User talk:Bfigura/Archive 8

Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”:
Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”: I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:-

1) Notability: I am a native of Bihar, India, living in USA. My mother tongue is Hindi & I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Wikipedia, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ‘citation needed’ tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.

I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -Hindi, Urdu & Maithili- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi  newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications.

2) Conflict of interest: One editor Atama, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Wikipedia. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Wikipedia are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest.

3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Wikipedia should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is Hindi. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable!  Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing  “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that  nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention.

After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization NGO, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?).

One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -“But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".”—is now suddenly pushing for its deletion! (why?)

Wikipedia, though very popular in English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly find none! I think that editors of Wikipedia should not have bias against non-English languages. --Barnabas2009 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You've said this already at the AfD. There's no need to repeat the entire argument verbatim here. -- B figura (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear that you've posted the same message to everyone who voted against you in the AfD. Please don't WP:CANVASS, it's against policy. -- B figura  (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Speedy deletion declined: Theories Used in Research
Hello Bfigura, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Theories Used in Research - a page you tagged - because: '''This is not an unambiguous infringement. Facts can't be copyrighted.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Decltype, I'm aware facts can't be copyrighted, but this isn't a list of facts. (Such as list of the first hundred primes would be). It's a university (in one case, in another, a private individual) curating subfields of a discipline. If I produce a linked list of what I think are relevant subfields  for my discipline, and go on to summarize them (as done here ) I can publish and copyright such a list. (At least I think so, IANAL). In the case cited, the individual producing the list does in fact claim copyright (in a manner not compatible with CC-BY-SA), as I think do some of the other list publishers. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I've encountered similar cases in the past, and have generally been careful to write such articles off as blatant copyright violations. Feist v. Rural is interesting reading and I would think, relevant to this case. But I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on these matters. I'm just a volunteer who tries to exercise good judgement based on my interpretation of our policies, applicable copyright law, and common sense. I felt that the there was reasonable doubt as to whether the list constituted an unambiguous copyright infringement, which is the only case when speedy deletion should be used. Mistakes inevitably happen, and I may very well have made the wrong call here. I'd advise you to list the article at WP:CP, where it'll attract the attention of someone more conversant with copyright. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm also tempted to go the AfD route, since it seems to fall into WP:NOTDIR. -- B figura (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's certainly a possibility. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Articles for deletion/Theories used in research. -- B figura (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted and moved here (I noticed your reply on my talk, so I assumed you were a practitioner of the back-and-forth style communication. I much prefer keeping it in one place). Regards, decltype (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Human suit recreated as Human disguise
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat  21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

William McGrath (loyalist)
Hello there. Actually, McGrath died a number of years ago and I've added this in (with a note for it to be backed up with evidence - will try to find same). But he is definitely no longer with us (thank goodness). But thanks for that heads-up about material that could be defamatory in respect of a living person.Billsmith60 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Respnse to Webhost discussion
Hi-  I left a rather extensive response to the discussion of my use of userpage resources to facilitate course projects and contributions to wikipedia. Please take the time to continue the conversation, as none of the parties who initially commented on the issue have responded. I would very much appreciate hearing what you think. Best, Ted Welser --Htw3 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

