User talk:Darkwind/Archive 5

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeyes (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 September 2012‎ (UTC)

we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view.
Hello, I'm Darkwind. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Curiosity rover seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.187.164.86&oldid=514267516" Gale crater, an estimated 2 billion-year-old impact crater,seems less than neutral to me.you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.164.86 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Calculus
The Calculus is the study of rates of change. A calculus is any well defined method.

This is an extremely important distinction to serious math students and mathematicians. In addition, the improper title detracts from the legitimacy of WIkipedia. I believe it is a useful tool, but others have termed it as pedestrian for mistakes such as this. I do not know who committed vandalism on my IP address 3 years ago; it was probably immature neighbors. Please allow the proper correction of the page, Calculus to state The Calculus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.229.24 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abies × sibirico-nephrolepis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hybrid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * I don't think I've actually explained my concerns well enough -- I'm concerned that PrOmid is not "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia article. There is a specific threshold of notability that must be met for a subject to have a Wikipedia article.  Specifically, for musicians (including DJs and remixers etc.), the relevant guideline is WP:MUSICBIO -- please take a moment to read those 12 numbered criteria, then tell me which one or more of them he qualifies under.  If you have reliable sources that support your claim, then I'll withdraw my deletion nomination. (Please read that link as well, as it defines what a reliable source is -- other Wikipedias don't count.) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ragini (Telugu actress)
I have made some formatting changes in Ragini (Telugu actress). Can you have a look if the copyedit tag still applicable? Best Tito Dutta ✉ 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Darkwind, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created several, valid articles (including such important topics as braid and futurism!), and are a long-time trusted editor. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit stats
Hey Darkwind, I just posted your edit stats to your RfA talk page. Just a heads up that opting in to monthly edit count and most edited pages is helpful for voters at your RfA. To opt in, add any content at both User:Darkwind/EditCounterOptIn.js and User:Darkwind/EditCounterOptIn.js. Thanks and good luck at your RfA! --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I created the page you linked, but both links were the same... was the second one supposed to be different? &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, editing that JavaScript subpage opts in to both "monthly edit count" and "most edited pages". I put it twice by mistake. --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks again. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Nose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:DirecTV logo.svg‎
Please undelete this file. It is not eligible for speedy deletion because it is a different file format than the Commons image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * God, you're right, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks for the help. I'll try to keep an eye on the range. Widr (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems that the user returned and has already been blocked again. Widr (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. It looks like in order to completely block him, I'd have to block 	86.128.0.0/10, which appears to be all of British Telecom. Not going to happen.  &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think it's that serious, although a bit annoying. :-) Widr (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Canals: thanks
Thanks very much for your help here. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy to be of service. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD of north american allied fighting series
I notice you closed it as a keep.Earlier, a Sue Rngal had closed it out as a non admin closure saying "No consensus". Then, another non0-admin(not myself)undid the closure. Do you think you could chat with them possibly about treading lightly when there are so many comments and votes on an issue? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Help
I uploaded a picture for Dax Charles, I recieved the picture via email from Mr. Charles for the use within the wikipedia article. I have the email but I want to make sure I've uploaded the image correctly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The only thing missing is evidence of permission from Mr. Charles to freely license the picture for use at Commons. See Commons:Permission for guidelines, especially the last section. Let me know if you need anything else! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Darkwind, you PC protected just before it was semi protected by User:Courcelles. I've made a request at WP:RFUP that one of them be lifted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh, wonder how that happened. I've addressed the request, thanks. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

