User talk:Bigger digger/Archive 2

HarryMagic,etc
Trying to keep conversation in one place, copied my original post here Bigger digger (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Deb,

I have just been going through the articles created by HarryMagic, who seems to be hogging an awful lot of your talk page above. I just want to register my disappointment that a sysop with 70,000+ edits didn't first check to ensure the articles were notable before expending effort on trying to improve them. I expect they will be deleted as none of the sources provide independent verification that these two people even exist, let alone providing in-depth coverage. For info: Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jagmandar Dass Jain - Articles for deletion/Jagmandar Dass Jain
 * Harsh Vardhan Jain - Articles for deletion/Harsh Vardhan Jain
 * Hi. I understand your concern, and it is indeed obvious to me that there is a conflict of interest involved.  If you check this user's talk page and the talk pages to the articles, you will see that I made considerable efforts to educate him.  However, there was certainly a claim of notability made, even in the first version of the articles, and the fact that references were added later, on my request, did seem to support this. Deb (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just that I would have expected you to verify that sources exist. What's the point of assisting someone with the language of the article if it doesn't even verify its own notability? I can see you made efforts to educate him, but it seems to me you started in the wrong place. Thanks for replying. Bigger digger (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. He kind of wore me down after a while.  But you'll see from my talk page that I do get a lot of flak for deleting articles, and even for nominating them, and I didn't feel that speedy deletion was justified in this case. Deb (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, it was wearing trying to trim down the article that's going to be AfD'd anyway, his actions have been wearing for everyone, but could've been curtailed sooner. At the AfD HARRYMAGIC uses your assistance earlier in the articles life as evidence that the article should be kept, so it's also misled him, or given him another false leg to stand on. I suppose next time it might prevent this pestering if you say to new editors "find reliable sources that prove notability, then I can help you with the other issues", but ultimately that's just my 2p. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kindly consider Article's once without any Prejudice Harsh Vardhan Jain & Jagmandar Dass Jain
Kind Request,

It is only for explanation that the Article is NOT HOAX or It is Never Ever deliberatity attempted to deceive or trick people into believing or accepting something which is false.

Verification -

1) VISIT : www.hvjain.com

2) VISIT : www.jaingroupofcompanies.com

3) Visit in person RSA, in London, England.

4) Visit Consul.cc in Vegas, US

5) Visit BBC - 5 Live Investigations in London, England

6) Visit All India Jain Conference, New Delhi, India.

7) Visit The Times of India, Leading News in India.

8) Visit city of Ghaziabad, UP, India

9) Visit Leicester House of Commons, England.

10) Visit 'Udhyog Patra' Self Made Industrialist - year 1975 ( Details of year 1975 Functions attended, present in Office of Vice President of India )

More information can be provided.

As it was never attempted to provide any false information.

May be the format is not according to guidelines but the contents mentioned in are correct.

If required a Fax or Email ( Scanned Data's ) can be sent for clarification of the contents.

Sorry if something wrong is written, consider as an error in language.

Thanks.HARRYMAGIC (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HARRYMAGIC, you need to carefully read this link: WP:Verifiability. I quote: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. Please point to specific places where I can verify the claims about these two people called Jain. To address your list, 1 & 2 are self-published sources, which do not meet the requirements of a reliable published source. The other 8 items are places - wikipedia requires specific items of information, not entire cities or offices. Find two sources that specifically mention their name and also describe them and post them here and maybe we can move forward. Bigger digger (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples. Known As JD JAIN & HV JAIN
 * http://jainconference.com/Images/Foundars%20Photo/Sh.%20J.D%20Jain%20Gaziabad,%20President%202000-2002.JPG Mr JD JAIN
 * Photo has no information & no caption, info can only be inferred from URL. Seems he was president of a religious group, this does not confer notability per WP:BIO
 * http://jainconference.com/Founders.aspx JD JAIN - President
 * As before, with the photo in a list of other faces
 * http://www.consul.cc/affiliate/index.php/2297 HV JAIN
 * ''Not a WP:Reliable source, you sign-in and create a profile. See WP:SPS
 * http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/701265/ Jain Rolling Mills, Indian Court
 * ''Contains no information about JD Jain, proves the existence of a person called JD Jain, but could be anyone.
 * [http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1287055/ JRM, Mr JD Jain
 * ''As previous.
 * ThanksHARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments in italics. Compare these sources to those used at Saket Agarwal, an article picked at random from Category:Indian businesspeople. It's only just about notable, but has a mention about him in the Times of India. Where is the equivalent for these two articles? Bigger digger (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A new user says...
SOrry about the non constructive edit, i am only trying to figure out how this works. I didn't know what to type so i just wrote my own political views. hope this clears things up!

