User talk:Gazimoff/Archives/2008/September

Bar Association of San Francisco
Hi, you deleted my post for the Bar Association of San Francisco. I have permission from the author and the Bar Association to use the language from the Bar Association's website under GFDL in the post. Should I get a confirmation e-mail from the author to you directly or should I give you the e-mail address of the author to get that confirmation? I'm still learning the ways of wikipedia, didn't realize I needed to have a confirmation e-mail sent directly before posting! Also I would appreciate it if you could send me the deleted post or repost it because I do not have an archived copy with all of the external news links I put in to show its notoriety. Thanks!

Vidontap (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in replying, I only just noticed your post. Essentially, there are a number of problems with the article besides the copyright infringement. The article had a promotional tone and feel, largely as a result of copying the material form the association's website. With WP articles we try to maintain a neutral point of view so it may be a better idea to write the content in your own words. The article alo didn't cite reliable sources for much of its content in order to help support the claim that the association is notable. What I'd encourage you to do is rewrite the article, in your own words, using the information from the various sources to guide you and having very little dependency on the association's own website. If you feel you still need the deleted material for this please let me know and I'll strip out the references and provide them to you. If there's anything else you feel you need, or if youb have any questions, please let me know. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter for August 2008

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hang on status i hadn use
sorry for not using hang on status while creating —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepchandar (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you decide to recreate the article, I'd like to make some suggestions. Firstly, you would need to include reliable sources in order to show that what you're writing about can be verified. You also need to make sure that the company is notable enough for inclusion, with some specific guidelines on corporations here. Finally, you may want to start your article in a sandbox - a subpage in your own area that you can work on an article before moving it into the main encyclopedia when it's done. You can also use the underconstruction template to show a work in progress. There's a tutorial available here on creating articles which may also help you. Hope this helps,  Gazi moff  12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Need source
Could you restored the Talk page of Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India? I mean, talk page only. If you can't, write the source of talk page in User:虞海/Sandbox/Talk:Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India, please? Better to recur the edit history. --虞海 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I should be able to do that for you. Please bear with me one moment while I take care of it for you.  Gazi moff  10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be done, please let me know if there are any problems. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Received, thanks! --虞海 (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can revert the edit history of Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India to User:虞海/Sandbox/Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India, it's a great appreciate.
 * I have a version of it, but I don't have the edit history. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding sooner. I'm a bit wary about performing this, primarily because the article was felt by some to be an attack piece. In order to avoid this n the future, I think it would be better for you to create a new article using the sourcing to guide you, rather than ressurecting a deleted one. Hope this makes sense.  Gazi moff  14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Scapecast
I would like to discuss the Wiki article on The Scapecast, which was deleted on August 6, 2008. The podcast is run by a group of dedicated fans on a non-profit basis, and has gained noteriety in the podcasting community and with the studios/corporations that currently own the licenses to the franchise and show it discusses.

On July 25, 2008, User529 argued for deletion of the article by stating "non notable fancruft podcast. better suited for a farscape wiki. most of the hyperlinks are to external sites (such as episodes of the podcast), WP is for articles, not a free promotional/advertising web host." The podcast has become notable within the community and Farscape franchise, including the creators of the show, the actors, and the writers of the upcoming continuations. This evidence is presented in the show itself by its numerous interviews and interactions from the celebrity level to the fans. Further, by its very nature, the article will contain numerous exterior links as the files that compose the podcast are not hosted at Wikipedia. However, since the show covers connections to the "real world" outside the universe of the show, I propose that the article will further link into the rest of Wikipedia as the article develops.

I also note that User529 no longer exists on this service.

On July 30, 2008, Gotyear argued for keeping the article by stating "It won the Parsec Award for best fan podcast and is linked on the official site," which was countered by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ who stated "The Parsec Award does not sufficiently establish notability; there are no reliable third-party sources." On the contrary, the Parsec Awards are given for podcasting excellence, and are a well-recognized award within the podcasting community. Many notable podcasts, including those run by notable and up-and-coming authors, are included in the ranks of those awarded. The Parsecs are also awarded at Dragon-Con, the most recognized sci-fi/fantasy convention in the world. It seems odd to me that other Parsec winners, such as Tee Morris, Mur Lafferty, and Scott Sigler would be allowed to keep their pages, but the Scapecast would not. The Scapecast was a winner of the award in 2006 and a finalist in 2007. An error within the nomination process forced their withdrawl from the 2008 competition, otherwise they were a finalist there as well. SciFi.com recognizes the Scapecast as a source for information on the series, and notes them on their Farscape site.

I request the article be reinstated so that it can be worked on and developed within the standards of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration and time.

Womprat99 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for taking a while to get back to you. Essentially, the article failed Wikipedia's policy on notability, in that it did not use reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only claim to notability was the Parsec award, but was not referenced and so could not be verified. The remaining content, such as episode lists, promotions and so on came under the policy on what Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not a Directory. With this collection of problems inaddressed it was unikely the article would be restored. I originally agreed to userify the article at the request of User: Gotyear - it can be found at User: Gotyear/The Scapecast - on the understanding that the article would be improved and developed. Since then, only a single edit has been made to it. As a result, I would argue that tit is not yet ready to move back into the main article space yet. Hope this helps, but feel free to come back with any further questions you may have. If you feel my response is unsatisfactory you may also wish to explore deletion review as an alternative mechanism of requesting a revew of the closing decision. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Gazimoff. I appreciate your response and help with this. Womprat99 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your perceptive comments
An excellent statement. I could not agree with you more on the role of admins to help newer editors and to act as ambassadors for the project. Well said indeed. Pedro : Chat  14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, and apologies for not responding to them quickly. It's one of the reasons why I get concerned about administrators and long-standing editors becoming bitey and aloof. Wikipedia will eventually hit saturation point, where all those who want to participate in the project will already have done so In that time, depending on how we have treated them, they will have either abandoned the project or become regular contributors. I'm really keen on encouraging as many people to contribute to WP as possible, but that will only happen if we prevent self-made barriers from being erected. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review
No problem at all - it's a very good program, and I'm looking forward to seeing what can be accomplished - moreso after reading through the responses to the Questionnaires so far. We already have 21 responses as of now, and more on the way after we do a watchlist notice. Everyone gets busy - I just got power back on after three days - so don't worry about it. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)
A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote
Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the reminder.  Gazi moff  11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PROD of Vortex (iPod game)
Please note that this article, which you tagged as PROD some time ago, has been restored after a request at today's DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I appreciate the heads up, and I'm glad someone's trying to rework the article. Many thanks  Gazi moff  11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)