still waiting for a reply
Howdy-  So after seeing the admin discussion of my userpage use I immediately wrote up an in-depth reply. Several days have gone by without a reply from any of the parties involved in the discussion or those, like your self who left messages on my usertalk page. I am wondering how the communication process is supposed to take place, perhaps I am leaving messages in the wrong place. please let me know where I am supposed to correspond. thanks, ted --Htw3 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been taken care of (in that another user has relisted it on ANI per your request). -- B figura (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose
I may not have time to do it--perhaps you could add one or two of the product reviews to the various Bose articles.  DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit busy too, but I'll add it to my to-do list. (It seems the AfD and merge got shot down, so there's probably a bit of time). -- B figura (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD Tag on PTArea
Dear Bfigura This website is a security service not a personal website take a look :) Mtawfik (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that matters - it would still fall under the same speedy deletion criteria. After all, the article still doesn't assert notability (ie, credibly say why the site is important). For more on what makes a website notable, see WP:WEB. -- B figura (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, it just got deleted again. If you really want to create an article on this topic, please do look over the links I mentioned. Best, -- B figura (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have time for another investigation...
...perhaps you will want to look into the Yolanda Soares article to figure out why the hoaxer for the Strutt Family is also editing that article. The IP has been there and BELPERDUVAL as well. I see that there is a reference there to this "press release" which mentions it was written by Alex Fan Moniz. One of the originators of the Helen Anne Petrie hoax signed their name as Fan Moniz. I also see that there are a bunch of self-published press releases like this which credits Alex Fan Moniz with the lyrics and this for the Golden Globes X11 Globos DE Euro (not sure if that is real). Anyway, it seems there might be something fishy there. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, worth keeping an eye on I'm sure. I'm going to be away for a bit, so once I get back I'l take a look. Thanks for the notice :) -- B figura (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my gut instinct is that she's probably at least borderline notable (singing for at least one head of state and a FIFA Championship). Can't find sources to back those claims (from her website) up, but that could be a language issue. Oddly though, the portuguese wiki isn't any help at all in terms of sourcing. -- B figura (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistag - Mythical creatures
Thanks! Agreed. --NorwegianBluetalk 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Consent
Regarding this article, Age of consent is a subcategory of Sexual consent. Technically Age of consent is a disambiguation which could also refer to other forms of consent such as authority figures and legal actions. I would like assistance moving this page to "Sexual consent" from "Sexual Consent" (capitalization difference) and I believe it's very important to have outside wisdom on this topic in regards to other peoples and their intellectuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbman8 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. I've restored the original page to Sexual Consent. However, I'd suggest that some synchronization might be needed between that page and Age of consent. Best, -- B figura (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Page blanking states: "Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then [...] leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion.". I suppose this is mainly because it makes admins jobs easier if they don't have to check the page history to see if it merits deletion or not. So on principal that kind of thing is not removable as unsourced information. However, I fully agree with you that the removal of the list of ex-boy friends is justified, not least because it could be construed as an attack against those people! I'm afraid I didn't think of that when I reverted the previous blanking by TheLetterM, thank you for drawing it to my attention. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoebe Price Thanks
Hi, I hope that we haven't duplicated part of the AfD process. I was still logged in and figuring my way through the process when you helped out. I was trying to be careful, as I'm not generally a deletionist, so I keep forgetting the steps. A 'still logged-in', or 'editing in progress' light on a user's page might be helpful (to me at least, I must be a slow editor). Centrepull (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it seems to be fine. -- B figura (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fascism: what is it ..." a pamphlet by Trotsky
Hi - If you had looked you would have seen the 2 quotes from the Fascism Portal quotations, quotes from this pamphlet.

In the Mussolini quote there's a link to that specific work.

This specific work didn't have a page.

I created the page so I could link to it from the quotes.

The work I did was just blown away.

This isn't junk; I was just about to link to it from the 2 quotes cited. But there was some "nicety" I over-looked, so the work was thrown away.

Pages on specific works by specific authors exist, see Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism.

In this case, that's not allowed?

How about writing something in Discuss instead of blowing my work off?

So ... I'm to create a completely perfect page immediately, 1st draft. Or my work disappears. How terribly perverse of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenTremblay (talk • contribs)


 * Please do note that I didn't do anything. I merely asked a question, and someone else redirected the article in the intervening time. I just let you know what had happened afterwards. The article you wrote is still there in the history. If you'd like, I can restore it, and perhaps move it to a better (more illuminating) name, such as Fascism: What is it (pamphlet). -- B figura (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone and done so. If there's a better name, it can be moved again. -- B figura (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. The user had already gone well over the considerable limits of my patience -- that was the third time he'd blanked my talk page -- and I've permablocked him. But I do appreciate your assistance and diligence. Accounting4Taste: talk 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. -- B figura (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

