who spent time & effort compiling the list to be properly credited. Please see WP:MERGE if you have any further questions.

Thank you and have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to actually merge the histories? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, histories can be merged but it is only appropriate is the two histories are really part of one larger history. Otherwise the merge will make it look something like:

Albany (pronounced /ˈælbəni/) is located in the Great Southern region of Western Australia, situated around a port on the southern coast. Harvey Barnett, Director-General of Security, Australia, 1981-1985 Albany (pronounced /ˈælbəni/) is located in the Great Southern region of Western Australia, situated around a port on the southern coast. Albany (pronounced /ˈælbəni/) is located in the Great Southern region of Western Australia, situated around a port on the southern coast.
 * Edit 1:
 * Edit 2:
 * Edit 3:
 * Edit 4:

Notable people from Albany include
 * Harvey Barnett, Director-General of Security, Australia, 1981-1985


 * Hopefully that makes sense, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the history merge will interleave the edits, but without proper regard to the time of the edits? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It will put them in time order which means it will look like the content changed from "XXX" to "YYY" to "XXXa" to "XXXb" to "YYYc" to "XXXb YYYc" (or some other ordering of changes). In other words it will look like people were regularly changing the entire contents of the article back & forth until someone finally combined the content of both "versions" into one article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's lame, it would only work for very similar articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually a history merge is only done to fix a copy & paste move. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Chula Vista, California
I have removed your PROD tag, per reasons stated in removal edit summary, if you would like to talk about it we can do so in that List Article's talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

h-index
if based on Scopus or WoS does not work in the humanities, and there are published references to that effect. Please do not list articles for deletion on that basis.  DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I check in other ways. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes there are other good ways--I am glad you agree arguments based of h index are not relevant for academics in these subjects, not that I think they are of all that much validity anywhere else either.   DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take a gestalt approach, Google/News/Books/Scholar, and looking for a claim of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Housing estates, etc
Hello Abductive! It has been interesting to be involved in discussions with you these days. It has made me think further about the the topic of articles' inclusion. That's clearly not a simple one. My understanding is that the HK housing estates are in fact borderline, and that's why there is such a discussion occurring, with both sides bringing decent arguments. The Wikipedia guidelines about notability, verifiability and so on did not exist when I started contributing (there were 30,000 articles at that time!! and the Home page was stating that the goal of the project was to reach 100,000 articles). These guildelines have been created to make debates simpler by having the community agree on and follow a set of rules (even if the "forget all rules" one is also an important one). Still, what has been considered as suitable for inclusion has somewhat evolved over time, following the increase of the granularity of the coverage of things in this world by the project. I remember a case when people were arguing that we should not work on the East Germany article because some existing countries at this time barely had an entry, and that would create an imbalance in Wikipedia. Stepping back, my perception is that the long term trend is rather to include more than less. My personal estimate is that the "ultimate" number of articles for Wikipedia will be in the 10m range. So, yes, I tend to believe that most housing estates will eventually have an article. Does it mean that it is OK to create the articles now? not sure. I guess that one of your goals in this specific discussion is to avoid creating a precedent, which would leave the door open to the creation of all of them. I absolutely respect this point of view, but I can also understand that it is debatable. Just wanted to share some thoughts. Cheers. olivier (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is unwavering. Any article on a topic that has reliable, secondary sources that talk about it (above a bare mention) gets to stay. Look through my comments in other AfDs. A large fraction of the estates are notable. I want those to stay. But some aren't, and I would prefer to see them merged. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help delete
Please help to delete Louie Shum since it does not have source and notability to support its existance. Although I made the articles, I chose to delete it. In Chinese Wikipedia, the article was modified several times and added some unreliable information it. I am afraid this may happen in its English version. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this at User talk:Ricky@36. olivier (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try blanking it and/or posting db-author. Otherwise you could nominate it for deletion via subst:prod or, failing that, AfD. I've seen people nominate their own articles a few times... Abductive  (reasoning) 23:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ali Rahmani
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ali Rahmani has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - subject appears to have sufficient third party coverage to warrant inclusion (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Ali+Rahmani%22+stock&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a for example) - will expand & source ASAP) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

You participated in the recent Avatar (Ultima) AFD. You may be interested in the merge discussion.
I'm contacting all those who participated in the AFD for Avatar (Ultima) about a merge discussion affecting that article Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters  D r e a m Focus  03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-EU projects crusade
Oh dear, I see EU project articles disappearing from Wikipedia sooner than their authors realize what happened. I am not related to ETICS but I know this project, it produced most helpful tools for software development, was extended to ETICS-2, and their system hosts many other software projects. Of course they do not write books about it, they simply use it! Same is true for all other projects you tagged for deletion. Of course authors do not react to your tags: Wikipedia does not send notification mails, no matter how bad I try to convince it to do so. Please have pity and re-consider your judgement. Projects that obtain EU funding are subject to a very independent and professional international evaluation; this scrutiny is much tougher than that used by peer-reviewed journals, as it involves boards of 20+ independent experts. It is probably easier to get published in Nature than to get EU funding for a research project. And now, after all this effort and well deserved recognition, an anonymous individual comes and labels the project "unnotable" - almost surreal.

These articles are accurate, do not spread any controversy, and overall are very useful as a reference. And Wikipedia is exactly this - a reference. It is very good that there are people like you who take care of keeping Wikipedia a reliable reference, but targeting EU project articles that only improve Wikipedia is a waste of your and authors' time. oxana (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) These articles' copyright are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy DCM. The orginal contributers are part of the project, as can be easily verified. The webpages mentioned is owned by the project described. Hence one should assume the content was put on Wikipedia under Wikipedia style of copyright license as stated in DCM. If there are doubts, this could be discussed with the contributors or on the article's discussion page. But I do not see evidence of either. So putting this article on a list for speedy deletion is not correct.
 * A couple of points; in general, the articles are copy-pasted from the websites of the projects, so that a person looking up the project on Google will see the same information twice. This means it is not useful. Furthermore, the page views tool reveals that no humans view these articles on an average day. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable, but this means not repeating the claims of organisations, but constructing an article with reliable, third party sources. As for being anonymous, how is that relevant? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but neither this is a reason for deletion nor for a copyright violation black-out. Every project or company has a standard fact-sheet approved by the Board, and it is no surprise it is being re-used all over. Moreover, unapproved text about a project may actually constitute a violaton of the consortium agreement. Copying an approved text from the official Web site is the easiest (though of course not the only) way to avoid this kind of problems. It may look like a copyright violation or a sign of insignificance, while in reality it can be a legal necessity. As for anonymity: during the EU project review hearings the consortia meet the evaluators face to face and know who judge them. The EU also makes sure there is no conflict of interests between the evaluators and the project participants, otherwise the consortia may object the decision in the court of law. Anonymity of Wikipedia experts is in a stark contrast to this, obviously. oxana (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want the copyright blackout to go away, assist the folks working on copyvio on cases that are not related to the EU Framework so that they can devote more time to resolving your cases. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These articles should not have been put on the list for speedy deletion because of possible copyright violation. See CSD non-criterium 10

Could you please comment? Because yesterday you did again block an article that according to the above rules should not have been blocked. And could you please take care the page I work in is restored: you should not have blocked it according to the above rules in the first place. Ademmen (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no influence on the rate at which the admins get to the page. Wouldn't it have been easier to have written a few sentences that weren't copied off the website? So as to avoid looking like spammers? This is an encyclopedia, not a place to post your press releases. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you ignore my question? I repeat:

These articles' copyright are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy DCM. The orginal contributers are part of the project, as can be easily verified. The webpages mentioned is owned by the project described. Hence one should assume the content was put on Wikipedia under Wikipedia style of copyright license as stated in DCM. If there are doubts, this could be discussed with the contributors or on the article's discussion page. But I do not see evidence of either. So putting this article on a list for speedy deletion is not correct.

These articles should not have been put on the list for speedy deletion because of possible copyright violation. See CSD non-criterium 10

You should not have blocked these articles in the first place! If I am wrong please show why these two Wikipedia rules do no apply. But stop ignoring this question and answer it.

You should not have blocked the article on which I did work on. You can tell this on the page that you reported the problem in the first place. This will help the admin because he knows it was an error and he need not look into it any further. So you can do something to correct this error (and the same with the other pages, of course). This will help the admin.

I can understand that you made this error, what I do not understand is that you completely ignore it when I point, several times, at the pages with the rules, that it is indeed an error. There is nothing wrong with making errors: just correct them and go on.

And if you did not make an error, please tell why you think these two rules I did point out do not apply.

Ademmen (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot take back the copyvio tag; only an admin can do that. The fact is that using Wikipedia to promote anything is inappropriate. If the articles had been written anew for Wikipedia, instead of copying their poorly written webpages, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let us stop this useless discussion. The problem is not that perhaps you are right about that   some of the content on of some these pages could be improved. The problem is that you use the wrong tool on the pages. You accuse them (and me) of possible copyright violation when you know 100% sure it is not. You can use the right tools like you did on ETICS. I think that was a better approach: it is about the content, It gives time to repair it (although there are many pages that get much, much more time) and what I especially like is that you tell on that page "Many of these EU-funded little projects are notable,...".