AMERICA,

MASTER of deBATING —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTER of deBATING (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've given you a proper welcome, but then someone left a third warning for your editing. Fingers crossed you behave. Bigger digger (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And, in fact, as I was writing that you got banned. Not like your name was very clever either. Bigger digger (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident copy edit slavery!

 * Thanks! I helped out a bit late August / early September, but it's been well looked after since then! Bigger digger (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in the edit history. I hope you don't mind if i swipe some of the ideas from your tool boxes on your user page.  I was working on a similar project on my talk page.  Cheers!  Veriss (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steal away! Bigger digger (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Schooley page
Hey, Just in response to the message you left regarding the notability of the two films mentioned in Addionne's comment- "Black Eve" and "One Week In Windchocombe". I'm not able to add to edit the page due to the semi-protected status and feel that it's relevant to his conclusion that both films are notable- that both films are also 100% independent. In other words, they have no announced partnership with any distributor or studio for either a theatrical, dvd or online (ie: netflix) release. If such a deal is made in the future for either film (or if either film becomes a festival hit) and reported by a reliable source, then there may be a renewed case for notability. But otherwise, these films simply cannot be notable because there is no way anyone who is not associated with the filmmakers/actors will ever be able to see them. How can something be notable if nobody can see it? Thanks. Deepsix66 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66
 * Comment. I know this message was not meant for me - but not having a deal with a distributor should not be relevant here, in my opinion.  If the film, despite not having a distribution deal, has still received enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines, then why shouldn't that be enough?  -Addionne (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I honestly don't think that literally two respectable websites posting on-set photos should be considered 'enough coverage' not 'significant' coverage anyway. But in terms of why distribution of some kind matters is simple- we're not disputing the deletion of an article for either of these two films, but for the Schooley article itself. How can Schooley herself be notable when nobody can even see her performance in these films? The articles don't make more than a passing mention to her. Coverage from blog-only sources will always be questionable unless it's actual in-depth coverage like on-set visits or comprehensive interviews from reliable sources. But those articles that you've linked show no real commitment on the part of the authors/sources and were probably re-purposed from press releases and promo photos that were sent their way. If I shoot a film in my backyard, write an exciting press release and ask JoBlo to post some of my promo photos on a slow news day- does that make my 'film' and by extension, the actors who have appeared in my film, notable? You might feel differently, but I don't think so.  Deepsix66 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66
 * For future reference, this is about Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley.
 * Deepsix66, I was hoping to allow people to post sources or other proof of notability, the consensus seems to be me in favour of deletion and I don't think there's any further need to argue against the notability so don't think there's a need to copy across your comments. You'll note I have !voted delete and hope you understand my position.
 * Addionne, I'm not yet convinced that those films are notable - you yourself are barely convinced, as per your "weak keep". Bigger digger (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an observation, Deepsix created his account solely to nominate this article for deletion. Despite claiming on his talk page that he felt the same about Frozen North/Flip's Twisted World, he has not submitted any criticism of either of those articles.Misssinformative (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there a rule against creating an account to nominate an article for deletion? I read your article, couldn't believe that it hadn't already been removed and so I nominated it to bring it to other editors' attention- what's the issue? While I do believe that the Frozen North Productions page isn't notable enough to be included here either, the same can be said for many other pages on Wikipedia and I'm not going to spend all my time nominating or participating in the AfD's for those pages either. The last time I looked at the Frozen North page it was unanimously in favour of deletion and will in all likelihood be deleted without my input anyway (it's clearly made by the company themselves)- note that I have also made no suggestion to "Keep" that page either. What bothered me about your article (the initial edit anyway, prior to all the changes) was how blatantly self promotional it was, and how it was so clearly (to me, anyway) created by you under the guise of being a "student reporter" (I see the charade still continues). If you're a student reporter, may I ask which student publication you write for? Where the article you wrote on Ms. Schooley can be found online and what some of your other bylines are? You're obviously an accomplished reporter based on how extensively you seem to research your subjects. Deepsix66 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66

Hey, I have improved sources on the article to include more factual, neutral third party information that I feel is both more relevant and shows evidence of significant coverage of both Emily herself and projects she's been a part of. A lot of the article was badly-referenced, with links left arbitrarily in some places and as GW said, there were unsubstantiated facts on the page. I removed anything I could not source, left all of GW's work and added to it as well, sometimes moving citations to more appropriate facts.

