User talk:Decltype/Archive 10

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation. I should note, however, that I am not comfortable with the idea that "participation (...) is by invitation only". Everyone who wants to contribute should be free to do so. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * neither is anyone else :) I was naive to write it that way, and rewrote the invitation a few hours later and sent it out to a few editors. This went to ANI today, so to avoid any more misunderstanding, I am rewriting all the invitations.

Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit

 * Thank you so much! It feels a bit undeserved at the moment, but rest assured that I have many Norwegian subjects that I plan to write about when time permits. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your very welcome. Rest assured that the award was given based on an evaluation of long-term efforts and quality of work. Looking forward to your continued fine contributions. Manxruler (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter
The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Decltype. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Will see if I can bring something constructive to the debate. decltype (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Polhøgda
FYI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. The article is neat, which is unsurprising, considering the fact that two of the most prolific Norwegian content contributors worked on it. decltype (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After I posted a note here I noticed there is quite a lot of Norwegian content work going on. good to see. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is indeed a small group of very dedicated and thorough editors who write about Norwegian topics. We're a small country, but I feel that we're well-represented on en.wp. decltype (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re printf, oops. ps I added a comment to the end too.
By the way, I got there via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_commands#List

printf	Shell programming	Write formatted output	4.3BSD-Reno

which sent me to

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Printf_(Unix)&action=edit&redlink=1

Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. ...

What could you do to help send this to a better place??

Thanks for your efforts.

Dennis —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying at your talk. decltype (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

re:Speedy deletion declined: Al Chaek
Hello, decltype. Thank you for the notification. I hit the wrong parameter when I added the template to the totally unsourced article with questionable notability. I thought I could click every buttons pertinent to the article's poor status quo. That was my first time tagging the template with the Twinkle tool. Anyway, I googled the person's name before the tagging, but all I could see was an entry at IMDb, so the article both fails its notability and WP:V regardless of the claim appeared on the article. So well, I still think that the article should be deleted, but you may have other opinions. Regards.--Caspian blue 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying on your page. decltype (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey decltype, hur mar du? I hope you can help me with something. I'm trying to fix Second Unitarian Church (Brooklyn, New York), which is a terrible mess, without deleting too much. One of the problems is the images: they have names like untitled1.jpg, and I don't think I can rename them (that is, there's no "Move" button under my Twinkle pull-down). Can you do something there, with your unlimited administrative powers? Maybe a quick renaming based on the content of the images, as best as you can judge? Anything better than those names! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, will take a look. decltype (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the "untitled" from the image titles, and attempted to correct their license tags. File:The entrance to the Second Unitarian Church in Brooklyn.png seems to be a copyrighted image unlikely to meet WP:NFCC so I tagged it for deletion. decltype (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you so much! I'm always a bit at a loss with those files, and know little about licenses. It is correct that you could do this 'cause you're an admin, right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, admins recently got the ability to move files. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

<--Do you mind doing another one--Photoshop.jpg, used on Dar Al-Hekma College? Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the star! Glad I could be of help. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA nom
Hi decltype. If you're still willing to nominate me for adminship, I'd like to run again now. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your page. decltype (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination decltype :). I've gone ahead and transcluded the RfA. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Let's hope it goes well. decltype (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:-)

 * ;-)  Anna Lincoln  09:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying at your talk page. decltype (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

