User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/10

Curious why you deleted a user talk page of a sock
Earlier this year you deleted User talk:Zephram Stark. I'm wondering if you know something about this user that I don't or if you just made an error. As you probably know, we generally do not delete the talk pages of socks. Additionally you said you were doing it under CSD G6 and I don't believe either G6 or any other CSD criterion have ever been accepted as including the talk pages of indef blocked users. I know that non-sock indef blocked user pages are generally deleted under CAT:TEMP and sometimes the talk pages are too (even though CAT:TEMP makes no mention of applying to talk pages). But this is not part of CSD nor any other deletion policy provision and is actually quite controversial, especially as regards talk pages. It has been proposed as a new criterion at CSD several times and been shot down. Unless there is something special about this user talk page, I think it should be restored.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/04 Matthewedwards : Chat  02:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. I think you've misinterpreted the rule: it's sockpuppets, not users tagged as such.  You have to check for mistagging.  And G6 was definitely not the criterion to use; but I'm guessing you're not doing this anymore.  I'm going to go through them and undelete the socks if you don't object.  As for the G6, macht nichts as they were going to get deleted under one provision or another, I just wanted to clarify.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through them all and found the following were socks that should not have been deleted, so I undeleted as indicated:
 * User talk:Sandove89 - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:DickyRobert - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:AnYoNe! - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:D'Arby - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Gibraltarian - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Dschor - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Cursa - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Maoririder - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Rainbowwarrior1977 - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Zephram Stark - Sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Cognition - sock - didn't undelete as there are subsequent edits that make it clear
 * User talk:Blu Aardvark - sock - didn't undelete as it has subsequently been turned into a redirect
 * User talk:Jebus Christ - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:No Account - possible sock - undeleted
 * User talk:AI - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Amorrow - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Mitrebox - sock - undeleted (even had discussion about not deleting it because it was useful in the edit summaries)
 * User talk:Willy on wheels - sock, though not stated it's implied in the history that this is User:Willy on Wheels, a banned user - undeleted
 * User talk:RJII - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Norm - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Alberuni - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Gazpacho - sock -undeleted
 * User talk:Herschelkrustofsky - sock - undeleted
 * User talk:Plautus satire - user appears to have evaded ban through "socks' - not undeleted as there is no clear rule for whether such pages are valuable or not

Generally for socks, the best practice is to replace the talk page with a redirect to the user page; thus all the history remains so anyone researching a particular sock/block evader/puppetmaster, can see it but there is no "wall of shame".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Which, BTW, I intend to go back and do for those of the above that aren't already so. :-)--Doug.z(talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some previous discussion on this topic: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 34. Vassyana (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from novice re reinstatement of contributed content
I am contacting you because I didn't know where else to start and you removed the Talk thread on an article I contributed earlier this year. In March of this year, I created a new article on a weaver called Mary E. Black. My inexperience resulted in a misunderstanding regarding the origin of the content. The content was originally from a brochure created by my weaving group and then subsequently included on a website that our group helped create . The editor who looked at my article discovered what they thought was plagiarism and removed the article. I was advised to obtain permission to use that content. It has taken some time but I believe we have resolved the situation. The original brochure is now available on our group's web site  with a note - "1999-2009 Atlantic Spinners and Handweavers; Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document". In addition, the Archives website has added a note "This text is used with permission from the Atlantic Spinners and Handweavers — http://www.parl.ns.ca/ash/".

So my question is, have I resolved the issue sufficiently to be able to resubmit the article? And if so, how do I proceed? Thank you. Weaverfran (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FL Content
I have worked on an got List of US Open Men's Singles champions to FL status. I am now working on List of French Open Men's Singles champions if you would like to help. BLUE DOG TN 05:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondering If You Could Help...
A couple of months ago, I created a page for the "Original" Clark Sisters, an American close-harmony singing group from the 1930s and '40s, that was fairly well-known at the time. As an announcer at a Jazz radio station, includng being the host of a "Trad Jazz" show, I have some pretty extensive knowledge of this genre of music. I properly referenced the article, and provided appropriate links to and from other related pages. All in all, I think I did a fairly good job, considering it was only my first real page construction.