FERNTV provided an in-depth interview with her for One Week in Windchocombe, as did the site Horror Movies and Stuff, though that one was left off because it seemed to be less reliable than other sites. Misssinformative (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. FERNTV is not a reliable source. Many of their articles do not even feature a byline. Deepsix66 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66

'''This is not an alternative AFD page. I invited editors here if they had additional info on the two films that might make her notable but couldn't post it on the AfD, not as a different place to carry on the debate!''' Further comments that don't provide further indications of notability that for some reason can't be added to the article will be removed. Thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

After recreated page
There are enough of us willing and able to keep re-submitting her page until it's kept, as the deletion request was submitted purely for spite - and anyone who backs it is probably just as immature and petty. If you'd bothered to look at the listed links, she does meet the WP:NACTOR guidelines. Bytemeh (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus showed that was not the case. Believe me, if the sources were there I'd be supporting a keep, but everyone needs to accept that she is currently not suitable for an article. Recreating the page is not the way to fix this as Wikipedia has systems in place to ensure it cannot be abused in this way. Bigger digger (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources specifically do you feel are lacking? Fangoria called her "up and coming", and while she does not have a ton of press, there are some interviews with her specifically done by sites interested in independent film who cover a lot of media. As another user, guru, pointed out - if she were American instead of Canadian, she would have a lot more press already. The deletion feels discriminatory for that reason. Note that she was a featured guest of more than one convention - that should convey some notability. Bytemeh (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (also note that Deepsix66 is now strongly adding to the Frozen North article, which indicates that there was a strong bias present.)
 * I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's not relevant where Deepsix66 came from or what they do. Yesterday I nominated an article for deletion that had existed on wp since April 2007 but totally failed to meet notability requirements.
 * It's not a matter of her nationality, it's a matter of her location - if she was making films in Hollywood she probably would have sufficient coverage to meet WP:Notability, but it is not Wikipedia's fault that film coverage in Canada is lacking.
 * I checked on the two most likely sources at our WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, see here for the reply. And I hate to say it, but she wasn't very close to top billing on one of those conferences, and if that's all that's left to try and get past WP:Notability that should indicate to you that she's not yet as an actress/actor for an article. This is nothing personal, it is just that the line has to be drawn somewhere and currently Emily falls under it. And if you do have a regular account, can I recommend giving up this one, it will only cause you trouble in the long term. Bigger digger (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about her filmography? 140 wasn't included in the previous argument, but has had coverage/listings by sites that seem to meet WP:N (ie an NBC site). Addionne found enough information to change his mind to a keep. We'll keep digging until there's 'enough', I suppose. Bytemeh (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to add that are are proper venues for this sort of thing. The article will be deleted again as a deletion discussion took place and an administrator found that consensus was for delete. If it's continually reposted, it will most likely be salted which means it will be locked to prevent recreation. The proper venue is WP:DRV.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * http://events.nbc13.com/movies/show/148765-140 - just a listing, no info at all
 * http://www.denverfilm.org/filmcenter/detail.aspx?id=23209 - not in-depth coverage (cool idea for a film though)
 * http://www.seattleweekly.com/movies/140-962899/ - just a listing
 * The delete was argued by several established wikipedia users, along with other fans who disagree. The article was improved a lot between the original submission for deletion and when it was deleted. Ms. Schooley has had roles in established television shows like This Movie Sucks, as well as principal/lead roles in several films that are (arguably) notable. She also has a fan base - we feel these criteria meets the WP:NACTOR guidelines. I have submitted my argument to DRV.


 * http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/06/the-140-project-filmmakers-capture-140-seconds-of-home/ covered 140, but did not go into cast listing. Note that while stubs, Ms. Schooley is listed as lead in those other articles. Bytemeh (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Query from a non-n00b
I need to copy the discussion at Editor_assistance/Requests to Talk:List_of_Navy_SEALs so the conversation is in one place. I want to put it in a coloured box as a record of what was discussed but cannot find a suitable template. Help please! Bigger digger (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moment of inspiration -Template:Discussion_top