 * As a side note, I don't regret expressing that I've observed so many uncivil admins. Even one admin with a talk page sprinkled with curt replies to other users is too many!  Thank you for not falling into that category!--otherlleft 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk shortly. decltype (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, wish I had left you a note first - I made it a point to get help building the table and then missed a couple of crucial characters in the paste. Best go back and fix that!
 * Your feedback is really appreciated. I too agree that the vast majority of editors are completely courteous and pleasant, and we have good tools for dealing with the rest.  Admins don't seem to get feedback about incivility until it's almost too late to address the problem, which is what gives me pause.  Sorry about the table!--otherlleft 13:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll place my reply on your page again. I did so originally since I wasn't sure if you had watchlisted this page. decltype (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I automatically watch pages I edit, but as the watchlist grows the likelihood of missing replies does too! I don't think you made more work for me - you gave me a chance to inflate my edit count ;)  --otherlleft 14:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yes that's one way to look at it, I suppose. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation
User: - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying at your page, for your convenience, feel free to continue the conversation there. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined
Hello decltype, I agree with your decision to decline the deletion. I apologize about the tag. I had jumped the gun because at the time of tagging the page only included a stub tag. I rarely make this mistake and I again apologize that it happened to you. They say learning from mistakes makes you a better person and I thank you for bringing this one to my attention. Good luck on your article and all the ones to come.  Dspradau   → talk   00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re on your talk. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually was referring to anything Wiki related. I think I ended my message with the closing I would use for user who created their first article. Had my thoughts crossed. Just the best of luck to you! Cheers!  Dspradau   → talk   01:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
GorillaWarfare talk 04:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

-- GorillaWarfare  talk 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

El Duce
You're right, the official website says so. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for notifying. It is of course wrong to synthesize or draw conclusions from primary source material so it was a good idea to investigate it. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging histories
Hej decltype. Hur är läget? :) Do you know if it's possible to merge the history of User:Theleftorium/Sandbox3 (starting from January 5) with Al Jean?  The left orium  22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible :) However, I wouldn't recommend it, as your revisions will be intertwined with the others', and it will look a bit odd, I think. I can add all your revisions from Feb 8+, if you want. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's okay. Thanks though. :)  The left orium  23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Team Bohe
Joshua Scott (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter
The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Rybka
Would you consider shortening this semi-protection? Most of the contributions to this article are from anonymous editors, and we aren't having any problem WP:RBIing the one vandal. causa sui ×  16:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about most of the contributions to the article coming from anonymous editors, except for the addition of original research, but I agree with the principle that semi-protection should not be longer than necessary. I'll lift semi for now. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IPPOLIT
You might want to briefly salt IPPOLIT and/or warn the article creator. It's been recreated repeatedly by User:Oztmandias‎, who appears to have copied the source of the page to his user page so he can recreate it at a moment's notice. I left an explanation on his talk, but additional input would not go amiss. Thanks for the help! &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I considered it, but decided to wait. If it's recreated again by someone else, I'll definitely create-protect, unless someone else does. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Firebird
To be clear, so we can hold you to that promise. We will write an article for Chess Life Magazine highlighting the strength of Firebird. Since we have a regular column at that magazine it will be published. This will constitute an independent and noteworthy source, and therefore the wikipedia page will be reinstated?

Signed, Cory Evans International Master Larry D. Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.171.231 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this were to happen, then a new article could be written using the magazine article as a source. I am just an individual editor. The decision to delete an article is determined by consensus. But in this case I would argue in favor of keeping the article. I am well aware of the virtues of Firebird, but so far, those arguing in favor of keeping the article have not been able to substantiate their claims with anything but what we consider unreliable sources.[1] Regards, <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback notice
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I replied to your message. Minima c  ( talk ) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinernes Skiklub Svartor
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a speedy candidate, but without access to the offline sources I can't tell how the article would fare at AfD.  (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance of notability
I noticed that you removed a speedy deletion tag from International series of poker, with the edit summary "Speedy deletion declined. The director is notable - use PROD or AfD instead". I do find this rather odd. The issue is whether International series of poker is notable, not whether its director is notable, which is not the same thing at all. Yes, I know, of course, that CSD A7 is about "importance or significance", not "notability", but that does not alter the essential point: because a director is significant it does not follow that anything and everything he has ever done is significant. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that not everything a notable person does is in itself notable, or even "important or significant", but in general, I do see involvement by a bluelinked entity (not itself tagged for speedy) as a credible, albeit sometimes weak, claim to importance or significance.  (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bear
I listed it for afd, but I just discovered it's a copyvio, so I've tagged it accordingly. Woogee (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, good catch, and sorry for the extra trouble!  (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. Woogee (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Canonical Protocol Pattern
Ok, my bad I guess the article wasn't entirely promotional. I do think there's something fishy going on though because it only cited works by Thomas Erl, and was written by an account who only writes articles that only cite Thomas Erl, and I can't find anything about these topics from authors not named Thomas Erl... so the AFD should be interesting Cathardic (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, from a quick search Erl's name frequently turns up in conjuction with the CPP. However, I also found for instance a mention in SOA Magazine by Dennis E. Wisnosky. My gut feeling says it's notable. I'll conduct some further research before I comment in the AfD.  (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

