User talk:Quarl/Archive 2007-02

Sean Wolfington
Hi. I wanted to ask you for your help with the page written about me. After i was notified that i should not have added links to reviews on the film i made i deleted them and other editors adjusted the page according to the input given. As a result the request to delete the page written about me was deleted. Recently someone added an advertising banner but i don't understand why. All of the information that was referenced on the page was adjusted by editors and the info is from credible 3rd party sources. Can you advize me on what you think i should do? Thank you for your previous input also. Thanks.Seanwolfington 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear on how Wikipedia works

Sometime ago, someone (Not Me!) created an "XPeRT (Keyboard)" page, which was "dissed" by uninformed sources. I tried to clarify all of the misinformation in a concise, professional manner. The page got tagged & eventually deleted, BUT ... there were at least 5-6 persons on the discussion page that said it was WORTH KEEPING, and no one who wanted it deleted.

There is a big article on the admired Dvorak Keyboard, which is much harder to learn to use than XPeRT (ask anyone who had to learn how to use it). What is wrong with just putting up some technical info on the XPeRT Keyboard, as an alternative?

We have spent billions making CPUs run faster. Why doesn't any sensible person want a faster input device, like a well designed Keyboard, e.g., Dvorak or XPeRT?

A note from the inventor of the XPeRT Keyboard, ME-EE

Check it all out at US Patent # 7,137,749. There is a Dvorak patent too, dated 1936 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.204.72 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi 154.20.204.72, thanks for writing. The article XPeRT was previously deleted via the WP:PROD process.  The AFD was orphaned, a procedural mistake.  I have now undeleted the article and properly listed the AFD so that proper discussion may continue.  Please comment at Articles for deletion/XPeRT.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 08:18Z 



Buck the World (AfD discussion)
Yo why did you delete the article on Buck The World--Bucs10 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


 * Consensus was reached to delete at Articles for deletion/Get Bucked. However, on review, I noticed that the article Buck the World was not properly tagged for the group nomination, and that may be why you did not notice the AFD earlier.  Therefore, I have undeleted it and re-nominated it.  Please comment at Articles for deletion/Buck the World (3rd nomination).  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 07:51Z 



I find it odd that you relisted this simply because you felt it did not attract enough comments. That seems against policy, to me. Further, I think the listing of it for Afd was inappropriate in the first place, as every single sentence is referenced with at least one source, some sentences have more. Would that every article was as well sourced as this one. I request that you delist this from Afd and remove the tag. Jeffpw 11:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeffpw, thanks for writing. Actually, "not attracting enough comments" is  exactly  what causes AFDs to be relisted (that's actually what the policy itself says we should do), and in this case, having only 2 "keep" !votes (and weak ones at that - they don't even use the word "keep") is truly lacking consensus.  Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day, so please don't be offended. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 11:19Z 



Articles for deletion/Mini Mammoth
I'm glad we had that discussion about the hoax guideline. Just one (rather trivial) question: on the Mini-mammoth AfD, the discussion seemed to have taken place twice, or maybe it was just duplicated on the page. Why is that?--Aervanath 14:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Aervanath, I'm grad we're in agreement now. Regarding the Mini Mammoth AFD, it turns out Fred Bauer accidentally duplicated it when he was making a custodial edit ; I've fixed it.  —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 19:58Z 



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R.A.M.B.O. excuse me, but how the hell was the result delete here? the vote was three to three and i showed that they met wikipedia's standards of notability for bands and added a referenced mention of that to their article. none of the delete votes gave a valid reason for non-notability.Sokeripupu 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sokeripupu, thanks for writing. I agree a better consensus is needed so I have re-opened the AFD.  —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 19:45Z 
 * Cool, thanks for re-opening it, even though things aren't going my way.Sokeripupu 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)



There's a WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season on working on this page along with every other season page. So, I think that it's best to allow any further edits on the page unless it's vandalism. Kingjeff 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingjeff, thanks for writing. I'm assuming you're talking about the article The Football League 2005-06, which had an AFD (Articles for deletion/The Football League 2005-06) about a month ago.  Are you trying to say that the results of the AFD (merge) should be ignored because you created a WikiProject dedicated to it? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 20:04Z 

It's not just because I created the WikiProject. The result was based on just having a few tables in the article. You have to consider that the pages will not just be the tables. Take a look Sample article page. The Seasons in English football don't have any playoff brackets, scoring leaders and so on. Kingjeff 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks. I'm not "enforcing" the AFD but I'll offer some advice.  Strictly speaking it would be better if you got consensus at DRV that this is a different or more comprehensive article, but if this is the first time then being bold might be fine.  The downside to not getting an official DRV result you'll have to convince every person that comes along and wants to merge/redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:09Z 