Understanding
Im sure your on now and know the date I'm going to mention. But in October of 2010 I put legitimate information on Liberty University and you deleted it promptly afterward. I'm not sure if your even aware of what happens on campus or in the city in which it resides. I posted the facts in the controversy section with no bad remarks or language and was just wondering what the problem would have been for you to do that? Are you paid by their University to also help cover up these horrible acts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.2.99 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * will reply at user talk. Bigger digger (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copycat
You've got a copycat:  Corvus cornix  talk  06:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, flattered I'm sure. There was an IP editor I caught on the same page 4 times in a row who then made the same witty substitution in part of my userspace. Thanks for the note! Mechanical digger (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Confused? Did you see dicker or digger when you hit revert! Mechanical digger (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely confused, that's why I reverted myself. Sorry.  :)   Corvus cornix  talk  18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I knew you'd done it by mistake. Happy editing, please keep me safe from the clever wordsmiths out there! Bigger digger (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Achanalt
Hello. I re-worded the power stations sentence. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go and check and sort it out for DYK. Bigger digger (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jason Grace
I was just reorganizing the article. I didn't do anything else. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit. Will respond at your talk page to deal with the warning. Mechanical digger (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion request on Talk:Israel and the Apartheid Analogy
Bigger digger, I was grateful to you for taking on the request for a "Third Opinion" on the acceptability of a proposed edit in the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section of "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy," so it was very disappointing when you withdrew, even before getting any response from the other editor involved, Dailycare. It is not clear to me why you have done this, and I would like to ask for your reconsideration. You say on the Talk page of the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" that there are many other editors involved with the specific issue, and that this is the reason for the withdrawal, but actually there is only one other editor beside myself in this dispute, Dailycare. The only other editor to comment at all on my proposed contribution in past months, Harlan, does not come into it. He has not given an opinion on the matter. Almost all of his previous comments have been objections from a POV stance, expressing his personal disagreement with the views in the contribution (as if his views of reality and ideology were the criterion of admissability), but even these unconstructive and irrelevant interventions have been few: none touch on this issue. So it is just a matter of Dailycare's views. Although it is evident from his silence in response to your request for his opinion that Dailycare is unwilling in a "third-party" mediation to explain just why he objects (suggesting that he knows his views are unsustainable in terms of Wikipedia policies - he has revisited the Talk page many times since you posted the request and made other entries, just ignoring your request), the question in the end does not require his comment since it is merely a matter of Wikipedia principles. His reluctance to explain himself should not be allowed to give him the victory in this dispute, as would happen if you withdrew. His intention and some attempted justification have already been given explicitly, in any case, over the past two weeks: it is to eliminate the proposed edit contribution, claiming that although the citations are valid as such they do not belong in the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section at all, but should be broken up and put in the sections of the main article dealing with proponents of the "apartheid analogy." I intended and still wish my contribution to go in its entirety into the "Criticism" section. It is a simple and direct question, therefore: is it acceptable as an entry in the "Criticism" section, or not? And are the quotations from pro-apartheid-analogy sources in the proposed contribution acceptable for citation in this context? I argue that they can be, since they provide essential evidence of the claims made by critics of the analogy and are cited to that effect by sources. You also remark that the constant bickering that preceded this point in regard to my proposed contribution "hurts your eyes." Well, I can understand that; it has been unpleasant for me too and the obstructionism has gone on too long. However, since only the last two weeks or so relate to this specific new issue raised by Dailycare, you need not read before that. You certainly are not expected to give an opinion on other matters. You need only give an opinion on this. That should neither "hurt your eyes" nor require much time for consideration, and I would be most grateful if you took this up again briefly. I do need some outside opinion to break the deadlock, and the institution of WP:3O was devised just for such situations. It would be a pity if despite claims otherwise in Wikipedia guidelines there were no means for redress nor retention of NPOV in Wikipedia articles in practice. Thank you. Tempered (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tempered, thanks for your message in response to my post at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. Here are a few points:
 * When I refer to other editors, I mean all the other editors involved with the article. There's not just you, Dailycare and possibly Harlan editing it, as witnessed by all the other contributions on the talk page. WP:3O is normally used for quieter articles that don't get much attention and 2 editors need a third opinion to move forward. This article has plenty of editors with more knowledge of all the sources and issues than someone coming fresh of the bat from WP:3O. Their opinion will be needed moving forward so might as well be requested now.
 * The eye pain, as I noted, is from the "revdels" - my watchlist became full of Deletion log entries for "revision deletions". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 * To move things forward you could post on User talk:Dailycare and ask for some input.
 * It might ease the process if you could make your points with greater brevity. You create great dense paragraphs of text that are a challendge to read. Try to be more concise or add some spacing to make collaborating with you a bit easier!
 * I'm not withdrawing from the process, but both sides have to engage. If you can reach agreement with some of the other editors then you could continue. I hope that's all clear. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I will try to break up my response into shorter bits, as you request.  You suggest that both sides have to engage.  I have done nothing else for three months now, so the suggestion presumably is not directed to me.  And indeed discussion has gone on for too long.


 * After all the spurious objections thrown out by Dailycare over the past three months were patiently and finally laid to rest, he has been driven back to his ultimate motivation unadorned: to gut the contribution completely. If you read the discussion, you will know that he refused even to divulge this intention for two weeks, until driven to it by my constant prodding and direct questioning.  He just intended to eliminate the contribution himself, unilaterally.


 * In consequence, there does not seem to be anything more to discuss. It is just a simple either-or that he presents, which he justifies on the grounds that it is not acceptable to cite Palestinian sources that seem to confirm critics of the "apartheid analogy": these sources can only be cited in the pro-apartheid-analogy sections.  There can therefore be no consensus and it is a vain hope to call for it.


 * That is why a third opinion was requested in the first place.