edits
hello. My apologies. Yes, it seems I may have. I did not know that the recent edit (revert) was part of that same matter in that sense. I made sure earlier in the day to go only to three reverts...not four. The one more recent was due to the fact that one of the editors did not honor what another editor did, which was put a "citations needed" tag, but said to NOT remove the edit, until sources are put in. I was just restoring that. But if you notice editor ReformedArsenal, he CLEARLY UNMISTAKABLY violated 3RR this morning, by reverting four times...in less than an hour (let alone 24). (Just being frank, fair, and honest about it.) I only reverted three times, and was careful NOT to undo ReformedArsenal's fourth revert. I was restrained and careful. And then discussed the matter copiously with TransporterMan and others, etc. Per WP policy and protocol. Again, as I said, the revert I did just now though (recently) was not arguably 100% part of that exact same situation, in that I simply restored what another editor did some time today. I had considered that a slightly different situation, though obviously related. But I'm sorry. I will not do that again. Thanks for your attention to this. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gabby, thanks for your thoughtful response. The 3RR is specifically written to define a revert as undoing any part of an edit made by another user, and it doesn't have to be the same user or same material each time.  So, when you reverted, it counted as your fourth revert on that page within 24 hours -- technically a violation.  Doesn't matter that it was a slightly different subject matter. But, like I said, interpreting the rule that strictly isn't beneficial to anyone in this case. I'm glad to see everyone's discussing the issue now. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucratship
Cmach7 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Excessive quotation
Hi Darkwind, I'm asking you as copyright issues clerk. I'd like to know whether the quotation in Ibex Cave is acceptable. We're talking about a 730-word quotation and, although sources and marked as a quote, I'm actually sure about it validity. Could you please light me? :-) Best regards and many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just from a style perspective, that quote is way too long. From a copyright perspective, it does depend in part on the size of the original source material.  However, as few as 400 words out of a 500 page book have been ruled by U.S. courts as copyright infringment, and that quote is 728 words, so I'd definitely say it needs to be trimmed or removed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dalma Hills
You declined a G12 speedy delete I placed on this article earlier today, after you removed about half of it as a copyright violation. But it seems very likely to me that what remains was copy and pasted from here. What do you think? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's another copyvio. I wonder why I didn't catch that... Looking farther back in the history, there's no salvageable versions at all. Anything without copyvio is excessively promotional (for some group in the area, which was removed in later edits). I've deleted the article as G12 after all. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess you just forgot to check, but some prose screams out "copyright violation" as soon as you see it. Perhaps also a problem that Twinkle only allows one web page to be cited as the original source, not two as in this case. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus Lists closes
I know I came late to all three deletion discussions and was unlikely to gain consensus at that time but I believed my suggestion of transwikiing was a good alternative to deletion for these article. Would you have any comments on that suggestion both in regards to your closes and the wider discussion currently taking place about these list articles? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In re: the transwiki suggestion, I'd like to see a consensus (or at least a discussion) there at Wikivoyage that they would indeed find these types of articles or lists useful, before we dump the articles on them en masse. The lists can always be undeleted and userfied at any time to prepare for a transwiki, and I'd be happy to do that for you or any other interested editor. Just let me know (and ideally point me to the discussion over at voyage agreeing that this data is useful to them). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to close a move request
Hello Darkwind. I saw your January 3 comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units when you relisted this proposal for further discussion. Another 18 days have passed since the relisting, and I'm trying to see if it's ready to close. Your objection was that the RFC was unclear. That's true, and in any event there was never a formal closure for the RFC. Leaving that aside, it does look like there is at least a simple majority in favor of the move. Editors are accusing one another of various conduct problems, and I don't see that we should take that as an obstacle to the move. In your opinion, would carrying out the move at the present time raise any concerns, if we just ignore the original RFC? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no concerns about completing the move on that basis. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm starting to find out why the old requested moves stay unclosed for so long. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a similar comment on IRC the other day... it seems I was a bit naive to say "oh sure I'll just go over and help out at RM" during my RfA. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested..
.. a catch-all and know about WP:NOTVAND etc. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Perhaps a lesser duration block might have worked in this case than 6 months? I'll leave it to your discretion. You may finally be right; I just felt we could perhaps give a shorter term block, even perhaps a 24 hour block, to stop the spamming and see whether the ip corrects its course. Like I said, I'll leave it to your judgment. Thanks and good to see you around. Wifione  Message 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went for that length because they've made the same edits intermittently for a period of 5 months already, which seems to indicate a long-term intent to try to get these links into the target articles. Given that there's no productive edit history from this IP, I didn't see much of a risk of "collateral damage", and depending on their editing pattern, they might not even notice a short-term block like 24 hours.  The warnings have certainly had no effect so far.  I'd assumed if they decided to repent, they can always .  However, if you think it might be overkill, it won't bother me if you want to adjust it, especially if they complain. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your logic is perfectly fine. I'll just wait and watch if the editor realizes the issue. Shan't change the block unless there's a request from the editor, as you mention. Again, thanks for the reply and for taking time to read my message. Best. Wifione  Message 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:27mpoole
I note you had cause to block this user for copyright reasons, and that they have been given a final warning here about failing to give copyright information when upladning files, however today they have upload File:AssemblyCorwin.jpg without the correct details. LightGreenApple talk to me 02:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