Ademmen (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from ASCAAD
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to ASCAAD has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (rm prod contested after deletion; minor cleanup) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)


 * FYI, I more-or-less agreed with the deletion (and deleted it yesterday), but another user requested I restore it. They claimed they will be working on it over the next few days, so I'd give them a chance before pursuing AfD.  It is reasonably likely that there are non-English sources on the subject that you & I couldn't find, so maybe they can come up with something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An agreement?
If nothing else, I am with you on your edit summary here! "WTf" indeed! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look
Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, I added a subsection Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. It's based on various comments about the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, including yours (although I'm a bit unsure if you were commenting directly on what I'm talking about here, or just current TV schedules being unencyclopedic). Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Addictem
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Addictem has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (some of the content (like one or two sentences ) can be merged) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

School article re-directing
Hello, I have noticed you have been re-directing a few stub school articles. There is nothing wrong with this though please try and re-direct to the relevant section of the locality article if possible, usually education, and deal with any project templates on the talk pages so they are not categorizing a non-existent article. Finally, also make sure that there are no circle links after you have re-directed a page to prevent a annoying experience for readers. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Tarth (Deadlock)
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tarth (Deadlock) has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - material should probably be merged into the main article or a "characters of" type article, but outright deletion isn't the best option) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AFD
The closing admin will decide what weight to give to various arguments, so please avoid arguments about whether certain editor's views should or should not be ignored. Again, AFD is NOT a vote but a discussion. Consensus isn't a count. If someone has an opinion that you feel doesn't fit with current policy, you should just cordially ask them to point out where in policy does their view fit. For some people, WP:IAR is an overriding policy, and you should learn to accept that as a response, no matter how it seems. Remember though that policy comes from our consensus, not the other way around, so it's possible that policy can change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "such arguments ought to be ignored"? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think more "where in policy does it say that?" would be a more productive avenue. Leave commentary to the closing admin out of it.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Please be advised I filed an ANI against you. Please feel free to comment at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also posted at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Johnfos (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, your recent comment on the AfD in question reeks of an assumption of bad faith. If you have concerns regarding notability, WP:NOT, etc then cite the policy and highlight your concerns.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wolfmother discography
I know you aren't going to back down from your decision, and I'm not prepared to argue, but is there anyway I can ask people to mediate this issue? It went through a featured article review and nobody said that all the info was duplicative. All discography articles are like that. Andre666 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider this; people who are looking at a band's discography already know the band, and just want the information in the list. Many discography articles look much more bare bones, see Nina Hagen discography, Elliot Minor discography, ThaMuseMeant discography, Chevelle discography, Tinchy Stryder discography and Ricky Martin discography. Try using Infobox Artist Discography as some of these examples do. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did use that infobox, you bloody deleted it! Plus, those were bad examples to use in your justification; look at featured lists such as Audioslave discography, Slipknot discography, Nirvana discography, Tenacious D discography and Metallica discography. Andre666 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Unfortunately, you continue to assume bad faith where I am concerned and so have raised the matter here. Johnfos (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undone this edit
In this edit, you must have been seeing a cached copy of the image. The image matched the text. I've restored the image. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged OR discussed on AfD
You shouldn't remove "OR" from an article when the current AfD discussion is about whether it's OR. The AfD notice is conspicuous at the top of the article and the "OR" notice is conspicuous at the top of the section.

You say the method doesn't work for most parabolas. Of course it doesn't work when the parabola has real x-intercepts.

It works for others.

You say, as if it were an objection, that it only gives approximations. But the claim that the method works is precisely that it gives approximations. Just like looking at the to the two real x-intercepts in a graph. And just like using a calculator&mdash;what a calculator gives is usually an approximation. It would be silly to think anything else is claimed. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These roots can be gotten exactly by use of the quadratic formula. You need to familiarize yourself with the rules of AfDs; editing the article is okay, moving it is forbidden. OR can be removed from articles at any time; the AfD is not an excuse to perpetuate text that violates the rules. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange numerical claim
I see that you're the one who asserted in the AfD discussion that in a certain case the method yields 7 ± 2.235i. How in the world did you ever come up with such a thing? Are you claiming that merely be looking at the picture, you get an approximation that's accurate to the nearest thousandth? Your assertion that it yields 7 ± 2.235i is wildly unreasonable no matter how you view it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed the directions as given, made a graph, and zoomed in to get the approximation. If I got it wrong, it was the fault of the directions. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the directions as given tell you to claim three decimal places? I don't think so.  Moreover, I read the directions as given in the original article, and the will not lead you to that conclusion. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the problem? The method fails when the parabola is any other than a sparse subset of all possible parabolas. The method is still unsourced, and either trivial or useless. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your math is wrong. The method works for all parabolas that don't intersect the x-axis. I'll write out the proof soon.

It's not unsourced; a scholarly source is now cited inline (formerly it was at the list at the bottom, but not inline. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OR

 * Have you begun to wonder at the vehemence of those arguing that this is OR? Multiplication has sources. This does not. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I took care of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...besides, the fact that 777 &times; 286 = 222222 does not have sources that I know of. Multiplication does.  Likewise the fact in this article, if unsourced, would be easy for 10th-graders to establish, just as a homework problem, because the techniques they need for it have sources, and high-school textbooks are among those. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from List of songs by The Rasmus
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of songs by The Rasmus has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary ' (Decline Prod. I just don't understand the concern here.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Deletion discussions, and prickly mathematicians
Hi, Abductive. Don't worry, I'm not here to yell at you. I think I came down a bit harshly in the deletion discussion. I apologize for that. I (being a mathematician and math teacher of 2 decades) felt a bit chafed at being told what kind of math is or is not useful, but I know you didn't mean it as any kind of insult or attack. I'm sorry for ragging on you like that.

I'm posting here, in good will, to make a suggestion. In particular, I'd suggest a tighter focus on what you can be certain of. I have some sympathy with your argument that the article is a how-to, and it doesn't take specialist knowledge to argue that point. Like I said on the article talk page, I can see a case being made either way there. However, the how-to angle was utterly drowned out in the AFD debate.

It strikes me that, had the discussion been more focused, it may have resulted in more improvement to the article - or perhaps in a deletion or merge. However, so many other issues cropped up. Ultimately, whether or not a mathematical method works, whether it's useful, whether it is really taught in schools: these are questions to ask mathematicians; not things to tell them. Whether or not that's what you were trying to do, it came across that way. Mathematicians, like many kinds of experts, can get very prickly if they think they're being told their business by non-mathematicians. Some are pricklier than others - we've got some mathematical porcupines on this site. (I've crossed one or two of them myself, and came away smarting something awful.)

I have no idea how the discussion would have come out if we had focused on the how-to argument. The fact that so many other arguments were advanced as reasons for deletion, and then knocked down, one after another, certainly contributed to the no consensus close. Someone, not you, argued for deletion by saying they didn't think the method could possibly be useful to any math student. Arguments such as that killed the possibility of deletion.

If you'd rather not hear anything from me right now, then I hope you know that you're absolutely free to delete this, and I won't complain if you tell me to get lost, with whatever colloquialism you choose. However, I hope you think sometime about this. Surely nobody enjoys such an acrimonious debate, and I'd rather work with you than fight against you.

Take care. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't perceive your comments as negative at all. Sometimes I argue poorly. A No Consensus close was a better result than I expected. These contentious AfD arguments never succeed in deleting the article in question, but the painful memory of the AfD prevents the creation/permits the deletion of additional articles in the same vein. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a cool perspective. I'm currently working on a new project related to deletion at WP:INCUBATE, so I'm quite interested in any take on this issue that diverges from "delete at all costs"/"keep at all costs". I'll think about what you said. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from VALICORES
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to VALICORES has been removed. It was removed by Islescape with the following edit summary ' (add ref) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Islescape before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Now What?
Abductive: I rewrote my Behaviorology page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg987/sandbox/Behaviorology Now what do I do with it? Greg987 (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination), which was closed as no consensus and later relisted after a DRV discussion, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Issues with poultry farming
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Issues with poultry farming has been removed. It was removed by Alan Liefting with the following edit summary ' (rm PROD notice) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Alan Liefting before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

"My dad's a pretty big wheel down at the cracker factory"
Howdy, just wanted to stop by and thank you for making my day brighter with your The Simpsons reference at ANI. Now I've got Can I Borrow A Feeling running through my head. Thanks & cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Abductive  (reasoning) 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping
I really appreciated your input. They were good contributions in the spirit of the essay, and it adds legitimacy it that its been worked on by someone with good conduct who mostly votes delete. Thanks! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationwide Health Information Network
I undid your redirect of this article. As a US government website, it is public domain, see this page. – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of UBSCR
Hello, I disagree with the following points: NB I am not angry and sorry if my tone suggests I am, I understand you are doing a valid job on wikipedia, but I reckon the page is sufficiently backed up. rfwebster (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources..." The University of Bristol News is quite reliable I would have said and as far as I can tell from reading RS.
 * "...web searches for news coverage, books, and journals..." There is a published book, and UBSCR can be found on several webpages, such as The Ringing World (an independent weekly bell ringing journal), a google book search (provides two independent sources), Central Council of Church Bell Ringers (The body set up to govern Church bell ringing in 1891 recognises UBSCR) and Campanophile (an independent record of peals rung and a search of this site provides a list of the peals rung by UBSCR)