 * You speak of "some of the other editors." On this issue there has been only one other editor.  Harlan has not commented at all on it and does not relate to this issue.  The refusal to cooperate of both parties, however, is shown yet again by their refusal for a week after you first made your request for responses to enter any statement at all.  (Today, a day after I first wrote this response to you, while Dailycare remains silent I note that Harlan has entered something, however, as you will be able to see when you read it, it is merely more of his POV, and does not relate to the specific issue.  This has been his standard contribution to the discussion all along.  The issue that I am concerned about with this request remains just between Dailycare and myself.)


 * Neither is an extensive knowledge of the specific views advanced by the sources needed. No expertise in that subject is necessary, just a knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV.  A simple statement by you that it is permissible in terms of Wikipedia principles to cite sources from the opposing side in presenting counter-arguments would do the trick.  That is all that is needed.Tempered (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tempered, of course my point about engagement was not aimed at you! When I refer to "other editors" I mean beyond the 3 of you involved in this particular issue, who I refer to by name. There are about 7 separate editors who have edited the article in the last 24 hours, and the consensus you might achieve with them is far stronger than my agreement to your addition of the text. This 3O is unusual in that there are not normally other editors involved with the article. I also note Dailycare has not edited since the 16th October - two days before I started the 3O. Bigger digger (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I did not realize that third opinions were not sought when other editors posted responses on the page in question, even if only two were locked in disagreement on the specific issue where a third opinion was requested.  For it is a matter between just two editors that I sought your comment.  This disagreement has held up consensus on the entire contribution.  So your advice would still be appreciated and helpful.  As for Dailycare, I think you will find if you look both at the Talk page generally (including other subsections), and the main article as well, that his responses have been voluminous in the past week and even the past few days.  He is definitely active on the pages.  (Have a look, for example, at the "History" menu link for the main article: his reverts over the past week to items in the "Criticism of the Apartheid Analogy" section are numerous.)  He just does not want any mediation on this issue.Tempered (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, about an hour after I wrote my previous comment Special:Contributions/Dailycare started showing some action, but has been silent for 6 days. I will post on his talk page and ask him to comment. It is far better for all editors at the page to be involved in your discussion - my opinion won't be as helpful as a range of opinions from editors actively involved in the article. Bigger digger (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't this a matter of Wikipedia principles and guidelines, not a matter for editorial votes but of actual general rules and guidelines? Why would a probable no consensus be required or sought by non-expert highly contentious editors when a single expert opinion just on guidelines and Wikipedia rules is being called for?  And as a matter of fact this issue only concerns me and one other editor.  The others have not come into it, despite the months-long discussion.  If it is a matter of policy, why should they be considered authorities whose consensus is necessary?  Isn't this the wrong venue for considering and possibly changing basic policy?Tempered (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of policy and guidelines alone. Each article provides the context for the application of these policies and guidelines. My opinion is not an expert opinion, any more than yours or Dailycare's is, and your knowledge of the article and the sources is far greater than mine. I would recommend approaching some of the other involved editors in the article on their talk page and asking them to comment on the dispute. There are plenty of other interested and involved editors who should be harnessed to create the consensus, whether that's in favour of your view or not. I would expect most 3O editors would have immediately advised you that this dispute was unsuitable for a WP:3O, and I am trying to help you find an effective way to move forward in a contentious area &mdash; feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion if you want to double check that, I won't mind. You are editing in a contentious area and if there is a serious breach of policy by the omission or otherwise of material, my opinion will not help rectify that, you will need to escalate it per WP:DRR, but I would strongly advise you to engage with other editors on the page before you go any further. Bigger digger (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for your input.  I will trouble you no further.  A general observation: I do not think that Wikipedia works well on highly contentious issues, especially when one side is few in numbers, and the other side tends to demonizations and fanaticism but is numerous - and this has been proven agaIn in this matter.Tempered (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, and that's why WP:3O wasn't really suitable. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that, I didn't initially realise the numbers of editors involved. The community has done a lot to work on the I-P issue, see WP:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which is linked from the article talk page. It too states that a consensus of editors are needed agree on additions. WP:3O isn't designed to help you if you're on the wrong side of that consensus. As I wrote before, you'll either have to engage with the other editors, or escalate it on the WP:Dispute resolution ladder, but every outside editor will look to see if you have engaged the other editors on the page, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Best wishes, Bigger digger (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Finn Care
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 1.2k hits, and sadly only one other editor got involved. At least it was Malleus! Bigger digger (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@wikipedia please don't support illegal sites !
@wikipedia please don't support illegal sites !