tone
Thanks. Could you please be more specific. Which part strikes you as overtly. (EidM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EidM (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- B figura (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re: tone
Thanks again for your advise.The list of lectures and publications mentioned originally was not comprehensive. I deleted some more entries as advised. Is that sufficient? Also, I have added 9 citations/links, is that sufficient?(EidM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EidM (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk closure
I posted a question at the Help Desk that you closed and archived. You were right to do so: I was so flabbergasted and appalled at the allegation which prompted it that I didn't notice or remember the help desk is really just for "how do I do this?" sorts of questions. Sorry for the mispost, and thanks for correcting it the way you did. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I can understand your concern, I just didn't want to engage in a sprawling debate at the help desk. Hopefully you found someplace else to get the issue resolved to your satisfaction. Best, -- B figura (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Candlelyness
You recently put up a PROD on the article Candlelyness. I have also tagged it as Speedy Deletion A1. Hopefully this won't goof up anything and won't bother you much. Thank you!  Smithers   (Talk)   01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It needs to get zapped. -- B figura (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Pruden
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't write that. I was trying to revert to the version that didn't say ASSWIPE, etc., but it looks like I chose the wrong edit to revert to. Anyway, sorry. --AStanhope (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes a bit more sense. Was somewhat confused there. -- B figura (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow you're good
Thanks for the quick action on my help question. You get 10 karma points.

Bento00 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * *grin* Thanks. Glad to help. The article looks quite good by the way. -- B figura (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

MonaVie Active
I am creating a complete write-up on the product that can be link from the MonaVie page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ott jeff (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I believe that it is note worthy. There are many sport figures that use this particular MonaVie product and many that claim it saved their careers.  I think that this in itself sets it aside from the other products manufactured by MonaVie and warrants its own page.Ott jeff (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

MonaVie
Let's give Jeff Ott some cool down time if you are one of the editors he has been edit warring with on MonaVie. Your point on his talk page was valid and helpful, but it's time for him to move away from MonaVie and those editors. This is my opinion, and I have not looked at the edit summary to see if you are one of the edit warriors (needed edit warriors in this case), but once someone has been blocked and is being asked to leave an article, it's time for other editors at that article to let the exiting editor cool off. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was one of the people trying to convince him to write less promotional articles. I don't think I've ever reverted him. It certainly wasn't my intent to badger him (and I hope it didn't come across that way), but based on the evidence he really does need to be told to not be promotional. The reason I chimed in at all was that he didn't seem to clearly understand that the reason he was blocked had nothing to do with what he was writing on; but rather how he was writing it. I welcome your efforts to help mentor him, but I do think it needs to be made clear that exiting the article isn't the sole (or even main) thing he needs to change to become a productive editor. Best, -- B figura (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I didn't need to post here as you're not one of the reverting editors. Your point was useful, so please do continue to post useful advice or responses. Yes, some editors don't really understand the underlying concept of an encyclopedia. We'll see what happens. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists‎, Louis Lesser
User:Bfigura, I note on your page you are an engineer. I am too, in "Operations Research". I am also an amateur (VERY amateur) engineer in soils engineering, structural engineering, and civil engineering.


 * A. I am new at Wiki, and just wrote another article. If you have time, could you check my article on Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists‎ to make sure I am not blundering again?


 * B. Also, I read your comments on the Louis Lesser article AFD page. My original article had no reliable sources at all, so I deleted the entire article contents, and rewrote the whole thing, and (hopefully) added information from only from reliable sources as follows -
 * 1.	Los Angeles Times, Feb 10, 1957
 * 2.	LA Times, October 3, 1958
 * 3.	Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1959
 * 4.	LA Times, March 13, 1960,
 * 5.	Los Angeles Times, January 16, 1961
 * 6.	Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1961
 * 7.	Los Angles County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, April 9, 1961
 * 8.	Los Angeles Times, Oct 15, 1961
 * 9.	LA Times, March 3, 1963
 * 10.	New York Times, March 16, 1963
 * 11.	Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1964
 * 13.	Arthur Anderson, Arthur Anderson Co., Audit of Louis Lesser Enterprises, September 13, 1963
 * 14.	Louis Lesser Enterprises, Ltd. v. Roeder, 209 Cal

Am I on the right track to addressing your concerns that might get you to reconsider your "delete" vote, and if not, can you give me any suggestions?