Why did you do that?
Why did you redirect the page?--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which page? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Seton Hall University School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Seton Hall University School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society has been removed. It was removed by 75.127.192.35 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 75.127.192.35 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat species
Hi there, this section was intentionally written to be a bit vague, since it is still quite controversial if F. catus is actually a subspecies of F. silvestris or not. See Talk:Cat for the last time people started arguing about this point! Did you also intend to delete this reference diff? AnomieBOT rescued it and I've put it back in the taxonomy section for now, but if you think it isn't reliable I could try to find something else. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would like a copy of Mattern et al, please e-mail me and I'll send you the Pdf. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Castle of Good Hope
Yes. Surely you knew that? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Everybody is provincial. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I suppose so - there must be plenty of things you'd be surprised I've never heard of. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
 * PROD removed from Royal College Astronomical Society, by User:Cossde, with summary '(no edit summary)'
 * PROD removed from Eugene Revitch, by User:Abecedare, with summary '(deprod. Several hits on google books and scholar. Subject should meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC; AFD may be a better venue for this)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)



Tim Vickers (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello
I've given myself a slap, I was sounding like a rabid inclusionist. You're right that another solution to the lack of discussion of predatory fish in either Predation or Fish is to write material there. I wasn't trying to back you into any corners or force a merge - I've not argued for a merge - I just didn't think of putting material into those articles instead. I was too busy cutting off the heads of the deletion Hydra. There's too much binary thinking at AfD, which I fell into too, and I also completely forgot to suggest moving the article in the Article Incubator. It's the content and the reader that's important. However this AfD turns out, it has highlighted the lack of an overview of fish feeding behaviour, which can be fixed. Fences &  Windows  17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hoping to convince you, am glad it worked. The encyclopedia will benefit from added material. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Todd R. Wanek
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Todd R. Wanek has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (CEO of a $3 billion company is likely to be notable. As for refs, try searching without the middle initial.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Incwala
Back in June you added a comment to Talk:Incwala that looks like it is text ready to go into the article. What's the story here? It seems to be part of AfC (which I never came across before). Is there perhaps a problem with copyright or lack of references that stopped it going on the main page?--Derek Andrews (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll explain more on the talk page. Hang on. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Derek Andrews (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason
I had previosuly reviewed his Extra_Ordinary options article before he created that one. I quickly scanned it and when discovered it was a combination of two, I did assume it was a Original Research article that combined the two, I read the talk page comment and infered it was meant how the two were mixable or co-related and frankly sounded like a college essay. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I haven't made up my mind yet on the AfD. In my bitter experience, when dealing with a determined contributer there will be troubles. I try to bring in a third editor, by use of tagging, and I try making suggestions and then waiting. Sometimes people come around to the correct point of view in a few days, especially once they see the paltry page view statistics their article is getting after the first one or two days. This situation could still be negotiated, in my opinion. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mexico, South Carolina
Please see my comments at Talk:Mexico, South Carolina. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SBA 504 Loan
Thanks for the rewrite! Hobit (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob! Abductive  (reasoning) 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was trying to get this to work, but you responded too quickly:


 * Anything that is covered in a "For Dummies" book needs to be properly covered on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SBA 504 Loan
Hey can I know why my changes keep getting rerolled on the SBA 504 Loan Page, I have nothing against the rules on it yet you continuously undo my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your spam got the article deleted, Chris, and I rewrote it without the spam. Stop spamming, the jig is up. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious how was that article considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The links to your website and youtube channel. How much money do you earn taking people for a ride, huh? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the links to both, they are informative items about the SBA 504 Loan Program.
 * You are scum. Spammer scum. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How can I get in contact with a higher admin? I don't appreciate your biased opinion, that you for some reason have about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. Go to List of administrators. The more people that see your spam, the less your spam will succeed. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
WT:Sock_puppetry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

h-index
I am horrified to think about what my h-index might be. Brian E. Logan, a/k/a Bearian (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine's non-zero. :( Abductive  (reasoning) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Schiller
Hi, Eric Schiller isn't unreliable. He publishes lots of books for the masses, beginers books and books aimed at lower graded chess players. That makes the books uninteresting to high class chess players. Because they are not appealing to best players that are easy to receive bad reviews from top players because the contents, in the chess sense, it not appealing. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the AfD is that he made up the names. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
Thanks for the welcome and the advice! --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and your username is tre cool. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Balcony nightclub
Hey, mate. I just wanted to apologize for jumping on you so hard on the Afd board. I stand by everything I said, but I should have done it here on your talk page. To be honest, I am just really, really tired of being lectured by people (not specifically refering to you here) on these AfD boards. I always give due dilligence to articles when on New Page Patrol, and I am usually very willing to withdraw a nomination if subsequent research turns up reliable sources. But these boards have really changed over the years, and it seems to be common practice (again, not specifically refering to you here) for people to just use it as a soapbox. Let's bury the hatchet, and our wit, and go on with the serious business at hand, with no hard feelings. Deal? ;o)
 * ok Abductive  (reasoning) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

please slow down
There are not many of us who can discuss these topics intelligently and you're putting too much of a burden on us at AfD. some of your noms are excellent, but this is taking too much time to defend adequately. Please, could you limit it to two or three a week, not two or three a day? I'd be able to give more thorough and intelligent support to the ones that need it and defense where that is appropriate. This is especially important in the humanities, where criteria are much vaguer.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm out of nominations. That's all of them for now. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Morphoses/The Wheeldon Company

 * I would just like to second Robertgreer's reply to your comparison between the lists of productions by the Christopher Wheeldon Company and the University of Canterbury Drama Group. You can not in any way compare the two using the same standards.  Whether they are in training or not the University group is an amateur organisation, whereas the other is professional company with numerous notable and prestigious connections within the professional dance industry. Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So sources should be easy to find, then? Abductive  (reasoning) 16:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say so, definitely. If I have some time spare, I will perhaps join in and help find some. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Largest_cities_of_India Nikkul (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About the article for creation...
...concerning Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations by Voltaire, I indeed translated it from the french wikipedia. I wish I could add more sources, but the whole sources are from the french wikipedia which seem to me correct and reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.173.218 (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Trollkarlen
Hello, I de-PRODded Trollkarlen after having changed it into an article on Svensk Magisk Cirkel, the organization that published it, and which should have a better chance of being seen as notable. This was also the article in Swedish Wikipedia that the Trollkarlen article was linked to. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
Could you please explain more fully this prod? "No sources by either name, with or without the word training. Sources in article are primary."

My understanding of the term "primary source", as used in the real world, and used in the wikipedia's policy documents, the sources used in that document are not primary sources. A researcher publishes results from a survey, or an experiment -- that is a "primary source". Another researcher surveys, evaluates, collates, and/or summarizes primary sources produced by others -- that is a secondary source.

The Summary of Evidence memos drafted by OARDEC are summaries of the work of others. That makes those documents secondary sources.

OARDEC wasn't even the same agency charged with the responsibility of interrogating the Guantanamo captives -- that was Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

The authors of those OARDEC memos reviewed reports from at least half a dozen other military and civilian agencies for each summary. In drafting those summaries they had to make decisions on what to include, and what to leave out. They had to make decisions when conflicting reports seemed to contradict one another. They had to make decisions on when multiple reports included multiple similar sounding events -- were they multiple reports of a single incident, or single reports of multiple incidents. This kind of independent and hopefully intelligent review of primary sources is precisely why the wikipedia places greater reliance on secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but by that reasoning a Prospectus (finance) would be secondary since it collects and analyzes the works of many accountants. However, a prospectus is still primary, since it is still a product of the corporation. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Watson
Dear Abductive,

I am trying to get User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson‎ undeleted. Do you still believe he is none notable or the article is failing and have you any suggestions to make as to which areas you feel the article might be improved. I feel the article was deleted partly on the basis of incorrect information in the deletion arguments - he only has a book and couple of articles - not a full professor. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Let's centralize on the talk page. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

'Atenisi dean
Tongan scholars are concerned why you challenge the biography of 'Atenisi's university dean. 'Atenisi's website confirms Dr Horowitz is dean -- Tongan universities are typically ignored by other online sources -- it would appear racist to require Tongan users to cite what does not exist. Dr Horowitz' scholarly articles are listed but these, alas, are not online, although citations to them are; it would seem unhelpful to link viewers to bare citations. What other aspect of what is, after all, a curt and bland biography do you find "contentious"?--202.134.25.5 (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinfoni Deo
When you put a page up for deletion and it is deleted, please make sure that there are no longer other pages linking to it. There was a link to Sinfoni Deo from Reborn.CFCF (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh!
Brilliant!  pablo hablo. 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. And I'm sure you know that I never get hot when editing. The comment was meant to point out certain political parallels, not to suggest you like guillotining people. After all, Robespierre was absolutely convinced he was correct, and never compromised nor tolerated compromise. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once I looked up the historical references, I understood it that way, too. Still, given how such a thing might be (mis-)interpreted, please comment on content, not on the contributor (and at RFA on the candidate, not on the !voters). Thanks.--chaser (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Hello there Abductive, thank you for giving me the welcome template. I focus mainly on undoing vandalism and fixing incorrect information on a few other wiki sites, but I would like to know something about wikipedia that you seem to be able to do that I can not. How do you keep track of specific edits on wikipedia? My undoing of vandalism was gone within a few seconds due to how many edits are made per second on wikipedia, so by now it is probably a good 500+ edits back in the recent changes history. If this is so, how were you able to find that I had made the edit? Awaiting your response, an anonymous editor. (Because I am unsure on how to sign an edit as an IP user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.164.78 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I saw a few smaller amounts of vandalism earlier, but it was undone almost instantaneously. Is there some sort of bot used for this purpose? talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Ah, you must be talking about rollback. I think that there is only the one tool for fighting vandalism, but I may be mistaken. In any case, I think I just might make an account. I will get back to you on this. 60.229.164.78 —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I made an account. Thanks for the warm welcome! I guess I will go check out the sandbox, to see if there is anything different from standard wikis and wikipedia. It does seem to be significantly different in itself, so lets see how they measure up. Until next time, see ya round. Blade bane (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