 * Exbii has now been nominated for deletion. The site is not illegal, but it is not notable. And WP:Vandalism is not acceptable, please bear that in mind... Mechanical digger (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Apology given, humble pie eaten. Bigger digger (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking advice for putting an article back to a good state
Just noticed you've been reverting some edits on the William the Conqueror article. I did one manual reversion but I'm a complete beginner with the "undo" method. Are there any tips or methods to ensure the article is returned to a good state that you could throw my way. Sluffs (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at your user page and found the link to the Revert article. Good stuff. Will read that. Thanks. Sluffs (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to help ;-) Mechanical digger (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Records
Careful - you just restored some vandalism. Hut 8.5 17:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you reverted edits by 173.49.140.141 to last version by 35.11.242.173 (GLOO), then User:Hut 8.5 reverted edits by you to the last version by 173.49.140.141. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was apologising whilst you were telling me off! Sorry again. Mechanical digger (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wtf ?
Does Wikipedia Support sites ? Promoting illegal hidden Cam Porn Promoting Cyber Criminals —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe I will start deleting random comments from my talk page... Your heading sums up my thoughts on your comment: I nominated Exbii for deletion, so am not really sure why you're berating me. Of course, if there were sources that proved its notability then it could stay, which is very different from Wikipedia supporting it. Bigger digger (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Deletion sorting)

 * Info gleaned courtesy of Gene93k is below. Bigger digger (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are script tools available at WikiProject Deletion sorting. I use John Vandenberg's delsort.js (setup instructions here) which is based on Twinkle. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Bridge in Curve
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 3k, but a lesson in Template:Cite book, so a worthwhile exercise. Bigger digger (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Port Colden, NJ
The previous information typed about Port Colden...does not reflect any of the documented history about the area...it is not an "unsafe recovering town"  it is a small hamlet of old homes and an elementary school a good one, I might add, that exist on what was once a pot on the historic Morris canal....I was simply trying to provide accurate historical information from the towns official web site   ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washlady (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

typo in previous comment...port Gosh, didn't know this was going to cause such a stir..... I don't understand why you would want there to be inaccurate info about the area and it's school I was just trying to clear up a mis conception....with accurate info from the town web site Washlady (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) and I did sign my first comment...not my fault it didn't show up that way....Washlady (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will continue on your talk page for your reference. Bigger digger (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Opinion, Help and Advice
Dear Digger, I seek your help with a specific point on the Kochi page, where you left a comment about the edit war. An editor has placed the image of a slum on the Demographics section. I live in the city, and I know for a fact that it is a rarity in the city, and I know ANY city, even in developed countries, have them. Does the image represent the city, and qualify to be put on the page?

My problem is more with the intended malice behind the action, less with the action itself. Your valuable opinion is highly appreciated.

DileepKS69 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the photo verifiably from Kochi? Is there a reliable source that mentions slums in Kochi? They would be fairly reasonable requirements before the photo is added. I will copy this to the article talk page. Bigger digger (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

14 Sqn entry
The recent rejected edit to the 14 Squadron RAF entry was a comprehensive summary of the unit's deployment during WWI. The text was written by the secretary of the 14 Sqn Association and as such also appears on the association's web page along with the following periods in history. The reversion to the older sparse summary of WWI hardly serves to increase the amount of detail available to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougieR14 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a WP:COPYVIO as notified on your talk page. I have continued the conversation there. Bigger digger (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New Bedford
Are you aware of the discussion going on at " Dougweller" page?

I'm not trying to sound defensive but I am perplexed as to how these decisions are made around here. Information that is properly cited gets removed just as a matter of one person's, (editor?), opinion? It doesn't appear to be against any rule and the info has been there for some time. I, as a new person, make a slight edit or two for citation purposes and most of the whole section gets removed.