 * C. Also, am I using "talkback" correctly to notify you of this new section? HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Legal block
Ah .. thanks a lot for fixing that - I block manually and sometimes just don't have a right template under my hands. It's a time of high-speed blocking for me .. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Also, it might be worth extending the block time, or something. This guy has popped up before a few days ago making legal threats, and was blocked for 3 months as an IP and given the OTRS contact info. The old thread is at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh .. getting quiet on the vandal front :-) Legal threats are a serious matter and thank you indeed for fixing that template - it might be important. From here I see only one edit from that IP and thus have no good reason to block it for longer. It might be the same person hopping over IPs. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Joke
You missed the joke. I'm practicing my British humor for upcoming vacation. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe your accent wasn't loud enough :) *doh. -- B figura  (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

bias
Hi, It's been a while now since I attended to your feedback (15 November 2009) and I am waiting a resolution to either remove the whole entry or remove the "warning" fields. Your attention to the matter is much appreciated. Thanks, EidM —Preceding unsigned comment added by EidM (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had forgotten about it. I cleaned the page up a bit. (The references could still be converted into proper cites (see WP:CITE for details), but that's hugely important. Best, -- B figura (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ari Meisel
am Amr2020eg and i built an article under name Ari Meisel and it speedy delete and want to tell me about the points that make it delete, s we will remove it from the topic. in fact i don't want make advertsiting or anything, it's all about a man have good conribution in the field of green buildings. thanks for your help & for any further clarification don't hesitate to tell me


 * Hi there. I think I nominated the page for deletion as it appeared to be unambiguous advertising for the subject (ie, it read like a resume). However, it also appeared to be copied from another source, making it copyright infringement as well. Wikipedia can't accept any copyrighted material that was just copied and pasted from somewhere else. That's why it was deleted. If you think the person should have an article written about them, you need to write it in your own words. (And also make sure that the person is notable). Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Futile
Your efforts combating entropy are futile and the more work you do the worse you make the problem. Gerardw (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that just an interesting take on the second law, or was there something specific in mind behind that comment? -- B figura  (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not specific, just came across your user page. Gerardw (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfDs and sockpuppets
Since you have been involved in the AfDs of Chris Purifoy, The Restoring Music Foundation and Philip E. Daniels, I thought I would let you know that I've opened a sockpuppet investigation regarding the creator of those articles. I didn't bother when the anon IP showed up, but now that a newly registered user, Pea12345, has appeared and gone straight to the Daniels article and related AfD, I felt that WP:SPI was necessary. The SPI is here in case you have any opinions on the matter. Wine Guy  Talk  02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied at the SPI. -- B figura  (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Black Ski Mask
Providing a link since you weighed in previously. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Abbott
I removed the CSD tag for copyright violation that you added because I don't see where the articles match up. Perhaps I totally missed it. Can you check again or point out which parts that I missed? If I did miss it, feel free to reapply the tag. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I also reviewed this tagging and couldn't work out how it met with CSD G12. The only thing I found that seemed to be the same was the sentence "his mother taught him to play piano and encouraged him to develop his vocal talents", but it's important to remember that G12 is only for unambiguous copyright violations, otherwise they're supposed to go through Copyright problems. Also, if the article is a blatant copyvio, it only qualifies for speedy deletion if there's no prior non-copyvio version in the history to revert to and if there is, we're meant to revert. In this case there does seem to be previous versions so it's probably not CSD-able as a blatant copyvio anyway. Sarah 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right: it isn't. It's a paraphrase, but somehow when I was reading it the the old version and the source matched up, probably due to a few sentences in particular that were particular egregious in tone. Still, not a copyvio, so thanks for catching my mistake. (I'd been trying to clean up some old unref'd BLPs from 2007, and I must have gone cross-eyed here). Yours, -- B figura  (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
"Phase I would be the current form, II would be a sorted/organized by theme/topic discussion, and III would try to focus discussion on the most popular / likely to achieve consensus ideas."

Maybe the 50 editor threshold which User:Peter cohen/BLP RFC stats created? In the interm, I will try my subpage, and see if people like it. If not I will revert.