help with an user
the page is being altered completely. the user AjaxFiore is removing and altering information for no crucial reason at all, please revert his changes, he is also accusing me of vandalism

the page is about a mexican religious institution, that refuses to admit being pentecostal and a sect, he is removingWikiNuevo (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) those sections to favor the church

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&action=history


 * Unfortunately, you both let it get out of hand and violated the three-revert rule. You've both been blocked for 24 hours.  When the block expires, please try dispute resolution if necessary. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Concerning the matter, would you please watch the page. I have restored content to that previous to WikiNuevo's edits and placed my rational in the talk page. In case this may not work out, I will be seeking WP:DRN. However, WikiNuevo's edits have some issues regarding copyright violations, WP:NPOV issues, and WP:BLP issues as well as the use of a source that is being questioned via an RFC. WikiNuevo restored much of the content and the format that used to exist that had all of these issues (That's why it was changed overtime) and deleted well sourced content. For the BLP, NPOV, and Copyright issues, a reversion or at least deletion of added content will be needed as per wiki policy for the BLP and Copyright issues if WikiNuevo chooses to repeat his past editing in the same manner. This is why I am making this request. Thanks, Fordx12 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can certainly keep the page on my watchlist, but I'm not going to take a position in the content dispute. The best I can do is if any further edit warring occurs, I'll protect the page for a short while. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Hi Darkwind,

Can you please delete my article Artyom Shaloyan now? I don't want to waste time. Sorry. Bear my patience. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You really need to stop creating articles in mainspace and then almost immediately requesting deletion. It can be seen as disruptive editing.  If you're trying to create test or draft versions of possible new articles, please do so in your personal sandbox or as a userspace draft. &mdash;Darkwind (talk)


 * Also, you really need to stop deleting messages you leave on other people's talk pages. Especially if they've replied. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if I bug you about article concern. The problem is that some of my articles ended with a different tag on the bottom of the page, especially when "Help improve page" is released instead of "Rate this page". Next time, I'll put them in the sandbox. I'll publish my article in a simple sentence along with a stub, before I expand it. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That is because the new version of Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 is being tested. You cannot control which version of the feedback tool appears at the bottom of any given article, and repeatedly creating and deleting an article to get the "right" version of the tool is disruptive behavior. Please allow the testing of the new version of the feedback tool to take its course and do not try to delete and recreate an article to get your preferred version shown. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that your article releases a "Help improve page" tag even when you update it, and not just only create it in the first place? -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 04:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam province consensus
Maybe you can have a look at Talk:An Giang Province Thanh Pho Can Tho (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Resubmission of page: "Hes3 Signaling Axis"
Hi, Darkwind.

Thanks for the recommendations. We also talked with another Editor who was online and got advice in terms of removing jargon and making the article more accessible to a general readership. We have now resubmitted it. Will it go back to you or another Editor for a re-evaluation?