It is my hometown, I'm not trying to smear it! I will leave the issue alone after this, I can sincerely promise you that. Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone or come off like a prima donna or something but this all is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. As it is not blatantly against any rule, a little bit of democracy would be greatly appreciated here, particularly one involving persons who are actually connected to the town.4.252.209.251 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that conversation, I looked at Talk:New Bedford, Massachusetts and it was empty of relevant conversation, and have finally welcomed you on your talk page, but will head over to the conversation at User talk:Dougweller. Cheers, Mechanical digger (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles
hello, i edited the page treaty of versailles because two paragraphs were there twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.101.216 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you did, so apologies for reverting it. Problem was you didn't use an edit summary and you also deleted a little bit too much text, the British aims section needed to stay. Those two factors made me consider your edit to be, at best, unhelpful, hence my actions. Suffice to say I have fixed that mistake now, thanks for bringing it up. Mechanical digger (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "the editor before you seems to have renamed him [Adunis] Adonis, is that correct?"
Adunis is in my opinion correct even in English. I would not like to have my name translated to English. It wouldn't feel right to be called "Spring" instead of "Aviva". Thanks for your help. Best. Aviva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva Butt (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved conversation back to User_talk:Aviva_Butt#Adunis. Bigger digger (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from below Hi Bigger Digger, I probably have the wrong page again to correspond. Sorry. Anyway, I changed my "Adunis" to "Adonis" in the part I had added. I think the article looks good now and the issue of his name is sorted out. Best. Aviva Aviva Butt (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aviva, I'll give up moving the conversation back and forth, but I think it looks good, thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gratitude
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
 * Thank you Syber, keep up the constructive editing, maybe I'll go and check up on you again! Bigger digger (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Hi Bigger digger, I appreciate your assistance with the article Premakeerthi De Alwis. Premakeerthi de Alwis. The user wipeouting has made changes again to the artilce even after you and several others informed him of the Wikipedia reliable source policy. I have requested an information mediation in this regard but don't think it is appropriate to leave this kind of content on the page live. If I delete this content, he is going to put it right back. What is your take on this? Appreciate your assistance and advise (Ramya20 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Undone change, again. Started conversation at talk page. Warned on user talk page. Fingers crossed! Bigger digger (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramya20 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Friend, ask me that The book cannot find out  through any search engine. now it is appear on internet. This is not a self publish fiction. premakeerthini is a research about his murder which  publish as a book. how do you say that is self publication ?--Wipeouting (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) --Wipeouting (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because the very catalogue entry that you are pointing to clearly states that the publisher is the author. Uncle G (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Uncle G, I will expanded on this on the article talk page for those who are interested! Bigger digger (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Emily Schooley socks
Regarding your message here, curious as to whether you are aware of the outcome of this particular SPI? I know you've tried hard to help User:Bytemeh, and thought you would want to know the account came back as a confirmed sock. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the note, the editors I was referring to there weren't the socks, but Addionne, GorillaWarfare and Cirt who all tried to point the editor(s) in the right direction. I am trying to work out what to do with the userfied article at User:Misssinformative/Emily Schooley over at User talk:Uncle G at the moment... Bigger digger (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole Emily Schooley debacle was something I fell into (or perhaps more appropriately, stepped into) accidentally. It's a pretty tangled web and the individuals involved are certainly...feisty. Good luck in sorting everything out! Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too! I thought Canadians were meant to be laid back! Bigger digger (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, being on the West Coast I can attest that I may be more laid back than most. Perhaps those involved need to take a trip to Whistler to chill for a few days - it's hard to remain so angry when surrounded by so much beauty! --Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Copyvios are fun arent they ? Pretty sure that I already read his page but thanks for telling me

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. And they're not fun, but it's quite interesting. I get my Deer Stalker out and away I go! Bigger digger (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I'm still here. Thank you for your optimistic views towards my articles. I am a new user here and am encountering some problems. Could you help?

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact33 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:Impact33 as the conversation is much more relevant to them and might be a useful reference. Bigger digger (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sharon G. Flake
remove the images from "sharon g. flake". they do not work. as for flake's mother, information from an unspecified source states she was a prostitute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.142.241 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And your next edit was to add a string of swear words, so you certainly are vandalising the article... Mechanical digger (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Impact33 says...
I'm getting quite annoyed at people deleting my articles such as Grove Avenue when I haven't done anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact33 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Impact33. Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mo Twister needs protection please
thanks to User:Favonian. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mo Twister is a Philippino DJ who has encouraged listeners to vandalise his page, as such it's a mess and needs protection. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://twitter.com/djmotwister/status/6658310941966336 Mechanical digger (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sean Carver
No problem, probably not notable, however the AfD will settle it one way or the other. VER Tott  11:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Links for future reference: Sean Carver and Articles for deletion/Sean Carver. Bigger digger (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re
I didn't know that GBooks was considered a flawed rationale for AfD, although from reading WP:GHITS, I now understand why it is. What I did find bitey, and this was just from my perspective, was that he called my comment "bad research", which is an exaggeration from not understanding that WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid. I wouldn't have complained had he just linked to the WP:GHITS essay, instead of admonishing me with that slightly condescending "tut tut". I'm still a newbie after all...--hkr (talk)13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And as for the sig, I found out a few weeks ago that you could change it through the preferences, and have been experimenting with it since. Admittedly, I should keep such experimentations on my userpage, but all my sigs have been combinations of resident, HK, and Laozi, so it's always clear who I am.--hkr (talk)13:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's bitey to call bad research "bad research", but never mind, the issue did seem resolved. I don't think you can wave the newbie flag any more either – I have fewer edits than you and would be insulted to be called a newbie: when venturing into new areas I try to read all the relevant pages and to accept constructive criticism in good faith. Sometimes written communication fails to convey tone, and I always try to bear that in mind. Finally, I have no idea what Laozi means, or its connection to HK, and the wl'd article doesn't shed much light. But never mind, let's move on! Best wishes, Bigger digger (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User pages
Good morning I just wanted to know how can i remove a user page i did before while practicing on how to make a Wikipedia article, so right now this page is empty and has no data so i want to delete it can you please tell me how ? Thanks in advance(Moro27 (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi! It's afternoon where I am, but thanks for the greeting. Place or  at the top of any user pages you might want deleted. See WP:CSD for more information. Happy editing, Bigger digger (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Order of Charlemagne
The Order of Charlemagne exists, but Andorra is a small country and this order has just been awarded once with acceptation (Architect Frank Gehry (not Norman Foster!) refused it because of problems with the Andorran Governement and his final design of the National History Museum ). It was created in 2007, and as a young order in a small country where military forces doesn't exist, is difficult to be awarded with it. I can access to pictures when the only awarded, José Luis Sampedro, a Spanish writer, was awarded with it. If you send me your email, I will send them to you. But I ask you please to don't deleate my article. I want everybody to know more about my contry, is really small and not very known in the world. Medals and decorations are my passion, and I have the oportunity here to show the world that Andorra has just ONE, but is enough for a small country, oficial Order.