db-r2 of Talk:Geber
Many thanks for picking up my erroneous addition of db-r2 at Talk:Geber and correcting my fumbling attempts at following correct procedure.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to help! Regards,  (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just a stub
Is there a clear policy or accepted convention regarding links to online sources that require registration to access? I'm almost certain I can replace the source with a more accessable site, but I do not want to unilaterally make the change without some confidence that I'm not breaking some rule or convention. I'm seeing lots of gray areas as I venture into "real" editing, so I'll understand if there's no clear-cut answer. Thanks  Tide  rolls  05:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a source that does not require registration and leave the original in place. Two sources should be no problem, but I'm still curious about the situation. Thanks  Tide  rolls  05:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there's WP:PAYWALL. Generally, offline sources, or sources that are otherwise more difficult to access than web resources are considered just as good, for WP:V purposes. I think it is beneficial to add an easily accessible source if one exists, as it makes it more easy for readers to verify the information, but I would not recommend replacing the other source unless they are duplicates.  (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Requesting a third opinion
Greetings, Administrator Decltype

How are you?

Recently, a dispute has occurred between me and on DivX article, which, if I put it briefly, still persists. An administrator (I don't remember his name. Perhaps Black Kite?) has proposed that I should seek one of the methods of dispute resolution. So, I invite you, a neutral party, to give us a Third opinion.

I propose this addition:
 * "DivX Plus Player has native support for playback of DivX files (.divx), AVI files (.avi), Matroska files (.mkv), MP4 files (.mp4), QuickTime Video files (.mov) and Windows Media Video files (.wmv), as well as .srt, .ssa and .ass subtitle files. DivX Plus Player also provides extended support for playing AVCHD video, MPEG-1 video, MPEG-2 video and RMVB files but requires appropriate DirectShow components."

While proposes this sentence instead (to fully replace mine):
 * "DivX Plus Player has native support for playback of files in a variety of formats."

Reflist:

I argue that J. M.'s edit is weasel word – or at least vague – as it gives no information to user whatsoever. (User thinks: Oh, that much I could guess. What formats?) You can read J. M.'s counter-arguments in the DivX talk page.

You are invited to give a third opinion: Which of those edit do you think is better? Please choose.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think 's wording constitutes weaseling or is in direct violation of any other guideline or policy. That said, Show, don't tell, is a important principle, and rather than editorializing, we should strive to simply present the facts and let the readers reach the conclusions. Perhaps in this case it is a bit better to just state the player's capabilities, rather than the somewhat vague "variety of formats". Either way, it is a rather silly thing to edit-war over. Discussion is key.  (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I take it that you refrain to give a WP:Third opinion. (Sigh!) It is surprising how difficult things are in Wikipedia. Cheers.Fleet Command (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I did give my honest opinion — I thought that was what you wanted. You can still make an entry semi-anonymously at the page you linked if you want, WP:3O, that is. Admittedly Wikipedia can be difficult at times. I've found that focusing on the big picture rather than less important details help. The article has quite a few larger issues that are more important than the wording in question. Regards,  (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that? Oh, normally, it'd have been a sufficient answer. But in this case, I am afraid I need an explicit answer. It's a WP:ANI case. But never mind. You are not the first one to refrain from an explicit answer. I think I am not going to try another administrator.