Best, AndreasKyttaro AndreasKyttaro (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you change the tag on the page to resubmit it for approval, it goes into the queue with all the other submissions, so anyone could review it. I'll see about taking a look at it later today. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "La Luz del Mundo". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  16:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Account creator rights
Hi Darkwind, I noticed you granted account creator rights to. This user does not have ACC toolserver access, and based on their limited editing history, I would think it unlikely access would be granted if requested. Am I missing something here? Because otherwise this editor is not eligible for this enhanced user-right. Pol430  talk to me  22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ACCP, he's eligible as a participant in the Education Program; his request mentioned that he needed to create accounts for entire class rosters. He doesn't need ACC access because that's not the nature of his need for the user right. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So it does... Wow, that was a bold and recent change to WP:ACCP -- I'm surprised there wasn't a little more discussion over it, and that this was not mentioned on the ACC mailing list. Thanks for the explanation though. Pol430   talk to me  22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was visiting this talk page to thank Darkwind for his timely implementation of the user right. Please both rest assured that the account creation tools will not be over-utilized, though they may appear underutilized until the new semester.  I follow WP guidelines pretty darn strictly, so I assure you both that I will not abuse the privileges, and I appreciate the note that it is not a status symbol; I realize that.  I don't think anything on Wikipedia is, to be honest - Pol430 is absolutely correct that edit records speak for themselves.  I hope to continue to contribute positively, and I truly do appreciate your help and discussion on making the choice that you feel is best for Wikipedia!  Best to you both, and I will be sure to be in touch if I have questions!--Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

RM backlog
As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

editing chagga people
Sources for Ernest Massawe notable businesspersons http://www.acbtz.com/index.php/en/investors-home/investors/erncon-holdings-limited http://www.swala-energy.com/who-we-are/management-directors/

Sources for Zadoock Koola http://www.zekgroup.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=18

I wonder why is a Historian Mtui be put under notable business person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geza ulole 69 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

About Guntur city
Hi, i have recently seen that guntur has an area of 230 sq.km,,its officialy written in guntur municipalcorporation.org..and its written in ur wikipedia that it is 23 sq.km,,how can a city be that much smaller,,once check it,,,and correct it,,,,thank u  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.211.51 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Larry Decker
Hi, I noticed that you just blocked him for a day. I wonder whether this was necessary given that Larry hasn't edited for one week. It looks to me like he has abandoned the account so we might just leave it alone. I won't unblock him, but I thought I'd weigh in here. De728631 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I already unblocked him. For some reason, I wasn't thinking of today's date correctly... &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind, could've happened to me as well :) De728631 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Himanshu
I did remove it for a reason and I put why in the talk page. I will gladly go into more detail though. I'll assume there's a good reason it moves you to "The Moon" but there are actual Himanshus that because of this redirect are much harder to find. If the page is deleted it is easier to find (So that the Go will be like the Search Button) or there should be made a disambiguation page. ErdoSa (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to respond ErdoSa (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted on your talk page yesterday morning already. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 14:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute about Sandis Ozoliņš which you handled at RFPP
Hello Darkwind. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It looks like the same issue was reported at both RFPP and AN3, and the RFPP was closed first. Would you mind taking a look at the AN3 report to see if you would consider changing the protection to semi? It appears that the edit war is from the side of the IPs, who may all be the same person. User:Resolute's comment in the AN3 is a good summary of the background. Thanks for any conclusion you may reach. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are editors involved in the dispute who are (auto)confirmed, and semi-protection would mean that those editors could continue to edit the page while the IPs cannot, which would privilege the registered editors over the unregistered editors in this dispute -- prohibited by WP:SEMI. Basically the way I read WP:PP, if it's not clearly vandalism, and one or more editors involved in the dispute are confirmed or autoconfirmed, then full protection is the only option that is equally fair to all sides. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The AN3 complaint is now closed per your protection. I realize that notifying the two IPs under WP:ARBEE is a further option to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and gave them both a uw-sanctions just in case this persists after the protection expires (or if they misbehave on the talk page). Thanks for reminding me about that case! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

122.62.226.243
You blocked a while back. I notice that this editor is particularly disruptive and argumentative, possibly uniquely so - so unique in fact that my inbuilt duck detector is going quack quack quack. Take a look at User talk:Bridge Boy. I'm pretty certain these two are one and the same. And this is a user who has almost certainly used other accounts before that with a similar MO - he picks a topic and obsesses about it to the point that it really starts to wind up other editors. He seems to get off on it. Very strange and worthy of some investigation methinks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Location on other side of world means I may be wrong. Still a dick though. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

aspartame
Here is the link, http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/10/06/aspartame-damages-the-brain-at-any-dose/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/19/the-shocking-story-of-how-aspartame-became-legal/

i posted it under Safety and approval controversies not encyclopedias. Why was it removed, it was respectable and good info from a reliable source.