So, along comes this editor from the U.K., ("Seddon"), and marks the thing for "speedy deletion". Before I can even find out about it, the page is gone. Then, when I try to ask him about it by posting on his talk page, he totally ignores me. In the first place, I can't understand how a U.K. editor is even ALLOWED to edit a piece on U.S. music; secondly, if he is allowed, why is he allowed to place his questionable judgment above mine? I am hoping that you can help me restore the page, so that I don't have to go to all the trouble of re-creating it, at a loss of several hours of my time.

I'm also wondering about the procedure for filing a complaint against an editor. It seems to me that his behavior in this matter has not been appropriate, and I wonder if there is any forum that I can take my complaints to?

Thanks for your time. JazzCarnival (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

just wanted to say...
heya, just wanted to say thank you for your kind comments at the George Michael discography FLC :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) Matthewedwards : Chat  15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone
Thank you for this. I didn't like it either but I was wanting to wait until interest in the song had died before I started playing with it some more. Thanks again, Matthewedwards : Chat  18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hate seeing that section presented as a list. I'm not sure if it's he who started it, but I contacted one of the editors who used to write like this and it stopped. Now it seems that anons have taken up the practice. I guess I'm gonna have to hunt them down too lol. Oran e   (talk)  05:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ne-Yo discography FLC
I thought the issues were addressed. Could u please reply to the problems were the nominator replied?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Matthewedwards : Chat  15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspended the support until your comments are addressed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, the issues that you noted about the article have now been addressed. the prose has been copy-edited by dabomb and the referencing has been sorted. but the nomination was closed before you could comment. so under the recommendation of the closer, i have re-nominated the article. so it would be great if you could take a look? :) thanks. Mister sparky (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Madonna albums discography
Hey Matthew how do you think the above article will fare al FLC? Have been developing it for a long time. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. It doesn't look too bad and could be nominated right now. There are a few things I would probably question at the nomination, such as the inclusion of the audio book recordings, as a discography deals with musical releases.. Also the "Other soundtrack albums" I think would be better removed, and instead putting it in the singles discography. This is about Madonna's albums, not other albums her singles have been on. Finally, articles don't start with "This is an article about...". It shouldn't refer to itself at all, and the "For [her] singles discography, see..." should be removed for similar reasons, and just left in the See also section. Good luck Matthewedwards : Chat  20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks MAtthew. Really appreaciated! --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Snow Patrol discography/archive1
The director problem hasnt exactly been solved, but other reviewers are now supporting because of a reliable 3rd party source that provides sufficient commentary on it. Can you revisit the FLC to provide your thoughts? Its nearing closure. Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already voiced my support for this become a FL. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"The X-Files (pilot episode)"
Just letting you know that i'm finished with all your comments (with the exception of your redirect comment). Thanks for taking your time to review the article. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. I have more comments but I had to go to bed last night. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Subpage Deletion
Hi. Could you pls delete these 2 subpages of mine? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC) page1 page2
 * No problem. It's ✅. Cheers! Matthewedwards : Chat  03:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks very much. Amsaim (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are 3 more subpages that need to be deleted. Would appreciate it if you could find time to delete them. These are the pages: 1, 2, 3. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories not shown
Would you have time to please assist me in finding out why this newly created infobox template does not appear in the respective 3 categories (e.g. here?) Amsaim (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have no idea. I checked the documentation page to make sure the Cats were in the right place; they were. I checked other templates to make sure this one was formatted the same; it was. I purged each category and the Template to see if that worked; it didn't. I'm very sorry, but I just do not know. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ok. thanks very much for your assistance. the infobox is functioning nonetheless. Amsaim (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked again, and the infobox template is now in all 3 categories. your efforts have been successful. thanks again for that. Amsaim (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. I don't think I had anything to do with it though! Maybe you have to wait until the servers catch up before they appear in the cats. Maybe purging did help. Anyway, I'm glad you've got it all sorted. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet
Hello Matthewedwards! I was looking around WP:HAU to see if someone could help me with a problem, and it says you work with Sockpuppets and the like. Here's my problem: there is a user, User:Thebadgey, who created Nathan Eswine, presumably his autobiography (to which he is not notable). I nominated it for a speedy deletion, and it was deleted today. A couple hours ago, another user, User:Nateswine re-created the page. I know for a fact that these two users are the same person, because his page says Nathan Eswine's nickname is "Badgey". I re-nominated the page for speedy deletion and set up a Sockpuppet investigation and thought you might be able to help me. This user does not understand why his page keeps getting deleted (here), and I keep advising him on WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:FIRST, which he seems to ignore. Currently, I am the only contributor to his Sockpuppet investigation. Can you help me?  Eagles   24/7   (C)  02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the article again, and WP:SALTed it for two weeks. I'll comment at the SPI and leave the guy a note on his talk pages. Looks pretty cut-and-dry that they are the same person, but I don't think he's doing it to be malicious or a vandal, rather that he just isn't getting it. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know he doesn't get it, but I (and other users) have tried to explain to him about reading WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:FIRST but he generally ignores them. Maybe he'll read them now.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've left a message at User talk:Nateswine and User talk:Nateswine, and alerted both accounts that they are suspected socks. I've also left a note at the SPI, so let's give it 24 hours and see what happens. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
can you review Family Guy or Lisa Simpson's pr.-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment inthe family guy cast FLC.-- Pedro J. the rookie 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Musicnotes
Not entirely. To see the full sheet music, yes, you do have to buy the piece, but the first page is offered free as a preview. To see the preview, you have to download a program (I believe it is called musicnotes viewer, or something of the sort), but it is free, safe, and a one-time download. You can get it by clicking on the preview box.