Yours sincerely, Alexeinikolayevichromanov

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_Charlemagne" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! At the moment it is impossible to verify that this Order exists. Have you got links to a Spanish/Andorran newspaper article about it being awarded? Bigger digger (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, I'll move this to the article talk page at Talk:Order of Charlemagne. Bigger digger (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved up from section below Hi!! No, I don't have free access to the 2008 periodicals... But I have three pictures of the day when they awarded the medal to José Luis Sampedro.
 * I have the link that demonstrates that Ghery designed the medals of the order of Charlemagne:


 * http://www.lavanguardia.es/premium/publica/publica?COMPID=53594076604&ID_PAGINA=22088&ID_FORMATO=9&turbourl=false


 * In this other one, on the third paragraph, they say that he received a "high distinction", that is, of course, the Order of Charlemagne.


 * http://www.directe.cat/noticia/15298/larquitecte-frank-gehry-lamenta-la-falta-de-professionalitat-del-govern-andorra-15298


 * The link i published in the page in Wikipedia ( http://www.bopa.ad/bopa.nsf/home?OpenFrameSet ) is the one of the BOPA, that is the virtual place where you can find all the Andorran laws. If you go to the column in the left and you go to "Recerca General" (in the bottom), a new page will be opened. If you write in one of the blank spaces "Orde de Carlemany", the law that made the order will appear with its confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will move the relevant bits to the article talk page and discuss there. Bigger digger (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that;
Thanks for that. I will start editing and helping out properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact33 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk page, keep the conversation in one place and for your benefit. Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A picture
Hi, I just wanted to ask why some images or pictures be on the Wikipedia and others on the Wikimedia commons ?what is the difference? and is there any chance to move a picture from Wikimedia commons to be on the Wikipedia ? Thanks in advance.(Moro27 (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Commons allows all the different projects to use an image, so the French Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wiktionary could all use the same image, with it stored on the Commons' servers, images are generally "free" or without copyright. Images (called files) on Wikipedia can only be used on Wikipedia and more restrictive uses are allowed. If an image is on Commons it can be used on en.wikipedia without any problems, so there's no need to move it. See WP:IMAGES for all the information you might need! But feel free to ask more questions here. Bigger digger (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First Thanks for your fast response, i want to ask you if the picture is a company logo is it better be in the wikipedia not in the wikimedia to be more protected ? if yes how can i move it? Moreover how can i make the license of the logo to show that this is a logo of an organization.Thanks.(Moro27 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm not really the right person to ask. Company logos are fair use so can't go into Commons. I will have a poke around and get back to you once I have my talk page back under control! Bigger digger (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Logos. Bigger digger (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding to the section, "November 2010"
According to what you wrote here: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Channel 5, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of Channel 5s around the world, and the page you edited serves as a way to find all the different ones. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION for more info. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not edit anything on Channel 5. 220.255.2.47 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't, but I wrote that warning on User talk:220.255.2.94. It seems like IP addresses in Singapore jump around a lot, which is a possible reason to register an account. Bigger digger (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebiquity
Hi,

Can you please let me know why you have placed a criteria for speedy deletion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebiquity ?

The article appears objective and fact based - I can incorporate your feedback so we can get the tag removed.

Thanks,

Wwjx0p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC).


 * I replied at your talk page. Only an admin can remove a speedy tag after reviewing it, although I think that article will pass through that process. The article needs some tidying up though, maybe I'll take it on. Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My Talk Archive Page
Thanks for watching out for my page. The user who edited it was just trying to remove his own comment in good faith. I wrongly reverted his edit. I've undone your warning on his page. Vrenator (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for letting me know. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock?
Re.

Thanks for reverting this and this.

I've no idea what that was about; do you? Cheers, anyway.  Chzz  ► 12:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, it came up on Igloo, I followed the IP's contribs and it seemed to be tagging a few with nonsense sock templates. I assumed you would know what it was about! Bigger digger (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea at all, really; I haven't been really active recently. But, meh. Thanks, anyway.  Chzz  ► 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)