I also noted that some people consider aspartame deadly at any does, why was that removed from the summary (first paragraph)?

very suspicious, and how quick - are you aware of the facts or bound by your job? because the facts were just updated and then removed, so just wondering why??

-a

70.113.202.135 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Collective-evolution.com is not a reliable source, and without one, your edits represent solely the addition of a biased point of view. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: 24.180.79.10
Hi Darkwind. Pls revoke the above IP's talk page editing rights as they are being abused. Thanks in advance. Jschnur (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

MPAA Kyle
Hello, Darkwind. I would like to confer with you about another user, MPAA Kyle, whom I don't know if I should take to WP:usernames for administrator attention, but who has admitted to working for the MPAA. He claims to want to stick to talk pages (he seems to have stuck to that claim, at least with this). Anyway, what I want to ask is, what exactly should be done about him? I'm not familiar with what WP's guidelines have to say about this specific situation, so I thought an admin (like yourself) would know exactly what to do. Like I said, I don't want to report him to be blocked, and that's because I don't know whether or not he should be. Anyway, thanks for your time! Greengreengreen red  23:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That username is fine, as it clearly identifies a particular individual and does not imply shared use (see the 3rd bullet point at WP:ISU for clarification). Conflict of interest guidelines are separate, and it would not be out of line to check up on his contributions from time to time to ensure he's not editing articles in a non-neutral way.  Other than that, nothing in particular needs to be done. Thanks for checking! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information; it was much appreciated! Greengreengreen  red  04:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

YouSendIt
Thanks for that. Based on edits like this one, I believe that IP has a WP:COI. Puts me in a weird position where I am acting in a COI capacity to deal with other COIs with potentially competing interests ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Upper Island Cove Edit
Hi,

I recently made an edit to the Upper Island Cove page, adding some notable residents. I am an inhabitant of this community and these people are actually residents, so I wonder if you could please allow the edit to go through.

Thanks so much.

174.116.57.236 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be familiar with the Wikipedia notion of "notability". In basic form, for a list of "notable residents", they at least need to have their own Wikipedia articles to be considered notable enough to add to a list of notable residents.  That is, no "red links" are allowed in a section of "notable residents" (or graduates, employees, etc.). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry Ilous
Hi this is terry Ilous I would like to know why you deleted my page Thank you T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.8.107 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I did not delete the page myself; it was deleted by because it was a clear copyright infringement of information posted on LinkedIn.  If the material is published online, we must automatically assume it is copyrighted due to the way US copyright law works.  The fact that the page author claimed to have permission to use the material is largely irrelevant to the deletion (see Donating copyrighted materials if you want to release the material under a free license for use at Wikipedia and elsewhere). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BMW 2 Series
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Five months on, there may now be sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
mabdul 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman bio
You commented on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zack Norman so I wanted to let you know I found more sources and I think the guy is notable. However, I think the article needs to be trimmed per WP:NOR and expanded with not-so-flattering material per NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ruski car.bmp
Regarding that photo that we couldn't trace the permission, please check OTRS #2011080310003072, it could be it. If it is from Zoran Zivotic then it should be undeleted.--Avala (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you get to check this?--Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I've been quite busy elsewhere the past few weeks. I'll take a look at it today. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's difficult for me to interpret because that ticket is in Serbian, but going by Google's translation, it seems that the permission is not specific enough for English Wikipedia copyright policy. The permissions given in the ticket apply to images used at fr.wiki, which may have a more permissive policy.  Unfortunately, nowhere in the ticket does Mr. Zivotic actually say "I agree to release my images under [a free license]." &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Burmese Cuisine
Hi there!