The first page provides information such as the beats per minute and time signature, but you can find the vocal range and the major and minor on the side bar and at the very bottom of the page without downloading anything. If you do not want to install the viewer but would like information on a song, let me know and I can look at it for you. Hope that helps, Liquidluck (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! You caught me while I was on. Liquidluck (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Both Worlds (song)
Hello. Thank you for reviewing the article The Best of Both Worlds (song). I have already addressed all your points on the Good Article review. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed
Hi. Your admin assistance is needed here please. This article is being IP-edited, and unsourced data is added to the article. I have once reverted such an IP-edit, and added WP:V in my revert edit summary. The ip-edits come right back and add the same unsourced information into the article. As you know, wikipedia does not allow original research, which is exactly what this ip edit is adding. The article has 4 reference, and none of these 4 references confirm the data from the ip-edits. Could you please revert all the ip-edits, and semi-protect the page? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes/archive1
Hi Matthew. Have you been able to check back at this FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My oppose still stands. Matthewedwards : Chat  15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, but the nominator has posted several questions about your comments, so you should probably explain why or how you want the issues addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to respond tomorrow, but my mother's visiting for the week, so it's not really a big priority. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping again
Thanks to your suggestions I have been able to finish Madonna albums discography and nominate it for Featured list here. You can state your concerns if you have any. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pinging again as I am yearning for your comments :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I did mean to get to this earlier, I just got sidetracked. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Matthew! Wonderful comments! --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey I addressed your concerns. Will you take a looky? :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wooo hoo You just made my day!!! --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Degrassi
Hi there,

Why have you reverted my edits on Degrassi: The Next Generation seasons 1, 2, 3, 6, & 7? In these seasons the episodes air out of order, there should be clarification on why the order of the episodes are listed the way they are. 117Avenue (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason has ever been given why any of the episodes have aired out of order. Matthewedwards : Chat  14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the DVD packagers and distributors have re-ordered the episodes, doesn't mean we should. CTV is the original broadcasting network, and both The N and CTV finance some of the production. The list goes by that order. If you think it should go another way, bring it up at somewhere like WT:TV or Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes Matthewedwards : Chat  14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused at what you're trying to say. Do you realize that the episodes are already ordered by production? I was trying to clarify that this is the order listed, rather than original air date like most episode lists on Wikipedia. Now you have reverted by edit to season 8, if there is a summary you would like to write instead of mine, please do so. I think there should be one, as all the previous seasons have something written there. 117Avenue (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy cast FLC
May you respond please.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah Matthewedwards : Chat  01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the review matt.-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Matthewedwards : Chat  02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry thought i did not type it right, sorry :)-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there not to bother but could you RE to me of your comment .-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)