Gatineau Park invitation
You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chambliss Astronomy Achievement Student Award
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chambliss Astronomy Achievement Student Award has been removed. It was removed by Aaronp808 with the following edit summary ' see discussion '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Aaronp808 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really
But what part of that edit made you think I was new to editing Wikipedia? Please answer here, because I won't be using that IP much longer 92.227.119.87 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hehe, Yes, and I am just making people aware of the many many Anonymous editors, who don't want fame.92.229.223.118 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the welcome-anon template on without much thought about the newness of the editor. I figure sometimes people are editing while accidentally logged out, so the template warns them about that. In the rare instance of an experienced editor using an IP on purpose, I suppose that they should expect welcomes. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cornflower
LOL so true. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For The Welcome...
...even if this is a dynamic IP. Apologies if my revert on the monothematic delusion article was more than a little snarky. I assume that the editor is perfectly aware of the difference between a delusion as defined in peer-reviewed psychological literature and the pop-psychological shorthand used by the layman (regardless of his credentials in other fields) Dawkins in The God Delusion. Although I do admire the editor's resilience in continually replacing the content regardless of how many times (and by how many hands) it's removed. Cheers, 76.199.90.78 (talk)
 * Interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Hey, I have begun revising using some of the sources you mention and others I have found. Perhaps you can help? Maybe we can even get a DYK out of it! :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll post some sources on the talk page later, right now I have to tend to some real life stuff. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, and I hope the real life stuff is nothing bad. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Project HERMIONE
I hope Talk:Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas, and the findsources links at the top of the page, will help assuage your immediate concerns. As time goes by and more reports are published, of course the number of references will grow. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
I have reverted so far 5 of your redirects to articles of the Skolian Saga. Perhaps get consensus before you embark on a campain against a group of articles? Debresser (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Such redirects are consensus, ask User:DGG. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

held article
I recently re-submitted an article on HADAS ( Hendon and District Archaeological Society) which is now being held for still being similar in some places to the Society's web page. If I can find out which bits, I'm happy to redo it. Can you tell me which bits you had concerns about and I'll re-do them? and then how do I get back to the page to edit and re-submit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhadas (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Seminole County prods
In addition to US 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency and Fred R. Wilson Memorial Law Library, these two also look ripe for a prod: IMO all four should be merged into the County article, but I am trying not to care as I have some other articles to franticly research... John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seminole County Expressway Authority
 * Seminole County Port Authority
 * The unprodded two I was going to merge someday. There are tens of thousands of these agencies and authorities in the US, but fortunately people haven't taken to creating articles on them. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod
I have removed a prod you placed, see Talk:European Coordination for Accelerator Research and Development. This is clearly something not for summary removal, even on the evidence you cited, which overlooked an important factor mentioned on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Schedules
I find that you are deleting schedules around Wikipedia. Wikipedia is to help people know facts and schedules ARE essential to articles, so I suggest you please stop deleting schedules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.84.207 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC) <--I'm one of those "some other members" too, Jeffmister. As far as I'm concerned, WP:NOTDIR applies here. A secondary source for such a section would be--well, TV Guide. What else? And how would the result not be a TV guide? The same goes for radio stations, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please consult the WP:Policy named WP:NOTDIR point 4; no electronic program guides. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The schedules you're deleting aren't a EPG, an EPG updates EVERY time a channel/network changes the schedule for sports/special events/etc - these schedules only provide a guide on when a program airs on a channel/network. There's many other articles that NEED a schedule in their articles to show when programs normally air, as such schedules ARE essential & I ask that you please stop deleting schedules for no reason. Jeffmister (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POLICY at WP:NOTDIR point 4 is that Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're seeing what I'm trying to say & only repeating the same thing over & over again without considering the comments made. It's NOT A EPG - if the schedule was updated to show a one-off special, sporting event, etc then yes it would be. Although the schedules show a guide on when programs generally air on a schedule, it's to help people reading the article know when a program would generally fit on a schedule. It hasn't been a problem for a while now, I don't know why all of a sudden - you're making a big deal out of it. I'm not trying to attack you here, only wanting to know why you have a problem against schedules on channel/network pages when there hasn't been a problem about them before.Jeffmister (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a huge debate, and many whole articles got deleted just recently, articles that looked exactly like those sections. I can't AfD a section. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying if there were such a rule, you would AfD all schedule sections because you reckon it's a EPG? Jeffmister (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a TV Guide listing to me and other people. It says when shows air. If that isn't a guide to an electronic program, I don't know what is. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it looks like a TV Guide listing, although the problem I have is that with the network pages - these schedules are needed to show readers a rough guide of when programs generally air on the schedule (like how on program pages, it has the time the program aired on the schedule) & it hasn't been a problem for ages now & all of a sudden, a big deal is made of having schedules on these pages. Jeffmister (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A rough TV guide is not the function of an encyclopedia. The letter and spirit of WP:NOTDIR is quite explicit. I note that a whole week went by without people caring. They have their cable boxes, their TV Guide channels, internet sites like Yahoo, and all the old paper versions to look up what show airs when. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the months & most likely years that went by without people caring about a schedule being in those channel/network articles? I'm not trying to make this personal (& I hope you can see where I'm coming from, because as stated above - I can see where you're coming from) although it only seems to be a issue now with you and some other members. Jeffmister (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people feel that Wikipedia should be a "compendium", others that it should be an "encyclopedia" (a summary). In all cases, I look to see if the topic is encyclopedic; one of the best ways to determine this is the treatment given to the topic by secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

rollback
I have granted you rollback so that you can go on vandal reverting sprees (...and in doing so, have less time to find and prod/AFD non-notable and borderline journals...) John Vandenberg (chat) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Now I have to figure out how it works. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I started using Twinkle, I'm rolling back less and less--we're supposed to only use it for vandalism cases but it doesn't allow you to leave a summary. I have used it when I have to make a bunch of reverts by the same editor (such as [|here], on 19 December). Sorry, just passing through...! Happy back-rolling, and don't forget to roll with the Tide on 7 January. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves
I'm sort of confused as to what you added to List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves. Is there an actual AFD for this or not? And if your concern is that it is unencyclopedic, what sort of changes do you feel would make it encyclopedic?Naraht (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a Proposed deletion tag. My concern is that it is a list of meetings without a reason for being on an encyclopedia. In my opinion, it runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Why are we to think it is important? Abductive  (reasoning) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I've read through WP:NOTDIR and IMO, none of the entries in there are "Meetings of Organizations which do have their own accepted wikipedia pages" or even close to that. I've been involved with splits of lists of conferences for other similar organizations which have been split out due to size, this one I decided to create as its own page pre-emptively without putting it on the Omega Psi Phi page and then proposing that it be split out. The explanatory information at the beginning should be more extensive though.Naraht (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any additional comment on this and WP:NOTDIR?Naraht (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period
I think the edit summary of this edit suggests some confusion as to what Kim was up to. If you read the latter part of the content you were restoring I think you'll see why I reverted you quickly. Your edit summary strongly suggested to me that you'd misunderstood the situation. --TS 15:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah.... Abductive  (reasoning) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - reverted to revision by. :-) Chalk it up to WP:Twinkle that it comments it this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Following
Hi, I do indeed from time to time look at your edit history. For some reason you seem to be finding lots of articles that I often also are interested in. Hope you don't think I'm stalking you :-) --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should make our collaboration more regularized. I've noticed that you change categories on journals a lot, but the changes don't make sense to me. Obviously you have some categorization scheme in mind, but what is it? Abductive  (reasoning) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, we do have a lot of common interest and seem to agree most of the time. As for the cats, I try to put journals in the "lowest" category possible and then remove the upper categories, which is the way it should be as far as I understand. That is, for a botany journal that is categorized in "academic journals" and "scientific journals", I remove both (scientific journals is a subcat of academic journals) and then categorize it in "botany journals". A computer journal categorized as "computer science journal", "open access journals", and "open access computer science journals" gets to keep only the last one (which is a subcat of the former two). There was a larger discussion on the organization of journal categories a while ago, you can find it here and also below. I also generally add a "publication established in xxxx" tag, just to be complete. In general, I also remove field cats like "economics" for an economics journal (should be a subcat of economics). Hope this makes sense... As for other matters, see Gene Therapy and Regulation‎‎, for example. In general, I'm a bit less "prodhappy" than you, but I don't think I have removed many of your prods yet and have added quite a few prod2s. --Crusio (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the prod2s. I will try to change categories as you have described, if I make a mistake just correct it without comment, I won't mind. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebonics
Hi. As I looked at your recent alterations to Ebonics, I found them well intentioned but unfortunate. After some thought, I reverted them and explained this here. Let's discuss the matter there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing so. Again, after a break of a day or so in which I'll be busy, I'll be happy to source what needs sourcing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography & Kevin Rockett
The author seems to have left the project for the last few days. Hoping he'll return, I meanwhile found enough to create an article on the book's author in order to remove a redlink at the above. The man is apparently one of, if not THE, expert on Irish film and Irish film history. I also believe that at least three other of his tomes also may merit articles. Please look in at Kevin Rockett and advise. Best wishes,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What should I be looking for? The Five Ws? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Naw... just asking for another set of eyes. :)) Happy holidays!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for DYK? This guy has done so much, I am a bit pressed to decide just which fact would best serve.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Skolian articles
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident
 So Why  12:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joachim Cronman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joachim Cronman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Molly Conlin (2nd nomination)
Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Molly Conlin (2nd nomination). Eastmain (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletions of David Brin pages
Abductive-- You seem to be targeting a number of articles related to David Brin for deletion. Rather than responding to you piecemeal at each one, may we please do this all at once in a central location? I suspect that similar issues will arise at each one.