Thanks for the advice. But I don't think that I will have any problems. This is the beauty of a WikiProject. We, as a WikiProject, can help make it different and more specific to the effect that this will not be like the season in English football articles. Kingjeff 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)



Wissahickon
Quarl,

Saw a note on the Ambler, Pennsylvania talk page regarding merging the content. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the AFD. Wissahickon HS is not actually in the borough of Ambler. Its in Lower Gwynedd Township, Pennsylvania. Further, the Wissahickon School District takes in Whitpain Township, Pennsylvania in addition to Ambler and Lower Gwynedd, so a merge/redirect to Ambler may not be entirely apropos. Frankly, all that I would really merge into any of those articles is that each municipality is in the Wissahickon School District of which this is the only HS. And if I am not mistaken, those bits are already in the Ambler article.

Most info may be irrelevant to Ambler since it is the smallest municipality in WSD. Whitpain is the largest contributor to the schools with Lower Gwynedd behind. Would you recommend that I take this to deletion review or are you able to handle this yourself? I am not faulting you on this, the article stunk frankly giving little information and the voters did not realize that the school is not in Ambler. It just has an Ambler mailing address. Montco 01:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Montco, thanks for writing. That is indeed confusing.  How about just redirect Wissahickon to Wissahickon Creek? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-12 05:16Z 
 * I don't have a problem with that. Over time, someone may write a Wissahickon School District article.  But in the absence of that, Wissahickon Creek works fine.  Mailing addresses do cause a lot of confusion out here.  Ambler's actually crosses five different boundaries.  It's hell when you are looking for a house. Thanks for your consideration.   Montco 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 06:32Z 

I am most astounded by your decision to close the case with a deletion result. First, there is clearly no concensus to delete. Second, the article itself actually states the source of the article (For Honour and Glory: A Celebration of Commando History (1969 - 1994)), a published book. The Commandos History page begins with a mention of two names, one of which is Tan Kim Peng Clarence, surely this does not count for nothing? Please reconsider the above decision. Thank you.--Huaiwei 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Huaiwei, thanks for writing. I've reopened debate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-12 05:15Z 



I see your name attached to the decision to merge 1946 Huntington Planning Map in to Huntington, New York. Honestly I count many more votes to delete the article entirely, but in any case, the article was deleted (redirected) and not merged. The decided action has not been followed. Fife Club 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Fife Club, thanks for writing. You're right that the content of 1946 Huntington Planning Map has not yet been merged to Huntington, New York.  If you know anything about either of these two subject areas, do you want to do the merge? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 06:31Z 


 * To be honest, I voted to keep the article. I don't see how it can possibly be merged without overpowering the Huntington, New York article, which is one of the reasons why it was decided in Village Pump long ago that it should be its own article and not part of Huntington.  I don't know how these things are supposed to go but I don't want to have anything to do with the merge decision, other than to make sure its followed up by somebody rather than ending up as an unintentional delete.  Perhaps NE2 should be responsible since this all stemmed from him, however I don't trust him to not leave it hanging.  Like I said, I don't know the right process but I'll just undo that redirect if somebody doesn't take care of it.  Thanks. Fife Club 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Fife Club, you are right that the map article should not overpower the city article; the merge in this case will have to be a slight merge, i.e. only a subset of the content of the merge-source is inserted into the merge target. AFDs closed for merging usually have the article under discussion preemptively redirected, so that if nobody follows up with the merge, by default it will be a redirect rather than stay unmerged.  Usually, editors interested in keeping the content want to do the merge to keep the content from being lost, so this way the various interests will balance each other and ensure the result of the AFD is followed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 18:49Z 



AfD nomination of Super Pet
An editor has nominated Super Pet, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You recently closed the debate on Wii Health where Consensus was *not* reached. Specifically not in favor of a delete. I'm not sure what to do at this point, so I would appreciate some help in this matter.