 * I guess I'll just let J. M.'s edit to remain. He will probably report me to WP:ANI and will eventually succeed in banning me permanently for failing to rectify the matter... Well... I guess there is an end to everything. Fleet Command (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be a very good idea to not pursue this any further. No one's reporting anyone to ANI, and no one is being permanently banned. There is no matter to rectify. You edit-warred, and were blocked for a short period of time. As long as you do not repeat the offense, nothing bad will happen. Regards,  (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? You want me to believe that if I abandon the matter, nothing happens? N.O.T.H.I.N.G.? No offense, but you do realize that April the 1st was 8 days ago, don't you? Fleet Command (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Deleting
Please don't delete this page. It is for a new music artist who, although he hasn't produced any music to my knowledge, is in preparation of doing so. He is a new upcoming artist, but not necessarily a commercial one. From what I know, he isn't going to sell any of his music or make physical albums, but distribute them as free mp3s on well-known blogs and sites like 'Last.fm'. He is needing this Wikipedia Page so he can become known. He is similar to the artist 'Danger' in that he wants to be mysterious and secretive, but instead he wants a Wikipedia page. I am a dear friend of Snø, and I'm making this for him as a favour.

I am unsure of this 'notability' you want me to add. I've added references from a friend's blog who is slowly going to leak info about Snø under his permission. Thats enough reference I think.

Snø isn't yet noted for any albums or music just yet. All because he is an emerging music artist. Though on http://headbangersnmash.blogspot.com/2010/04/sn-artist.html it is mentioned that he is currently working on an album 'Submerged'. He isn't an official artist yet, just an experimental one.

Both he, and I would like his page to stay. Thankyou.

I find your reasons for deleting the page to be unjust and unfair. Snø isn't a notable music artist. His intentions are to be a music artist well known on the internet, not via newspaper or producing physical copies of albums. All his albums will be free to download.

He isn't 'notable' yet because he hasn't released any albums just yet. I'll say it again, he is just starting. He doesn't need to have made any albums yet to be on Wikipedia. He just wants to be on Wikipedia to help with his reputation on the internet.

Please be patient until he releases his album 'Submerged', and until then, I ask you to not delete his Page.

Renegadesoldier94 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Renegadesoldier94. I understand that the deletion may seem unfair to you, but all our articles must meet the relevant guideline for inclusion - in the case of Snø, WP:BAND. Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting subjects that are not yet notable, it is for entities that have already risen to notability and received coverage in third-party, reliable sources. You are more than welcome to create an article on Snø if he or she does indeed rise to prominence, but he or she is not currently eligible for an entry. Regards,  (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, keep in mind that writing about subjects with which you have a close relationship may pose some difficulties. If there are other topics you would like to contribute to, you are more than welcome to do so.  (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up message
Hello,

You left a message on my talk page while I was away. Please note that I have now replied to your comments underneath where you left them. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll have a look right away.  (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:M/Reword
Hi Decltype, I've been trying to use User:M/Reword. I've added the relevant line to User:Jayen466/monobook.js, but when I Ctrl-highlight article text, nothing happens. I've tried it in three different browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE), all with the same result. Any ideas? I have a few gadgets switched on in my preferences (switching all of them off didn't help), and am not using beta. (I'm posting this to your talk page because you are mentioned by name on User:M/Reword.) Cheers, -- JN 466  09:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... There's a few things you can try - does the old version work for you?