Possibly you could put the Alvin article up for deletion, and we'd agree to treat similar pages the same way? Or do you know of another forum that would be better? DavidHobby (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merger would be best. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So I know some of the people who've been working on those pages. It seems that they really want to have a wiki full of fairly trivial stuff, and are looking to set it up somewhere other than Wikipedia.  Maybe they'll manage to clean up the multiple articles some on their own.  Give them a month?  I'm not sold on wholesale mergers, since I think that individual articles shouldn't get too big.  If there's enough content for ten articles, why must it all be stuffed into one huge article? DavidHobby (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to trim articles is to look at what the secondary sources say. If people are working on the problem, I don't mind waiting. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the amount of content on Wikipedia NEED to be limited? It's not as if storing more articles was that expensive.  Secondary sources typically reference a topic for their own reasons; what they cover may not be the best items to put in an article.  I strongly agree with the part of the notability guidelines that keeps self-promotion off of Wikipedia, but don't share your evident enthusiasm for secondary sources. DavidHobby (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a quality thing. Regurgitating plot points is not encyclopedic. It is self-promoting for a user to upload their own impression of somebody else's book or movie. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming
Hi, I hope you don't mind if I simply incorporated your DYK suggestion - both versions seem correct to me but you're a native speaker (I guess) so I'll happily go along. Hekerui (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Migration Letters
Could you perhaps have a look at this article? An anonymous IP is edit-warring with me (having reverted me three times already) and I'd like a second opinion to see whether I am really being unreasonable. While you're at it, the same IP is editing Ibrahim Sirkeci and a look there wouldn't hurt either. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal covers
The easiest way to do this is download a thumbnail pic from the journal's webpage. These are usually low-res. Then upload it and provide a non-free-use rationale and template. I always use the model of File:G2Bcover.jpg and never have had any problems. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know why it ended
Articles for deletion/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Incubator Invitation
Hi. As a last attempt to establish notability, and after being encouraged by other users as well, I have put the article on Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers in the article incubator, here: Article Incubator/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers. Considering you were one of the more propositive critics of the article (which I appreciated very much, and thank you again), I would like to invite you to cooperate if you have any practical ideas to help establish notability (note: the version therein posted is different - and shorter - from that which was deleted).Thanks for your help, --Grasshopper6 (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD discussion on ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians
Thanks Patelurology2 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Servo, subsumption, and symbolic architecture
Hi - I reverted your deletion tag since the paper listed in the reference is highly cited. The page is a stub, sure, but clearly notable. --Jiuguang (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Paper is primary source. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning deletion warnings about rabbis
Hi Abductive: It seems that you have recently placed tags about requiring sources, possible deletion and even deletion about a number of non-Hasidic Orthodox rabbis lately. I hope that all these nominations are done in good faith. While some of those you nominated may be less notable, I certainly have not heard of some of them, others are indeed very notable. Since this seems to be a concern of yours for whatever reasons, may I suggest that you bring this matter to the attention of the knowleadgeable editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism who may help you co-ordinate a decent strategy for improving some articles or perhaps dumping some eventually. But it should definitely not appear capricious on your part because it would do harm to remove articles about rabbis who are quite famous and it would be laughable if articles about them are lost based on technicalities tha can be remedied. There was once a project Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week and a Judaism Collaboration of the Week but after some work both went defunct, so there has been effort to work on this issue over the years. However the WikiProject Judaism is alive and well and very useful and it would be most helpful and certainly much appreciated to bring up your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism before resentments arise. Hoping to work together with you on this. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I discovered these BLPs needed sources. The tags must have worked since they drew attention. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Blues Society
Please check to see if there is now adequate external citation to demonstrate notability. I will try for more, if not. Many thanks for your concern here. Dreadarthur (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replies on article talk page. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting reverts made on Ananas and Pineapple.
Hi, I reverted your edits on Ananas and Pineapple in which you removed not to be confused with hatnotes. Both names are confusing to each other (at least to me, I didn't know that they are separate things and so most people I believe). And that's what distniguish template is for. I used to believe that ananas is a Hindi word for the fruit while pineapple is English for the same. Pineapple is the fruit and Ananas is the name of genus, is what I now think after reading the article. Please discuss if you disagree.
 * Ananas is the genus, and pineapple the common name, which means that there is no need for a hatnote, because they are too closely related. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so any confusion not in that language is not important. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, send me the info. I can't guarantee I'll be able to do anything, especially right away, but I feel like I could bang out a few DYKs. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yisrael Mendel Kaplan
I placed a notability tag on Yisrael Mendel Kaplan, which you evidently had prodded but which was subsequently de-prodded. I think there are possible notability issues with this article, as described in Talk:Yisrael Mendel Kaplan. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

African studies journals
Is this something worth developing you think? Can you also have a look at the lists mentioned there (and their history, see my talk page for background). I'll be interested to hear your opinion. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, what sort of development do you have in mind? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know, it's just that what it is now does not seem worth while keeping... It's basically just a definition at this point. It actually looks like me that this should perhaps be merged with the three lists (which now that I have pared them down are not long enough for 3 separate lists any more anyway). --Crusio (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what would be cool is a sortable table, with the information usually contained in the infobox as column headers. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would, but wouldn't that produce a table with too many columns? --Crusio (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all the infobox fields are that important, and an image of the cover is not allowed under fair use (I think). Certain fields like "peer-reviewed" can be assumed (if it isn't, a note can be made in the comments column, or a footnote). Websites can be given without expansion vs http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/28130/home It all should fit.  Abductive  (reasoning) 15:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vanity"
It's not "vanity" if one is specifically referring to the author of a paper being cited. I've undone this edit.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"1770 Haitian Earthquake
You've created the meaty substance of the article, so, though I'm new, I have little doubt that according to standard rules of courtesy you have the editorial prerogative -- but let me just briefly say you have no sense of good prose. That's part of the reason I'm actually a bit ambivalent about contributing more; I'm a stickler about these things, and I feel that even the best, most informative, featured articles on Wikipedia read like spliced-up mishmash that don't flow well. I mean, just look the construction you reverted back to: "15,000 people died from [noun phrase] from..." The English language has a diversity of propositions for a reason, y'know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billare (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the meaning was changed. Also, "...Saint-Domingue, the French colony that is now known today as the country of Haiti," is very wordy, don't you think? "now...known...today"?
 * If you were to read the sources (they're all online, although I didn't link to them because Wikipedia doesn't approve of links to Google Books results) you would have seen that I was intentionally phrasing things that way because the sources were vague (or incorrect). Feel free to edit, my only concern is for the meaning. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Can you take a look now? I changed the hook and added Journal of Natural Products as my source. Joe Chill (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Joe Chill (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Barton
You warned me for reverting too many times and adding unsourced speculation. How exactly have I done that? I certainly hoped you have warned the other user, M4s2001, because they have been reverting just as much as I have, only they have been spreading a conspiracy theory and refuse to provide any facts to back up their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceboy3005 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never reverted you, and have never edited Steve Barton. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

infobox earthquake revert
Care to provide a more useful description of the problems which led to this than "screwed everything up"? That's not exactly a productive edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still not actually seeing what the problem is, so I'm going to revert back to the newer codebase on my next pass. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Royal Family

 * Object Under the Proposed_deletion, step#2: "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the prod tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." My reasons were clear and according to the rules: this person seems like ambushing people who even touch on Bosnia topics. He seems a nationalist, as others have noted. The article written by Bosnipedian is new, well resourced, well written, and to the point. Please obey the regulations and remove the tag, or I will. No need to wait for 7 days. Thanks. Regionlegion (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Baker (Businessman)
Hi, I'm surprised I had to do this... I would have thought that the original author had enough time to demonstrate that the subject easily satisfied WP:GNG, but then I guess it's easy to be discouraged as a new editor when your article is nominated for deletion. I've added what should be sufficient references to support his notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or the borderline notability of the topic became clear to the author? I have saved a few articles myself, and the authors were nowhere to be seen. Perhaps they figure it's better left in the hands of more experienced editors. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)
I'd like to get your opinion on this one. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Parsifal Project EU
Hallo Abductive, you asked for sources to support PARSIFAL Project EU, please look again, I tried to improve (workshop reports) - difficult though for a project dealing with confidential data. Parsifal was presented (among many other topics) at a conference in Tenerife, the local paper wrote, quoted by Europa Press, included in the article - I don't know which one is more appropriate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still looks rather weak. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Per my comment, could you clarify your last point at Articles for deletion/Ruth Abbey? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Donald Voet
I believe Donald Voet satisfies criterion #4 of WP:PROF: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Voet is the lead author of widely-used biochemistry text books. Given the popularity of the textbook, he also satisfies criterion #1 of WP:AUTHOR because this book is widely cited. He is also editor-in-chief of a journal, although this may not satisfy criterion #8, as it is a relatively new journal. PDCook (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then citations should be easy to find and place in the article? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the references cited in the intro states, "Donald and Judy Voet are already well known for their highly successful student textbook, Biochemistry, now in its second edition." pg 409 Trends in Biomedical Sciences vol 24 issue 10. This reference states "They have also co-authored the seminal textbook Biochemistry, now in its third edition, and Fundamentals of Biochemistry, along with Charlotte Pratt, now in its third edition." I hope this alleviates your notability concerns. PDCook (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FAMAT
Hey Abductive, thanks for keeping an eye out for Wikipedia articles that need to be deleted. People like you help keep Wikipedia free of bad or not notable articles. However, I disagree with your judgment on deleting FAMAT for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. If you still disagree after reading the article, please discuss its deletion on its talk page or my userpage whenever you wish. Cheers! Dragoneye776 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

International Free and Open Source Software Law Review
Hi Abductive, This article was deleted under notability criteria in November last year, however I requested deletion review recently, and a consensus emerged for restoration, hence why I restored it. See the [DRV discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_30#International_Free_and_Open_Source_Software_Law_Review].

