User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2012/January

Articles for deletion/Central Texas Museum of Automotive History
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Hi. Thank you  for closing  AfDs. When redirecting as you did here, please remember to  include the  template -  it  populates an important  category  that  is used for statistics. Thanks, and happy closing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want this done consistently, you should work with the developer of twinkle to get it incorporated into that tool. --RadioFan (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also  close with  Twinkle, but  I  don't  think  that would be  possibl - there are probably  hundreds of different   templates. In  fact  the only  one I  know by heart  is the school  one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see that. I close lots of different AFDs, not just those involving schools.  It's difficult to remember all the templates you mention.  If I remember I'll do it, but if you feel strongly about these templates being added, you should patrol those pages yourself. --RadioFan (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, in  fact  as far as I  know, I  check  the result of every  AfD  I  vote on. I  don't  close many.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great service you can provide. However, reminding me to do is probably a waste of your time though, I'm not likely to remember because, as you note, there are a ton of these.--RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WHJK logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WHJK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Clara Byrd Baker
Hey there, I'm following up with you regarding your recommendation in the above referenced deletion discussion. The article as initially presented was about a nonnotable elementary school where the article creator removed the PROD. Generally, I am the first person to redirect schools that fail the notability criteria, so my recommendation would have likely been to redirect as standard outcome. However, while working on a separate article, I ran across some information on the namesake of this school, Clara Byrd Baker. When I saw that an article with her name was up for deletion, I was surprised to see that it was about the school. Opting for an alternative choice to deletion, I have made a major revamp to the article to focus on the person, rather than the school. Accordingly, I am requesting that you take a second look at the article to ascertain its viability. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. You've done the right thing here.--RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited A-B Emblem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girl Scouts (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) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia affair - deletion nominaton
Could you clarify which article you nominating for deletion? The "this article's entry" link on Costa Concordia disaster makes reference to Francesco Schettino, bu brings up an old, closed nominaton.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination's title is accurate. It's for the Francesco Schettino, which is currently a redirect but has wavered between an article and a redirect.  The AFD is a more organized attempt to gain consensus and based on the precedent set in the similar article on the Italian wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that someone's removed the nomination notice from Costa Concordia disaster so things are now clear.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now, twinkle got confused.--RadioFan (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WRXW logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:WRXW logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material and distorting sources
The edit you made to Costa Concordia disaster here diff has been reverted. (Not by me, but I would have if I had caught it in time.) You changed the translation of a quote, and I accept that this was done in good faith, but you appear to have not read or changed the reference that went with the translation, which was sourced to an eminent professor of linguistics. When you substituted your translation for his, you left the impression that it was he who supported that version -- in other words, putting words into his mouth and distorting the source. The translation itself is under discussion on the talkpage, and if you believe your understanding of Italian profanity is better than that of Bob Ladd of Language Log, that would be the place to argue your case. You are not the only person to make a change of this sort, but please, don't. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is some disagreement over the translation here and I was being a bit bold. You and other editors are of course free to disagree with edits such as this.  However, dont you think an accusation of adding unsourced material and distorting sources is a bit much here?  The edit was sourced by a reasonably reliable one and reflects how the incident is being reported by other sources.  Accusations of unsourced should be limited to editors who provide zero sources for their additions.  Accusations of distortion should be limited to edits which use questionable sources in a deliberate attempt to bias an article using questionable sources.  Keep in mind here we aren't talking about a particularly critical point in the article, we are talking about translation of a swear word. I'm also curious, do you believe that I was acting in good faith or just accept it?--RadioFan (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is often good reason to be bold, and of course translations are often contentious, or at least open to interpretation, pun intended. And I know this isn't exactly the most crucial part of the article. However. There are two issues that concern me. One is altering a statement, and leaving the reference, such that the person cited appears to support the new version. If an article said "Apples originated in Kyrgyzstan" (hidden ref: Smith, Granny. A Botanist's History of the Apple, chapter 1, page 1), and an editor came along and changed "Kyrgyzstan" to "Kurdistan", it then appears that eminent pomologist Granny Smith is supporting the changed statement. That is utterly wrong. Your edit (and that of the editor before you) left the impression that Dr Ladd supported your choice of words.
 * As I said, several editors have altered the English quote. When you arrived, it said:
 * ("Go on board, shit!") (ref) Italian word "cazzo" translates as "shit".
 * and you attempted to improve this outright error by changing it to:
 * (translates as "Go on board, dickhead!") (ref)http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/cazzo Italian word "cazzo" translates as "dickhead".
 * Perhaps I shouldn't have called your edit unsourced: you were the only one to add a dictionary. When I went to that dictionary page, I found no evidence to support your assertion. On the contrary, it gives nine idiomatic uses of cazzo, four of which it translates with "fuck" or a derivative. Perhaps you misread this line, which is the only mention of the term you favoured:
 * testa di cazzo   dickhead fam!, prick fam!
 * ("fam!" being a dictionary abbreviation for familiar language, with the warning exclamation mark to alert the novice user that these words are not for the faint-hearted.)
 * You say, "Accusations of distortion should be limited to edits which use questionable sources in a deliberate attempt to bias an article using questionable sources." I disagree - a distortion can be introduced through carelessness, and certainly without deliberate malice. Likewise, a distortion can arise even from an impeccable source, if it is used poorly. Yes, I do think you misused the dictionary source, and that distorted the meaning. No, I am not accusing you of ill intent. And, again, this is not all that important in the grand scale of things. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Francesco Schettino article
Hi RadioFan. I respect your view on the Francesco Schettino article, but this is not the reason for my writing. You replaced the article under consideration for deletion with a "redirect", an act I would consider equivalent to blanking. I do not expect the typical WP reader to search for older versions of an article, and the most current one, so I understand, is the one being voted for. I find it hard to conceive how the normal WP reader can vote on an article that only says "redirect". Your action, I believe, violates the operatives of the deletion tag. Please convince me that I am wrong.Ekem (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see the point of preserving the article as it's going to be redirected. it's snowing hard in the AFD.  Preserving the redirect saves the typical WP reader from wasting time and effort improving an article that's going to be redirected anyway.  This way, the typical WP reader will put their efforts in the right place, the article on the disaster.  And redirecting isn't blanking, it's redirecting.  It puts readers where they need to be.  There is nothing in this article that isn't already in the article on the diaster so nothing was removed.--RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of large reentering space debris for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of large reentering space debris is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of large reentering space debris until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  W.  D.   Graham  (previously GW) 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wrod logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wrod logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Weekly Post front page.png
 Thanks for uploading File:The Weekly Post front page.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Give kids the world carousel.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Give kids the world carousel.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)