importScript('User:Auto/reword.js'); (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thank you very much, I'll use that. :) -- JN 466  10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. Reword2 has a more "stylish" UI, but is otherwise similar. If you still want to make it work, you may want to try importing jQuery manually.  (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I'll bear that in mind. -- JN 466  02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: user:DW Adnimistrator 's redirects, improper page creations
This Adnimistrator is a pure vandalism only account. His contributions read like a vandal assailant. I did not know what board to list it as WP:AIV is only for recent and it only rose to level four tonight. Morenooso (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, you just deleted one of its attack redirects. --Morenooso (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Yes, I have deleted several of the user's redirects, and I have blocked him or her for disruption. Regards,  (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like you beat me to the punch! Ooh, ooh, I could go for some punch right now. . . Morenooso (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess I did! :) See you around,  (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy problem
Hi there, I noticed that you're on speedy patrol at the moment and thought I would direct you to this page: Ross Csemez. I've tagged it as a non-notable speedy but he removed it (and expanded it a bit). I also tried tagging it as a BLP prod but he removed that too. So, instead of just keeping on inserting tags and hoping an admin sees it to review it before he removes the tag again, I wanted to bring it directly to an active admin's attention. Thanks for the consideration. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Since the page creator is not allowed to remove speedy deletion templates themselves, you can simply re-instate the template, and notify the author with uw-speedy1 (escalating as necessary). Of course, it is perfectly fine to try normal communication such as you did rather than using templates. But in any case, a speedy template can be re-added if it was removed by the article's creator. Regards,  (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Robin Söderling
Hi Decltype, as both you and me have seen, Söderlings page is under dishonest and uninformative editing regarding his rivalry with Rafael Nadal. I've been editing Söderlings page for over 18 months and have always held a high editing level. But it's no fun when supporters of Rafael Nadal are just "mangling" Söderlings page with non objective information. I've searched the internet when looking for references and they've been always objective. But still anonymous editors does not care about that, they are only trying to ruin a very nice wikipedia article. My question to you is, what's it gonna take to semi-protect Robins wiki page and what guidelines does wikipedia look into in matters like these? And another question, in my opinion it's a very good article so how does and article get rewarded with a little star in the corner? I'm not saying it's perfect but it's a good article :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kribiboy (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, there's been a few unconstructive edits, but I do not see anything warranting semi-protection at this time, YMMV. I think most anonymous editors are trying to contribute constructively, that's why we keep the number of semi-protected articles as low as possible. The star symbolizes that the article is of featured quality. To attain this status it has to undergo a review at WP:FAC. Robin Söderling is an informative and useful article, but is not currently of featured quality. The WikiProject_Tennis/Assessment department may have more information on how the article's quality can be improved - the most immediate problem that I can see currently, is that much of the information is unsourced. Regards,   (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

speedy tag
Hello, just responding to the vasa syndrome tag. When I saw it initially, it was unorganized and I saw all sorts of varied references, including various and seemingly unrelated paragraphs. I would have withdrawn the tag if I saw the progress. Sorry about that. -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re on your talk.  (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter
The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Hurricane Victim Help posting
With all due respect I don't understand the deletion of this article based on it being "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person."

The site "promoted" in the article is a free, non-profit database of people offering temporary housing to those rendered homeless by disasters. The site contains no display, search, adwords or advertising of any kind.

Most important it does not -- emphatically DOES NOT -- consist of "advertising" as defined by Wikipedia for the following reasons:

1. Wiki defines advertising as "A form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action." Neither the article or the site that is the subject of the article attempts to "persuade" anyone to do anything whatsoever ... both the article and the site describe and offer a public service. No one is urged, badgered, cajoled, importuned, or begged to use it.

2. Wiki further states that advertising "includes the name of a product or service and how that product or service could benefit the consumer, to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume that particular brand." Again, while the article and the website do include the name of a public service they do not attempt to persuade "potential customers to purchase" anything. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that can be purchased on the site and therefore, by default, there are no potential customers.

The whole point here is, IMO, that advertising -- at least as defined by Wikipedia, is the process of trying to "sell" something ... The product being "sold" can be a car or it can be an ideology. The method of consummating the sale may involve the transfer of money or it may involve an emotional commitment. Regardless, it must -- according to Wiki -- involve an advertiser trying to "persuade" a potential customer to do something.

Hurricane Victim Help is not trying to sell anything or persuade anyone to do anything. It delivers information about a service that is also not involved in selling or persuasion -- a site that has no advertisers and no customers, only users in the purest sense of the word.

Therefore it does not "qualify" as advertising under Wikipedia's definition and should not be deleted as such. And while it is true that there are other definitions of advertising, it seems incongruous to hold someone to any standard other than Wiki's own on these pages.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekb606 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that are separate from the articles intended for readers. The page was deleted because I felt that it met the "Unambiguous advertising" criterion of the speedy deletion policy. While this can typically be solved by rewriting the article, I did not make an attempt to do so because the subject does not seem to be notable - although I appreciate the idea of someone offering this service for free, every subject on Wikipedia must meet the guidelines for inclusion, with no exceptions. If you can demonstrate that the web service is notable, preferably by citing coverage in independent reliable sources, I'll be more than happy to help you write an article that does not qualify for speedy deletion. Regards,  (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)