I have undone your addition of a 'notability' header as a result.

Thanks,

BigRedBall (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Gale
I agree with you that Nathan Gale is questionable for notability. He pretty much fails WP:PERP. The main reason I didn't nom him at the same time is that User:Oakshade tends to follow me around and was claiming that my nom of the Alrosa was just because I didn't like it. I knew he'd oppose the nom of Gale and claim GNG (which is his answer for nearly everything) and I just didn't feel like battling him on 2 fronts. If you nom it, I'll definately support it. Otherwise, I may wait a few days. While you're at it, would you mind taking a look at the AfD for Frank Stilwell? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Stilwell's in a tertiary source. Gale has to go, perhaps next week. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Stilwell, but I trust your and DGG's second opinion and did a NAC on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a foo is in an Encylopedia of Foos, it is a pretty hard slog to get a deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Chandrasekhar Nair
Hello Abductive, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Chandrasekhar Nair, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and, also, which you either Speedied or prodded:
 * Frederick Alexander (historian) -- who in fact already had a page in Wikipedia as the very notable Fred Alexander, & I merged the article
 * Timothy Sumner, good 3rd party ref for being head of a major research endeavor. I see you checked GNews, and found most were for someone else. Yes, but not quite all of them.
 * as for speedies, asserting a professorship is at least an indication of possible importance, so they will never fall under A7.
 * as for prods, though you may not be of the opinion that a Professorship at a major university makes someone notable, essentially all full professors at such universities have been found notable by the community, and a number of the more accomplished Associate professors also.  It is therefore rarely appropriate to place a prod tag on such articles, since they will rarely be an uncontroversial deletion. (I think it's also not much point in going to AfD for full professors, since they are very seldom deleted unless they are at a minor school and with no particularly strong publication record. )
 * I and other people also have had no difficulty finding suitable sources for many others, in obvious places -- like Google and Google Scholar and usually Google News Archive--that it might be much better to look for them yourself rather than place a uncited BLP tag. Of course it was the author's responsibility, but if they don;t do it, the next editor who comes along and is able to should try to do it, because everyone agrees that they cannot be left to stand indefinitely uncited. As a last resort, I and a few others have been doing what the author and you jointly share the responsibility for not having done--possibly you even more than the author--you at least know the need for citations.  DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If they don't have a strong publication record, then they do get deleted. Happens all the time. I'm placing the tags on ones that my searches show have a poor publication record. Take Sumner; his highest-cited publications are all as a team member. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability tagging
Hi, I see that you have been tagging many articles for notability. Please rethink and reconsider, that activity is not very helpful.

To begin with, editorial comments belong in the talk page; that is what talk pages were created for. Placing an editorial comment in the article, besides defacing it, assumes implicitly that the tagger's opinion is a priori right and definitive, and far more weighty than the opinion of the "ordinary" editors who have to use the talk page. So it is a pretty arrogant, non-"Wikipedic" attitude.

Second, requesting that work be done is not a constructive action. Adding a tag to the effect "this article is in state 'A', it should be in state 'B'" does not improve the article by a millimeter; on the contrary, it takes the article from state 'A' to a state 'C' that is *further away* from 'B' than 'A' was. To bring the article from 'C' to 'B' requires *more* work from the Wikipedia corps of editors than it would take to move it from 'A' to 'C'.

Moreover, such requests (no matter where they are placed) are arrogant too: they implicitly say, "I am boss, you are slave", or "I think XX must be done, but I do not feel like doing it myself. *You* should do XX, because my opinion is more weighty than yours and my time is more valuable than yours."

Worse, those particular tags do not absolutely reflect "consensus", in any meaningful sense of the term. "Consensus" means "practically everybody agrees". Practically everybody agrees,for example, that contents must be true and verifiable, that malicious edits must be reverted, that personal or commercial promotion is not appropriate, that editorial comments belong to talk page, and so on. Those rules can rightfully be called "consensus": while editors may dispute their interpretation on specific articles, you don't see people contesting the rules themselves. Orphan-tagging, on the other hand, is not and never was a majority opinion, much less a consensus. Ditto for the "notability rule" (that biographies about "non-notable" people must be deleted), and especially for the definition of what "notable" means. Those decisions were taken by a microscopic minority of the editors (around 1 or 2%), were never approved by a wider audience, and are passionately contested every time the issue is discussed --- even among editors who *are* concerned about BLPs. Indeed, every bona-fide, verifiable BLP of a non-notable person is an emphatic "sweat vote" against the notability rule; and there have been probably hundreds of thousands of such BLPs, which is ten times more than the number of active Wikipedia editors.

If those tags are now all over wikipedia, it is not because they are a "consensus", but because Wikipedia is defenseless against such abuses. Like graffiti on city buildings, editoria tags multiply because slapping a tag on an article is much, much easier than improving it, or looking for sources; and because editors who dislike those tags quickly learn that arguing with taggers is about as useful as arguing with a kid who enjoys spray-painting other people's walls. Like cancerous cells, the tags multiply because they deceptively *look* and *claim* to be official; and therefore well-meaning but naive editors take up to tagging because they believe to be "doing the right thing".

Finally, tagging non-notable BLPs is often an extremely rude way to welcome a new editor. Take Rolv Petter Amdam, for example. At this time, the contents is everything anyone could ask for: encyclopedic, properly formatted, factual, verifiable, backed by a very reliable source, and relevant to the topic. Is he "notable"? I don't know, I don't care, and I cannot imagine why anyone would care. I do not know who created the article; perhaps Rolv himself, or one of his grad students. In either case, the creator would be the sort of editor that we desperately need to attract and keep around. Deleting his bio (especially with such a rude remark, "prove that you are worthy of a Wikipedia article") is hardly the way to do it.