I just recently edited "Burmese Cuisine" article on Wikipedia, and I have noticed that you added some unsourced information a while ago as well. Since I can read burmese quite fluently, perphaps I could find resources to those information that you have posted. Lets help each other out to build a better article on "Burmese Cusine." Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushioncsc104 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The bug is fixed, another additional two also. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 14:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC) <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 14:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why delete Yap Kwong Weng's Account without addressing reasons?
Hi Darkwind, can you explain why you deleted Yap Kwong Weng's account without providing substantial reasons that were put forward by other people that stated so? Did you have evidence of puppetry? If so, please state it upfront. Otherwise, it is unprofessional to do so using your deductions put forward. Thanks.173.9.42.13 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)David


 * Consensus is formed not by counting votes, but by assessing the strength of the arguments made. There were no sources provided by any of the various people commenting in favor of keeping the article, so the argument that the article's subject is non-notable was much stronger.


 * Additionally, it is a known, well-proven point that a significant number of SPA accounts participating in a particular discussion is a very strong indication of puppetry. Wikipedia's typical readers do not generally comment on deletion discussions if they are not already Wikipedia editors, so having brand-new accounts come to comment is a very strong indication that those are either duplicate accounts of a particular editor ("sockpuppets"), or real live people recruited by an editor solely for the purpose of commenting on the deletion discussion ("meatpuppets").


 * However, please note that any possible puppetry was not a factor in my decision anyway, because it doesn't matter whether the arguments were made by one person, or many long-term editors; the fact remains that the arguments to keep the article hold no weight under Wikipedia policy, because no sources were provided to back up those assertions. I mentioned puppetry solely to assist other administrators who may have come to evaluate my closing during a deletion review.


 * At any rate, if you believe that I have erred in my assessment of the consensus of this discussion, you are welcome to inquire at deletion review. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dletetion of The Funkadactyls.
Hi, I am wondering wwy did you delte the page The Funkadactyls. The issue was an edit war between me & HHH Pedigree. I tried to resolve it but he didn't respond to my request. Could you either why you deleted the page? Also could undo it & tell HHH Pedigree to respond to my request so we could have the problem resolved but still have the page up; kinda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ8946 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * First, please remember to sign your comments on discussion and talk pages by typing " ~ " after your comment. Second, I deleted the page because that was the consensus that was reached at Articles for deletion/The Funkadactyls, and I was the admin who closed the discussion.  It had nothing to do with any edit warring. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Userfy
Can you userfy "Come Now Sleep", "As Cities Burn EP (2002)" and "As Cities Burn EP (2003)" if no one has already done so? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done: User:Jax 0677/Come Now Sleep User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2002) User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2003) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Somaya Reece deletion
There does not appear to be consensus to delete, let alone salt, in Articles for deletion/Somaya Reece (4th nomination). There are 3 users for keeping the article and 3 for deleting. The re-created article was created primarily on notabilily (or alleged notability) of activities since the last deletion discussion, and so salting does not appear to be warranted in any event. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As an admin yourself, you especially should know that deletion discussions are not a vote, and it does not matter how many people were for or against an action. What matters is the strength of each side's argument in the context of the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * In this case, the guidelines at hand were WP:BIO and WP:ENT, and as the nominator and others pointed out, there were insufficient reliable sources in the article to meet either of those guidelines. The coverage in those sources is trivial at best, with the one exception of the OC Register article, and one article does not notability make.  Your rebuttals, that there was indeed sufficient coverage, did not hold nearly as much weight after I went to look at the sources.  Therefore, the successful argument was "delete".


 * Regarding my decision to salt, as you already know, that is within my latitude as an admin under WP:PP. The article has been created and deleted six times, and at no point were enough changes made to satisfy the concerns brought up at the article's previous AfDs. It was time to stop the merry-go-round.  It's not like salting is permanent -- not only did I set it to expire after a year, but if someone wants to recreate the article with sufficient sources before then, they can draft it in userspace and ask me (as the protecting admin) to review it, or have it reviewed at AfC or WP:RFUP.