Ahh, I found it:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wii Health. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

McKay 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi McKay, thanks for writing. DRV is indeed the right process to contest the AFD result.  We'll let DRV decide this issue; thanks for letting me know. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 18:51Z 



You recently closed an AfD on this article...I would suggest this be salted. I think this one could be trouble. --UsaSatsui 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi UsaSatsui, thanks for writing. I think you'll probably be proven right soon enough, but I prefer to not preemptively protect before even the first recreation. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 01:45Z 
 * Okay. I'll be keeping an eye on it, though.  --UsaSatsui 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)



Recovering deleted Sara Jay material
Hey, Quarl. I see that you resolved Articles for deletion/Sara Jay as "keep". I'd like to learn how I can recover the text from the version of the article which prodded, since it was in a better state than the recreated version, and has material that's not in the current version. Thanks! -- Mikeblas 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mikeblas, I've undeleted the old revisions of Sara Jay, so you can use the regular history tool to view the previous versions. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 04:04Z 


 * Brilliant. Thanks!! -- Mikeblas 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)



Hello there. May I ask if it is possible to recover back info from a deleted article? I missed the deletion discussion for Roxane LeBrasse because it never appeared in the Australian deletion page, where it SHOULD have been included. The info should have be merged into Australian Idol 2005 instead of just deleting it, since former Idol contestants are mentioned there. Please reply soon. RaNdOm26 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Random26, no problem. I'm sorry you missed the deletion discussion.  I've undeleted the history of Roxane LeBrasse under a redirect so you can merge the content to Australian Idol 2005. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 04:21Z 
 * Wow, that was weird, I honestly didn't make that edit, something must have happened with my computer, that has happened several times before. Sorry about that, I did see your response. RaNdOm26 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)



Hi Quarl, I am the primary editor of Great Walk Networking. I noticed that you have relisted the AfD discussion so that consensus may be reached. It is proving difficult to persuade new contributors to improve an article marked for deletion, and I am concerned about the future of the page. Rough consensus appears to have been reached: in particular, two administrators have voted to keep the page (one changed his opinion to 'keep' after others improved the page). Both of these administrators have also removed the COI notice and the primary sources notice. At this point, the only 'delete' opinion belongs to the administrator who nominated the page for deletion. She has not commented since the page was improved, she has never entered into a discussion regarding this page (before or after improvement), and has not really given a reason for nominating the page for deletion other than: "Public awareness walk, tagged for COI; regardless there no evidence to suggest that anyone even noticed it going on." I don't really see how full consensus can be reached when it appears to be impossible to address her unstated concerns, and I'm confused as to why rough consensus is not sufficient in this case. I'm a new editor and would appreciate your comments. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the above - I am trying off-wiki to address the V and N issues that come from this particular article - a day or two might resolve the issue - thanks for your undertsanding - wish there were more tolerant persons of your sort around -thankyou! SatuSuro 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Quarl, Thanks for your assistance. The article has been edited since the AfD notice was put up and has been improved considerably, especially by SatuSuro above.  Satu is also from Western Australia and appears to know what Great Walk Networking is, but there are other potential contributors with extensive background who have already been put off by the deletion notice.  You are right, I am learning a lot about being a Wikipedian, but I really can't blame new contributors for not bothering!  Why would any busy person in their right mind learn new format conventions to contribute to an article tagged for imminent deletion?  Regardless, I have put out a call for material and although I believe rough concensus to keep has been reached, I will do my best to improve the article in the next couple of days in spite of the fact I can not guarantee the task is 'do-able' within two - three days.  Are you able to spell out for me exactly what improvements you would like to see?  Perhaps I can better assist more experienced Satu and I would appreciate your input.  Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)



Articles for deletion/List of Spanish language names for the Falkland Islands
Hello. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination over at this AfD, and people are asking for it to be closed. Can you help? --UsaSatsui 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * nm, someone else got it. --UsaSatsui 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-15 19:15Z 

Hi, Quarl I got an deletion for my article on API. I have already improved it with links to external sources and news media which was the reason provided for in the deletion that there was no external links. I am just curious if these person who requested for deletion are qualified and bother to read the improved version? In addition how do I check if these editors are qualifed to do this kind of task when they don't bother to read? Thanks for the advice ! I am still a learning wikipedian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firet (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Warning
Please reframe from vandlising articles like you did to the Controversial Literature. If you want to contribute please make it useful – Tony360X
 * Hi Tony360X, thanks for writing. I redirected Controversial Literature (capital L) to Controversial literature because you recreated it after a delete result at Articles for deletion/Controversial literature.  Normally I would have deleted it speedily under WP:CSD G4, but there was some agreement during the AFD to revert to the revision before you started making major changes to Controversial literature, so I undeleted the article and reverted to that revision.  In the future, please don't issue spurious warnings.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 12:14Z 



Image:OttoJMSmith.jpg (picture of Otto J. M. Smith)
Apparently picture was deleted due to improper assertions on fair use. As a newbie, not sure where I went wrong. Picture author, Phyllis Smith wants only two things. She would like to release it for any illustration of Dr. Smith anywhere, anytime by anybody, she would not like it made into a new work. Fair use is allowed. What did I do wrong that makes it not acceptable for wikipedia that caused youto delete it? What is the appropriate license? Thanks. --Ottojas 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship
Wow, sure, I'd be honored to give it a go ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the (well researched) nomination, and the barnstar! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)