The root of half of Wikipedia's problems is that the pool of regular editors has been shrinking since 2006, while the number of articles has been growing. In order to fix all the bad articles that already exist (of which BLPs are only a tiny and completely unimportant fraction) and write the millions of articles that are still sorely lacking, we need to continue attracting editors as we very successfully did until 2005. One regular editor can write a hundred good articles, and keep watch over a thousand others, over several years. Tolerating three-line biographies of a few "possibly-not-very-notable" academics is a very small price to pay for a chance of winning such a valuable asset.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing the notability tag is part of WP:BEFORE, which has consensus. Also, there is a major move afoot to do something about unreferenced BLPs; see Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced biographies of living people, which is just a small part of this discussion. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the point, many rules that are labeled and claimed to be "consensus" by their authors are in fact minority opinions that were never submitted to community-wide evaluation. The RfC you cited is proof of that. The audience was largely self-limited to the small subset of editors who worry about BLPs, since the vast majority would not even understand the issue. Even so, the mere length of that page (over one megabyte) shows that there is no consensus on that issue. Reading the contributions, it is obvious that, even among that small biased sample of editors (perhaps 300 in total, out of a universe of 10,000 or so), there is a considerable number who disagree with the notability rule and other aspects of the *current* article deletion policy. On the other hand, I have seen no evidence in that long discussion (or any of several other similar debates) supporting the claim that the existence of unsourced BLPs are a problem.  The few statistics mentioned, and my own experience, actually point to the opposite conclusion. The problem of "how do we identify and delete those thousands of non-notable BLPs" is an artificial problem: it was not created by the BLPs, but by the decision to delete them — and it is a problem only for those editors who want to delete non-notable BLPs.  That problem can be solved trivially and permanently by scrapping the notability requirement. Besides, in the particular case of Rolv Petter Amdam, the undefined tag is totally unwarranted: the article *has* a very reliable source (the university's official site) that supports all the essential facts stated in the article. By the way, I got to Rolv Petter Amdam while trying to do my share of the work of clearing the backlog of usourced BLPs. I have cleaned a dozen random BLPs over the last few days, and it is ironic that the only rude feedback I got was yours.  Perhaps you can guess now why so few editors have joined the deletion crusade? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a deletionist. Each editor on Wikipedia, volunteers all, brings their perspective to the project. I tend to believe that articles need to say something beyond what one can get from internet searching on one's own. For example, who is going to look up Rolv Petter Amdam? No articles link to his article. That means that the searcher has to know what to type in advance, and what do they get? A piece of junk directory listing that doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know. And look at the his citation record: . He's not notable. Wikipedia should not have an article like this, on this person. Can you see my point of view? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * " articles need to say something beyond what one can get from internet searching on one's own. " Are you   saying is that printed material not available on the internet is needed? or are you saying that material available in expensive proprietary databases is needed? either way, and especially in combination, this would essentially limit contributing to Wikipedia to the 5% of people here who have the use of a major research library  & the training to fully utilize it.   Further, this is going to be a smaller and smaller field to work in: in a few years, essentially everything published before 1900 will be available free to anyone on the internet, along with sufficient indexes to find it. In many fields, like medical science, so will all current published work, if more than 6 months old. Already, most US newspapers are available either free or inexpensively. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that covers only recondite subjects.?  You are indeed not a deletionist, for a deletionist characteristically wants to remove the obscure, and leave only the common subjects.  Between them and you, there's nothing left--except perhaps adding obscure details on major subjects.    Or are you perhaps saying we need to add our own analysis but its the basic principle here that we do not do that. What we do is organize information of all sorts. We're in some sense a filter on the internet--that's my wording; someone else worded the same idea as We make the internet not suck. Actually, we have gone beyond it, and there is a need for the people who are able to use more sophisticated resources (such as you and I), to use them.  But I have a choice between doing this, and keeping articles around long enough for it to be done. Articles develop. All articles can develop. Let's take the one you mention: the next step is to add the most important articles, as judged either by cites or by where they were published. Then, we add information about their significance, based on the people who cite them. Then we can add information on the basis of his own career development, based on whom he has cited and what he has said about them. I suppose we could add information about his family & early education--the sort of bio material a few people insist on--but that's essentially trivia in comparison.  To do this all, we need to start with the basics.  Even when people write a major article from scratch, few of them do it all at once. Just compare the earluy versions of any decent article with the present form. Typically, for any  NP patroller, if they start off too good, we start looking for plagiarism.
 * A user will look up an article on a person because they read or see his name mentioned. A person might read   a general book on economic history and see something cited to him, and wonder, who is he? is he an authority? Our article tells that : yes, he is an authority in his field,and here's why: he has published a good deal, and holds a top-level academic position. Sure, they could get it themselves. But the purpose of references works is so they  do not have to get it themselves, but can find it  from wherever they may be, in one reasonably dependable place. The only such place at present, is our project.  It's nowhere near as good as it should be, but it's better than what we had before, which was nothing.    DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at hundreds and hundreds of articles and tagging about 1 in 8 of them. Any article which I judge to have any chance of being on a notable subject I skip. This is part of WP:Before. If I just nominated them for deletion, people would say, "Why didn't you follow WP:BEFORE? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) My search is designed to eliminate many sources of notability: professor orphan -books -Fulbright -rhodes -fellow -chair -chairman -chairwoman -chaired -poet -musician -composer -artist -painter -award -prize -distinguished site:en.wikipedia.org Abductive  (reasoning) 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Abductive, I can understand what is your view about that article, but I really cannot understand why. You claim that "he is not notable": that depends on a *completely arbitrary* definition of notability; which, all claims notwithstanding, is definitely not consensus. I reject the very idea that Wikipedia should have to classify people that way. If I was forced to, I would put the threshold much lower: any author of any published article, for instance, would be notable enough for me.  So, you see, I really cannot understand how one could justify that a person with >10 pages of Google Scholar hits and hundreds of citations in the literature is unworthy of a three-line Wikipedia article. But let's pretend we agree that Rolv is not "notable".  Then you say "Wikipedia should not have an article on a non-notable person": this is just *your* personal opinion, which some editors may share but which I (and many, many other editors) do not. So there is where my understanding stops. Can you see my point? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag says that the notability isn't clear and ASKS people to improve it. Why are you acting like it has been nominated for an AfD at this point? It's not even proded. Just tagged for improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, because I am now convinced that the guy is notable enough even by the deletionists's criteria. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I would put the threshold much lower: any author of any published article, for instance, would be notable enough for me." I hope we never sink to that level. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why "sink" and not "rise"? There, again, is where we seem to be unable to understand each other. Sigh... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sensitive wildlife locations
Thanks for your message - just had a quick look at WP:PRIMARY and the on first glance the concept of primary source is not completely straightforward - will look at it in more detailJimi 66 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernhard Mann
Hello Aductive, may I ask, isn´t the notability now okay?

"If you think your expansion verifies the notability within our guideline (WP:BIO), you are free to remove the notability tag. Regards SoWhy 18:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)"

Thank you!--Stuttgart1950 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

current Requisites
Hi there. Can you refer me to a WP on using current? You removed this tag from an article that is actually going through some high newsworthiness and activity in South America and was curious to know why you removed this tag. Thanks. --Soy Rebelde (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Zengzhi Li
I just wanted to let you know that I had to remove the proposed deletion tag from this article, because it was proposed for deletion not once, but twice in the past, and had the deletion request rejected both times (there's even a tag on the talk page asserting this). AfD would be a reasonable alternative, thanks. --  At am a  頭 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zengzhi Li
An article that you have been involved in editing, Zengzhi Li, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

David Sills (American football) WP:PROD
I have contested your WP:PROD of David Sills (American football). Let me know if you feel this needs to be resolved at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Andrea Fay Friedman

 * Very nice work on this. Good job! :) Cirt (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Athabasca University mergers
I think you should discuss the issue on the main Uni talk page before you revert the un-merges. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a discussion here. I hope you'll participate. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I may not agree with your methods, but I will agree that Dalhousie-King's Conservatives isn't notable and I thought I'd share the article. I tagged it for PROD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Melbourne thunderstorm
Given that multiple independent sources have been cited, there appears to be little more that can be done by editors to convince you of the notability of the subject of the above article. Therefore I have removed your notability tag from the article as it seems to serve little purpose. If you are still not convinced about the subject's notability I suggest that you send the article to AfD where consensus can be determined. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody died. It was a thunderstorm. WP:NOT applies. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, then AfD is your best option. Slapping a tag on the article that asks for "help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic" is not going to lead to a result that will satisfy your concerns. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was getting concerned editors' attention. Consider what I mean; a big rainstorm might not be as notable as you might at first believe. What is encyclopedic about this event? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Victorian storms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

student groups
You might want to drop by User talk:Me-123567-Me. I only caught it randomly. tedder (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Memorial U of NFLD
Here's what I'm going to do. Besides putting the Google results on the various talk pages, I'll find at least 3 independent sources for each. If I can't do that, I'll let it stay in whatever state the article is in. As for this one, I'm discussing it on the talk page like a good Wikipedian. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Lethbridge & Memorial articles both have more than 3 sources on their talk pages. As well, Memorial attracted Christian attention for banning a student group. See link 5. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of University of Toronto people
I could use some help over at this talk page. There's a select few people who believe in-line citations aren't needed because there are too many entries without it. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't remove them off the list. You just can't. I've said several times that we're going to add in citations for them. It's not going to be done in a minute, or a day, or a week. Just leave it. When contributers say they're going to make appropriate changes, just trust them. I really can't understand what's going on in your head. Do you really have no sense of fairness? Why don't you do that to other lists as well? Plus, if you want me to read something, make it clear what I need to read. You're not my boss. You can't just order me to read something like that. It's not my job to suck up to you. I've made the list look as good as any other usual university alumni/faculty list. That's all I care about. The list included some people without wikipedia pages (because their companies represented their notability i guess), even before I began contributing. There wasn't anyone who urged us to delete them in a do-it-now-or-I'll-delete-them manner. What makes you so special and authoritative? What grants you the right to judge my 'behavior'? --Wisdompower (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already begun work on alphabetizing. You'll thank me later. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Abductive, you don't have to bother. (I have reverted your alphabetizings altogether with your imcomprehensible removals of lines. Your alphabetizing works: helpful (thank you), but your vandalisms: unhelpful, rather wasteful) By the way, citations for all the redlinks in business section are done. So don't touch it anymore. --Wisdompower (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:OWN. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel frustrated. The guy keeps reverting. Grrr. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Zhu Benli, Prince of Han
This is the article deleted by AfD at Articles for deletion/Zhu Benli, Prince of Han - what do you think? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was machine-translated. I still can't find any online sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chris Bratton
Hello Abductive, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chris Bratton has been removed. It was removed by Atama with the following edit summary ' (Removed prod tag, you can't propose an article for deletion that has already survived an AfD.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Atama before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Alula (journal)
I've removed the prod notice because this journal although defunct is notable enough for a Wp article in my opinion. Please feel free to nominate at AfD though if you feel strongly that it should be deleted. SP-KP (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Retort
You are entitled to your opinion. I affirm that guidelines are exactly that. Do you deal with any Tibetan texts and Internet searches? If you did you would understand the necessity of including the Wylie in the Title. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you that Google is capable of finding text in the body of articles. I will have to ask other people to intervene. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover, in this case the relevant page is a policy and not a guideline, refusing to follow it is disruptive and should (will) be dealt with accordingly. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Denisova
Per our very mild back and forth at Denisova hominin regarding the intro's use of "Archaic human" versus genus "Homo", I just wanted to point out that you are correct that none of the sources use the term archaic human, but they do use "proto-human", which in Wikipedia points to a disambiguation page that eventually leads to Archaic human: Proto-human. I'm fine with your change, but didn't want you thinking I was making something up... :-) Cheers. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods
Hi '! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention. There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Denisova hominin
I don't understand why you keep reverting without discussion. I have responded on the talk page to your concerns. If my responses are inadequate then please take the trouble to correct my errors. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate
Please note that |an attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

teal wicks
page deletion. Hello. Im curious that you deleted Teal Wicks entire page, without mentioning or just deleting whatever the specific copyright violation is. This page has been up for some time and has a number of active contributors

What specifically needs to be deleted in order for this not to be violating copyrights(I saw another editor cited the top photo, and I would imagine the wicked photo in costume is another that needs deletion.

Is there anything else?