 * If you still believe I erred in judgement for the decision to delete, you're more than welcome to file for review at Deletion review. If you think my decision to salt was in error, you can go ahead and revert the protection. Given that there's no ego involved in any of my admin decisions, I won't be upset if I get overturned at DRV or if I get reverted otherwise. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I do know they are not a vote, but this one was closed as if consensus had been reached, when no consensus is apparent. I will open the DR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Somaya Reece
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Somaya Reece. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

dcfldd article
Mind me understanding something here, why did you mark the page for merge or deletion if Articles_for_deletion/Dcfldd indicates 3 "Keep" vs 2 delete/merge otherwise.. ? I'd like to see what I've missed.. thanks.. Swestlake (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Deletion discussions are not a vote. Consensus is judged by the strength of the arguments on each side in context with existing Wikipedia policy, not by counting votes. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage of dcfldd in reliable, independent sources to justify a separate article for it.


 * Also, if you look at the three !votes that say keep, two of the three actually are saying "keep or merge", so even by headcount, merge was the most common recommendation. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much for me to bring out my points. But honestly the system is not working here because I opened and followed instructions to the word as much as I can. I opened completely a discussion on dcfldd's talkpage and nobody participated. What is the point of Afd's template system for trying to get people to use an article's talkpage if nobody uses it? I'm just trying to understand the process and I would of brought up that dcfldd is not popularly known, which does not make sense to look at things as Google Scholar. From the way I understand it, the tool has to be popular in order for it to be included in it's own article. There's enough distinction from my full understanding of dcfldd to have it's own article, because look at all the other forks of programs on wikipedia. This utility 'dcfldd' is not a POSIX standard as implied in dd's introductory, so there's many things that could of been talked about on dcfldd's talkpage. My suggestion is next time look at the article's talkpage. Thanks for your feedback... Swestlake (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thank you! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hindutva/Hindu Taliban
Per a request at WP:AN, I've closed a merger discussion at Talk:Hindutva; the proposal was to merge Hindu Taliban into it, which obviously isn't going to happen because of the latter's AFD. I'm not asking you to do anything, but I'm here because my closing statement included instructions for people to contact you if they think that there were potentially mergeable bits in the deleted article. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I made the same offer in the AfD closure as well. Thanks for letting me know! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the white noise a tale of horror article
I'm sorry but did you even bother to be in the discussion rather then just delete my article -_0 you can voice yourself on the talk page but i guess you didn't bother to do that either --Indienews (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you still there i didn't receive the conseces on my article? so i am asking why was it deleted? --Indienews (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * First, you absolutely must try to avoid language like "my article". Wikipedia articles are contributed to and by the community, and experienced Wikipedia editors take a very dim view of any perceived attempts at article ownership.  I understand you're concerned about the article and likely upset that you feel your work was "thrown away", but other editors might just assume you're being egotistical.  Use phrases like "the XYZ article" etc. instead.


 * As for the discussion, it seems you're not familiar with the process of how deletion discussions are completed here. An uninvolved administrator, that is, one who has not participated in the discussion, will read the discussion and evaluate the consensus, if any, that formed during the discussion. (See the 3rd bullet point at WP:CLOSEAFD for clarification.) That admin will then take the appropriate action, if any, based on that consensus.


 * To put it more clearly, the administrator who closes the discussion almost never comments or participates during that discussion. The assessment of the discussion must be made by an admin who isn't involved, and thus doesn't have any emotional interest in the outcome.


 * If you believe that I made a mistake in judging the consensus to delete the article, you can certainly inquire at deletion review. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment: Also, please understand that Wikipedians' actions or comments in relation to a particular article have no bearing on their feelings toward or about the article's subject. I personally like a lot of games from small and/or indie studios, and wish that there were a good way to promote them to a wider audience -- but that doesn't mean that I can let an article about such a game stay on Wikipedia in violation of both policy and community consensus. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess i understand, i'm mostly a gamer hermit and if communcation is not reached then i act out and yes i should at least let it go i don't want to cause any trouble since wikipedia is the hardest thing i dealt with other then normal wikis that are separated in vice versa, my authority figure King Fredrick VI is an adminstrator on multiple wikis but since i have not heard from him i began loosing a since of authority or restraintment all i had was myself and i might get lucky if i do get a message if somebody is vandalising or trying to use fowl language in the comments section. i do not know exactly if i have schizophenia, anxiety or egotistic? --Indienews (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank Burns
Hello Darkwind. Thank you for closing the Frank Burns RM. Don't you think that your closing statement (a fair reading of the discussion) mandates the move, in that no consensus for a primary topic means that there is no primary topic? --SmokeyJoe (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "No consensus as to which topic is primary" is entirely different from "consensus that there is no primary topic". In this discussion, we have the former, not the latter. Nobody in the discussion proposed rearranging the dab page and redirects to have no primary topic. Absent that consensus, the advice in the RM closing instructions takes precedence:


 * ... If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens.


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nobody in the discussion proposed rearranging the dab page and redirects to have no primary topic". Maybe I'm slightly confused, it was a long nomination, but I read the nomination as proposing exactly that, and then read your close as a catch 22. If I were to start a new nomination to meet your requirement, what would it say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I mis-stated that, partially because nobody actually phrased it as "there should not be a primary topic for this name". Re-reading the nomination and discussion, you're right, that's effectively what the nominator proposed; that still doesn't change the fact that there was no consensus formed on practically any of the points raised.


 * Most of the "support" !votes did not cite any accurate policy-based reason for removing the primary topic (neither "a fictional character should not be primary", nor "someone's already done some of the work", nor "the destination of the redirect is too big of a page" are based in policy), or if they did, they provided little to no evidence to back up their assertions. Meanwhile, while the "oppose" !votes were more convincing in terms of evidence, the volume of dissatisfaction with the current arrangement from the "support" side ruled out a closure in favor of the "opposes". There was no consensus as to whether or not a primary topic exists for this name, and therefore, since the existing title is stable, no action is taken.


 * If you think I made an error in judgement, you're certainly welcome to post at move review for another admin to look it over. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think your summary of the discussion is fine, and your decision to take no action is the best reading of policy.  At Move Review, I’d endorse your close.  I’m thinking that a fresh RM would be along the lines that: “As there is a finding of no consensus for a primary topic, we should default to no primary topic.”  I’ll think about it.  There is no rush.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Descent (mathematics)
You obviously have a different view of Consensus to me. In the discussion you closed as "(requested move; consensus at Talk:Descent (mathematics))" I see three editors, one proposing the move, one agreeing and one (myself) disagreeing and giving cogent reasons. I would not call that a consensus. But I have better things to do than pursue the matter further. Deltahedron (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Recreation of an article deleted per discussion
Two things:
 * 1) Recently you deleted Hindu taliban but then it was recreated as a redirect of Saffron Terror.
 * 2) Not only that, this mysteriously infrequent user has edited wikipedia months after his comments at Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (2nd nomination) and his first edit was to create Hindu Jihad (absolutely implausible redirect) as a redirect to saffron terror. </ol>These two intrinsically represent a contentious POV. And the amazing thing is the target page saffron terror doesn't even mention the phrases "Hindu Jihad" or "Hindu Taliban" as of now. These pejorative terms are not discussed at the target, nor at any of the articles linked from the target page. See Christian Taliban-redirect was deleted with same rationale. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ <sup style="color:green;">(New thread?) ] 11:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that the new page is a redirect and not substantially the same as the deleted version, and that the discussion did not address whether or not a redirect would be appropriate in place of the deleted article, G4 doesn't apply here. While I might agree with your reasoning, I can't just up and delete either or both of the redirects. You'll need to list them at WP:RFD. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

CSG#G6 for RM
Darkwind, thank you for your recent assistance with my G6 requests to make room for a move, and then subsequently going back to properly close out the move request. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

redirect
Regardless of what was said at the AfD, I think the redirect of Los Angeles International Extra Virgin Olive Oil Competition to Food competition makes no sense whatever, when it isn't even mentioned in the article. Perhaps it would have made sense to merge to a list of food competitions, but a redirect like this is useless. I know I can fix it myself by adding some material, and I will. I'm also going to start a discussion somewhere about the rationale of such redirects.  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)