List of The Daily Show guests (AfD discussion)
Don't forget to remove the AFD notice on all the by year pages for it too. Cburnett 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cburnett, oops, thanks for removing those AFD tags. I missed those bundled pages because they weren't linked from the AFD (only mentioned in prose).  I've updated the talk pages appropriately.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-21 07:04Z 


 * And I forgot to mark the talk page. :)  Cburnett 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)



Merging articles
I'm noted that you've said that merging all the Fetish stubs into one article is a good idea; however, I'm not sure hoq to go about this, I rather not step on people's toes, should I create the article and then put up notification's on the articles to be merged into it? --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DirecTV Privacy Issue
Hey, in recent edits to DirecTV, a name and then a phone number or social security number  came up at the top of the page. I rolled them back but only an admin can actually delete the revisions. I'm certain that wikipedia's privacy policy demands this. I've seen you on AfD quite a bit so I figured you might know a thing or two about how to delete revisions. Thanks.--CastAStone|(talk) 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi CastAStone, thanks for contacting one of us admins, indeed that needed to be removed. I've deleted the revisions and am requesting oversight.  —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-21 06:26Z 
 * Thanks Quarl. Always helpful to have good administrators around...--CastAStone|(talk) 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Communications
ALoha Quarl, could you clarify your statement on Mark Lalic's User Talk that University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Communications has been deleted (which it hasn't)? I don't see anything in the pages which would provide a reason that it should be deleted (or that it was deleted). Thanks! --Jeffmcneill 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health article is back?
Someone just created Wii Health again.Pendo 4 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pendo4, the article Wii Health currently doesn't exist and wasn't recreated or deleted recently. Is it under a different spelling? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:12Z 

Type in Wii and go to the chart at the bottom. What is listes is: Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Music, Wii Health Pack.Pendo 4 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're talking about the article Wii Health Pack. Thanks for telling me (next time, it would be faster if you linked to the article you're talking about).  I don't think it should be speedied as a recreation since it now claims Nintendo has officially announced the product, but you may nominate it for deletion if you still think it should be deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 07:16Z 



You closed the deletion discussion on this article here as "delete," but did not actually delete it. Was this intentional? -Elmer Clark 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, deleted now. Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 07:04Z 



Invitation to WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area
I've seen your contributions to Bay Area-related articles such as San Francisco Bay Area (probably the most revelant article there is), and I thought you might be intersted in this project.

— Emiellaiendiay 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 03:42Z 

user page
I don't mean to intrude, but why have you put your user page in ?  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bibliomaniac, thanks for your concern for my user page, but it's intentional - I wanted to enjoy having a blank user page for a while. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 03:42Z 

WP:RFA/Irishguy
My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area
— Emiellaiendiay 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Uw-hoax:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 08:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection summary added. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 20:53Z 

WP:RFA/James086
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086 Talk  13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug Pruden
Why did you delete a training section of an article about Doug Pruden? mixer 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Barbossabeth
Thank you for closing this AfD. There was an associated page, Sparrabeth, included in the AfD which is still up... should it be deleted as well? -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi FisherQueen, thanks, I missed that - I've deleted it now. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 12:56Z 

Articles for deletion/Quizap
Could I ask you to reopen this AFD. I'm sorry to have caused confusion, but I actually did not delete the true target of this AFD, as described. The article was moved from Quizap to Quizap!, by User:Imbilly, after the AFD began. Imbilly then blanked the redirect at the original location. The original location ended up listed on Special:Shortpages, being blank, and I saw that it had only two edits, both from Imbilly (the rest of the edits haveing been moved), and deleted it as a creator blanking Speedy deletion. Totally unaware that there was an open AFD pointing to the location.

So the true subject page of teh AFD is still sitting at Quizap!. If you could reopen the AFD, and note this move, then, IMHO, the AFD could proceed to it's normal conclusion. - TexasAndroid 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've re-opened it. Looks like Quizap! has since been deleted as well, from this confusion.  You could undelete both if you wish, though they'll probably be deleted by AFD soon enough anyway. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 23:07Z 



Hi, you closed a discussion: Articles for deletion/Alisport Silent 2T but there is a problem here: Alisport_Silent_2_Targa. there is still a warning window........ Dansco2903 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dansco2903, thanks, I've removed the AFD notice now. For some reason it wasn't quite the normal tag... —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 23:09Z 

Thank you for taking the time to also delete the media uploaded to that page.Circeus 13:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, no problem (I assume you're talking about Articles for deletion/A Million Points of Light). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-28 06:03Z