And when those are deleted, what is the easiest way to restore the article?

thank you

Sincerely

soulman61

You can also email me at mmstevko@earthlink.net dear abductive, thanks for restoring.
 * I didn't delete it. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the fast/easy way to restore an article improperly deleted like this one was?
 * It wasn't really deleted, the text was just changed. All Wikipedia articles have a "history" which anyone can access by clicking on the View History tab at the top. Anyone can look at previous versions of an article and by editing the previous version, return it to its previous form. If the change is very recent, one can just select "undo" to reverse the offending edit. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Valley Entertainment Monthly
This newspaper was published in California, with business licenses, ad sales and revenue, regular distribution and taxes, between 1991 and 1992. I have no idea why you are putting something on there that says it is not verified. How is it supposed to be verified? I am holding some of the past issues in my hand right now, so it obviously existed, just as it did when I was reading it back then. Wikipedia has a stated purpose of gathering all human information in one place online. This is a legitimate article about a previously published LEGITIMATE newspaper. Since I just started to build this article and IT IS NOT COMPLETE, it would be appreciated if you would help me to properly authenticate it rather than putting something on there that says it will be deleted. Just because you may not have heard it before now does not mean it did not exist. Everything in the article is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen Nightmares (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the templates to the article. The issue is not whether the paper existed; I'm sure it did. Subjects of Wikipedia articles must be properly sourced, and those sources must establish the subject's importance. 99.156.68.203 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please hold this discussion on the article's talk page. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Archives
Hello Abductive. I figured that some people might be coming to your talk page, due to your being mentioned at AN/I. To allow the record of your past contributions to be seen, I added an Archive box at the top of your page. (This allows clicking on your existing archives). Please revert if you don't like it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Abductive, with reference to Asian Fetish, I do not know you, and did not mean to offend by reverting your changes, but did want to know why the title is not OK. But most of all, how do you classify the naming of the prof's and uni's related to the study "spam?" When referencing academic studies, these two elements are absolutely critical to instill confidence in the integrity of the data and the credibility of the findings overall. Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They belong in the refs, not in the text. It is assumed that a scholarly study is studious and scholarly. Look in almost any article on a scientific topic: the article rarely mentions the school and name of the professor unless s/he has a Wikipedia article. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. We are supposed to say that there was just a dating study, and that it had these (controversial) results, and not mention either the institution or the lead researchers? The issue here is that the results seem to be controversial and therefore there is particular need to underscore credibility.Computer1200 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't an effective argument in favour of adding commentary about the study. I don't think any source has said that these results were controversial at all. Moreover, there have been no sources presented (serious sources, at least) which contradict the study. All the information is in the refs. As Abductive has pointed out, Fisman is not notable, and he is not an expert on the subject of the article specifically. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to articles, not being mentioned as the author or working on a study. Notability and undue weight have zero relevance to his being mentioned in conjunction with the study. Making an article on him, yes. His name included in text, no.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's vanity. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing vain about identifying the co-author of a study that is being discussed in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy is identified in the ref. Do you have a COI? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is no reason not to mention him in the section. You're now on your 5th revert in 24 hours and you've been reported for edit warring. Do you have a personal bias perhaps? Maybe you should go give WP:AGF a read. Undue has nothing to do with including the co-author of a study nor does notability. I asked you to cite a relevant policy and provide evidence of the consensus you claimed and you've failed to do so and instead want to edit war to get your way. That never flies.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Asian fetish. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know if my comments make any difference here, but I'm confused as to why only Abductive was blocked. Crossmr was edit-warring just as much, and for a long time has aggressively reverted changes to this article. I completely support Abductive's recent edits - the section in question clearly gives undue weight to one study, which is not directly on the subject of the article, and doesn't mention "Asian fetish" or any of the alternative terms at all.
 * As far as I can tell, the only other editor taking Crossmr's position is Computer1200, who has no interest in contributing to any other articles besides this and Mail-order brides, and who seems to patrol this article reverting changes. Some of his discussion comments reveal an obvious COI. It's clear to me that these two are not interested in a balanced and accurate article, or in reasonable discussion.
 * Although Abductive broke 3RR, his approach is sincere and in the interests of a better article - I think the block is harsh. --hippo43 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I don't see it as overly harsh; there seems to have been adequate opportunity to cease the disruptive pattern of editing. Kuru   (talk)  22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're the only one supporting him. Which means there is no consensus to change the status quo. I only reverted 3 times, and I continued the discussion on the article talk page and asked him to do the same, he failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I had somehow counted more than 3, but you are correct. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Hippo43, he has a long history of making sweeping edits on AF with no consensus. He has been blocked before on other pages for the same reason. I do not "patrol" the article and make "revisions." That is Hippo43, when he takes content that has been up literally for years, makes deep, sweeping changes, and then becomes highly agitated when people simply return the original content. Hippo43 refuses to discuss changes first. I agree that the block was not "harsh."Computer1200 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What if the article needs sweeping changes? Abductive  (reasoning) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Computer1200, what is your connection with the article? Why are you so aggressive in maintaining a particular POV? You clearly have no interest in any other article, besides one, and your contributions history is a list of reverts to AF and rants on its talk page. I suspect you may have a COI here - it seems like you have an awful lot invested in its content. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having a POV, and the article needs major improvement with input and compromise from all parties. Talk of improving the article should take place on the talk page. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they need to be discussed. That is the point of WP:BRD which you and hippo43 both seem to have a problem grasping. Making sweeping changes without consensus is a recipe for an edit war and getting nothing done. You both have just changed the status quo and upon being reverted, instead of discussing to gain consensus would rather revert and carry on. Fighting for your new version on the page and insisting on discussion after is tantamount to ownership.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

If you want to make a statement, or add anything to the discussion before you are unblocked I am sure someone will copy it over.--Crossmr (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you've continued editing without returning to AN/I is it safe to assume you'll be offering no further defense of your actions, nor explaining how it is that you've been here over 3 years with an account that is less than a year old?--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Give it a read. I raised those articles first. You went to change them to push your POV. These are pointy edits to try and support your bizarre point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what? My point of view isn't bizarre. As I said, those articles are in general poorly written. I ask that you not revert my attempts to make Wikipedia better. And I assure you that eventually you will get in trouble if you Wikihound me. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are trying to WP:OWN the articles to push your point of view. If it isn't bizarre cite it. This must be the 10th time I've asked you to do that, and you haven't done it. You've provided vague wording in an unrelated policy that has nothing to do with it, but you can't provide a single discussion where the community agreed with your point of view. WP:BRD read it. Continuing to edit war and try to push your point of view without discussion will only result in further blocks like the one you just got.--Crossmr (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the deafening silence in response to your complaints about me? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI: Computer1200's allegations of socking
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. --hippo43 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Review Big data CFD
You voted on the delete debate for the original entry Big data that was rm by admins. Please reenter the debate? jk (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Abductive. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mimie Mathy
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mimie Mathy
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mimie Mathy DYK
I can not accept full credit. A closer look through the histories show that while I did move the Mathy article to the prep areas there was an accompanying removal of the hook suggestion from the suggestions page. The break down in normal process appears to have occurred here when the hook was moved to the prep area but without an accompanying removal from the suggestions page. --Allen3 talk 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * –Grondemar 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Babesia bovis
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish American change
Hey... why did you make a change to the title of the Scotch Irish American article, and redirect it to Scots Irish American, with zero discussion on the article's talk page? The issue of what to call this group has been addressed at length multiple times and the change you made is against the consensus that has been reached. Eastcote (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered on the talk page. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

LP Field
I've replaced the current tag, as it clearly and correctly used the "section" parameter. Whether or not the section gets any more edits remains to be seen (I will probably do so), but the facility is currently under water and damage has yet to be fully realized. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand how sources work.

 * *sigh* why are you bothering to edit on this site. After analysing your contributions it become self evident that what is required here is well beyond your own abilities. It would help most people who enjoy this site if you just delete your account and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.214 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering
Since you participated in the last ANI discussion I thought I'm letting you know it's moved on to RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw, thanks. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This has finally been certified and is ready for statements and/or endorsements to be added. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Giving you a heads up that I undid your revision on this article. While I personally have little doubt the workers were required to sign liability-limiting documents, we need a reliable source for that kind of statement. Once you have one feel free to place the edit back into the article. Thank you. --N419BH (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on NPR. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find it in print somewhere? That way we can link to it and have a properly sourced statement. --N419BH (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a source for this on NPR's website. I have placed the source on the talk page for the article. Feel free to look it over. --N419BH (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

current template progress
Check it out: User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot/census. That will update hourly, consider it version 0.1 of the bot to remove things. tedder (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. You can see how the aging of the template mirrors real world interest. Is there anything I can help with? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the project page (User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot), we need to figure out the configuration/dials. For instance, if the bot removes the tag after 2 hours and then someone adds it back, the bot will wait two hours and remove it again. We need some sort of backoff mechanism so the bot doesn't edit war on the tag. Thoughts? (Please go to the project page so it's centralized). tedder (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI- I'd encourage you to post (or at least watchlist) here: Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5. tedder (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You saw Josh Parris's comment, right? I think the ball is in your court to reply. tedder (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements
I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ReL Pizzo Coca at DYK (moved from main page errors)

 * Thanks. I have changed the link as you suggested -- does the wording itself need changing? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving this from the main page errors as the current DYK set has now refreshed -- let me know if the wording needs to be changed for accuracy and I'll update the archives. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the wording is a little awkward, but not to the point of bothering with a rewrite. Thanks for fixing the piping. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)