Also, there are some concrete technical proposals which maybe should make the cut, despite having less than 50 editors. I will leave that up to your judgement.Ikip 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish I could take credit for that, but it truly should go to Rd232. He proposed the idea, I'm just the guy who wrote the template and slapped it on the RfC. My only problem is that while I feel this is a brilliant solution to the RfC's current state, I'm not sure how I should try and make this happen. Maybe we just wait until someone does the summary to go to phase II, then we propose to move to phase III when that's been running for a while (as opposed to posting a schedule). I saw Peter's table, it probably would be useful, although I dunno what the thresholds should be. But presumably that will be more clear once someone does the summary. My only overall concern is that if this takes a month per phase, people will burnout, and participation will drop as we get to the important bits. Any ideas? -- B figura  (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * no need to have each phase be a month long. Full RFC can last a month. I will let you know if I have any ideas. Ikip 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then in that case, I'll restore the template on the RFC to what was originally there. (Ie, this should be sumarized at the end of the month. Then we let the sorted discussion run for however long it needs to, etc...). Best, -- B figura  (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Tried to make it as clear as possible what's being proposed. I tried to avoid words like "halt", "stop", and "close" so that no one gets the wrong idea. -- B figura  (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dagostinia
Bfigura, good day. While I appreciate your lightning quick reflexes to attempt to follow wiki policies, I would invite you to slow down a moment and consider if perhaps the addition of our micronation to the proper page was in fact a good faith attempt to increase the knowledge base that Wikipedia offers. I would in fact invite you to create the new page, Monarchy of Dagostinia in order comply with the rules of your referenced faux pas. You can find the reference material at www.dagostinia.com and contact Kevin Baugh of the Republic of Molossia as to his recognition of our nation.

Please communicate before making any more quick decisions.

Bdag (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, no. As our policy on verifiability states, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I'm contesting this. Please back it up with a reliable source. (And in case it isn't obvious, www.dagostinia.com isn't a reliable source). Thanks. -- B figura  (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hutch48
Hi, Thanks for your comments. The following comment posted in the JWASM deletion page is simple a quotation of the author from his own talk page.

Korath (October 21, 2003–) is an utterly non-notable Wikipedian. Despite his deceptively high edit count, he has yet to make a significant contribution to an actual article.

The only offence that can be taken is from the user Korath by the use Korath. The notation on the top of the page should be removed as inaccurate and inappropriate.

PS: You look like you do some interesting stuff. Hutch48 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I replied on your page, may as well keep it there. And thanks, I like to think I do :-\ -- B figura  (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies for having to bother you again but another editor is repeatedly reverting my talk page over the heading you placed on the page. Personal attacks. I have modified the heading without altering your comments as the mistake in not referencing the other users talk page was not malicious and I understodd the matter was resolved in good faith.


 * Hutch48 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because it's generally considered impolite to refactor the words of others. Now granted, it's your talk page, so I personally don't really care, but I can imagine that others might feel more strongly. However, in the interests of getting back to useful tasks, I made a change that I imagine shouldn't be problematic for anyone. -- B figura  (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gratsie, if it suits your preference for housekeeping feel free to delete these enquiries so that they do not contribute to cluttering up your talk page.


 * Regards,


 * Hutch48 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, my page is auto-archived, so it doesn't bother me. Good luck with the articles, and wikipedia in general. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am back again, sad to say we lost that one and the page has been deleted so as a response I have removed my support for Wikipedia on technical matters and require that all links to my website at www.masm32.com be removed as I am not willing to provide bandwidth for referrals by an organisation that is run in this manner. If necessary I will put a referral block at the server to point traffic to another page that will be considerably un-flattering to Wikipedia but I would prefer to deal with this at a more friendly and informal level with people of goodwill. As I am an editor I cannot do it myself due to being an interested party and as you appear to be wired into the works of Wikipedia you may be able to put this in place without any melodrama. Regards, Hutch48 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added that the links I want removed are on the MASM page. Hutch48 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been deleted, it's been redirected. The content is still available in the page history, see here (from my read of the close, that appears intentional so that the content may be used elsewhere if needed). Obviously, you can do what you like with your website, but I don't think we have a policy of preventing people from linking to sites if they feel the links would be relevant to the article in question. (To me such a stance would someone at odds with the way the entire 'net works).  To be blunt, saying "I don't like the way you're run, you can't link to me" doesn't really seem like a defensible stance. (I'm not in any way an expert, so I don't know whether it's technically possible given that wikipedia uses nofollow tags, however those work). Best --  B figura  (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Issue has been resolved externally by the non-Wikipedia editor "Apache". Thanks for having made the enquiry with Elen and for having been constructive in your approach. Hutch48 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)